News What is wrong with the US economy? Part 2

  • Thread starter Thread starter Greg Bernhardt
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Economy
AI Thread 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.
  • #551
As expected the markets have responded positively to the coordinated European rescue plan. If the US follow suit then the worst may be behind us.

Britain's decision to take equity holdings in failing banks has worked well, as they are now in a position to force those banks to start lending again and as they got the stock at rock bottom prices they are likely to make a handsome profit over the next few years as they realize their stated intent to sell these shares off back into the market.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #552
Art said:
As expected the markets have responded positively to the coordinated European rescue plan. If the US follow suit then the worst may be behind us.
Yes I believe the current downturn is half over now.
 
  • #553
Art said:
As expected the markets have responded positively to the coordinated European rescue plan. If the US follow suit then the worst may be behind us.

Britain's decision to take equity holdings in failing banks has worked well, as they are now in a position to force those banks to start lending again and as they got the stock at rock bottom prices they are likely to make a handsome profit over the next few years as they realize their stated intent to sell these shares off back into the market.

That sounds like a good idea. I think I'll start my variable high risk retirement account tomorrow. I've been waiting 20 years for this correction. :rolleyes:

jimmysnyder said:
Yes I believe the current downturn is half over now.

Well. I hope the other half happens in the next few days. I've got spare money to invest.

Viva... stock Vegas...
 
  • #554
There are many opinions
Do read the following blog and the comments. If you got time read the previous days.
http://theautomaticearth.blogspot.com/
The time delay involved in writting a history book has been radically changed with the web.
======
Here is a quote:
However I&S,your efforts have shown many of us what's going on,and given a better framework to guide some critical decision making all of us will be making over the course of the coming months.For this I thank you,and wish luck to your own endeavors.
snuffy

October 13, 2008 12:30 AM
My feelings ...
 
  • #555
NYTimes Dealbook said:
Morgan Stanley said Monday that Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, the big Japanese bank, had completed its previously announced $9 billion investment in the Wall Street firm, under revised terms.

The infusion of capital was seen as a vital step for Morgan Stanley in its attempt to weather the credit crisis, and Morgan Stanley's stock fell sharply last week amid concerns the transaction would fall through.

Under the new deal, Mitsubishi acquired $7.8 billion of Morgan Stanley's perpetual non-cumulative convertible preferred stock with a 10 percent dividend and a conversion price of $25.25 per share, and $1.2 billion of perpetual non-cumulative non-convertible preferred stock with a 10 percent dividend, the companies said in a joint press release.

The transaction gives Mitsubishi a 21 percent stake in Morgan Stanley on a fully diluted basis.
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/morgan-stanley-closes-9-billion-investment/

That and the bailout have buoyed the bank stocks.

GM jumped 6.59 or 35%!

JPM and GE are down, but Citigroup is up about 8%. Citigroup has not reported losses, but perhaps they don't mind so much since the government is expected to bail them out. I wonder what kind of bonuses the CEOs and managers will get.

Goldman Sachs would have been a great buy last Friday at the lowest. They open at 86.11 and are now 98.15 - an increase of nearly 12%
 
  • #556
Here is another quote from https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4921988708619968880&postID=2433202042045327764
http://www.fcnp.com/index.php?optio...-culpa&catid=17:national-commentary&Itemid=79
The Peak Oil Crisis: Mea Culpa
Earlier this week The Washington Post's media critic, Howard Kurtz, published an apology on behalf of the media for its weak coverage of the multi-year run-up to the current financial debacle.

To quote the Post, "The shaky house of financial cards that has come tumbling down was erected largely in public view: overextended investment banks, risky practices by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, exotic mortgage instruments that became part of a shadow banking system. But while these were conveyed in incremental stories -- and a few whistle-blowing columns -- the business press never conveyed a real sense of alarm until institutions began to collapse."
In reading through the story I was struck by how eerily similar are the now admitted journalistic lapses and the failure to connect the dots in the financial story to what we have been witnessing in the media's coverage of peak oil. The heart of Kurtz's apologia is the troubling question "Why didn't they see this coming?"
Odinary people opinion (me) vs the experts.

