Consumer Confidence Shows Drastic Improvement

In past recessions consumers may have already started to rush back to the malls, but this time might be different. Instead of going back to the shopping centers, consumers may instead be sending their money to credit card companies to pay back their high levels of debt. So what should we make of consumer confidence increasing the most in six years? Tim Iacono from The Mess That Greenspan Made explains why a sudden improvement in consumer confidence may not be as significant as it first appears.

Reuters reports on the sharpest increase in U.S. consumer confidence in more than six years. But, don't get overly excited (like the stock market currently is), the American shopper is still quite depressed by historical measure.

The Conference Board, an industry group, said on Tuesday its index of consumer attitudes jumped to 54.9 in May from a revised 40.8 in April, the biggest one-month jump since April 2003. Economists had been looking for a much smaller rise to 42.0.

Fewer Americans said jobs were "hard to get," the survey found, with that measure slipping to 44.7 percent from 46.6 percent. Those saying jobs were plentiful climbed to a still meager 5.7 percent, but that was still higher than April's 4.9 percent.

"Consumers are considerably less pessimistic than they were earlier this year," said Lynn Franco, director of The Conference Board's Consumer Research Center.

Once again, less bad is the new good, the "considerably less pessimistic" assessment being cause for some to get out the bubbly and celebrate, at least for a little while.

More details...

The survey offered mixed messages regarding Americans' propensity to spend money. The proportion of those who said they planned on buying a car over the next six months rose to 5.5 percent, its highest in at least a year.

But fewer intended to buy homes -- only 2.3 percent, a tough break for one of the hardest hit sectors in the country's economic crisis. A separate report on Tuesday revealed U.S. home prices dropped 18.7 percent in March compared to a year earlier.

Here's a graphic from the Wall Street Journal showing how the expectations index has surged past the present conditions index in a manner similar to the 2003 bottom. Since confidence had sunk to such historic lows in recent months, like many other economic indicators, comparing recent developments to patterns seen in previous recessions may not provide all that much relevant insight.

This post can also be viewed on themessthatgreenspanmade.blogspot.com.

Could The Yuan Become The World's Next Reserve Currency?

The U.S. dollar has faced some serious attacks lately, and our economy here in the U.S. is struggling, but have things really gotten so bad that the USD could lose its place as the world's reserve currency? And even if it did, wouldn't the Euro be next in line to take its place? According to Nouriel Roubini, the next world reserve currency could in fact be the Chinese Yuan, and the transition could happen sooner than we think. For more on this, read the following blog post from Mark Thoma which looks at Roubini's recent article on the subject.

Nouriel Roubini is worried that the dollar will lose its status as a reserve currency if we don't change our ways:

The Almighty Renminbi?, by Nouriel Roubini, Commentary, NY Times: ...While the dollar’s status as the major reserve currency will not vanish overnight, we can no longer take it for granted. Sooner than we think, the dollar may be challenged by other currencies, most likely the Chinese renminbi. This would have serious costs for America, as our ability to finance our budget and trade deficits cheaply would disappear. ...

The... downfall of the dollar may be only a matter of time. But what could replace it? The British pound, the Japanese yen and the Swiss franc remain minor reserve currencies, as those countries are not major powers. Gold is still a barbaric relic whose value rises only when inflation is high. The euro is hobbled by concerns about the long-term viability of the European Monetary Union. That leaves the renminbi. ...

At the moment,... the renminbi is far from ready to achieve reserve currency status. China would first have to ease restrictions on money entering and leaving the country, make its currency fully convertible for such transactions, continue its domestic financial reforms and make its bond markets more liquid. It would take a long time for the renminbi to become a reserve currency, but it could happen. ...

We have reaped significant financial benefits from having the dollar as the reserve currency. In particular, the strong market for the dollar allows Americans to borrow at better rates. We have thus been able to finance larger deficits for longer and at lower interest rates, as foreign demand has kept Treasury yields low. We have been able to issue debt in our own currency rather than a foreign one, thus shifting the losses of a fall in the value of the dollar to our creditors. Having commodities priced in dollars has also meant that a fall in the dollar’s value doesn’t lead to a rise in the price of imports. ...

This decline of the dollar might take more than a decade, but it could happen even sooner if we do not get our financial house in order. ... For the last two decades America has been spending more than its income, increasing its foreign liabilities and amassing debts that have become unsustainable. A system where the dollar was the major global currency allowed us to prolong reckless borrowing.

Now that the dollar’s position is no longer so secure, we need to shift our priorities. This will entail investing in our crumbling infrastructure, alternative and renewable resources and productive human capital — rather than in unnecessary housing and toxic financial innovation. This will be the only way to slow down the decline of the dollar, and sustain our influence in global affairs.

This post can also be viewed on economistsview.typepad.com.

Fed Delays Release Of Bank Stress Test Results

The Federal Reserve has decided to delay the release of results from its recent stress test on banks. It appears that the Fed is trying to limit damage to the banks who will appear weak based on the results, and allow them more time to figure out how they will raise the necessary funds. It will no doubt be interesting to see how investors react to the information provided by the stress test. For more on this, read the following article from Money Morning.

The results of the bank stress tests are in, but instead of releasing them today (Monday), the U.S. Federal Reserve is holding them close to its chest until after the markets close Thursday.

The amount of information awaiting disclosure seems to have grown, as have the reasons to postpone the potentially damaging data.

Not only will the government unveil which banks require more capital, it will also disclose potential loss estimates for certain loan categories and the banks’ ability to “absorb those losses” assuming economic conditions worsen through 2010, a government official told The Wall Street Journal.

Negative results could deal a huge blow to both the banks and government, as a sub-par grade may be viewed as an indictment not only of the failed management of the banks, but the government’s decision to loan them billions of taxpayer money. The banks also are concerned that anything but a tactful release of the results will cause internal and investor panic.

Government and banking industry officials told Bloomberg that both sides needed the extra time to debate preliminary results, as well as plans regarding how banks can recover capital.

On April 24, the government showed the tests’ preliminary results to the 19 U.S. firms it reviewed – from behemoth banks like Bank of America Corp. (NYSE: BAC) and Citigroup Inc. (NYSE: C) to the smaller GMAC LLC (NYSE: GMA) and MetLife Inc. (NYSE: MET). The banks involved in the stress tests hold more than half the loans in the U.S. banking system and two-thirds of the assets.

“Everybody understands they’ve got a tiger by the tail here,” Mark Tenhundfeld, a senior vice president at the American Bankers’ Association in Washington, told Bloomberg. “If they don’t let him go gently, there will be a lot of mauling going on.”

Already, reports have leaked that two specific banks need more capital, and reaction hasn’t been pleasant.

After showing Bank of America and Citigroup test results, the government told the banks to raise more capital despite receiving a combined total of $95 billion in bailout loans.

At least three more banks need more capital, either from converting common shares to equity and/or receiving more government cash, sources told Bloomberg.

Sensing blowback from Congress, as well as the public, Federal Reserve chairman Ben S. Bernanke said that banks requiring more capital will have to attempt to raise it on their own before receiving another lifeline loan from the government.

Confusion On Evaluation’s Methodology

Debate over the results isn’t the only reason for the postponement. Disputes and confusion over the Fed’s methodology has also erupted.

According to a Fed’s test criterion, common shareholder equity should be the “dominant” portion of Tier 1 capital. Officials favor tangible common equity of about 4% of a bank’s assets and Tier 1 capital worth hovering around 6%.

But The Wall Street Journal reported last week that some bank executives got mixed signals during a meeting with regulators.

The regulators are asking “a million questions” and it’s “very unclear what they’re aiming at,” a senior executive told The Journal. “We can’t discern a pattern.”

Citigroup officials argued that regulators haven’t given the bank enough credit for its efforts to offload large asset chunks, such as Smith Barney and its Japanese brokerage arm Nikko Cordial Securities.

