Archive for the ‘Financial Crisis’ Category

Goldman to Repay TARP Funds…but Feds May Not Let Them!

May 5, 2009

The TARP saga continues …

Excerpted from New York Times, “Goldman Using Share Sale to Return Bailout Funds”, by Louise Story, April 15, 2009

Six months after accepting a financial lifeline from Washington, a newly profitable Goldman Sachs is pushing to return the billions of taxpayer dollars that it received in an effort to extricate itself from heightened government control.

If successful, Goldman would become the first major bank to return funds received under the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. Such a step would probably enable Goldman — long one of the most lucrative places to work on Wall Street — to free itself from government-imposed restrictions on compensation.

It is unclear how quickly Goldman might be allowed to return the $10 billion it accepted last October. Goldman is not allowed to return the money without the approval of the Treasury and the Federal Reserve, which both declined to comment on Monday.

One analyst comments, “Goldman can walk the halls of Congress waving a check, but is it in the best interest of the marketplace for them to pay it back?”

* * * * *

Goldman said on Monday that it would seek to raise $5 billion by selling new common stock and use the proceeds, along with other funds, to repay the government.

“We just think that operating our business without the government capital would be an easier thing to do.  We’d be under less scrutiny, and under less pressure.”

Edit by DAF

* * * * *

Full article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/15/business/15goldman.html?ref=business&pagewanted=print

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link => 
The Homa Files Blog

* * * * *

Piling on … more quips on Obama’s $100 million cost-cutting directive.

April 22, 2009

Extracted from IBD, “Fiscal Nanosurgery”, April 21, 2009

When President Obama directed his Cabinet to cut $100 million out of the budget … he talked about earning the public’s trust on spending. Apparently, he thinks people put a low value on trust.

Perhaps the president is counting on taxpayers not being able to tell the difference between millions, billions and trillions. They all seem like such big numbers.

So to get a real sense of just how little is being asked of his Cabinet, consider:

• If Obama were your dietician, you’d only have to give up an apple a year to abide by his diet plan.

• If he wanted you to cut your gasoline consumption, you’d have to drive just one-third of a mile less in a year.

• And if he wanted you to waste less water, you’d only have to reduce the time you spend in the shower on one day of the year by 30 seconds.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=325206654263630

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

Piling on … more quips on Obama's $100 million cost-cutting directive.

April 22, 2009

Extracted from IBD, “Fiscal Nanosurgery”, April 21, 2009

When President Obama directed his Cabinet to cut $100 million out of the budget … he talked about earning the public’s trust on spending. Apparently, he thinks people put a low value on trust.

Perhaps the president is counting on taxpayers not being able to tell the difference between millions, billions and trillions. They all seem like such big numbers.

So to get a real sense of just how little is being asked of his Cabinet, consider:

• If Obama were your dietician, you’d only have to give up an apple a year to abide by his diet plan.

• If he wanted you to cut your gasoline consumption, you’d have to drive just one-third of a mile less in a year.

• And if he wanted you to waste less water, you’d only have to reduce the time you spend in the shower on one day of the year by 30 seconds.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=325206654263630

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

"Puny","Trivial", "Insulting" … Remember when $100 million was a lot of money?

April 21, 2009

President Obama announced plans to cut $100 million from the federal budget, and department heads will have to make the cuts within 90 days. For example, Homeland Security is going to start buying office supplies in bulk instead one at a time.  That’s some out of the box thinking for you …

While the initiative was treated by most media as a big deal.  A few observers — left & right — have tried to put the $100 million in perspective. Here are a couple of my favorites:

* * * * *

From Tom Bemis at Marketwatch:

“To get a handle on how insultingly trivial the announcement is, one need only compare the targeted cuts to the administration’s spending plan for 2010.
With cuts in federal spending by $100 million, the government will save roughly 1/36,000 of the $3.6 trillion it expects to spend next year.

Put another way, if the budget were a yardstick, the administration would be proposing to shorten it by about half the width of a human hair.
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Obama-makes-puny-effort-budget/story.aspx?guid={AF7E28F0-CEBA-426D-AC0A-448537C5A627}&dist=hplatest

* * * * *

From Paul Krugman of the NY Times:

” Let’s say the administration finds $100 million in efficiencies every working day for the rest of the Obama administration’s first term. That’s still around $80 billion, or around 2% of one year’s federal spending.

OK, politics is theater. But you could argue that the president shouldn’t feed the bogus claim that we can close fiscal gaps by eliminating a bit of waste.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/

* * * * *

From economics guru Greg Minkow’s blog:

Just to be clear: $100 million represents .003 percent of $3.5 trillion.

To put those numbers in perspective, imagine that the head of a household …  called everyone in the family together to deal with a $34,000 budget shortfall. How much would he or she announce that spending had be cut?

By $3 over the course of the year–approximately the cost of one latte at Starbucks.

The other $33,997?  We can put that on the family credit card and worry about it next year.
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/

* * * * *

Thanks to Tags for the heads-up

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

Glimmers of Nope ….

April 20, 2009

Consider the following:

(1) Last week, it was broadly reported that foreclosures have continued at a brisk and increasing rate since Team Obama’s mortgage rescue plan was announced.

According to USA Today: “Foreclosure filings in February jumped nearly 6% from January, despite foreclosure moratoriums and prevention programs … Foreclosure filings were up almost 30% from February 2008, … one in every 440 U.S. homes received a foreclosure filing in February.”
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/housing/2009-03-11-higher-housing-foreclosures_N.htm

(2) The WSJ reports that lending has been declining at banks that have received TARP funds

“Lending at the biggest U.S. banks has fallen sharply … despite government efforts to pump billions of dollars into the financial sector.

The biggest recipients of taxpayer aid made or refinanced 23% less in new loans in February …  than in October, the month the Treasury kicked off the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

The total dollar amount of new loans declined in three of the last  four months …  All but three of the 19 largest TARP recipients … originated fewer loans in February than they did at the time they received federal infusions.” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124019360346233883.html#mod=testMod

(3 Most banks have been reporting better than expected Q1 earnings making rosy projections, and moving to pay back TARP funds.

* * * * *

Ken’s Take:

Sure, Wall Streeters and the banks blundered big time in the mortgage mess.  Still, they are a shrewd bunch.  Obama’s Team of career government bureaucrats and academics are no match for the big league finance sharks.  The Administration’s haphazard programs are easily exploited.  The banks can take the near-free money and generous processing cost subsidies and simply drop them down to their bottom lines without doing much differently that they otherwise would.  For the bank’s, it’s like taking candy from a baby …

* * * * *
Want more from the Homa Files?
     Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

Caution: 535 backseat drivers onboard … (all unlicensed)

April 17, 2009

Ken’s Take

Many banks were forced to take TARP funds even though they didn’t need or want them.  Why?  So that banks that did need the money wouldn’t be stigmatized and to get more money into the economy.