They could not see the possible magnitude of the problem because they were benefiting from the taking of fees, commissions, expenses etc. from every transactions and were inflating the selling prices to hide their missdeeds.
A perfect shell game.
The correction is happening
Will the shell game continue?
 
  • #557
The Dow is up by over 500 points this morning.
 
  • #558
jal said:
Here is another quote from https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4921988708619968880&postID=2433202042045327764

Odinary people opinion (me) vs the experts.

They could not see the possible magnitude of the problem because they were benefiting from the taking of fees, commissions, expenses etc. from every transactions and were inflating the selling prices to hide their missdeeds.
A perfect shell game.
The correction is happening
Will the shell game continue?
Some in the media did see it coming, e.g. Paul Krugman, economist from Princeton University and winner of 2008 Nobel Prize in Economics. But they were dismissed as alarmist. Krugman indicated back in 2003 that the US economy was headed for a cliff.

Others simply didn't want to report bad news. The mainstream media doesn't want to report really bad news on such a scale, because likely they do not want to alienate their sources of information or their readers.

There may be a few who benefit from insider information.

Many experts were apparently unaware of the magnitude of volume of the credit default swaps and sub-prime mortgage sector.


On a more personal level - Undergrads on the Bread Line
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20081013/us_time/undergradsonthebreadline

In my area, in nearby states, and across the country, food banks are getting much more requests for aid - even from middle income people. The current economic crisis is more severe than is being discussed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #559
Bill Moyers Journal - Interview with George Soros
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/10102008/watch.html
Moyers: You are not alone if you are worried about the financial melt down. So is my guest George Soros, one of the world's best known and successful investors, making billions in times of boom or bust. He's been warning for years of a financial melt down fueled by easy credit and sleepy regulation. Now he's out with this timely book, "The New Paradigm for Financial Markets: The Credit Crisis of 2008 and What It Means."

In the interest of full disclosure, you should know that I served three years on the board of George Soros' foundation, the Open Society Institute, dealing with such issues as a free press, the rule of law, and human rights. But I've had no involvement in his political activities and nothing to do, with his business interests unfortunately. It's good to see you.
. . . .


BILL MOYERS:This is what's interesting, why wouldn't the government be able to look at what you looked at and see what's coming?

GEORGE SOROS:Because actually they have been working on false premises. This sounds very strange, but there's been this development of, this belief of market fundamentalism. And particularly the idea that markets always revert to the mean and deviations from the mean occur in a random fashion. And you can calculate it.

And you will get a nice distribution and you can anticipate it. And based on that, you can manage your risk. And that actually was based on a false idea. This namely, the markets self-correcting because the market moods have a way of affecting the fundamentals the markets are supposed to reflect.

And there's always a divergence between our perception and what actually exists. For instance, take the simplest situation, namely housing.

Banks give you credit based on the value of the houses. But they don't seem to somehow understand that the value of the houses can be affected by the amount of credit they are willing to give. Now, we've developed these fabulous new ways of securitizing mortgages, which has made credit much more amply available.

And we've been able to calculate risk. And, therefore, we were willing to give more and more credit. And that has pushed up the value of the houses. Also, of course Greenspan kept interest rates too low, too long. And so you had very low interest rates, easy credit, and house prices have been appreciating at more than ten percent a year for a number of years. And the willingness to lend actually increased. There was an insatiable appetite for these new fangled securities.

BILL MOYERS:Yeah. Nobody understood, really.

GEORGE SOROS:Which they didn't properly understand. And there was always a separation between the people who generated the mortgages and packaged them and sold them to you and the people who owned them. So nobody was paying attention to the quality of the mortgages because they didn't have an interest. They — all day collecting fees. And then there were other people holding the mortgages.

BILL MOYERS:Right.

GEORGE SOROS:And that was not factored into those instruments. The idea was that by distributing risk, you actually reduce risk. But by separating the principal from the agent, you actually greatly increase the risk. And that was not reflected. And the rating agencies didn't realize it. So they gave triple-A ratings. And then a few weeks later, those triple-A bonds became practically valueless. And that's what has happened.
. . . .

Interesting exchange at the end of the interview

GEORGE SOROS:Well, you know, it's very interesting. Actually, these market fundamentalists are making the same mistake as Marx did. You see, socialism would have worked very well if the rulers had the interests of the people really at heart. But they were pursuing their self-interests. Now, in the housing market, the people who originated the houses earned the fee.