On Friday, Citigroup agreed to sell Nikko Cordial Securities, its Japanese brokerage arm to Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group (OTC: SMFJY) for about $5.5 billion. The deal, which is to be completed by Oct. 1, also includes a transfer of about $2 billion in excess cash from Nikko Cordial to Citigroup.

The deal will boost the bank’s Tier-1 capital ratio by approximately 27 basis points.

Individual Result Releases

One insider told Reuters that the government is leaning toward releasing individual results for each bank involved in the stress test – a move away from issuing a summary of results.

The source said the plan “is not very far along,” and that regulators also aim to disclose a lot of confidential supervisory information about the banks.

One analyst says that test results could be so specific to a bank’s portfolio that it’s not wise to use them as a litmus test for the overall health of the banking sector.

“Once you try to take that information and extrapolate it, it gets very complicated and it’s dangerous," Kevin Petrasic, who served at the Office of Thrift Supervision from 1989 to 2008 and is now an attorney at law firm Paul Hastings in Washington, told Reuters.

Whatever the results – or how they are disclosed – Money Morning’s Shah Gilani, a former Wall Street hedge fund manager, said the evaluation process has several flaws.

“What’s missing, unfortunately, is an assumption of how much additional capital would be necessary to facilitate credit expansion – which, in turn, would serve to fuel economic growth. That, after all, should be the ultimate stress-test objective,” he wrote.

And the end result is more stress added to an already stressed banking sector, as too much information and/or misinformation only makes a sound assessment more difficult.

Money Morning’s Stress Test

The government’s pushback of stress test results only made the public more hungry for the their release. But you don’t have to wait until Thursday to know which of the 13 biggest U.S. banks are diamonds or duds.

Last week in “Money Morning’s Bank Stress Test,” Martin Hutchinson highlighted the four secrets that will let you separate the winners from the losers in the U.S. banking system

• Banks that made profits in the very difficult fourth quarter of 2008 and first quarter of 2009 are probably in good shape, especially if their loan-loss provisions exceeded their charge-offs (the amount actually lost.)
• Banks that lost money in the fourth quarter and first quarter may or may not be in terminal trouble; it depends on the amount of those losses and whether the red ink is expected to continue to flow going forward.
• With the run-up in bank stocks in recent weeks, there’s been an accompanying rise in the ratio of share price to book value (stock price per share/book value per share). If that ratio is still below 30% - even after the recent price increases - the market lacks confidence in the bank’s ability to solve its own problems. Unfortunately, the market currently appears to be overly optimistic about some of the banks that still have considerable ongoing problems.
• Management’s dividend policy is less of an indicator than it was just a few short months ago; several banks have sharply cut their dividends in order to repay the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) capital they got in late 2008. Reasonably, profitable banks don’t want the government meddling in their business or compensation structures

Hutchinson also gave an individual analysis of each bank, highlighting their strengths and pulling a curtain on their weaknesses.

This article can also be found on moneymorning.com.

Fed Holds Steady...For Now...

Earlier this week the Fed decided to hold steady with their previous policies, however, it is still likely that they will need to provide additional easing in the months ahead. Mark Thoma looks at an article from Tim Duy, in his blog post below, that talks more about the economy and what's likely in store for Fed policy.

Despite Green Shoots, Odds Favor More Easing, by Tim Duy: The Fed took an interesting risk by holding policy steady on Wednesday.With green shoots all the rage, policymakers are ready to step to the sidelines as they monitor the progress of their many programs. And clearly, they must have known that the 3% level on 10-year Treasuries was dependent on the expectation that policymakers would expand the pace of outright purchases of those assets, but are betting that economic conditions will remain sufficiently weak to prevent a crippling increase in rates. Still, given that policymakers still see the economy in decline, albeit at a slower rate, the odds favor additional easing in the months ahead, especially considering expectations of a widening output gap. Recall that labor markets, and the threat of deflation, kept the Fed easing well past the end of the recession in 2001.

Short of an outbreak of inflation, or a unexpected and unlikely surge of growth, there is little reason to think that the Fed is ready to bring policy to a sustained pause. And an imminent rise in inflation remains an outside risk for the Fed; the focus remains consistently on disinflation or, worse yet, outright deflation. A key paragraph is:

In light of increasing economic slack here and abroad, the Committee expects that inflation will remain subdued. Moreover, the Committee sees some risk that inflation could persist for a time below rates that best foster economic growth and price stability in the longer term.

Policymakers are counting on a rising output gap (both here and abroad) and lags in the price setting process to keep inflation at bay. Indeed, this must be the case, as some of the current numbers are really not all that comforting. I am not inclined to place too much focus on headline inflation - oil prices appear to have found a bottom around $50 a barrel, and sustained hints of a firming of global economic activity would promise to send prices higher, thus offsetting the strong disinflationary impact of falling energy prices since the middle of 2008. In contrast to low year-over-year headline numbers, the personal income and outlays report for March revealed that core PCE prices gained by 0.2% in each of the past three months, pushing the annualized three month trend back above 2%:

And note that near-term inflation expectations have climbed back up into a normal range:

From this perspective, policymakers have done a good job anchoring inflation expectations against the possibility of deflation. Is this enough, however, to unsettle FOMC members? Despite these inflationary hints, it is simply unlikely that the Fed would ignore the disinflationary implications of the output gap. One way to ignore the gap is to argue that the US will revert to an emerging market inflation dynamic. I think such an argument requires a steady depreciation of the Dollar to hold - which could happen, but a Dollar crisis looks, for the moment, unlikely given relative global weakness. One could also argue that estimates of potential output are optimistic and don't reflect the importance of structural change in the economy. This is the issue that Nick Rowe at the Worthwhile Canadian Initiative attempts to tackle:

Even in the short run a good banking and financial system will be important in re-allocating capital between growing and declining sectors, if there are shifts in relative demand. If people want fewer cars and more restaurant meals, but banks cannot shift loans from car manufacturers to restaurants, the Short Run Aggregate Supply curve may shift left, because the restaurants won't be able to expand to meet demand, and car manufacturers' prices or wages may be sticky downwards.

If you see the financial crisis as causing the recession by shifting the SRAS curve left, then monetary and fiscal policies, which shift the AD curve right, are not the appropriate cure. Even if you see leftward shifts of the SRAS curve as only part of the story, you will see limits on what monetary and fiscal policy can achieve. When expansionary monetary and fiscal policies start to cause excessive inflation, before output and employment have returned fully to normal, you will know that purely AD policies have reached the limit of what can be expected from them.

Nick is slapped down by Brad DeLong:

But if bad banks have shifted the AS curve inward, then right now we should have stagflation: depression and inflation, as output falls and prices rise. We don't. The argument that fiscal and monetary policies won't reduce unemployment to normal levels because we have a supply side problem is completely incoherent in an AS-AD framework.

Brad is correct that in a traditional AS-AD framework, bad banks are demand shocks, not supply shocks. There is still something about Nick's argument that is important - the financial system redirected capital investment into housing and consumption related activities. Presumably, potential output includes the ability to build and sell as many houses the US economy produced at the height of the housing bubble. But what good is that output if we don’t want to build and sell that many houses in the future? How do we redirect capital away from those sectors? And how long does it take? Arguably, the narrowing of the US trade deficit is pushing that adjustment forward, as the US economy can't focus entirely on producing nontradable goods. Recall Brad DeLong from 2005:

There is an alternative scenario, one in which foreigners'--including foreign central banks'--desired holdings of dollar-denominated assets shortly hit the wall, and the asset price shifts that result from desired holdings' hitting the wall reduce, or do not increase, confidence in the dollar.

In this alternative scenario, the U.S. has to move about ten million workers out of currently-favored sectors--construction, home-equity-credit financed consumer expenditures, and so on--into export and import-competing manufactures. How much structural unemployment does such a sectoral shift require, and how long does the structural unemployment last? Other countries have to shift up to forty million workers out of export manufactures into other industries, and to generate demand for the products of those industries (without destabilizing their own monetary systems and asset prices, as Japan appears to have done at the end of the 1980s). The U.S. Federal Reserve would have to cope with whatever inflationary pressures are generated by rising import prices. Foreign central banks would have to cope with whatever stresses on their own asset prices are created by enormous losses of value in the stocks and bonds of their exporting companies.

If structural unemployment is rising - not because banks are currently bad, but engaged in bad behavior in the past - attempts to reduce unemployment back to pre-recession levels will yield higher inflation. This problem is minimized if labor resources can be quickly redirected into other sectors, a process that Nick above is implying is hampered by the existence now of bad banks. But, as Brad suggested in 2005, getting to inflation in the current environment seems to require a Dollar collapse - a story that for now is difficult to tell.

All of which is interesting, but even if you believe that structural unemployment is rising, I don't think anyone believes it is near the 8.5% rate for March (not to mention the underemployment rate of 15.6%). Nor does anyone expect that recent green shoots are sufficient to keep unemployment from rising further. Moreover, note that the Employment Costs Index released today reveals the continued slide in employee compensation costs - consistent with the FOMC's concerns about economic slack. Indeed, the ECI highlights the risks of the Fed's move to hold steady policy: Declining wage growth, coupled with higher interest rates, would play havoc with household efforts to reduce balance sheets and intensify the need to boost saving rates. Hence why the risks still favor additional policy easing - especially if programs such as TALF and PPIP are less successful than imagined.

In short, the shoots are much too green and the output gap much too wide to stimulate much discussion on Constitution Avenue that the end of easing has conclusively been reached. A pause to assess, yes. But Fed officials will be looking for clear and convincing evidence that economic activity is both self sustaining (not likely to fade after the initial burst of federal stimulus moves through the pipeline) and sufficient to substantially reduce the output gap before they sound the all clear signal. An end to the rapid pace of job loss is very different from a return to steady job growth. Again, recall the sustained pattern of easing in the wake of the 2001 recession - we need to go a long way up from -6% GDP growth before the job engine is started. To be sure, there should be some lingering concern that the Fed will act quickly (or at least the markets will act quickly), if there is a perceived need to withdraw monetary accommodation. But the data are well short of what would be necessary to justify such a shift in policy in the near future.

This post can also be viewed on economistsview.typepad.com.

Recession Bottom Near, But Could Last For Awhile

There are a lot of signs pointing to the fact that the bottom of the recession is a least near — if not hear already. Before everyone gets excited, though, it is more than likely that the bottom will last for awhile. For more on this, read the following blog post from James Picerno.

The main point of optimism in yesterday's first reading of Q1 GDP is the jump in consumer spending. But as today's update on personal income and expenditures for March reminds, there's still quite a bit of uncertainty left as to whether consumption is truly on the mend.

Much of what registered as increased consumer spending in this year's first quarter came in January. A convincing follow-through still awaits. As our chart below shows, the bump just ahead of March 2009 was a first-of-the-year rise in both disposable income and personal consumption spending. It was a welcome reprieve from the crushing setback in late 2008. But the trend is fading and last month's consumption dropped relative to February. Disposable income, meanwhile, was flat in March.

The main question is whether the realities of the broader economic climate are finally weighing on American households as they ponder the toxic combination of falling housing values, fewer jobs, higher unemployment and burdensome debt levels built up over the years. The government's massive stimulus efforts over the past year have helped slow the tide, but the correction in consumption and consumer attitudes will roll on.

Adding to the challenge is the recent uptick in the 10-year yield. The Fed has been working overtime in trying to keep long rates low, which is to say below 3%. But now Mr. Market is rebelling. The 10-year closed above 3% for the third day running yesterday. That's the first time it's run above that level since the Fed announced on March 18 that it would buy long-dated Treasuries outright in order to keep rates low. Immediately following the news, the 10-year yield dropped by an extraordinarily steep 50 basis points to around 2.5%. Now the yield's above 3%. And the higher rates come at a time with little or no worries about inflation.

Of course, one could argue that the apparent topping out in new jobless claims suggests that the recession may be at or near a trough. We've suggested as much recently, including here, and our reasoning is here. And today's update on new filings for jobless benefits offers a fresh datapoint to argue that the business cycle may have bottomed.

But we must distinguish between a bottom to the recession and the renewal of economic growth. If we have an "L" recession, the bottom could last quite a bit longer than the crowd expects. All the more so given the depth and magnitude of the current downturn.

In short, there's reason for optimism and its counterpart. Deciding which one has the upper hand will still take more time.

This post can also be viewed on capitalspectator.com.

Are Real Estate Prices Stabilizing?

Real estate prices are still falling across the country, but for the first time in over a year the monthly declined failed to set a new record. This is leading some analysts to believe that the real estate market just might be stabilizing. This is potentially good news, but investors should remember that while prices might be stabilizing, it could still be awhile before prices stop dropping altogether. For more on this, read the following article from HousingWire.

Home prices in major metropolitan areas continued to fall in February; however, for the first time in 16 months, the annual decline did not set a new record, possibly suggesting early signs of market stabilization.

The S&P/Case-Shiller 10-City and 20-City Home Price Indices released Tuesday recorded nationwide, annual declines of 18.8% and 18.6%, respectively. This is a slight improvement from the returns reported for January, which fell by 19.4% and 19.0%.

“While the declines in residential real estate continued into February, we witnessed some deceleration in the rate of decline in some of the markets,” says David M. Blitzer, chairman of the Index Committee at Standard & Poor’s. “All 20 metro areas recorded a monthly decline in February, but 16 of the 20 metro areas saw an improvement in their monthly returns compared to January.”

Still, the indices show an ongoing, broad-based decline in the prices of existing single family homes across the United States, with 10 of the 20 metro areas studied showing record rates of annual decline, and 15 posting declines in excess of 10%.

In terms of annual declines, the three worst performing cities as of February are once again, located in the Sunbelt, each reporting negative returns in excess of 30%. Phoenix was down 35.2%, Las Vegas declined 31.7% and San Francisco fell 31.0%. Dallas, Denver and Boston faired the best, down a significantly lesser 4.5%, 5.7% and 7.2%, respectively. Dallas also holds the distinction of being the best performer for the month, returning -0.3%, according to the report.

As of February 2009, average home prices across the United States are at levels similar to those seen in third-quarter 2003. And despite the deceleration in home price declines seen in February, from the peak in mid 2006, home prices are still down over 30%.

Standard & Poor’s Blitzer says, “we will certainly need a few more months of data before we can determine if home prices are finally turning around.”

This article can also be found on housingwire.com.

Q1 GDP Contracts At A Much Faster Than Expected Pace

Just when investors were starting to feel better about the economy, the GDP report came out — and the news was really bad. According to a Dow Jones Newswire poll of economists, it was expected that the economy would contract at a rate of 4.6 percent in Q1. Naturally the 6.1 percent came as a huge surprise, and one that shows us that we might be getting ahead of ourselves thinking this recession is wrapping up. For more on this, read the following post from Tim Iacono.

The Commerce Department reported that the U.S. economy contracted at a pace much faster than expected during the first quarter as business investment posted a record decline and exports of U.S. goods experienced their biggest drop in more than 40 years.
Following the fourth quarter's 6.3 percent pace of contraction, the U.S. economy shrank at a seasonally adjusted annualized rate of 6.1 percent last quarter, surpassing the consensus estimate of minus 5.0 percent. This was the worst back-to-back performance in 60 years.

This post can also be viewed on themessthatgreenspanmade.blogspot.com.

We Need A Root-And-Branch Reorganization Of The Financial System

Some people are open to the government handing over trillions of dollars to the banks, but no taxpayers want the money handed over without proper controls in place that will ensure it goes to good use. This has been one of the biggest issues the public has had with the bailout efforts thus far. For that reason Steve Waldman is calling for a root-and-branch reorganization of the financial system. For more on this, read the following blog post from Mark Thoma.

Steve Waldman says "we need a root-and-branch reorganization of the financial system":

Value for value, Steve Waldman: Would it have been better if Timothy Geithner had had the power to guarantee all bank debt early on? As James Surowiecki reminds us, that was part of the Swedish solution. Justin Fox plausibly suggests that we might have avoided a lot of pain with a fast, full guarantee.

But that's not the point. The question isn't whether we could have avoided this crisis, if only we had cut a big check. We could have, and that was not lost to any of us debating these issues more than a year ago. (See e.g. me or Mark Thoma.) Had we done so, the near-to-medium term fiscal costs might have been less than they probably will be now. So, with 20/20 hindsight, would it have been a good idea?

How you answer that question depends upon how you view the crisis. Is it an aberration, a shock to a basically sound financial system, or is it a painful symptom of an even more dangerous condition? ...

If you think that our financial system just needs some tweaks, some consolidation of regulators' organizational charts and sterner supervision, then you should prefer that we had just cut a check, passed Sarbanes/Oxley Book II, and moved on. But that is not what I, or most proponents of temporary receivership for insolvent banks, believe.

If you believe, as I do, that we need a root-and-branch reorganization of the financial system, which must necessarily involve the dismemberment and intrusive restraint of deeply entrenched institutions, does that mean pain is the only way forward, "the worse the better" in the old revolutionary cliché? It need not mean that. But it does mean that palliative measures, like giving the banks money, would have to be attached to curative measures, like enacting capital requirements and imposing regulatory burdens that would force financial behemoths to break themselves up or become boring narrow banks. For almost two years, policymakers at the Fed and the Treasury, including Secretary Geithner, have offered bail-out after bail-out and asked for nothing serious in return.

Do I regret that Henry Paulson was not empowered to issue a blanket guarantee of bank assets early on, as the Swedes did? No, I don't regret that at all. Why not? Because I think that "Hank the Tank" was a crappy negotiator... He would have offered the financial system sugar without requiring it to make the medicine go down. He may believe, quite sincerely, that a cure would be worse than the disease. He may believe that, but he is wrong. ...

You may believe that we have learned our lesson, that if we can just get some stability and comfort for a while we are prepared to do what must be done. That's a respectable position. But I don't share it, and neither do the majority of Americans who are unwilling to allow their representatives to sign off on any more expensive aspirin. We want value for value, an ironclad commitment of root and branch reform in exchange for the unimaginable sums of money we are being asked to hand over. ... Congress would, because the public would, support large, explicit transfers, if they were attached to reforms sufficiently radical to prevent a recurrence, and suitably punitive towards the people who managed the system that brought us here. Value for value. ...

I ... would be willing to hold my nose and tolerate a Swedish-style guarantee of bank creditors. I'd acquiesce to that even without formal nationalization. Nationalization is ... a means to an end, and the desired end is a world in which too big to fail is too big to exist for any financial institution that originates or holds credit risk in any form. Secretary Geithner could send a bill to Congress today that would put all banks with a balance sheet of over $50B into run-off mode... I'd fax my Congressman and support a $2T on-budget buyout of bank creditors as part of that bill, as long as it had teeth. ("Teeth" would imply making sure that off-balance-sheet and derivative exposures were included in the size cap, etc.)

It's not that us pitchfork-totin' populists are unwilling to pay the bill. It's that we want to know that in exchange for writing a very, very large check, the people that we are paying will actually deliver the goods. Given the behavior of bankers before the crisis and of shifty policymakers during, we have every reason to watch warily and to insist upon every precaution while we hand over suitcase after suitcase of freshly printed Federal Reserve notes.

This post can also be found on economistsview.typepad.com.

Geithner's New PPIP Plan Looks Too Much Like Failed TALF Program

Hopefully Geithners new PPIP plan that was created to deal with toxic assets works out better than the TALF failure, but unfortunately it looks eerily familiar. For more on this, read the following blog post from Mark Thoma.

The TALF program intended to increase auto loans, student loans, and credit card lending has a lot in common with the Geithner public private investment plan to remove toxic assets from bank balance sheets, including the valuable non-recourse loan feature. The fact that the TALF program is not living up to expectations - not even close - leads to questions about whether the Geithner plan will encounter similar problems:

Federal Program to Boost Private Lending Struggles to Get Money to Consumers, by Neil Irwin, Washington Post: In its first two months, the government's signature initiative to support consumer lending has fallen well short of expectations, deploying only a fraction of the amount officials had hoped to extend to stimulate auto loans, student loans and credit card lending. ...

Under [the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility, or] TALF, private investors ... put up a relatively small amount of money to be matched with a larger loan from the Federal Reserve. The combined funds are then used to purchase newly created, highly rated securities, which in turn fund a wide range of consumer and business lending.

If the securities become more valuable, the private investors stand to repay their government loans and make a healthy profit; if the securities plummet in value, the investors can lose only what they put up originally...

Officials envisioned TALF supporting tens of billions of dollars a month in new lending, saying it could eventually total $1 trillion. But in March, when it was launched, it backed only $4.7 billion in auto loans and credit cards. For April, it logged only $1.7 billion.

Sources involved in the program said private investors have been reluctant to work with the government, which they view as an unreliable business partner. ... There are restrictions on the business activities of participants in the program. ... But perhaps more significant ... is a fear that the government could retroactively change the terms, exacting new limits on what investors can pay their executives, for example, or trying to claw back profits that firms make in the program. ...

Federal Reserve officials have privately urged President Obama and congressional leaders to publicly state that the government views investors in voluntary programs such as TALF differently than it does companies that need a federal bailout.

Investors are not the only ones who need comforting, though. The Fed relies on primary dealers, or brokerage houses, to play a key role as intermediaries in TALF...

But the primary dealers have been extremely cautious..., hobbling the program's progress... Lawyers at the New York Fed ... have been working to help the brokers and investors work through the issues, and government officials are hopeful about the program's future. ...

The Public-Private Investment Program, designed to buy loans and securities from banks, is structured similarly to TALF. ...

And the differences between the PPIP and TALF programs that I can think of, e.g. that the PPIP has toxic assets as part of the bargain, and some of the banks will need a bailout so the reassurances about executive pay, etc. can't be made in these cases, are additional factors working against the PPIP's success.

This post can also be viewed on economistsview.typepad.com.

Hong Kong Set To Take Off Thanks To Bernanke

Thanks to the chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve — Ben Bernanke — Hong Kong is about to take off. It might seem a little weird that Bernanke could impact Hong Kong so drastically, but because Hong Kong's currency is so closely linked to the U.S. dollar they are forced to follow the Fed's every move. That — coupled with the fact Hong Kong's stocks are undervalued — is creating a perfect storm for Hong Kong's market. For more on this, read the following article from Dr. Steve Sjuggerud at Daily Wealth.

Ben Bernanke has cut short-term interest rates in the U.S. to essentially zero... the lowest rate we've ever seen.

He's doing this, of course, to "juice" the economy – to give it a jumpstart. He doesn't know (or care, actually) that this action will inadvertently (but undoubtedly) cause one particular stock market to go absolutely nuts.

This stock market I'm talking about is Hong Kong. Today, we have the ultimate recipe for stocks in Hong Kong to skyrocket. The Fed has cut interest rates to essentially zero (causing Hong Kong rates to be next to zero in its unique money system). And yet Hong Kong stocks are incredibly cheap. They bottomed a month ago at a single-digit price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio.

We've seen this before:

• In 1992-1993, the Hang Seng Index shot from 5,500 to 12,000. At that time, the Fed had cut interest rates below the rate of inflation. So "real" interest rates were below zero.
• The Fed did it again from 2003-2005. And in that time, the Hang Seng Index jumped nearly 7,000 points, from a low of 8,600 to 15,500. (It continued to rise... peaking over 30,000 in 2007. That's four times your money from 2003 to 2007.)

And it's happening again, right now... The Fed has cut interest rates to zero, and the uptrend in Hong Kong has arrived. It's time to get in.

While Ben Bernanke is trying to help the U.S., he's unwittingly creating havoc on the other side of the globe...

Hong Kong is quite an incredible place... With no natural resources, the standard of living has gone from subsistence wages to one of the highest in the world in just a few decades.

I believe two things contributed to Hong Kong's boom... 1) Hong Kong has been for decades one of the "freest" markets in the world, allowing entrepreneurs to succeed or fail. And 2) Hong Kong has had a stable currency, thanks to its unique currency system. For the last 25 years, the Hong Kong dollar has been worth about US$7.80, give or take a few pennies.

Hong Kong's unique currency system is called a currency board. A country that has a true currency board has one U.S. dollar in the bank for every dollar of its own currency that it prints. How does it keep the exchange rate equal? Through interest rates...

Interest rates in Hong Kong dollars are always higher than in the U.S. Depositors are willing to "take the risk" on the Hong Kong dollar for the slightly higher yield.

As a result, Bernanke essentially controls interest rates in Hong Kong. Whether Hong Kong is in a boom or a bust, he doesn't care. So Bernanke could be raising or cutting interest rates at precisely the wrong time in Hong Kong's business cycle.

Therefore, Hong Kong's stock market is subject to wild booms and busts, based on what the U.S. Fed is doing with interest rates.

As I said, today we have the ultimate recipe for stocks to skyrocket in Hong Kong. Interest rates are next to zero. And Hong Kong stocks are cheap, hitting single-digit P/E ratios a month ago.

I have two nearly guaranteed "rules" for making money in Hong Kong...

First is the "Hong Kong Can't Help It Rule." That's when the U.S. Fed cuts interest rates below the "market" rate. This means "real" interest rates are below zero. When this happens, buy Hong Kong... It can't help it. It soars.

The second rule is the "20/10 Rule." In short, you want to be a buyer of stocks in Hong Kong when the P/E ratio falls below 10. And you want to be a seller when the ratio rises above 20.

Hong Kong stocks often soar by hundreds of percent after they fall below a P/E of 10. And often they lose half their value soon after they rise above a P/E of 20.

Right now is an extraordinary moment... both rules are in play... AND we have an uptrend in Hong Kong stocks that started last month.

You should consider buying Hong Kong shares now... Triple-digit gains are possible... and you can limit your downside risk by using a trailing stop. Those are my kind of odds!

Dailywealth.com offers a free daily investment newsletter which focuses on contrarian investment opportunities.

Deflation Taking Hold In Europe

We have been hearing a lot about deflation here in the U.S., but so far we have been able to hold it off for the most part. It appears that Europe is not having as much luck though. Deflation can be an economic killer as we saw during the Great Depression and more recently with Japan's Lost Decade. For more on this, read the following blog post from Tim Iacono.

Spain, the U.K., Luxembourg, Portugal, Ireland - who's next to succumb to the scourge of deflation? Yesterday, the New York Times reported that Spanish merchants have been slashing prices with abandon, auguring in the possibility of a dreaded "deflation death spiral".

Prices dipped everywhere, from restaurants and fashion retailers to pharmacies and supermarkets in March.
...
With the combination of rising unemployment and falling prices, economists fear Spain may be in the early grip of deflation, a hallmark of both the Great Depression and Japan’s lost decade of the 1990s, and a major concern since the financial crisis went global last year.

Deflation can result in a downward spiral that can be difficult to reverse. As unemployment rises sharply and consumers cut spending, companies cut prices. But if sales do not pick up, then revenue can decline further, forcing more cuts in workers or wages.

Once again, falling prices are characterized as the potential source of much bigger problems ahead, as if the world had something even remotely close to "sound money" where currency maintained its value over long periods of time as it did in the U.S. prior to the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913.

To review -- in the hundred years prior to the Fed, inflation rounded to zero, whereas, in the nearly hundred years since 1913, the U.S. dollar has lost 96 percent of its value.

Policies that have resulted in this loss of value, now accepted as conventional wisdom by central bankers around the world, make real deflation (the minus 10 to 15 percent per year variety, not the -0.1 percent Spanish version) a near impossibility today.

But, that doesn't stop dimwitted dismal scientists from looking there instead of at the bursting of the biggest asset bubble in the history of Mankind when identifying villains in the current economic and financial market maelstrom.

“It doesn’t mean it will spread here to the U.S., but we need to look closely at Spain and other places to understand the dynamic,” says Simon Johnson, a professor at the Sloan School of Management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a former chief economist for the International Monetary Fund. “It’s like the front line of a new virus outbreak.”

If only economists would spend more time examining how they failed the world so miserably over the last few years instead of at a 19th century phenomenon, we'd all be better off.

In the U.K. too there is much gnashing of teeth where annual deflation is running at a whopping four times the rate now experienced to the south - minus 0.4 percent.

The funniest thing about English deflation is that it is, in large part, directly caused by central bank actions. The broadest measure of consumer prices includes mortgage costs, the vast majority of which are variable rate loans, and, as short-term rates have been slashed, these consumer costs have tumbled as detailed in this report in the Telegraph.

The Retail Prices Index (RPI) measure of inflation fell to -0.4pc in March, indicating that prices paid by consumers last month were lower than a year ago - a trend not seen since March 1960.

RPI inflation, which includes housing and mortgage costs, has been driven down by the the series of aggressive interest rate cuts from the Bank of England which have triggered lower variable rate mortgage repayments .
...
The economy is expected to remain in deflationary territory for many months, which will mean pensioners will receive the lowest possible increase of 2.5pc next year, adding just £2.40 to the full weekly pension, an amount criticized as "derisory and pathetic" by campaigners.

If health care costs in the U.K. are anything like those in the U.S., there are probably a lot of irate senior citizens.

A related story explains why we should all be fearful about deflation beginning with the moronic example of how, after television prices have been falling for the last 20 years, additional price declines will cause consumers to think twice. Really!?

1. It causes consumers and businesses to feel concerned about spending. Why buy that £400 television this week when you are confident it will be cut in price to £350 next month? The same applies to businesses – why invest in new machinery, or software when you think it will fall in price? Deflation can, if it becomes entrenched, cause the whole economy to grind to a halt.

2. Deflation causes wage cuts. Employers can argue that they do not need to give their staff a pay rise, because their staff can buy more goods with the same salary. Many companies are freezing pay and started cutting wages in some cases.

3. In theory, falling wages should not matter if the price of goods and services fall as well. But in practice it is very damaging psychologically. People paid £30,000 one year do not like being paid £29,000 the following year even if they can buy the same amount of goods. Everyone feels less wealthy, especially home owners whose main asset is falling in price. And when they feel less wealthy, they spend less, causing a vicious downward spiral in the economy.

4. Deflation causes the value of people's debts to mount. A £100,000 mortgage might cost £4,000 to service each year, but the value of the house could fall by £4,000 or more – a dispiriting experience, but you will still need to keep on servicing the debt.

Wage cuts, tumbling asset prices, and making debt service more expensive are all legitimate arguments but falling consumer prices really don't belong in this discussion unless it's something more than volatile energy prices and, in the case of the U.K.-style deflation, lower interest rates caused by the central banks that, ironically, are desperately trying to avoid seeing consumer prices move lower.

For a more complete discussion on this subject, see Seven key points on deflation or the many other items categorized under "deflation" at this blog.

This post can also be viewed in themessthatgreenspanmade.blogspot.com.

Is $250,000 A Year Really "Wealthy?"

President Obama keeps saying he plans to pay for much of his new spending with taxes on the wealthy, but what should be considered "wealthy?" According to Obama's campaign speeches "wealthy" means families earning more than $250,000 a year, but $250,000 isn't worth as much in New York City as it is in Des Moines, Iowa. Many of these families are challenging Obama's assessment of what should be considered "wealthy," saying how they make more than that but are struggling to get by. Tim Iacono doesn't offer these families much sympathy, but looks closer at the situation in his blog post below.