Now, “industry officials have been expressing growing concern about Washington changing TARP terms, as Congress did last month on rules for executive compensation … That creates uncertainty and disincentives for companies in TARP. You have 535 backseat drivers in Congress. ”

“Think about it: If Rick Wagoner can be fired and compact cars can be mandated, why can’t a bank with a vault full of TARP money be told where to lend? And since politics drives this administration, why can’t special loans and terms be offered to favored constituents, favored industries, or even favored regions? Our prosperity has never been based on the political allocation of credit — until now. ”

Unfortunately (for TARP holders), Team Obama is rejecting attempts to repay the loans … and dodge encumbering Congressional control.

I guess backseat driving is way too much fun … especially when it comes with no accountability.

Source article:
http://foxbusiness.proteus.com/content.html?contentId=29318

* * * * *
Want more from the Homa Files?
     Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

Turning around the economy on a dollar-a-day …

April 7, 2009

Well, the “middle class tax cut for 95% of workers” has officially started hitting paychecks.

So, if you work but earn less than a couple of hundred grand per year, your paycheck is now about a buck-a-day higher — the $400 tax rebate spread across 365 days.

For perspective, the total stimulus bill was about $800 billion.  The Congressional Budget office estimates that about 1/4 of it  (~ $200 billion) will hit in the first year.  The $400 program is about 1/2 of the $200 billion.

In other words, about half of this year’s stimulus is in place. Yipes.

I hope you’re feeling better about this plan than I am.

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

Cap & Trade … and you think mortgage-backed derivatives were risky

April 6, 2009

Excerpted from WSJ, “The Carbon Cap Dilemma”, March 28, 2009

The essence of cap and trade:

Congress puts a ceiling on emissions, and then allows businesses to sell any of its extra allowances that stand for the right to emit, it is essentially creating the world’s largest commodity market — in carbon-backed securities. These will be extremely valuable, and everything comes down to how the government chooses to distribute them. ”

Full article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123819777143661833.html#articleTabs%3Darticle

* * * * *

Ken’s Take: Think about it … a financial derivative tied to the amount of carbon that an energy generating facility doesn’t emit.  At least mortgage backed securities were, well, backed by mortgages — albeit risky ones.  These derivatives would be backed by, well, nothing, except a Congressional definition that could change at Barney Frank’s whim.  You’d think that Enron and the current financial mess would have soured folks on those sorts of financial instruments.

* * * * *
Want more from the Homa Files?
     Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

Mail your warranty card to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue … Attn: Mr. Obama

March 31, 2009

To me, the most stunning aspect of yesterday’s announcements re: GM and Chrysler wasn’t Rick Waggoner getting canned, or Chrysler being shotgun wed to Fiat (anybody out there own a Fiat ?) … it was Team O’s announcement that the Federal government would now be standing behind the car companies’ warranties.

First, I didn’t know that the Constitution gave a president the unilateral right to declare that my tax dollars will go to keeping somebody else’s shoddy car running for 5 or 10 years. 

More interesting: how exactly is the Federal government going to fulfill the warranty pledge?

Let’s pretend that both Chrysler & GM are headed to the junk heap.  Following them will be their dealers — the guys who currently provide warranty service.  Will they just put a couple of repair bays outside the White House?

More likely, it’ll just be an insurance program that reimburses independent garages who will be licensed to make repairs.  The process for handling the claims ? The reimbursement rates ? The fraud protection ?

And, many warranty repairs require parts.  Where will the parts come from? Answer: probably from China since domestic suppliers will crater soon after GM.

Does anybody in the administration give even a moment’s thought to implementation details?

I guess this program will be good practice for nationalized healthcare.  If they can do it for cars, they should be able to do it for human lives, right?

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

Dear AIG, I quit !

March 26, 2009

The NY Times reprinted the following  letter — sent on Tuesday by Jake DeSantis, an executive vice president of the American International Group’s financial products unit, to Edward Liddy, the chief executive of A.I.G.

Won’t change many people’s minds re: the bonuses. but certainly paints another side to the picture …

* * * * *
Excerpted from NY Times, “Dear AIG, I Quit”, March 25, 2009

Dear Mr. Liddy,

It is with deep regret that I submit my notice of resignation from A.I.G. Financial Products. I will now leave the company and donate my entire post-tax retention payment to those suffering from the global economic downturn. My intent is to keep none of the money myself.

I was in no way involved in — or responsible for — the credit default swap transactions that have hamstrung A.I.G. Nor were more than a handful of the 400 current employees of A.I.G.-F.P.

Most of those responsible have left the company and have conspicuously escaped the public outrage.

Like you, I was asked to work for an annual salary of $1, and I agreed out of a sense of duty to the company and to the public officials who have come to its aid. A.I.G. management assured us on three occasions  that the company would “live up to its commitment” to honor the contract guarantees.

I have the utmost respect for the civic duty that you are now performing at A.I.G. You are as blameless for these credit default swap losses as I am. You answered your country’s call and you are taking a tremendous beating for it.

You’ve now asked the current employees of A.I.G.-F.P. to repay these earnings. As you can imagine, there has been a tremendous amount of serious thought and heated discussion about how we should respond to this breach of trust.

As most of us have done nothing wrong, guilt is not a motivation to surrender our earnings. We have worked 12 long months under these contracts and now deserve to be paid as promised.  They are now angry about having been misled by A.I.G.’s promises and are not inclined to return the money as a favor to you.

I can no longer justify spending 10, 12, 14 hours a day away from my family.

That is why I have decided to donate 100 percent of the effective after-tax proceeds of my retention payment directly to organizations that are helping people who are suffering from the global downturn.

This is not a tax-deduction gimmick; I simply believe that I at least deserve to dictate how my earnings are spent, and do not want to see them disappear back into the obscurity of A.I.G.’s or the federal government’s budget.

Sincerely,Jake DeSantis

For the full text of the letter:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/25/opinion/25desantis.html?_r=2&ref=opinion&pagewanted=all

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

Over-Supply and Under-Demand-: A Tough Equation to Balance

March 25, 2009

Excerpted from BusinessWeek, “What Falling Prices Are Telling Us”, by Peter Coy, February 4, 2009

* * * * *

Consumer prices in the U.S. fell at an annual rate of nearly 13% in the last three months of 2008. Prices plummeted for all sorts of goods, ranging from clothing to TVs to furniture.

But deflation missed big chunks of the economy. For all of 2008, college tuition and fees increased by 5.8%, followed closely by price increases for hospitals and legal services. Even fees for preparing tax returns are going up.

This inconsistency in prices casts doubt on the usual explanation for the recession, which is that it’s mainly due to the credit crunch and the resulting squeeze on demand. It also hints at why government efforts to fight the downturn have been ineffective so far.

Here’s the big idea: If the lack of demand that the Obama Administration is fighting were the only problem, you’d expect prices to fall across the board. Instead, it appears that supply—that is, oversupply—is at least as important a factor. The sectors in which prices are falling are those plagued by an excess of factories and ways to get goods to consumers, often because of huge investment in plants in China and other developing nations. Most services, in contrast, are not in severe oversupply and have domestic labor as their main ingredient. Consider this: Prices of goods fell 4.1% last year; prices of services rose 3%.

* * * * *

The government’s deflation-fighting weapons—low interest rates, financial bailouts, and spending packages—can boost demand but do little to deal with oversupply. The world’s productive capacity is simply too big. That means prices need to fall further, or more factories need to close in the U.S. and abroad, or some combination of the two.

A stimulus can ameliorate the downturn, but not prevent continued contractions in the sectors of the economy where global overcapacity is the most extreme. The world is able to make 90 million vehicles a year, but at the current rate of production, it’s making only about 66 million.

* * * * *

“Pricing power is now deteriorating,” says a Morgan Stanley economist , describing a “vicious circle” of declining output, prices, and profits.

In many goods sectors, prices still aren’t low enough to bring forth enough buyers. There will have to be some combination of falling prices and destruction of productive capacity before supply and demand come back into balance.

Edit by DAF

* * * * *

Full article:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_07/b4119000357826.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index+-+temp_top+story

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link => 
The Homa Files Blog

* * * * *

“Mark to market” … what ? so what?

March 24, 2009

I finally heard an understandable definition of “mark to market” accounting as it applies to the so-called toxic mortgage backed securities that banks are holding:

‘Mark to market’: setting a book value for an asset that you have no intention of selling based on the price that a third party — who doesn’t want to buy it — is willing to pay for it. (I think it was Harvey Pitt, former SEC commissioner who said it)

Since the asset is what it is, why is the accounting such a big deal? 

First, because of basic financial reporting  — on which people decide whether to invest in a company or not.  But, that can be handled by using another valuation scheme (say, net present value of expected cash flows) and footnoting the differences to mark to market

Second, because — by government regulation —  banks have to keep a specified ratio of capital to loans.  So, if some non-sellable assets are undervalued. a bank has to raise other capital or reduce the amount of loans it has on the books.  That causes a credit squeeze.

There seems to be some momentum to easing the strict mark to market accounting rules, allowing banks to loan more money while staying in regulatory compliance.

Makes sense to me … especially since it’s free.

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

‘Oppressive, unjust and tyrannical’ … but retribution is so, so sweet

March 23, 2009

Ken’s Take: Over the weekend, engaged in a family debate.  Everybody agreed that the AIG FP hedgers were scum. Rest of family thought the bonuses should be reclaimed by whatever means it takes.  Period.  I argued that once contracts are broken to allow retroactive, punitive taxation is ok’d for one group of folks, there’s no room for complaint when the guns get pointed at you.  We’ll see …

* * * * * *

Excerpted from WSJ, “A Smoot-Hawley Moment?”, March 23, 2009

Bottom line: The Congressional action on AIG and banks is oppressive, unjust and tyrannical.

When does a single policy blunder herald much larger economic damage?

Sometimes it’s hard to know ahead of time. Few in Congress thought the Smoot-Hawley tariff was a disaster in 1930, but it led to retaliation and a collapse of world trade.

The question amid Washington’s AIG bonus panic is whether Congress’s war on private contracts and the financial system is a similarly destructive moment.

It is certainly one of the more amazing and senseless acts of political retribution in American history.With such a sweeping assault on contracts and punitive taxation,

Congress is introducing an element of political risk to economic decisions that is typical of Argentina or Russia. The sanctity of U.S. contracts has long been one of America’s competitive advantages in luring capital, a counterpoint to our lottery tort system and costly regulation.

Meanwhile, the 90% tax rate marks a return to the pre-Reagan era when Congress and the political class behaved as if taxes didn’t matter to growth or incentives. It is a revival of the philosophy of redistributionist “justice” in the 1930s, when capital went on strike for an entire decade.

Full editorial:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123776465612908965.html

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

A new market force: Government induced ‘systemic risk’

March 23, 2009

Ken’s Take:

The Congressional act placing a retroactive confiscatory income tax on the understandably unpopular AIG FP bonuses is already beginning to have an impact — an impact that will certainly slow the untangling of the financial mess, and may even thwart it entirely.

All the Friday Wall Street chatter was about how the government can — on a whim — change the rules of the game in midstream, ditching contracts and agreements when it (the government) wakes up and realizes that its programs are ill-onceived and under-analyzed (i.e. unread) before enactment.

So, word has it that the government was soliciting 200 hedge funds to buy toxic securities as part of a public-private partnership.  Reportedly, only 3 have signed up — and it’s my bet that they did so before Thursday’s Congressional action and head for the exits.  (It’s ok for them to back out since deals aren’t deals any more).

Similarly, reasonably sound companies that took TARP funds because they were coaxed to do so by the government (think Northern Trust) are scrambling to find ways to pay back the money and walk away from TARP.  Reportedly, companies targeted with the TALC program (think student and consumer loans) are doubting whether government assistance is worth the pain.

Bottom line: in one svelte blame-dodging move Congress managed to put the recovery effort back to about square one. 

Way to go Nancy & Barney.

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

Banks Turning Away from TARP

March 23, 2009

 Ken’s Take: The retroactive conficatory tax on bonuses will insure a rush to TARP doors … shooting the program smack dab in the foot …

* * * * *

Excerpted from CNNMoney.com, “Banks: Take My TARP. Please!”, by David Ellis, March 12, 2009

Just weeks after Congress removed a key hurdle that prevented banks from paying back funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, some banks are already queuing up with checks in hand.

So far, three banks have formally declared their intentions to pay back the government, and the list doesn’t include the dozens of institutions that were approved for government aid, but subsequently decided to turn down the money.

But even more banks are poised to return TARP money, including some of the nation’s largest.

PNC and US Bancorp, as well as JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs, have been stating they hope to return the funds as quickly as possible. A repayment by those four alone would return an estimated $49.2 billion to government coffers.

* * * * *

Some institutions have argued that it is too costly to keep government capital on their books at a time when banks in general have been resistant to make new loans as the economy sours and more Americans lose their jobs.

Other banks have suggested that the recently passed stimulus package, which included a measure aimed at reining in bonuses for senior executives and top earners at banks that got TARP funds, would harm their firms even further.

Others worry that regulators or lawmakers could change the accompanying terms of the government’s capital purchase program as they see fit in the future.

For example, some fear that banks which have received TARP funds could be pushed to make certain types of loans or fulfill some sort of loan quota, following the ongoing public outcry that banks are not lending.

Edit by DAF

* * * * *

Full article:
http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/106724/Banks-Take-My-TARP-Please!

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link => 
The Homa Files Blog

* * * * *

Why did Nero fiddle when Rome was burning ?

March 20, 2009

Some questions to ponder over the weekend …

* * * * *

Why did Nero fiddle when Rome was burning ?

Obvious answer: Because there was no TV in 64 A.D., so appearing on the Tonight Show wasn’t an option.

Call me ‘old school’, but I would have rather seen the President huddled all day with his economic advisers …

* * * * *

Do people who don’t pay takes have a right to be outraged ?

I cringe when I hear “everybody has a right to be outraged … those are your tax dollars going to the AIG execs”.

Now (post-stimulus), less than half of voting age Americans pay income taxes.  In other words, less than half have any skin in the game.

I guess those folks (who don’t pay income taxes) are outraged because taxpayer money going to AIG bonuses potentially drains the pool of freebies that they’re lining up to get.

Geez

* * * * *

Why doesn’t Ed Liddy resign ?

This guy was pulled from retirement by the Treasury Dept to step in to the AIG CEO slot.  His comp package: a whopping buck a year.  Then, he has moron Congressmen denigrate him in public.

If I were he, I’d tell them to stuff it … let Barney Frank run the place if he’s so smart

* * * * *

What about Wells Fargo, Northern Trust, and JP Morgan Chase execs ?

Press reports say that those banks took TARP money only because the Treasury Dept pressured them to do so — so that badly run banks wouldn’t suffer the indignity of being so easy to pinpoint.

OK, so those execs are running good businesses and, in reasonable people’s opinions, deserve performance bonuses.  Now, they get the bonuses taxed at 90%

And, TARP says they can’t just repay the TARP funds out of earnings, they have to replace it with fresh capital.

Prediction: you’ll hear a lot about this over the weekend.

* * * * *

Who’s next ?

As I pointed out yesterday, once a precedent is set to impose retroactive confiscatory taxes on people just because they are politically toxic … there’ll be no stopping the train. 

Imagine a $2 per gallon Federal tax on gasoline retroactive to January 1 … why not?

And, some folks got rattled by the Patriot Act.  This is one to worry about.

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

The “wealth effect” … err, make that the “drop in wealth effect”

March 19, 2009

Excerpted from IBD, ” Wealth Connection”, March 13, 2009

Economy: The Federal Reserve last week announced that Americans’ net worth took an $11.2 trillion hit in 2008 — the biggest on record.

Net worth — basically, the value of everything you own minus the debt you took on to buy it — plunged 9% from 2007’s $64.4 trillion to $51.5 trillion last year. In the fourth quarter alone, Americans lost $5.1 trillion in wealth. Both are records.

This is more than just a paper reduction in wealth. Such a big shift affects our behavior, making us less prone to take risks, less able to borrow, less able to spend and more anxious about the economy.

This is known as the “wealth effect.” When wealth rises, we spend more; when it falls, we spend less. For each $1 change in wealth, spending changes by 5 cents or so, economists say.

Across the economy, such impacts can be enormous. An $11.2 trillion drop in national wealth, for instance, translates into a $560 billion drop in spending — about $1,963 for every American.

This is why economists worry about net worth. If we don’t do something about stemming the decline in wealth and encouraging wealth accumulation, our economy will continue to struggle.

* * * * *

image

 

Full article:
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=321837955855701

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

Quick takes …

March 18, 2009

In 2008, 75% of AIG’s Congressional political contributions went to Dems …

image

… about half of that went to Dodd and Obama (and that doesn’t count  $$$ to the DNC)

image

The Stimulus Bill contained an amendment called the “Dodd Amendment”, which says:

“Bonuses can only be paid in the form of long-term restricted stock, equal to no greater than 1/3 of total annual compensation, and will vest only when taxpayer funds are repaid. There is an exception for contractually obligated bonuses agreed on before Feb. 11, 2009.”

Sen. Dodd says the exception to his amendment was slipped in without his knowledge.  Hmmm.

If an amendment had your name on it, wouldn’t you read it before signing it ?

http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/finance/dodd-cracks-aig—time/

* * * * *

What ever happened to Roland Burris?

A couple of weeks ago, Obama, Reid, Durbin, the new governor of Illinois, and most pundits were calling on him to resign after acknowledging that he “forgot” that he raised money for ousted governor Blago. 

Seems that the old coot survived the firestorm …

* * * * *

New bumper sticker popping up …

image
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=89958

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

The case for focus … on the the financial crisis, that is.

March 17, 2009

Excerpted from IBD, ” Friendly Fire Shows Obama Losing Focus”, Barone, March 13, 2009

Driven by Rahm Emanuel’s advice to “never let a serious crisis go to waste”,  Pres. Obama continues to assert that we can solve our economic problems only by advancing national health insurance, a cap-and-trade system to reduce greenhouse gases, and the end of secret ballots in unionization elections.

But, none of the issues … was in any way a cause of the financial crisis.

We did not have a housing bubble collapse because we don’t have a national health insurance program.

We don’t have toxic waste clogging the balance sheets of the banks and other financial institutions because of carbon emissions.

The Bush tax cuts were not a proximate cause of the giant public debt being run up under the Toxic Assets Relief Program or the 2009 stimulus package.

Perhaps the President should heed Warren Buffett’s advice  to “pay attention to the first thing on your platter : the financial crisis”.

Full column: 
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=321836253252674 

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

Pity the baby boomers …

March 16, 2009

Excerpted from cnbc.com, “Market Meltdown Amplifies Baby Boomer Worries”, 03 Mar 2009

If losing one’s job weren’t enough to worry about in this recession, for many Americans there’s the added angst of being able to afford one’s retirement.

And that may help explain why the seemingly relentless declines in home and stock prices have ravaged consumer confidence.

The depth of that damage … household wealth in the fourth quarter, … was some 12 percent below what it was during its peak in the third quarter of 2007.  The decline in wealth is the greatest on record.

Thus far, the median price of a home is down more than 20 percent from $219,000 at the market peak in 2007 to $170,000 in January.

Stock prices, however, have fallen twice as much, some 50 percent, from their October 2007 peak.

And while a greater percentage of Americans are homeowners than investors and thus the average household’s wealth is more defined by real estate than investments, the investment outlook is still a major force.

In 2008, 47 percent of all households, or some 54.5 million, participated in the market through equity or bond ownership .., 65 million.people participate in defined contribution (DC) retirement savings plans, such as 401(k)s.

The value of those holdings has shrunk considerable. Americans held $15.9 trillion in retirement assets at the end of the third quarter of 2008, accounting for 35 percent of all household financial assets.

At the end of the second quarter of 2007, right before the credit crunch first bit, the value of those holdings was $17.4 trillion.

In the current environment, the huge losses in the stock market may actually have a larger psychological effect than those of the housing market because of the more frequent reminders; the declines are measured daily and weekly, not just monthly, like housing.

While major stock market indices are at 12-year lows; existing single family home prices are a mere six-year low.

“Economic advisors are worried about the stock market because it is part of the puzzle, and it’s almost as if the politicians don’t care what the stock market is doing,”

Some say the President’s stated desire to raise the tax on dividends and capital gains from 15 to 20 percent … sent a negative message to Wall Street, even if it was consistent with his campaign comments.

What’s more, a higher capital gains rate may not pay off if investors continue to lose money because stock prices head ever lower.

Economists don’t expect the President to identify with investors the way he does with homeowners …

Full article:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/29471950

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

Does $1.3 million per new job sound high to you? … Economists rip stimulus plan

March 16, 2009

Excerpted from WSJ, “Old Europe Is Right on Stimulus”, March 12, 2009

A recent study by a trans-Atlantic team of four economists subjected the Administration’s stimulus to the most recent Keynesian scholarship.

The White House estimates of 3.6 million new jobs is based on an “Old Keynesian” model on the impact of government spending, while the new models adjust for the rational behavioral response to the stimulus by businesses and consumers.

What the four economists found is that the Administration’s estimates for stimulus growth were six times as high as they could produce under a modern Keynesian simulation. By their estimates, the stimulus would produce, at most, 600,000 jobs and add perhaps 0.6% to GDP at its peak.

For those keeping score at home, that’s $1.3 million in spending per job … and pushes the US deficit over 60% of GDP

image

The Administration is already worried that its stimulus will come up short … and the outside intellectual godfathers of the Obama plan are denying paternity.

Full article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123681403239101741.html

* * * * *
Want more from the Homa Files?
     Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

Tough week for Warren Buffett …

March 13, 2009

Citing concerns about Berkshire’s  equity and derivatives investments, Fitch stripped Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway of its ‘AAA’ credit rating …  cutting the insurance and investment company’s issuer default rating by one notch to ‘AA+’.

The downgrade is another setback to Buffett, coming a day after the billionaire lost his position as the world’s richest man to Bill Gates. 

According to Forbes’ annual list. Buffett’s net worth plunged to $37 billion from $62 billion last year, as shares of Berkshire Hathaway fell nearly 50% in 12 months.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/29666975
http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/11/worlds-richest-people-billionaires-2009-billionaires_land.html

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

Uh-oh … Obama & Geithner get failing grades from economists

March 12, 2009

Ken’s Take: Pres. Obama frequently cites broadscale support from economists.  Let’s see if that line keeps rolling off the teleprompter.

* * * * *
Excerpted from WSJ, ” Obama & Geithner Get Low Grades From Economists”, March 12, 2009

In stark contrast with Pres. Obama’s popularity with the public, he and Treasury Secretary Geithner received failing grades for their efforts to revive the economy from participants in the latest WSJ survey.

A majority of the economists polled said they were dissatisfied with the administration’s economic policies.

On average, they gave the president a grade of 59 out of 100, and  42% of respondents rated Mr. Obama below 60.

Mr. Geithner received an average grade of 51. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke scored better, with an average 71.

image

Economists’ main criticism of the Obama team centered on delays in enacting key parts of plans to rescue banks. “They overpromised and underdelivered … The uncertainty is hanging over everyone’s head.”

The economists’ negative ratings mark a turnaround in opinion. In December, before Mr. Obama took office, three-quarters of respondents said the incoming administration’s economic team was better than the departing Bush team. However, Mr. Geithner’s latest marks are lower than the average grade of 57 that former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson received in January.

Despite the growing criticism elsewhere, the respondents were broadly supportive of the Fed. More than 85% of the economists agreed that the central bank’s proliferating lending programs are well-designed, well-executed and helping the economy. And while grades for Mr. Bernanke remain off of their 2007 highs, the average has stabilized after falling as low as 69 in the November survey.

Amid all the gloom, there is a bright spot: Four-fifths of the economists said now is a good time to buy equities, especially if the investor has a long-term view.

Full article and source data:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123671107124286261.html#mod=testMod

* * * * *
Want more from the Homa Files?
     Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

What’s killing the Dow ?

March 6, 2009

Excerpted from WSJ, “Obama’s Radicalism Is Killing the Dow”, Boskin, March 5, 2009

It’s hard not to see the continued sell-off on Wall Street … (and) the realization that our new president’s policies are designed to radically re-engineer the market-based U.S. economy, not just mitigate the recession and financial crisis.

The illusion that Barack Obama will lead from the economic center has quickly come to an end. Instead of combining the best policies of past Democratic presidents — John Kennedy on taxes, Bill Clinton on welfare reform and a balanced budget, for instance — President Obama is returning to Jimmy Carter’s higher taxes and Mr. Clinton’s draconian defense drawdown.

From the poorly designed stimulus bill and vague new financial rescue plan, to the enormous expansion of government spending, taxes and debt somehow permanently strengthening economic growth, the assumptions underlying the president’s economic program seem bereft of rigorous analysis and a careful reading of history.

Unfortunately, our history suggests new government programs, however noble the intent, more often wind up delivering less, more slowly, at far higher cost than projected, with potentially damaging unintended consequences. The most recent case, of course, was the government’s meddling in the housing market to bring home ownership to low-income families, which became a prime cause of the current economic and financial disaster.

On the growth effects of a large expansion of government … the European social welfare states have standards of living permanently 30% lower than ours.

A financial crisis is the worst time to change the foundations of American capitalism.

Full article (worth reading):
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123629969453946717.html?mod=article-outset-box 

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

California Dreamin’ … Weed, yes … Oil, no.

March 5, 2009

Recent press reports say Golden Staters are considering the legalization of maijuana as a means of increasing state revenues to offset CA’s huge budget deficit.

But, no reported consideration for off-shore oil drilling.  Hmmmm.

According to  a recent study by the American Energy Alliance, an industry research group, developing our offshore energy resources would create in the coming years:

$8.2 trillion in additional GDP.

$2.2 trillion in total new state and federal tax revenues.

1.2 million new jobs at high wages.

$70 billion in added wages (all taxable) to the economy each year.

The much maligned Gov Palin proved that eco-sensitive drilling can bulge state coffers … and cut citizens tax bills.

Pro-weed, anti-oil … that says it all, doesn’t it …

* * * * *
Source of AEA info:
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=320544753372991

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

Hyundai: Lose your job? Bring it back …delivers big results

March 5, 2009

Excerpted from New York Times, “Hyundai, Using a Safety Net, Wins Market Share”, by Nick Bunkley, February 5, 2009

* * * * *

In the midst of an industry-wide slump that has pushed some competitors to the brink of bankruptcy, Hyundai spent $3 million to tell Americans watching the Super Bowl how to say its name correctly.

The company’s market share nearly doubled last month as sales rose 14 percent, the largest year-over-year increase that any big automaker has posted in the United States since last May.

* * * * *

One reason for the jump in January appears to be Hyundai’s new marketing strategy of promising to let buyers return their vehicles, at no cost in most cases and with no penalty to their credit rating, if they lose their job or income within a year.

“To their credit, they struck at the core of what’s bothering people, and that’s obviously uncertainty . . . It’s just the fear and the uncertainty that’s holding people back.”

“It gives them a whole new audience — people for whom it would have never popped up on their shopping list.”

* * * * *

Sales of the Hyundai Sonata, a full-size sedan that costs less than $20,000, surged 85 percent in January, making it one of the country’s top-selling vehicles. And Hyundai sold more passenger cars last month than Chrysler, which has four times as many dealers.

Edit by DAF

* * * * *

Full article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/05/business/media/05auto.html?_r=2&ref=business&pagewanted=print

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link => 
The Homa Files Blog

* * * * *

 

Maybe the glass is, say, 90% full …

March 4, 2009

Ken’s Take: The financial crisis is serious, and is hurting all of us — some more than others.  But, do we really need to panic and throw trillions of dollars against the problem without much forethought re: unintended future consequences?  Time to step back and take a deep breath. This article is on target …

* * * * *

Excerpted from IBD, “Depression Or Just An End To Affluence?”, Hanson, February 26, 2009

Given all the bad financial news, we are in a funny sort of way.

Our spiraling national deficit is being financed by China, Japan and other overseas concerns at almost no interest — saving the U.S. trillions of dollars in debt-service costs.

Nearly 93% of those Americans in the work force are still employed. The difference between what the banks pay out in interest on depositors’ savings and what they charge borrowers for loans is one of the most profitable in recent memory.

The sudden crash in energy prices may be hurting Iran, the Gulf monarchies, Russia and Venezuela. Yet Americans, who import 60% of their transportation fuel, along with natural gas, have been given about a half-trillion-dollar annual reprieve.

The reduced price of energy could translate into more than $1,500 in annual savings for the average driver, and hundreds of dollars off the heating and cooling bills for the homeowner.

For the vast majority of Americans with jobs, the fall in prices for almost everything from food to cars has, in real dollars, meant an actual increase in purchasing power.

The loss in value of home equity is serious for those who need to relocate for work or want to downsize and move to an apartment or a retirement community. But when averaged over the last decade, real estate still shows a substantial annual increase in value.

Moreover, the vast majority of American homeowners — well over 90% — meet their mortgage payments. They have no plans to flip their homes for profit. For them, the fact that they have lost paper equity, or even owe more than their homes are currently appraised at, is scary — but not equivalent to a depression.

Most are confident that after a few years their houses will appreciate again. As for now, working young couples have a chance to buy a house that they couldn’t have just two years ago.

The same holds true for many retirement accounts whose decline is terrible for those retirees who count on drawing out each month what they put away or must cash out their depleted accounts at vastly reduced value.

But the majority of working Americans are not yet pulling out their sinking retirement funds. Most are still putting away pretax money each month, apparently confident that within a few years their portfolios will return to their former value.

Some are even consoled that they are now buying mutual funds at rock-bottom prices rather than investing in sky-high investments at the peak of a bull market.

Many people are hurting. Yet to go to the local Wal-Mart is to see late-model cars in the parking lots and plenty of cell phones, iPods and BlackBerrys among the shoppers. Carts are stuffed with consumer goods, lots of food and Easter confections.

So are we in a depression that justifies a vast redefinition of government and a massive takeover of the private sector? Not quite.

What we are witnessing instead is a sharp downturn from the most affluent era in the history of civilization. For the last two decades, we borrowed and spent as if there were no tomorrow. Now we are living in that tomorrow of cutting back and making do.

Full article – worth reading:
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=320545175132723* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

Why the market continues to sink …

February 25, 2009

Excerpted from IBD, “Is It Any Wonder The Market Continues To Sink?”,  February 20, 2009

* * * * *

Last Oct. 13, in trying to explain why the market had sold off 30% in six weeks, we acknowledged that the freeze-up of the financial system was a big concern. But we cited three other factors as well:

• The imminent election of “the most anti-capitalist politician ever nominated by a major party.”

• The possibility of “a filibuster-proof Congress led by politicians who are almost as liberal.”

• A “media establishment dedicated to the implementation of a liberal agenda, and the smothering of dissent wherever it arises.”

No wonder, we said then, that panic had set in.

* * * * *

Today, as the market continues to sell off , we wish we had a different explanation. But it still looks, as we said four months ago, “like the U.S., which built the mightiest, most prosperous economy the world has ever known, is about to turn its back on the free-enterprise system that made it all possible.”

How else would you explain all that’s happened in a few short weeks? How else would you expect the stock market, where millions cast daily votes and which is still the best indicator of what the future holds, to act when:

• Newsweek blares from its cover “We Are All Socialists Now

• A $700 billion bank bailout, $75 billion to refinance bad mortgages, $50 billion for the automakers, and as much as $2 trillion in loans from the Fed and the Treasury fail to build confidence in our free-enterprise system.

Talk of “nationalizing” U.S.’ troubled major banks comes not just from tarnished Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd,  from Republicans like Sen. Lindsey Graham , and former Fed chief Alan Greenspan.

• A stimulus bill laden with huge amounts of spending on pork and special interests is the best our Congress can come up with to get the economy back on track. Economists broadly agree that the legislation has little stimulative power, and in fact will be a drag on economic growth for years to come. Throwing hundreds of billions of dollars at profligate state governments and programs — such as $4.2 billion for “neighborhood stabilization activities” and $740 million to help viewers switch from analog to digital TV— has investors shaking their heads.

• A $75 billion bailout for 9 million Americans who face foreclosure, regardless of how they got into financial trouble, is the government’s answer to the housing crunch. Many Americans who have scrupulously kept up with payments are steaming at the thought of subsidizing those who’ve been profligate or irresponsible. And. recent data shows that as much as 55% of those who get foreclosure aid end up defaulting anyway

Energy solutions ranging from the expansion of offshore drilling and the development of Alaska’s bountiful arctic oil reserves to developing shale oil in America’s Big Sky country, tar-sands crude in Canada and coal that provides half the nation’s electric power, are taken off the table.

•• Trade protectionism passes as policy, even amid the administration’s lip service to free trade. Congress’ vast stimulus bill and its “Buy American” provisions limit spending to U.S.-made products and will drive up costs, limit choices and alienate key allies. Already, several European partners have begun raising barriers.

• A 1,000-plus page stimulus bill is bulled through Congress with not a single member of Congress reading it before passage.

Business leaders are demonized. Yes, there are bad eggs out there like the Madoffs and Stanfords. But most CEOs are hugely talented, driven, highly intelligent people who make our corporations the most productive in the world and add trillions of dollars of value to our economy.

• Words like “catastrophe,” “crisis” and “depression” are coming from the mouth of the newly elected president, rather than words of hope and optimism. Instead of talking up America’s capabilities and prospects, he talks them down — the exact opposite of our most successful recent president, Ronald Reagan, who came in vowing to restore that “shining city on a hill.”

* * * * *

All this in barely a month’s time. And to think that more of the same is on the way seems to be sinking in. Investors are watching closely and not caring for what they see. Sooner or later, the market will rally — but not without good reason to do so.

Full article:
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=320027936229029

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

How much hope can the market withstand ? … Update

February 24, 2009

For folks who like to keep score:

The Dow closed at 8,228 on inauguration day.

The Dow closed at 7,114 yesterday (Feb. 23, 2009)

A decline of 1,114 points (13.5%) for the presidency to date.

* * * * *

The Dow dropped 382 points on the day that Geithner’s speech bombed.

The Dow dropped 298  points on the day that Obama signed the non-stimulus package (the first day that the market was open after the bill was passed).

The Dow dropped 468  points on the days after Obama announced his mortgage modification plan.

The total decline since recovery initiatives were mobilized 1,114 points

* * * * *

Fasten your seat belt for Obama’s announcement of his intention to increase in the capital gains tax rate in 2010.

Keep the change …

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

According to Time: The 25 People to Blame for the Financial Crisis

February 18, 2009

Ken’s Take: It’s tough to cram all of the culprits into one short list.  Still, how does Barney Frank miss the cut? Remember when Alan Greenspan was a near-deity?

* * * * *

Excerpted from Time, “25 People to Blame for the Financial Crisis”, Feb. 12, 2009

1. Angelo Mozilo – Co-founder and former head of Countrywide
2. Phil Gramm – Chmn- Senate Banking Committee  1995 -2000
3. Alan Greenspan – Former chairman, Federal Reserve
4. Chris Cox – Former chairman, SEC
5. American Consumers
6. Hank Paulson – Former Secretary of the Treasury
7. Joe Cassano – Founding member, AIG’s financial-products unit
8. Ian McCarthy – CEO, Beazer Homes
9. Frank Raines – Former chairman and CEO, Fannie Mae
10. Kathleen Corbet – Former CEO, Standard & Poor’s
11. Dick Fuld – Former CEO, Lehman Brothers
12. Marion and Herb Sandler – Former heads, World Savings Bank
13. Bill Clinton – Former U.S. President
14. George W. Bush – Former U.S. President
15. Stan O’Neal – Former CEO, Merrill Lynch
16. Wen Jiabao – Premier, China
17. David Lereah – Former chief economist, National Association of Realtors
18. John Devaney – Hedge fund manager
19. Bernie Madoff – Ponzi scheme orchestrator
20. Lew Ranieri – Father of mortgage-backed securities
21. Burton Jablin – Programmer at Scripps Networks, which owns HGTV
22. Fred Goodwin – Former chairman and CEO, Royal Bank of Scotland
23. Sandy Weill – Former chairman and CEO, Citigroup
24. David Oddsson – Former Prime Minister, Iceland
25. Jimmy Cayne – Former chairman and CEO, Bear Stearns

Full article:
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1877351_1877350,00.html

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

If you think mortgage loan modifications are a good idea … read this

February 18, 2009

Ken’s Take: Is this a great country or what ?

* * * * *

Excerpted from WSJ, “Don’t Let Judges Tear Up Mortgage Contracts”, Feb 13, 2009

Imagine the following situation:

A few years ago a borrower took out a $300,000 loan with nothing down to buy a new house.

The house rises in value to $400,000, at which time he refinances or takes out a home-equity loan to buy a big-screen TV and expensive vacations. He still has no equity in the house.

The house subsequently falls in value to $250,000, at which point the borrower stops making payments and defaults on both the mortgage and the home equity loan.

The home equity loan gets written off and the mortgage gets modified: the principle gets written down to $250,000.

The homeowner keeps all the goodies purchased with the original  home-equity loan.

Several years from now, however, the house appreciates in value back to $300,000 or more — at which point the homeowner sells the house for a $50,000 profit.

Bottom line: By defaulting, the stiff gets $100,000 in goodies and walks away with $50,000 in cash.

Full article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123449016984380499.html 

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

Did MBAs (and their financial models) kill Wall Street?

February 18, 2009

Ken’ Take: An interesting read.

Central premise: MBAs over-engineered markets with statistical models that left no room for error (or common sense).

* * * * *
Excerpted from Bloomberg.com, “Harvard Narcissists With MBAs Killed Wall Street”, Hassett, Feb 17, 2009

For two centuries, Wall Street survived wars, depressions, bank panics and terrorist attacks. Now Wall Street as we know it is dead. Gone.

Wall Street changed radically in recent years in one notable way. Twenty or 30 years ago, it was common for the best and the brightest to be doctors or engineers. By the 2000s, they wanted to be investment bankers.

When Wall Street was run by ordinary people it was able to survive everything. After the best and brightest took over, it died the first time real-estate prices dropped 20 percent.

If you walked into any major Wall Street firm a year ago and randomly selected an employee, chances are that person would either be from an Ivy League school like Harvard University, or have an MBA, or both.