And the people who then owned the mortgages their interests were not actually looked after by the agents that were selling them the mortgages. So you have a, what is called an agent principle problem in socialism. And you have the same agent principle problem in this free market fundamentalism.

BILL MOYERS:The agent is concerned only with his own interests.

GEORGE SOROS:That's right.

BILL MOYERS:Not with...

GEORGE SOROS:That's right.

BILL MOYERS:The interest of...

GEORGE SOROS:Of the people who they're supposed to represent.

BILL MOYERS:But in both socialism and capitalism, you get the rhetoric of empathy for people.

GEORGE SOROS:And it's a false ideology. Both Marxism and [free] market fundamentalism are false ideologies.

. . .
Free market fundamentalism and socialism - or any socio-economic or socio-politico-economic system fails when those who have the authority or power are "pursuing their self-interests," i.e. they are corrupt or otherwise morally and ethically impaired.
 
Last edited:
  • #560
The U. S. market seems to be coming back up today. Ironically the rally seems to be related to other countries taking action.

Here in the USA everything is still in the talking stage. The sub prime and foreclosure problems are far from being over. It sure would be nice if we could just talk our way out of it.

Just one week before all hell broke loose my nephew in LA closed the deal on a town house he was buying. He only paid $10,000 down on a 3.5% adjustable rate mortgage for $480,000 that will reset in five years. It is also an interest only deal and the builder bought down the interest rate from 7.5%.

The bank was Wells Fargo.

My point is that just one week before the crisis the banks didn't see a crisis even though several of them had already failed.

Countrywide is now offering no money down for closing costs loans.

https://loans.countrywide.com/FTLP/...ewControlS_A&gclid=CPiJs8TspJYCFRlRagod7y1R5w
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #561
Ain't life funny? I hope you are all benefitting from this bout of panic buying.
 
  • #562
Ain't life funny? I hope you are all benefitting from this bout of panic buying.
A knowledgeable investor, would have invested this morning, sell off early tomorrow, before the market fall, and re double his profits by investing in the markets that were closed, such as Canada.
Hang on! ... it's going to be day traders dreams come true.
 
  • #563
jal said:
A knowledgeable investor, would have invested this morning, sell off early tomorrow, before the market fall, and re double his profits by investing in the markets that were closed, such as Canada.
Hang on! ... it's going to be day traders dreams come true.
A genius investor would have started buying in chunks starting Wednesday last week. Knowlegable investors will be sharing spit in prison.
 
  • #564
edward said:
The U. S. market seems to be coming back up today.
That's a bit of an understatement, isn't it? Even for 2:30pm!

Does anyone know if there's ever been a better day for the Dow?
 
  • #565
Death of an ideology

As I said earlier about the US considering following the UK recovery model. The US has now indicated it is adopting PM Brown's plan and will part nationalise it's troubled banks.

This is the final nail in the coffin for the economics of Reagan and Thatcher. Unbridled capitalism has proven to be as deeply and as fundamentally flawed as communism as evidenced by the crash of the financial system and the need to adopt socialist policies to rescue it.

The danger is of course that no doubt once these institutions are profitable again capitalists will be looking for ways to privatise the profits once more but will the general public be okay with them socialising losses whilst privatising profits?

Unfortunately I suspect whether folk approve or not that is exactly what will happen.

US set to outline banking rescue

The US government is due to unveil a $250bn (£143bn) bank rescue plan later, as world shares rise in anticipation.

Echoing steps taken by the UK and other European countries, the US will buy stakes in its largest banks including Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7668704.stm

Meanwhile world markets continue to soar today on the back of the rescue measures taken which bodes well for main street.
 
  • #566
Bloomberg said:
None of the nine banks getting government money was given a choice about it, said people familiar with the plans. All of the banks involved will have to submit to compensation restrictions as mandated by Congress, people said.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a1v8Hglg4jBs&refer=home"
This doesn't sound like Uncle Sam, it sounds like Uncle Gangster. This is how a protection racket works. I thought WE won the cold war.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #567
Gokul43201 said:
That's a bit of an understatement, isn't it? Even for 2:30pm!

Does anyone know if there's ever been a better day for the Dow?
Highest single day gain, and the 5th largest %gain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...Industrial_Average#Largest_percentage_changes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_daily_changes_in_the_Dow_Jones_Industrial_Average

Some history
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dow_Jones_Industrial_Average


I'd still like to know how much the banks lost, and why they got into trouble, and what is really going on. After all, the government is using public money to support private companies in the sense that they are run by private individuals CEO and boards of directors whose main interest is their own wealth - not the wealth of the depositors or borrowers.

The systemic problems that lead to failure are still not addressed. I waiting to hear about the regulation of the types of financial instruments that got us into this mess. I agree with Jim Grant's assessment - it was criminal negligence, and the government ought to check the RICO statutes.
 
  • #568


Art said:
Unbridled capitalism has proven to be as deeply and as fundamentally flawed as communism as evidenced by the crash of the financial system and the need to adopt socialist policies to rescue it.
It doesn't appear obvious to me that the current financial mess is entirely a result of "unbridled capitalism". I do believe that the form of capitalism you refer to, if I'm interpreting it correctly, is problematic, but I don't see the proof in this case. As has been mentioned before, among the key players in the current situation are the quasi-socialist GSEs.
 
  • #569
Former Fed chief says U.S. now in recession
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081014/us_nm/us_financial_volcker
SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker said on Tuesday the U.S. housing sector faced more losses and the economy was in recession even as authorities moved to stabilize the financial system.

Volcker said the priority for U.S. authorities in the credit crisis was to stabilize the financial system even though that meant heavy government intrusion.

"The first priority is to stabilize the financial system. It is necessary even though the cost involved is heavy government intrusion in markets that should be private," he said in a speech at a seminar in Singapore.

"House prices in the U.S. are still declining. There are still more losses to come there. The economy, I believe, is in recession."

Volcker is chairman of the board of trustees of the Group of 30, an international body composed of central bank governors, leading economists and private financial sector experts.

Shhhh - don't say anything - and maybe no one will notice.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #570
wow, traders must love the stock market these days.
 
  • #571
Astronuc said:
Former Fed chief says U.S. now in recession.
Paul Volker said:
The economy, I believe, is in recession.
What a difference a word makes. Mr. Volker knows that the nber decides when recessions begin and end, not former Fed chiefs. The nber has not. Don't give up hope though.
 
  • #572
jimmysnyder said:
What a difference a word makes. Mr. Volker knows that the nber decides when recessions begin and end, not former Fed chiefs. The nber has not. Don't give up hope though.
But the NBER only decides 2 quarters after a recession has begun. So it's possible for someone to be right even if the NBER hasn't said a word yet.

So far, we've had a few dozen or more economists that have been wrong over this year - what's another?
 
  • #573
Gokul43201 said:
But the NBER only decides 2 quarters after a recession has begun. So it's possible for someone to be right even if the NBER hasn't said a word yet.

So far, we've had a few dozen or more economists that have been wrong over this year - what's another?
They predicted 9 of the last 5 recessions. They've been predicting the next one for 5 years running. Why is it called the dismal science? They are the epitome of what an optimist should be.
 
  • #574
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_default_swap#Criticisms"

The market for credit derivatives is now so large, in many instances the amount of credit derivatives outstanding for an individual name is vastly greater than the bonds outstanding. For instance, company X may have $1 billion of outstanding debt and there may be $10 billion of CDS contracts outstanding. If such a company were to default, and recovery is 40 cents on the dollar, then the loss to investors holding the bonds would be $600 million. However the loss to credit default swap sellers would be $6 billion. When the CDS have been made for purely speculative purposes, in addition to spreading risk, credit derivatives can also amplify those risks.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/a-163516-trillion-derivatives-timebomb-958699.html"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #575
The credit trouble definitely has it's roots in the Clinton administration.


Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
By STEVEN A. HOLMES
Published: September 30, 1999
Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...sec=&spon=&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
 
  • #576
Highest budget deficit ever
http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/14/news/economy/budget_deficit.ap/index.htm?postversion=2008101416
Red ink hits $454.8 billion in 2008, more than double that of 2007; economists say bailout to weigh on next year.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The federal budget deficit soared to $454.8 billion in 2008 as a housing collapse and efforts to combat the economic slowdown pushed the tide of government red ink to the highest level in history.

The Bush administration said Tuesday the deficit for the budget year that ended Sept. 30 was more than double the $161.5 billion recorded in 2007.

It surpassed the previous record of $413 billion set in 2004. Economists predicted a far worse number next year as the costs of the government's rescue of the financial system and the economic hard times hit the government's balance sheet.

Some analysts believe that next year's deficit could easily top $700 billion, giving the next president a formidable challenge.

A litany of economic woes

The administration blamed this year's record deficit on a litany of economic woes. The prolonged housing slump sharply reduced economic growth and has sent the unemployment rate rising, developments that reduce tax revenues.
. . . .
:rolleyes:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #577
B. Elliott said:
The credit trouble definitely has it's roots in the Clinton administration.


Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
By STEVEN A. HOLMES
Published: September 30, 1999

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...sec=&spon=&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

The two areas in Tucson with the highest dollar value in sub prime mortgages are very upscale.

Did Clinton really make the mortgage companies give sub prime loans to the upper middle class? :rolleyes: You Left out Carter and FDR btw.

If so why didn't Bush change the situation instead of:

In 2002, the Bush administration charted a more aggressive course by pushing for lower down payments and touting vouchers that would allow public-housing tenants to one day own homes.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122118681151726565.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

There is a lot of blame to share on this issue. You can blame; the buyers, the real estate agents, the appraisers, and the loan writers who bundled and sold the paper. At the top of the chain you will find "Credit Default Swaps", they are the financial derivatives that made it all happen.
 
  • #578
well i can tell the economy is down, my car was just stolen. can i blame that on wall street?
 
  • #579
mathwonk said:
well i can tell the economy is down, my car was just stolen. can i blame that on wall street?

WHAAA :eek: ? Oh no, mathwonk - damn, that bites!
 
  • #580
mathwonk said:
well i can tell the economy is down, my car was just stolen. can i blame that on wall street?

yes. you can blame anything on wall street.

but that's not going to get you a new car.

can I send you a https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=261884" of one of my 9 vehicles?

I'll sell you one cheap... :rolleyes:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #581
mathwonk said:
well i can tell the economy is down, my car was just stolen. can i blame that on wall street?
Boy that sucks!
 
  • #582
JPMorgan Chase beats estimates with an 84 pct profit drop, revenue is worse than expected
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081015/earns_jpmorgan_chase.html
NEW YORK (AP) -- JPMorgan Chase & Co.'s profit tumbled 84 percent in the third quarter after it took big hits from souring mortgage investments, leveraged loans and home loans.

Profit at the New York-based bank, considered one of the stronger players in the current financial meltdown, came in better than Wall Street anticipated. But the deterioration seen in all types of loans -- from home equity loans to prime mortgages to credit cards -- bodes badly for a banking industry that is requiring unprecedented investment from the federal government.

. . . .
I believe that Citibank, BoA have yet to report their latest Q results. However the government is taken stock in the 9 largest banks, and some smaller ones.

Meanwhile, the Bush administration is following Gordon Brown's lead.
 
  • #583
Art said:
The lower tax rate is what makes Ireland the European country of choice amongst the other EU countries but is not the reason why US firms have a European presence. The driver behind the European presence is to be close to one's markets.

If the US did not establish subsidiaries in their markets it would not help their domestic plants grow whatsoever, instead they would simply lose business to their competitors who do have a local presence.
How do you establish this point? That is, how do you establish cost savings from a forward presence in Ireland vs anyone of many other EU contries outweighs the unique Irish tax adavantages (~margin 20% )
 
  • #584
There are 10^11 stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers.
-Richard Feynman, physicist, Nobel laureate (1918-1988)
 
  • #585
Astronuc said:
Some in the media did see it coming, e.g. Paul Krugman, economist from Princeton University and winner of 2008 Nobel Prize in Economics. But they were dismissed as alarmist. Krugman indicated back in 2003 that the US economy was headed for a cliff...
The videos posted earlier featuring Krugman have nothing at all to do with the current mortgage based credit panic. Krugman was speaking clearly and forcefully in the 2003 video on the dangers of large government deficits - that was the 'heading for a cliff' reference. I don't know that he was dismissed as an alarmist on that subject (government deficits), as I am sure many economists agree with that point in general (I know I do) the only difference being the matter of scale given that the deficit and debt as a percentage of GDP are not historically that severe (compared to the post WWII years). Also note that he backs away from the deficit hawk position somewhat in the second 2007 video.
 
