Showing posts with label TARP. Show all posts
Showing posts with label TARP. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

Quick Links

  • Following up on a post I made a couple weeks ago: Geithner is going before Congress today, and will be questioned on the AIG bailout. FT has a fantastic writeup on this topic. The article does a wonderful job of giving the reader background on the entire saga, and goes on to analyze many of the issues that brought us to a crisis. I quote from the concluding paragraphs of the article:
    The disputes struck, too, at the heart of a growing conceit in the financial world that nearly any asset could be priced and traded. This development was interpreted as a sign that markets were growing more “free” since the pool of tradeable assets appeared to be growing.
    ...
    What the AIG drama exposes is that much of the recent innovation on Wall Street was dedicated to creating assets that barely traded and whose values were determined almost exclusively by computer models used by the banks and rating agencies.
    In this 21st-century hall of mirrors, it has been possible for tens of billions of dollars of value to vanish or reappear at the click of a computer button – or at the behest of the rating agencies or through a change in accounting rules. That in turn makes it hard for the US government to explain whether the taxpayer really got “value for money” by bailing out AIG – or whether Americans will ever get back all the billions already spent.

  • Financial Services: From Servant to Lord of the Economy. This relates to a post I made very early on in this blog: should commercial banking be a public utility?
  • Mish Shedlock is campaigning hard against Bernanke.

Friday, December 4, 2009

Double Dip threat is back?

A long while back, I wrote that I believed we would face a double-dip recession, though I certainly got the time-frame wrong.
Krugman just put up a post on the same issue, and it made me think about why we might still be facing this "W" shape recovery. It relates strongly to Brenner's paper below: we're running out of ways to stimulate business activity. There does not seem to be a bubble left to inflate. When government stimulus runs out (and I don't think we'll see another stimulus package - doesn't seem politically feasible right now) next year, who will spend? From Krugman:

Two stories this morning highlight the risks. The WSJ has a report on highway construction titled Job Cuts Loom as Stimulus Fades:
Highway-construction companies around the country, having completed the mostly small projects paid for by the federal economic-stimulus package, are starting to see their business run aground, an ominous sign for the nation’s weak employment picture.
Meanwhile, the ISM for manufacturing suggests that industrial growth is already slowing down.
I’d be more sanguine about all of this if there were any indications that private, final demand is taking off — consumers, business investment, whatever. But I haven’t seen anything suggesting that sort of thing.


Also, deflation is still looming. Japan is already there. America faces the prospect as well, though if the Treasury keeps pumping out dollars, we also face a risk of inflation down the road. Take a look at this, which has more on double-dip risk (emphasis mine):

The Fed has to do one of two things: They either have to pull $1.5 trillion out of the system by June, which would collapse the economy, or face hyperinflation. This is why the Fed has instructed banks to inform them when and how much of the TARP funds they can return. At best they can expect $300 to $400 billion plus the $200 billion the Fed already has in hand.
We believe the Fed will opt for letting the system run into hyperinflation. All signs tell us they cannot risk allowing the undertow of deflation to take over the economy. The system cannot stand such a withdrawal of funds. They also must depend on assistance from Congress in supplying a second stimulus plan. That would probably be $400 to $800 billion. A lack of such funding would send the economy and the stock market into a tailspin. Even with such funding the economy cannot expect any growth to speak of and at best a sideways movement for perhaps a year.

Their belief goes directly counter to my belief that we will not see a second stimulus plan. If we do not, as I believe, we face the deflationary threat and a true double-dip. If, however, another stimulus plan is passed (which seems more and more necessary, though I still think is too politically unacceptable in the short-term), we may be okay for a while yet.

I know this is a highly doom-and-gloom scenario. Hopefully, I'm wrong, and the world economy recovers more smoothly than I expect.

Also, I wanted to post a short follow-up to the Brenner post below. One thing his analysis does is completely destroy the China-decoupling theory. Note that it was a far more popular theory before the recession than it is now, but it does still get some mention. I think the Brenner write-up finishes it off in my mind, but here's some more on it anyway: The China Decoupling Myth.

Tuesday, September 1, 2009

Tuesday Reading

Been a slow news week so far, and I've been too busy for a lengthy post. However, here are a few good reads:
  • Amazing Vanity Fair profile on Henry Paulson, built up over 15 months of regular interviews. I haven't finished the whole thing, but it looks quite intriguing. Some telling quotes about our lawmakers: "“There’s a great lack of financial literacy and understanding in this nation, even among college-educated people.” ... As his tenure wore on, Paulson confessed, “I amuse myself a lot by sitting there (Capitol Hill) sometimes and thinking what would happen if I said, ‘Do you realize what an idiotic question that is?’" This goes back to something I've mentioned before: there's a serious, serious lack of financial education in this country, despite the fact that financial literacy is required in so many aspects of our lives.
  • Speaking of Paulson, his brainchild, TARP, is showing some early returns.
  • Deflation in Spain.
  • FDIC is in trouble.
  • One more: Hussman showed an interesting chart in his weekly market commentary (sent to me by a reader. Reader, you know who you are - I'll keep you anonymous unless you wish to be known =) ). All I want to focus on is that the recent crash, and the steps the government has taken, are unprecedented in the post-war era: