News What is wrong with the US economy? Part 2

  • Thread starter Thread starter Greg Bernhardt
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Economy
Click For Summary
The U.S. economy is facing significant challenges, highlighted by the Federal Reserve's decision to maintain interest rates at 2%, which led to a market decline. AIG's stock plummeted by 45% due to concerns over its exposure to risky derivatives, prompting speculation about a potential Federal bailout. The Fed is reportedly considering a lending facility for AIG, with major banks like Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan Chase involved in discussions. Despite some recovery in AIG's stock, there are ongoing concerns about the broader implications of a potential AIG collapse on the financial system. The U.S. trade deficit has also widened, raising alarms about the country's economic stability as it continues to accumulate debt.
  • #301
edward said:
The concern was for small businesses but now every savings account will be covered, including those who want to pull money out of risky investments and stash it. This could be a dangerous move without proper funding for the FDIC.

Why? They can vote for additional funds if needed.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #302
edward said:
The concern was for small businesses but now every savings account will be covered, including those who want to pull money out of risky investments and stash it. This could be a dangerous move without proper funding for the FDIC.

Why didn't they just increase the amount covered by the FDIC to $250,000 for just small businesses?

They had over 450 pages of legislative jingo to do it in.:rolleyes:
This is one provision that might actually have some positive value, though. Let's say that people dive out of risky investments and cash in, putting their money in savings, money-markets, etc to the extent that they can. That would increase the capitalization of banks big and small, and they would try to find ways to leverage this capital, hopefully by making good loans and not by betting on derivatives. If banks have extra money to play with, they want to loosen credit to their customers and put that money to work, which could be a good thing for individuals and small businesses. In the meantime, as little investors seek cash and relative safety the big boys will snap up blocks of shares that the little guys had abandoned. It's perverse, but it is possible that increasing the FDIC cap could provide more stimulus to the economy than the infusion of money to buy bad debt.
 
  • #303
Yes, we can't afford to inject additional liquidity problems through fear.
 
  • #304
The Dow30 rallied through the morning, but have since given almost all back - a swing up and down of about 300 points - and down more than 500 points for the week.

Maybe some bargain hunting means a recovery on Monday - unless there is more bad news this weekend.

Loss of 159,000 jobs, but the unemployment rate remains 6.1%, which means the unemployed get kicked off the rolls.
 
  • #305
Ivan Seeking said:
Why? They can vote for additional funds if needed.

Additional funds from where. Are you saying we can bail out the bail out.
 
  • #306
edward said:
Additional funds from where. Are you saying we can bail out the bail out.
They borrow it from the same place they borrow the other $trillion+.
 
  • #307
turbo-1 said:
This is one provision that might actually have some positive value, though. Let's say that people dive out of risky investments and cash in, putting their money in savings, money-markets, etc to the extent that they can. That would increase the capitalization of banks big and small, and they would try to find ways to leverage this capital, hopefully by making good loans and not by betting on derivatives. If banks have extra money to play with, they want to loosen credit to their customers and put that money to work, which could be a good thing for individuals and small businesses. In the meantime, as little investors seek cash and relative safety the big boys will snap up blocks of shares that the little guys had abandoned. It's perverse, but it is possible that increasing the FDIC cap could provide more stimulus to the economy than the infusion of money to buy bad debt.

Thats a good point. I admit I had not considered that.
 
  • #308
It looks like the bailout was approved.

Do we, the US, actually have $700,000,000,000 just sitting somewhere that we can just spend away?

Where does this money come from? $700,000,000,000 divided by the US population 305,324,801 = $2,292.64 from each US man, woman, and child.

Not to mention the other bailouts we've already financed. Where does this end?
 
  • #309
edward said:
Thats a good point. I admit I had not considered that.
None of our media talking heads or political spinners had considered it either, edward, judging from the lack of discussion on this point. Economics is too arcane to make good ratings on news programs, and most people would be bored to tears to hear how throwing money at investment banks WILL NOT translate to job creation, so I hoped to inject a positive spin on what I consider to be a raid on our treasury. Ireland's banks have recently adopted a similar policy (higher insurance deposit caps), forcing the EU to consider following suit.
 
  • #310
Astronuc said:
They borrow it from the same place they borrow the other $trillion+.

Thats the part that worries me :smile:
 
  • #311
I think there was a concern that people with more than $100,000 in a single bank would withdraw the excess and deposit in another bank. This could potentially cause some otherwise sound banks to fail.

Single factor analysts who said that the DOW lost $778 on Monday because the House rejected the bailout, need to explain to me why the DOW lost $157 today.
 
  • #312
The FDIC cap increase only covers bank accounts and not anything else like money markets. As illustrated by the S&L crash, people place large sums in banks only when the banks raise the interest paid to compete for those deposits. The only way FDIC insured banks have of paying those large rates is to in turn loan those deposits out as risky high interest loans. Kaboom.
 
  • #313
mheslep said:
The FDIC cap increase only covers bank accounts and not anything else like money markets.
My wife and I have a joint MM account that is insured to $200K because both our names are on the account. My understanding is that the new cap would increase the insurance to $500K.

mheslep said:
As illustrated by the S&L crash, people place large sums in banks only when the banks raise the interest paid to compete for those deposits. The only way FDIC insured banks have of paying those large rates is to in turn loan those deposits out as risky high interest loans. Kaboom.
Again, not correct. Investment banks can offer nice investment packages for personal IRAs that rival or exceed the performance of traditional 401K plans. If you watch the fund performance history and look at fees, etc, critically, you can do well, or at least not lose it all in a bad downturn. I had several 401K plans from former employers and consolidated them into one IRA - best move I ever made. It simplified transactions, and I have a direct 800 number to the financial advisor that helps me reallocate (rarely) investments. I try to take the long view, while keeping an eye on some investments that have been poorly-handled and might rebound.
 
  • #314
jimmysnyder said:
I think there was a concern that people with more than $100,000 in a single bank would withdraw the excess and deposit in another bank. This could potentially cause some otherwise sound banks to fail.

Single factor analysts who said that the DOW lost $778 on Monday because the House rejected the bailout, need to explain to me why the DOW lost $157 today.

Jobs report, slowing economy, recession fears.
 
  • #315
turbo-1 said:
... Investment banks can offer nice investment packages for personal IRAs that rival or exceed the performance of traditional 401K plans. ...
Of course they do, but investment bank assets are not FDIC insured, the point of my post.
 
  • #316
turbo-1 said:
My wife and I have a joint MM account that is insured to $200K because both our names are on the account. My understanding is that the new cap would increase the insurance to $500K.
Yes could be, I should have been more specific:
http://www.fdic.gov/consumers/consumer/information/fdiciorn.html
FDIC-Insured

* Checking Accounts (including money market deposit accounts)


* Savings Accounts (including passbook accounts)


* Certificates of Deposit

Not FDIC-Insured

* Investments in mutual funds (stock, bond or money market mutual funds), whether purchased from a bank, brokerage or dealer


* Annuities (underwritten by insurance companies, but sold at some banks)


* Stocks, bonds, Treasury securities or other investment products, whether purchased through a bank or a broker/dealer
 
  • #317
mheslep said:
Of course they do, but investment bank assets are not FDIC insured, the point of my post.
These banks are holding companies that can offer a wide range of services, including retirement accounts, money markets, simple savings, etc. Many of these products qualify for FDIC insurance protection and I have made certain that mine do. You would have to go back to before the deregulation that preceded the S&L bailout (remember the Keating 5?) to get to a point in which there were strict demarcations between the types of accounts that the FDIC would ensure.
 
  • #318
jimmysnyder said:
I think there was a concern that people with more than $100,000 in a single bank would withdraw the excess and deposit in another bank. This could potentially cause some otherwise sound banks to fail.

Single factor analysts who said that the DOW lost $778 on Monday because the House rejected the bailout, need to explain to me why the DOW lost $157 today.

What would have happened if they hadn't passed it?

Ali Vishi was reporting from the floor and indicated that the "short money" was already starting to move. Either way, no one claims that this will fix the economy overnight. The goal was to free the credit markets, which will take time. But you can always keep hoping that it won't work.
 
  • #319
What would have happened if they hadn't passed it?
Is this like the troop surge - if it doesn't work you just need a bigger one?
 
Last edited:
  • #320
turbo-1 said:
None of our media talking heads or political spinners had considered it either, edward, judging from the lack of discussion on this point. Economics is too arcane to make good ratings on news programs, and most people would be bored to tears to hear how throwing money at investment banks WILL NOT translate to job creation, so I hoped to inject a positive spin on what I consider to be a raid on our treasury. Ireland's banks have recently adopted a similar policy (higher insurance deposit caps), forcing the EU to consider following suit.
Only 6 of Ireland's financial institutions have had their deposits guaranteed and that was because one of them who remains anonymous was on the brink of collapse. Presumably the other 5 are there simply to disguise which one had problems.

Far from following suit, the EU are investigating Ireland's action under the unfair competition rules and may well declare it illegal.
 
  • #321
Art said:
Far from following suit, the EU are investigating Ireland's action under the unfair competition rules and may well declare it illegal.
There is a difference though in guaranteing individual's savings in a high street bank so as not to cause a run and writing a blank cheque to investment intiutions to cover their losses.

Ironically most mortgages in the UK+Ireland used to be from Building Societies, owned by their customers which were limited to using their own deposits for the majority of their loans. In the 90s they all converted into banks as this was the only way for these quaint old institutions to survive in the modern world of international finance!
 
  • #322
Ivan Seeking said:
What would have happened if they hadn't passed it?
Who knows? This is a question for the single factor analysts.

Ivan Seeking said:
But you can always keep hoping that it won't work.
No need to hope, this is a bandaid on a headache. The root cause is the sour housing market. Nothing will get fixed until the root cause is fixed.
 
Last edited:
  • #323
mgb_phys said:
There is a difference though in guaranteing individual's savings in a high street bank so as not to cause a run and writing a blank cheque to investment intiutions to cover their losses.
I'm not sure what your point is. To clarify, the Irish gov't have underwritten individual's savings (totalling 400 billion Euro); they have not guaranteed to cover any losses suffered by financial institutions in their own investments.

The competition problem arises because there are fears that citizens of other countries, Britain in particular, will take advantage of this offer and switch their accounts from their domestic bank to one of the 6 Irish banks most of which have branches in Britain.
 
  • #324
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=1899832#post1899832
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #325
Art said:
I'm not sure what your point is. To clarify, the Irish gov't have underwritten individual's savings ...not any losses suffered by financial institutions in their own investments.

I was agreeing with you that this was a reasonable thing to do and not comparable with the Wall St bailout.

Not sure how reasonable the EU objection is - most countries guarantee savings account to varying degrees. Ironic though that they would be complaining that Ireland is being unfair by offering more reliable and robust financial instutuions than other EU countries - this hasn't been historically true!
 
  • #326
Does anyone have a dollar number on foreign investments that will be bailed out??
 
  • #327
edward said:
Does anyone have a dollar number on foreign investments that will be bailed out??

Hopefully 100%, bailing out foreign ionvestment props up your currency, bailing out internal investment causes inflation - isn't economicas a wonderfull 'science' ?
 
  • #328
edward said:
Does anyone have a dollar number on foreign investments that will be bailed out??
They'll likely borrow money from sovereign funds (welll really anyone who buys T-bills and treasury notes) to bailout the banks which have lots of investment from the same sovereign funds. :rolleyes:

I can't wait to see what this year's (FY2009) deficit is going to be.

Anyway - here's the BBC's story - House backs $700bn bail-out plan
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7651060.stm

How will the rescue work?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7652003.stm


http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/10/03/pm_story_of_the_week/

Someone pointed out that now Paulson had to put together a team of financial analysts to sort through the bad debt/mortagages to be bought. Where will Paulson find this team, the number of which might rival a Fortune 100 company. Well - from the very financial institutions that are being rescued? A potential conflict? You bet.

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/10/03/cdo/
Kai Ryssdal: The thing about this credit crisis is that it reaches out and touches you, sometimes without you even knowing. For instance, I don't think many of you ever went out and actually bought yourself a collateralized debt obligation. But chances are your bank did. And your retirement money's probably tied up in 'em through mutual funds. Yet here we are a year and a half into this crisis, and it seems people don't understand what CDOs are. Much less how they work. So for today's explainer, we turn to one of Marketplace's most brilliant economic minds.

And what if the markets aren't satisfied?

One can leave a comment - "Post a Comment: Please be civil, brief and relevant."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #329
edward said:
Does anyone have a dollar number on foreign investments that will be bailed out??

First of all, I think this is still discretionary, but I keep hearing hundreds of billions. A quick check yielded the same.
Rep. Brad Sherman (D-California)...Hundreds of billions of dollars are going to bail out foreign investors. They know it, they demanded it, and the bill has been carefully written to make sure that can happen," he said on Larry Kudlow's CNBC show Tuesday.
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/sto...x?guid={A6967E51-FC1A-4BFC-BB93-E57327D873F6}
 
  • #330
Credit markets to Washington: Bailout isn't enough
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/03/AR2008100301463.html
NEW YORK -- The credit markets finally got a bailout bill, but the stranglehold hasn't let up _ a troubling sign that lenders and investors believe the package will only be a baby step in the long road to economic recovery.

The credit markets, where companies go to get cash loans, have seized up since the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and in anticipation of the $700 billion plan initially voted down by the House. The House passed a revised version of it Friday following the Senate's approval earlier this week, but anxiety about its effectiveness kept demand for Treasury bills high and nearly nonexistent for other types of debt.

Overall, market participants have begun regarding the rescue plan as a medicine for what's ailing the financial system, but not a cure-all.

"At best, we can hope that it stems some of the more intense risk from the credit crisis. It prevents things from spiraling out of hand here," said JPMorgan Chase economist Michael Feroli.

Some are worried, though, that the plan will not work at all.

"Nobody knows how it's going to succeed," said Howard Simons, strategist with Bianco Research in Chicago. "It seems the American public had better sense than Wall Street and Washington _ the American public said, don't throw good money after bad."

The Treasury will buy banks' risky mortgage-backed assets in an effort to alleviate investors' worries about the institutions' solvency and free them up to do more lending. Even if those efforts succeed, the effects will be far from instantaneous, and borrowing could remain very expensive for some time. With the economy in such a weak state, lending to consumers and businesses will still appear risky until certain factors _ particularly employment and the housing market _ improve.

The Labor Department said employers cut payrolls by 159,000 in September, the largest loss in more than five years, while unemployment remained at 6.1 percent.

Layoffs are likely to keep piling up if it remains tough to find credit. Spectrum Yarns Inc., a North Carolina textile company, said it closed two plants and laid off 200 workers this week because it got turned down by a North Carolina bank, a New York finance company, and several private lenders.

It could also get even harder for certain individuals to get home loans. Banks have gotten more stringent in their mortgage underwriting, and Wisconsin's affordable-housing agency recently suspended making loans for single-family homes because it was unable to sell tax-exempt mortgage revenue bonds and raise capital.
. . . .

As for foreign investments: Testimony from Scott G. Alvarez, General Counsel
Sovereign wealth funds ( http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/testimony/alvarez20080305a.htm )
Before the Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade, and Technology, and the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance, and Government Sponsored Enterprises, Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives
March 5, 2008
One of the reasons that sovereign wealth funds have attracted more attention in the past year is their size. The largest funds are very large. For example, Norway's sovereign wealth fund reports total assets of over $350 billion; China's fund and Singapore's two funds each manage assets of at least $100 billion. This places sovereign wealth funds among the largest investment funds worldwide. However, while the estimated two to three trillion dollars sovereign wealth funds manage exceeds the $1.4 trillion managed by hedge funds, it is far less than the over $50 trillion managed by insurance companies, pension funds, and other investment funds combined. Further, it is an even smaller fraction of global debt and equity securities, which exceed $100 trillion.

Statement to the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission
Investments by Sovereign Wealth Funds in the United States
http://www.rhsmith.umd.edu/news/stories/2008/morici-soverign-testimony.aspx

The sovereign wealth funds dilemma
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/BUSINESS/03/07/sovereign.mme/index.html
The biggest funds are Abu Dhabi's ADIA ($875bn), Norway's Pension Fund ($380bn), Singapore's GIC ($330bn), and Saudi Arabia's various holdings which total $300bn. The China Investment Corporation is not far behind with $200bn in assets, and Russia's Stabilization Fund, which was set up in 2004, has $100bn, but is growing fast.

Warren Buffet likes them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
8K
  • · Replies 870 ·
30
Replies
870
Views
113K
  • · Replies 91 ·
4
Replies
91
Views
24K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K