  • #586
Bernanke says country's economic health won't return quickly
Bernanke: Quick economic rebound not in cards
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081015/ap_on_bi_ge/bernanke
WASHINGTON - The country's economic health won't snap back quickly even if badly needed confidence in the U.S. financial system returns and roiled markets finally calm, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke cautioned Wednesday.

"Stabilization of the financial markets is a critical first step, but even if they stabilize as we hope they will, broader economic recovery will not happen right away," Bernanke said in a speech to the Economic Club of New York.

The government's new powers under the $700 billion financial bailout package signed into law two weeks ago should help reduce risks to the economy, Bernanke said.

Tapping that new authority, the Treasury Department announced Tuesday that it will inject up to $250 billion in U.S. banks in return for partial ownership. It is hoped that banks will use the cash infusion to rebuild their reserves and lend money more freely to businesses and consumers.

. . . .
The comment "should help reduce risks to the economy" should more accurately reflect "should help reduce some of risks to the economy". There are more risks or systemic problems (e.g. federal debt and deficit, trade deficit, . . .) that have not been dealt with.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #587
B. Elliott said:
The credit trouble definitely has it's roots in the Clinton administration.


Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
By STEVEN A. HOLMES
Published: September 30, 1999

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...sec=&spon=&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
There are many to blame for the Fannie/Freddie collapse. The Clinton administration's role was contradictory. They get some blame as above for CRA, and some of the leadership appointments (President appoints the GSE leadership -another opportunity for political boondoggles), but I believe Clinton's treasury (Reubin) also tried to rein them in a little. The efforts were resisted in Congress then as it was later in this decade.
 
  • #588
mheslep said:
How do you establish this point? That is, how do you establish cost savings from a forward presence in Ireland vs anyone of many other EU contries outweighs the unique Irish tax adavantages (~margin 20% )
Because that's part of what I do for a living. so I can tell you. the decision on whether or where to locate is a lot more complicated than 'who has the lowest tax rate'. To mention a few in no particular order of importance; labour rates, freight costs (Ireland being an island doesn't help), gov't grants, educational levels, employment levels, real estate prices, regulations etc etc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #589
interesting article on deflation
http://www.virginiainstitute.org/viewpoint/deflation.html
 
  • #590
Art said:
Because that's part of what I do for a living. so I can tell you. the decision on whether or where to locate is a lot more complicated than 'who has the lowest tax rate'. To mention a few in no particular order of importance; labour rates, freight costs (Ireland being an island doesn't help), gov't grants, educational levels, employment levels, real estate prices, regulations etc etc.
Yes I am aware taxes are not the only issue. I assert that financially, for many US companies, taxes are often the most significant of these issues, thus the reason for locating in Ireland vs Scotland, France, or Germany, i.e. places even closer to dense markets.
 
  • #591
edward said:
The two areas in Tucson with the highest dollar value in sub prime mortgages are very upscale.

Did Clinton really make the mortgage companies give sub prime loans to the upper middle class? :rolleyes: You Left out Carter and FDR btw.

If so why didn't Bush change the situation instead of:



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122118681151726565.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

There is a lot of blame to share on this issue. You can blame; the buyers, the real estate agents, the appraisers, and the loan writers who bundled and sold the paper. At the top of the chain you will find "Credit Default Swaps", they are the financial derivatives that made it all happen.
I think almost no economists will say CDS's 'made it all happen', preferring some blend of causes statement, so that this is at least an over simplification. I agree there was a 'blend' of causes, but if one must pick a fundamental I still point to the uncontrolled growth of the GSEs. My test: if the GSEs never existed, or at least dismantled by the late 90's, then this credit panic never happens. Instead we have a very limited Enron scaled scandle. I do not believe this is true of any of the other contributing causes: CDSs, liar loans, private mortgage bundlers, fradulent lenders, irresponsible shadow bankers. Derivitives of securities such as interest and currency trades are in no serious trouble, and far outsize the CDS's on mortgages. (See the ISDA data posted upthread). None of these other problem areas could reach any signficant scale without the GSEs first establishing a multi-trillion dollar market. We periodically see private rogue firms trying to grab markets in over leveraged positions and, as we saw with Enron and energy. Eventually when they grow large enough the market (e.g. short sellers) start asking serious questions about their business model, and absent very good transparent answers, the market shoots them in the head.
 