There have been more than a few comments left here by readers over the years about families with big salaries and/or bonuses carping about how tough it is to get by on just a couple hundred thousand dollars a year in income.

Always of modest means, never having had to foot the bill for little ones around the house, and having avoided living and working in the Bay Area, my view of things is probably a bit slanted in the other direction but, to me, a quarter million dollars a year looks to be a huge opportunity to sock money away for retirement.

Via the Wall Street Journal comes this tale of the difficulty some have in making ends meet.

Ellen Parnell and her husband, Donald Parnell Jr., seem like the kind of well-off couple President Barack Obama has in mind when he suggests raising taxes on families earning more than $250,000 a year. A surgeon at Fort Sanders Sevier Medical Center in Sevierville, Tenn., he drives an Infiniti. They vacation at a beach resort every year.

Yet, right now he is working seven days a week. The car is more than a decade old, the vacation home in Sandestin, Fla., comes at a moderate weekly rate because members of Ms. Parnell's extended family own it. Her family of five would like more room than they have in their 2,500-square-foot home, yet they can't afford anything larger. The downturn has them skittish about paying for renovations.

While not familiar with the local real estate market at all, clearly, you can get a lot of house for not too much money in Sevierville.

The story continues:

"I'm not complaining, but the reality is Obama may call me wealthy, but I thought we were just good old middle class," says Ms. Parnell. "Our needs are being met, but we don't have a load of cash to cover wants."
...
Wealth and comfort "depends on where you're coming from," said Lois Avitt, a sociologist and founding director of the Institute for Socio-Financial Studies in Charlottesville, Va. To a family earning $50,000, $250,000 is well off, but for the family earning $250,000, rising college and medical costs and dropping home values make the perception debatable.

The reasons for the insecurity are that net worth is declining at the same time that expenses like education and health care, two of the biggest concerns cited by members of that income group, are going up faster than wages and income, says Heidi Shierholz, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute in Washington. "Those are the biggies. They are huge parts of the set of middle-class aspirations, and the prices of those have increased way faster than income." The bursting of the housing bubble makes that more stark.
...
San Jose, Calif., Mayor Chuck Reed calls a family living in Silicon Valley earning $250,000 "upper working class." That is about what two engineers working at a technology firm can expect to make, but "a family earning $250,000 a year can't buy a home in Silicon Valley," he said.

James Duran owns a human-resources company in Silicon Valley and is president of the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce in California. He supported Mr. Obama, but is worried about the tax proposals. He has laid off some employees in recent months and has been wondering how he can fund an extension of those workers' health-care benefits.

Mr. Duran said he and his wife earn about $400,000 annually, but "I'm barely getting by." They have high property and state taxes, as well as college tuition and savings to cover. "I'm an Obama man, but this side of him is a difficult pill for me," he said.
...
For the Parnells, their perception of themselves is based on the math. The value of their house is down $60,000. Ms. Parnell says the couple's gross income last year was about $260,000. Taxes, premiums for medical care and deductions for Social Security and their 401(k) contributions cut the gross to about $12,000 per month. The family tithes $1,300 a month at their church. Their mortgage, second mortgage and payment on land they bought is nearly $4,000 a month. Other expenses, including their family car payment, insurance and college funds, as well as basics like food, utilities and donations to charities, leave them with about $1,200 left over each month.

"I'm not after sympathy. We are blessed. What I want is a reality check on what rich means," Ms. Parnell says. "I can pay my mortgage and I can buy some clothes. I'm not going without, but I'm not living a life of luxury."

The Parnells should probably take a basic personal finance class or two and many of their problems might quickly be solved - that $4,000 a month in mortgage payments for a house that's too small, and some other property, should have set off alarm bells long ago.

Also, that top line of $260K that erodes to $144K after 401k contributions, medical care premiums, and taxes sounds a bit excessive - you can quickly get to about $40K for the first two items leaving their tax hit at $75K.

Does that sound right?

It's a good thing Ms. Parnell is not asking for sympathy because she's not likely to get any.

This post can also be viewed on themessthatgreenspanmade.blogspot.com.

Roubini Says Financial Gloom Not Going Anywhere

There has been a lot of positive momentum lately in the markets, and people are starting to think that the end is near for the financial crisis. However, Nouriel Roubini warns that this optimism is not based on facts. The facts say that we still have much longer to go with this recession, and getting one's hopes up that the end has arrived will just lead to disappointment, and likely a loss of capital. For more on this, read the following blog post from Mark Thoma that looks at Roubini's latest article.

Nouriel Roubini cautions not to get your hopes up too high:

End of economic gloom?, by Nouriel Roubini, Project Syndicate: Mild signs that the rate of economic contraction is slowing in the United States, China and other parts of the world have led many economists to forecast that positive growth will return to the US in the second half of the year, and that a similar recovery will occur in other advanced economies. ...

Investors are talking of 'green shoots' of recovery... As a result, stock markets have started to rally... This consensus optimism is, I believe, not supported by the facts. Indeed, I expect that while the rate of US contraction will slow ... in the last two quarters, US growth will still be negative .... in the second half of the year... Moreover, growth next year will be so weak ... and unemployment so high ... that it will still feel like a recession.

In the euro zone and Japan, the outlook for 2009 and 2010 is even worse... Given this weak outlook for the major economies, losses by banks and other financial institutions will continue to grow. My latest estimates are $3.6 trillion in losses for loans and securities issued by US institutions, and $1 trillion for the rest of the world. ...

By this standard, many US and foreign banks are effectively insolvent and will have to be taken over by governments. The credit crunch will last much longer if we keep zombie banks alive despite their massive and continuing losses. ... So, while this latest bear-market rally may continue for a bit longer, renewed downward pressure on stocks and other risky assets is inevitable.

To be sure, much more aggressive policy action (massive and unconventional monetary easing, larger fiscal-stimulus packages, bailouts of financial firms, individual mortgage-debt relief, and increased financial support for troubled emerging markets) in many countries in the last few months has reduced the risk of a near depression. That outcome seemed highly likely six months ago, when global financial markets nearly collapsed.

Still, this global recession will continue for a longer period than the consensus suggests. There may be light at the end of the tunnel -- no depression and financial meltdown. But economic recovery everywhere will be weaker and will take longer than expected. ...

Let's hope the end is near, but if you are a monetary or fiscal policymaker, it's far to soon to let down your guard and declare victory. You have to assume it won't be over for some time yet, and plan accordingly. If things turn out better than expected the plans can stay on the self, and existing programs can be scaled back accordingly, but that can't happen until we are certain that recovery is around the corner and we are nowhere near that point yet.

[Also see the commentary surrounding the IMF's World Economic Outlook from Yves Smith, Dani Rodrik, and Real time Economics.]

This post can also be viewed on economistsview.typepad.com.

Initial Jobless Claims Down: Is The End In Sight?

The big news this morning was that initial jobless claims fell. While this is great news, the bigger question we are all hoping to have answered is whether or not this signifies that the end to the recession is near. Along with the initial claims report, James Picerno looks at some other data, and tries to address the big question in his blog post below.

This morning's news that new claims for jobless benefits fell last week is the best news yet for thinking that the recession has peaked. It's still too soon to break out the champagne, as we'll explain. But for the moment, a collective sigh of relief is in order. Maybe.

As the chart below shows, new filings for jobless benefits tumbled by 53,000—the biggest weekly drop since December. More important is the trend. Since reaching a seasonally adjusted high for this cycle of 674,000 for the week through March 28, new jobless claims have fallen in each of the subsequent two weeks, lowering the total to 610,000 last week. That's still an unmitigated sign of recession, but the recent fall also begs the question: Does the downshift have legs?