Last edited:
  • #592
mheslep said:
I think almost no economists will say CDS's 'made it all happen', preferring some blend of causes statement, so that this is at least an over simplification. I agree there was a 'blend' of causes, but if one must pick a fundamental I still point to the uncontrolled growth of the GSEs. My test: if the GSEs never existed, or at least dismantled by the late 90's, then this credit panic never happens.
Except that only 16% of sub-prime mortgages were from the GSEs, and the other 84% were from private companies or non-GSE institutions - like Countrywide.

It was the combination of the sub-prime mortgage defaults (and their volume) in conjunction with unregulated CDS's (and other questionable financial instruments) that caused heavy losses.

Deregulation and lack of oversight created the environment in which sub-prime mortgages and questionable financial instruments were allowed to flourish.
 
  • #593
Astronuc said:
Deregulation and lack of oversight created the environment in which sub-prime mortgages and questionable financial instruments were allowed to flourish.
Plus the divorcing of the people making the loans from the people holding the notes after they were bundled and sold. Mortgage lenders made loans to people who had no reasonable prospect of making the payments, because they earned commissions and fees when they did so. When these mortgages were bundled, the ratings folks inflated their quality ratings, encouraging investors to buy them. If the mortgage lenders had to hold the notes or assume the notes that went into default, they would have loaned more cautiously. As it stood, they got their money up-front with no risk going forward.
 
  • #594
Ten minutes to go and the Dow 30 Industrials

Index Value: 8,704.31
Trade Time: 3:50PM ET
Change: 606.68 (6.52%)
Prev Close: 9,310.99
Open: 9,301.91
Day's Range: 8698.82 - 9308.76
52wk Range: 7,773.71 - 14,075.80 (This is a good indication that something is fundamentally wrong with the US economy.)

The fact that the US government has borrow $700 billion and offer another $150 billion (tax credits and incentives), on top of the nearly $300 billion, with more proposals for $billions more is another indication that something is fundamentally wrong with the economy).
 
  • #595
Astronuc said:
Except that only 16% of sub-prime mortgages were from the GSEs, and the other 84% were from private companies or non-GSE institutions - like Countrywide.
Couple mistakes here. 1) If you check you'll find the 16/84% figure is only for recent years, and I believe just one recent year. Its only recently that private firms started getting into the bundling market and taking share from Fan/Fred. For the entire sub-prime market over time, going all the way back into the 90s when Fan/Fred started the huge growth in mortage securities, nobody even comes close. Fan/Fred created the sellable mortgage backed securities market almost completely by themselves, with others joining the party only recently. Again, no Fan/Fred, no mortgage securities market at this scale. 2) Countrywide is an example of a mortage originator, not a bundler as were Fan/Fred (to which they sold). No Fan/Fred and Countrywide is some crooked single office S&L in a strip mall.

It was the combination of the sub-prime mortgage defaults (and their volume) in conjunction with unregulated CDS's (and other questionable financial instruments) that caused heavy losses.

Deregulation and lack of oversight created the environment in which sub-prime mortgages and questionable financial instruments were allowed to flourish.
Fair enough, though this still misses the point of the fundamental flaw in creating pseudo governmental organizations allowed to act as private companies. I assert that once Fannie was made into quasi-governmental for profit organization, that it was inevitable that sooner or later it would wield enough politcal influence to escape oversight. No amount of initial oversight/regulation would hold up. Nor will it now, if they are released to operate as before.

These organizations were orginally part of the government (Fannie since 30/40s) and were made quasi-companies because the government did not want the political load of carrying their costs as part of the federal budget for politcal reasons. There will be large pressures to take them off budget again.
 
Last edited:
  • #596
It is now expected that unemployment will go up sharply. This will cause far more people to default on their mortgages.
 
  • #597
Count Iblis said:
It is now expected that unemployment will go up sharply. This will cause far more people to default on their mortgages.
Not a problem, we know how to deal with that now - you just give the banks $700Bn again.
 
  • #598
turbo-1 said:
Plus the divorcing of the people making the loans from the people holding the notes after they were bundled and sold. ...
I believe that is very close the fundamental problem. In general, non-perishable commodities are turned over many times from the originator/manufacturer and initial buyer without ill affect (e.g. cars, etc). In this case, what was missing was good information in the bundling operation. Now how does something like that happen? How do we get wide spread reselling of some mystery black box commodity, where we're told no need to look inside. In most cases such a pitch quickly gains the seller the label of a snake oil salesman, or a TV informercial talkin head. It certainly does not gain the 'pseudo' full faith and credit of the US government. How does this happen? Enter the GSEs.
 
Last edited:
  • #599
mheslep said:
Couple mistakes here. 1) If you check you'll find the 16/84% figure is only for recent years, and I believe just one recent year. Its only recently that private firms started getting into the bundling market and taking share from Fan/Fred. For the entire sub-prime market over time, going all the way back into the 90s when Fan/Fred started the huge growth in mortage securities, nobody even comes close. Fan/Fred created the sellable mortgage backed securities market almost completely by themselves, with others joining the party only recently. Again, no Fan/Fred, no mortgage securities market at this scale. 2) Countrywide is an example of a mortage originator, not a bundler as were Fan/Fred (to which they sold). No Fan/Fred and Countrywide is some crooked single office S&L in a strip mall.
I'd like to find the data on the sub-prime and who was involved as originator and bundler.

I found this:
About 21% of all mortgage originations from 2004 through 2006 were subprime, up from 9% from 1996 through 2004, says John Lonski, chief economist for Moody's Investors Service. If mortgage lenders stop making subprime loans — as is likely — then fewer buyers will be entering the housing market at its critical springtime peak. A deep enough decline in home prices, in turn, could lead to higher delinquencies in prime mortgages and a reduction in consumer spending. That, in turn, raises the risk of recession.

Lonski estimates the likelihood that the subprime mortgage market's woes will throw the economy into a recession at about 20%. Those are fairly long odds, but not insignificant.
From March 15, 2007! - http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/waggon/2007-03-15-subprime-woes_N.htm

That was a warning sign there of problems ahead. Somebody should have said - hey, there's some smoke, we'd better check it out.

Then what happened in 2007-2008. I think sub-prime mortgages dried up early 2008?

Meanwhile, at AIG - http://www.forbes.com/markets/2008/10/12/aig-federal-reserve-markets-equity-cx_md_1010markets35.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #600
It seems that folks started to notice a problem in 2007, but apparently didn't fully realize the scope.

Chairman Ben S. Bernanke
At the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago’s 43rd Annual Conference on Bank Structure and Competition, Chicago, Illinois
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/bernanke20070517a.htm
May 17, 2007
The Subprime Mortgage Market

The recent sharp increases in subprime mortgage loan delinquencies and in the number of homes entering foreclosure raise important economic, social, and regulatory issues. Today I will address a series of questions related to these developments. Why have delinquencies and initiations of foreclosure proceedings risen so sharply? How have subprime mortgage markets adjusted? How have Federal Reserve and other policymakers responded, and what additional actions might be considered? How might the problems in the market for subprime mortgages affect housing markets and the economy more broadly?
. . .

Interesting diagram here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis

Shame to have to rely on Wikipedia to find this stuff in one place.

This seems a pretty reasonable assessment;
The subprime mortgage crisis is an ongoing financial crisis characterized by contracted liquidity in global credit markets and banking systems. A downturn in the housing market of the United States, risky practices in lending and borrowing, and excessive individual and corporate debt levels [over-leveraged] have caused multiple adverse effects on the world economy. The crisis, which has roots in the closing years of the 20th century but has become more apparent throughout 2007 and 2008, has passed through various stages exposing pervasive weaknesses in the global financial system and regulatory framework.
No mention of government debt levels and deficit spending, which I think is a symptom. If the government are comfortable with huge debts and deficient spending, then I would suspect that they are less inclined to impose stricter regulation and oversight on the financial/credit markets.
 

Similar threads

Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
35
Views
8K
Replies
870
Views
113K
Replies
91
Views
24K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Back
Top