This is a critical question because, as we've written, initial jobless claims are a valuable forward-looking indicator for estimating when recessions bottom out. In our March 6 piece, we looked at the historical record and found that initial jobless claims peaked concurrently with, or sometimes ahead of the formal end of recessions since the late-1960s. That's valuable information since identifying the end of the business cycle downturn is much easier after it's obvious to the crowd. The National Bureau of Economic Research, which officially dates the start and end dates of recessions, makes its proclamations long after the fact. Meanwhile, most of the popular metrics for gauging the state of the economic cycle, such as the unemployment rate, are lagging indicators and so they're among the last to reveal when the recession has turned, much less ended.

Initial jobless claims, then, are a better albeit less-than-perfect metric to watch for gauging when the cycle may turn. There are other leading measures to watch as well. Indeed, the stock market's upturn of late has arguably been signaling that the worst of the recession has passed.

But while it's tempting to pronounce the cycle has turned, such thinking is still premature for a number of reasons. That includes the view of some economists that last week's numbers should be ignored because it came during a holiday week following Easter. Meanwhile, the war on deflationary pressures is still raging and key sectors of the economy are still bleeding quite heavily. The latest clues include yesterday's news that consumer prices posted a modest decline in March. Meanwhile, the government advises today that housing starts continue to sink (falling nearly 11% last month vs. February), as did new building permits (down 9% last month), a signal that the outlook for a rebound in construction remains dim.

Let's also recognize that even if the recession has bottomed out, that's a long way from saying that a return to growth is imminent. It's likely that the economy will tread water for several quarters at the least once the economy stops contracting. And while the stock market appears inexpensive, or at least fairly priced, it's still too early to expect that profits are set to rebound any time soon—for reasons we'll be discussing in more detail in the next issue of The Beta Investment Report.

Still, it's not too early to begin elevating risk exposures in those asset classes and their subcategories that are most attractively priced. If we were supremely confident what was coming, we'd be more aggressive in our adjustments to asset allocation. Alas, we're only mortal, and so we continue to act accordingly.

Meantime, we're watching the leading indicators and trying to figure out if the apparent dawn is real or false. Coming to something more than a guess will take a few more weeks, perhaps a few more months. Let's hope it doesn't require several more quarters.

This post can also be viewed on capitalspectator.com.

What Will The Government Do With Goldman Sachs?

Storied investment banking firm, Goldman Sachs, is preparing to pay the government back around $5 billion in borrowed TARP funds, but whether or not the government will allow it to happen is the real story. Goldman no longer wants to be burdened with the rules and regulations being imposed on them by the government, and thanks to a $12 billion windfall from the AIG bailout the firm is in a position to return the funds. If they are allowed to return the funds, though, there is worry that it will put the other bailed out banks in a precarious position. For more on this, read the following article from Money Morning's Shah Gilani.

Not a fan of socialism? Me either. But, if the federal government has to backstop free market excesses with taxpayer dollars, how will it eventually unravel the veil, or tarp of intervention? Or should it? The answers are about to unfold before our eyes.

In the case of the government and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS), a decision on whether Goldman can repay government bailout money and be freed to pay its employees whatever it wants, may determine the winners and losers coming out of this financial collapse, and what kind of government Americans will end up with.

In her extraordinary 1999 book, “Goldman Sachs the Culture of Success,” Lisa Endlich vividly chronicles the “history, mystique and remarkable success of the world’s premier investment bank.” That same year, the storied partnership structure of Goldman was junked in a wildly successful initial public offering (IPO).

I still keep three pages of notes distilled from Endlich’s book on how to create and foster a culture of success, a la the Goldman model. They now seem quaint in light of the winner-take-all at the expense of the shareholders mentality that eviscerated the old-school standards.

That’s not to say that Goldman isn’t still wildly successful. On Monday, Goldman pre-announced first quarter net income of $1.81 billion. Record net revenue of $6.56 billion from trading fixed income, currencies and commodities was offset by losses in stock trading, real estate, investment banking and money management. Nonetheless, earnings were almost twice analysts’ expectations.

Yesterday (Tuesday), on the heels of its good performance, Goldman announced that it had priced a public offering of 40,650,407 shares of common stock at $123 per share. Goldman will be its own sole underwriter and total gross proceeds are expected to yield approximately $5 billion.

Ironically, $5 billion is what Goldman needs to pay back the U.S. government in order to escape the salary and bonus caps imposed on bailout recipients.

A brief history.

On the remarkable day of September 15, 2008 Lehman Brothers Holding Inc. announced its intention to file a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition. On the same day, venerable investment bank Merrill Lynch disappeared into the waiting arms of Bank of America Corp. (BAC). Six short days later, on a Sunday afternoon, the U.S. Federal Reserve announced approval of expedited applications by Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley (MS) to change their status from investment banks to bank holding companies. The rapid approval of their applications would, the Fed said, “provide increased funding support” allowing both banks to borrow directly and permanently from the Fed’s Discount Window and its other capital liquidity enhancing facilities.

But that wouldn’t be enough. As the crisis mounted, on Sept. 23, Goldman raised $5 billion from billionaire investor Warren Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (BRK.A, BRK.B). And with the storied investor now onboard, Goldman rushed to raise another $5.75 billion in a common stock offering.

On Oct. 14, with the mushrooming cloud of the crisis enveloping seemingly every major bank in the country, then-Treasury Secretary Henry M Paulson (formerly Goldman Sachs’ Chairman and CEO) and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke summoned the nine largest bank chief executives to Washington where they were told that they would each take a piece of government capital. Only Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC) is on record as saying it didn’t need the money, but the handout was forced on it too. Goldman itself took $10 billion.

On Wall Street, and nowhere more so than at Goldman, it’s about compensation. But recipients of bailout money are now facing the full disclosure of their executive compensation deals, as well as having to obtain nonbinding shareholder voting on compensation issues.

The Treasury is advocating a salary ceiling for recipient senior executives of $500,000 and any additional compensation to be paid in restricted stock that vests only when government funds have been entirely repaid. And there are restrictions on golden parachutes and threats that Congress will impose a 90% bonus tax.

It’s enough to make Wall Street quake in its canyon.

With the public backlash against the taxpayer-funded bonuses paid to executives and traders at crippled firms, banks are desperate to return government bailout money so they can be freed from government salary and bonus oversight.

But unfortunately for many of these banks, oversight is mandated for any recipient of “exceptional assistance,” which is defined as assistance of more than $5 billion.

No wonder Goldman wants to pay back $5 billion of the $10 billion it got.

I have nothing against the free market setting compensation benchmarks, or private companies paying successful executives whatever their shareholders vote to be acceptable. And I’m not singling out Goldman Sachs. But, nowhere else in the U.S. economy - or at the highest levels of government - is there anything like Goldman’s visible and invisible hands at work. And they’re working in the open and more insidiously, behind the scenes and through lobbyists, to make themselves a lot of money.

There is simply not enough space in any book, let alone any article, to list the power, placement and influence of current and former Goldman Sachs alumni pulling the levers of hedge funds, corporations, politicians and governments. If you want to enlighten yourself about what you don’t know about these players, simply Google: “List Goldman Sachs alumni.”

Goldman, as much as any investment bank, got its hands dirty in the subprime securities business and the credit default swap business. As to its influence and its claim to premier bank status, the first question that comes to my mind is: Would Goldman even exist today if Hank Paulson hadn’t had Goldman’s current CEO Lloyd Blankenfein in on meetings about saving American International Group Inc. (AIG)?

Out of the $185 billion that AIG received from taxpayers, Goldman got $12.5 billion for exposure it had to credit default swaps written by AIG. I’ve been told by some of my hedge fund and investment banking friends that Goldman deserved that money and that the entire counterparty structure related to almost every credit default swap was a risk.

But I like to point out that Goldman is only smarter than its peers because its trading desks are lighter on their feet. I remind them that Goldman stuffed the pipelines with toxic structured collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), and then was nimble enough to cover themselves better by buying credit default swaps to hedge their exposure to their own toxic slime and institutions that are too-big-to-fail, exactly like AIG.

What happens now with Goldman Sachs will set the precedent for everything else that the government will do or allow in the future with bailout recipients and industries. Will Goldman be freed up to overpay its risk takers and to make greater wagers as it also seeks to become too-big-to-fail? Will impositions be made on the corporate level, industry level, systemic level? Will free markets be free to leverage taxpayers indefinitely?

The argument, most recently made in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal op-ed page by Jonathan Macey, a law professor at Yale, that “demonetizing executive pay will also drive the best managers out of private companies and into hedge funds and other boutique investment firms” implies that there is a limited amount of talent available in America, which is a supposition that I find myopic, at best.

Besides, aren’t these the same people that got us into this mess?

And while letting public companies be run by shareholders - as Macey suggests - is supposed to work in principle, shareholders have been marginalized by the same Wall Street system that protects the institutions whose stocks and bonds they sell, trade and profit from.

All eyes should be on the curious relationship between government and Goldman for clues as to what shape the landscape will take when we eventually exit this calamity.

I don’t want our companies, our institutions or our economy socialized any more than Adam Smith would. But I do want to see the public tail wagging the dogs of Wall Street and government.

This post can also be viewed on moneymorning.com.

From Money Morning:

"I'd rather have this than gold." That's what one well-known fund manager recently told Barrons. Why? This special group of investments is set to pay out $4,201 guaranteed cash next month. And they pay out juicy cash sums all year long. But they're not income trusts, corporate bonds, or foreign bonds. In fact, only Martin Hutchinson is talking about them. Read his full report here...

Depression Looms Without More Stimulus

Do we really need more economic stimulus? We have already spent trillions of dollars attacking this financial crisis, and unfortunately we also have seen billions apparently wasted by poor policy decisions and implementation. All that aside, according to famed economist Robert Shiller, we need more economic stimulus or else we are likely facing another depression. For more on this, read the following blog post from Mark Thoma.

Robert Shiller says we need to continue with the monetary and fiscal policies we are pursuing, but both efforts need to be larger:

Depression Lurks Unless There’s More Stimulus, by Robert Shiller, Commentary, Bloomberg: In the Great Depression ... the U.S. government had a great deal of trouble maintaining its commitment to economic stimulus. “Pump- priming” was talked about and tried, but not consistently. The Depression could have been mostly prevented, but wasn’t. ...

In the face of a similar Depression-era psychology today, we are in need of massive pump-priming again. We appear to be in a much better situation due to the stronger efforts to date. Still, there is a danger that, because of a combination of faulty economic theory and inadequate appreciation of human psychology, as well as deep public anger, we will not continue with such stimulus on a high enough level. ...

In our analysis of the current economic crisis, we conclude that the government should have two targets. One would be a joint fiscal-monetary policy target. The same kind of expansionary policies embodied in the government expenditure stimulus and tax cuts that are already being tried have to be done on a big enough scale and for a long enough time in the future. ...

The government should also have a credit target. Once again, we are calling for more of the same kinds of existing policies... Achieving this requires new approaches, like those announced by the Bernanke Fed and the Obama administration, but on a continuing and even larger scale. ...

In this crisis, acceptance of these measures is being replaced with outrage. It is increasing the blood pressure of the public, and that can’t continue without damage to our system. ... It is time to face up to what needs to be done. The sticker shock involved will be large, but the costs in terms of lost output of not meeting either the credit target or the aggregate demand target will be yet larger.

It would be a shame if we are so overwhelmed by anger at the unfairness of it all that we do not take the positive measures needed to restore us to full employment. That would not just be unfair to the U.S. taxpayer. That would be unfair to those who are living in Hoovervilles...; it would be unfair to those who are being evicted from their homes, and can’t find new ones because they can’t find jobs. That would be unfair to those who have to drop out of school because they, or their parents, can’t find jobs.

It is now time to keep our eye on the ball and set clear targets to fix a system that broke when our animal spirits got out of bounds.

This post can also be viewed on economistsview.typepad.com.

Treasury Yield: What Does The Future Have In Store?

A lot of people have been turning to Treasuries as the investment of choice in these unpredictable and rough economic times, but will it ultimately prove to be a good move? While widely considered "risk free" investments, that is far from the truth. There are many things that perspective Treasury investors need to keep in mind when weighing their investment options. The following blog post from James Picerno offers some insight into what is going on right now in the Treasury market, and hopefully will help investors make an a better informed decision.

It's hard to dismiss the ongoing news about China's anxiety over its massive holdings of American debt. What's worrisome for China is ultimately a concern for the U.S., with fallout that may come sooner than we think.

“We have lent a huge amount of money to the U.S. Of course we are concerned about the safety of our assets. To be honest, I am definitely a little worried," Chinese prime minister, Wen Jiabao, said last month. It was a rare public admission of apprehension by a high-ranking Chinese official on the delicate and increasingly precarious lender-borrower relationship that describes the U.S. and China.

Yesterday came word that China's purchases of U.S. bonds slowed in the first two months of this year, according to new data from China's central bank, The New York Times reports. "Chinese reserves fell a record $32.6 billion in January and $1.4 billion more in February before rising $41.7 billion in March, according to figures released by the People’s Bank over the weekend," the Times notes. The trend may now be reversing, although the notion that a pivotal point in the U.S.-China financial relationship may be near remains intact.

The fear is that China will slow (cease?) buying new Treasuries, a decision that's likely to force up interest rates in the U.S. For the moment, there's no reason to dismiss that scenario, at least when it comes to the recent trend in the yield on the benchmark 10-year Treasury Note. As the chart below shows, the march upward to the 3% mark is alive and well.

What makes the rising yield in the 10-year so striking is that it comes in the wake of the Federal Reserve's announcement last month that it would directly target lowering rates on long Treasuries. The market's initial reaction was to buy Treasuries, which resulted in one of the biggest one-day drops in interest rates on record. For a time it looked like Bernanke and company had struck gold. But confidence that the central bank has complete control over the long end of the curve has been evaporating in recent weeks.

As the above chart shows, the 10-year yield collapsed by around 50 basis points on March 18, down to around 2.5%. As of April 9, the 10-year's yield had climbed by to roughly 2.9%, just under the level where when the Fed made its bombshell announcement last month.

High interest rates in the U.S. necessarily make the dollar more attractive, at least for a time. No wonder, then, that the buck's value is rising in forex markets in recent weeks, in sympathy with higher interest rates on the 10-year. The U.S. Dollar Index is just about at the highest level since the Fed's March 18 disclosure, a news event that had initially sent the buck tumbling. Meanwhile, commodity prices generally have been inching higher as well, as per the CRB Index. Commodities are generally priced in dollars, so it's no surprise that a strong dollar equates with higher commodity prices.

Higher interest rates are almost surely the path of least resistance in the years ahead, in part because the U.S. deficits are sure to be large in the wake of all the monetary and fiscal stimulus of late. The problem is that the arrival higher interest rates now, this week, next month, next quarter come at an especially inopportune time: before the economy has sufficiently recovered. The Fed surely seeks to keep long rates below 3% for the rest of the year, or so one might speculate. But it's not clear that the markets are willing to go along for the ride.

In the old days, the Fed's powers were such that it had more control over keeping interest rates low and thereby providing the economy with ample monetary stimulus until the forces of growth rose anew. Engineering that scenario this time may be tougher, much tougher. One reason is that much of the control over future rates has been transferred to foreigners, courtesy of holding large quantities of U.S. debt. That may not be fate that rates will rise. Indeed, China surely wants to keep U.S. rates low in order to boost growth here, which will promote imports of Chinese goods. But no one really knows how these forces will play out.

Perhaps the cycle will be salvaged if the economy rebounds quicker than the crowd expects. Alternatively, the Chinese and other foreigners decide to buy large quantities of Treasuries in the months and quarters ahead. There are solutions to the current dilemma, but no one should expect that they're a forgone conclusion.

This post can also be viewed on capitalspectator.com.