The statistics are striking. Back in the 1970s, it was typical for about 5 percent of Harvard graduates to work in the financial sector… by the 1990s, that number was 15 percent. And the proportion of those with MBAs grew as well.. A 2008 report in Fortune said that Goldman Sachs hired about 300 MBAs in 2007 and that, last year, Merrill Lynch and Citigroup were planning to hire 160 and 235 MBAs, respectively.Is it just a coincidence that so many superstar minds arrived on Wall Street just as it died? Perhaps not.

Wall Street is gone because its firms did a terrible job assessing the risks of the positions they took. The models these firms used to evaluate risks failed. But having a failed model brings a firm down only if the firm collectively buys into the model.To do that, the firm must be run by people who have a great deal of faith in their models, and a great deal of faith in themselves.

That’s where Ivy Leaguers and MBAs come in.What do you get from an MBA? One recent study found that MBAs acquire an enormous amount of self-confidence during their graduate education. They learn to believe that they are the best and the brightest.

The consequences of Wall Street’s reckless brilliance in many ways parallel modern-day engineering disasters. If you travel through Italy, you can’t help but notice the many Roman bridges that still stretch across that nation’s waterways. How is it that the Romans could build bridges that would last thousands of years, while the ones we build today collapse after a few decades?

The answer is simple. Back then, they did not have the fancy computers required to calculate exactly how strong a bridge must be. So an architect made a bridge very, very strong. Today, engineers can calculate exactly how much steel they need to incorporate into a bridge to bear the expected load. The result is, they are free to make them weaker. Another result is less wiggle room for design error. Hence, modern bridge’s predilection for collapsing.

The same is true of the financial sector. Back when Wall Street was run by individuals without fancy degrees, they had a proper skepticism toward fancy models and managed their risks with a great deal more humility and caution.

Only when failed models became canon did catastrophe strike.Wall Street didn’t die in spite of being run by our best and brightest. It died because of that fact.
* * * * * *

Full article:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_hassett&sid=a_ac69DqFutQ

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

Hey, Mr. Stimulus … What about small business?

February 17, 2009

Ken’s Take: I was surprised recently when — for a special occasion —  I attempted to make reservations at an Annapolis restaurant (Northwoods) that many locals propped as the the best in the city. It had closed after a couple of decades.  An article in the local newspaper listed it as a casualty of the economy.  Also, I got emails on the same day from a local painter — practically begging for work at any price, and from a local carpenter who was networking to land a job in web design (you read that right).  Since then, I’ve noticed the number of small businesses dying.  Bottom line: the stimulus package is giving more to ACORN than it is to small businesses in total.  That’s sad.

* * * * *

Excerpted from Knowledge@Emory, “Will the 2009 Stimulus Act Fizzle?”, February 12, 2009

Have you heard anything about what Congress is providing for small businesses in the current economic stimulus package being debated in Washington?

Small businesses in particular are concerned that the stimulus package misses the boat. Small businesses are defined as companies with fewer than 10 employees, and they account for almost 80 percent of all U.S. companies, according to the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) lobbying group. Small businesses are credited with generating about 70 percent of all new jobs.

“Funding, not consumer spending, is the core issue for small businesses,” he says. “Right now lenders are hesitant to extend money to commercial borrowers even when they have a good track record, and in some cases are actually calling in loans that they have already funded.”

“The freeze in funding is hurting small businesses much more than the shortfall in sales is hurting them  … Without the necessary cash to grease the gears and keep the business going, companies have had no choice but to reduce costs. And that, unfortunately, results in a cutback on capital expenditures and a need to lay off workers. So cash, in the form of loans, is the mechanism that is most important, but the stimulus bill can do little to help in that regard.”

“Typically, the propensity for risk taking goes down in a weak economy … The typical rounds of early stage financing from friends and family and angel investors depends on excess capital. Reduced wealth means that these usual sources of early venture financing are unavailable to entrepreneurs … in the current environment, many banks are not willing or able to provide loans or lines of credit, leaving very few options for entrepreneurs.”

Increased SBA funding in the stimulus package could provide some rapid assistance to small businesses

* * * * * *

Full article:
http://knowledge.emory.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1218

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

When the best and brightest let us down …

February 16, 2009

Excerpted from “Are Lapses Of Best And Brightest Prelude To Our Decline And Fall?”, Hansen, February 12, 2009

Certainly you’ve noticed the ads on radio now blaring out how to renegotiate our mortgages, how to avoid paying the IRS and how to walk away from freely incurred credit-card debt. We hear not to trust in mutual funds or even banks — but instead, like medieval hoarders, to revert to the age-old safety of gold.

An unraveling of the system ?

* * * * *

Most historians agree that earthquakes, droughts or barbarians did not unravel classical Athens or imperial Rome.

More likely the social contract between the elite and the more ordinary citizens finally began breaking apart — and with it the trust necessary for a society’s collective investment and the payment of taxes. Then civilization itself begins to unwind.

Today, you can take your pick: On the one side, we have free-market capitalists (think O’Neill, Raines, Fuld) who took huge amounts of money as their companies eroded the savings of tens of millions; on the other, we have supposedly egalitarian liberals who skipped paying taxes (think Rangel, Geithner, Daschle).

The result is the same. Our best-educated, wealthiest and most connected in matters of finance proved our dumbest — and our political leaders were less than ethical in meeting their moral responsibilities as citizens.

If ordinary Americans were to follow the examples of Wall Street and Washington elites, the nation would neither collect needed revenue nor invest its capital. All of that is a recipe for national decline and fall.

* * * * *

The former “masters of the universe” who ran Wall Street took enormous risks to get multimillion-dollar bonuses, even as they piled up billions in debt for their soon-to-be-bankrupt companies.

Financial wizards like Robert Rubin at Citicorp, Richard Fuld at Lehman. and Franklin Raines at Fannie Mae — all of whom made millions as they left behind imploding corporations — had degrees from America’s top universities.

They had sophisticated understanding of hedge funds, derivatives and subprime mortgages — everything, it seems, but moral responsibility for the investments of millions of their ordinary clients.

The result of such speculation by thousands of Wall Street gamblers was that millions of Americans who played by the rules, and put money each month away in their 401(k) plans and elsewhere, lost much of their retirement savings. Many likely will have to keep working well into their 60s or 70s, and delay passing on their jobs to a new generation awaiting employment.

Yet most disgraced Wall Street elites will retain their mega-bonuses and will not go to jail. Their legacy is having destroyed the financial confidence of a society that depends on putting capital safely away to be directed for investment by responsible overseers.

* * * * *

Meanwhile, we are learning that the brightest and best-educated Americans at the highest levels of government simply refuse to pay their required taxes.

And they apparently did not pay their back taxes until their Obama appointments put them in jeopardy of public disclosures.

That raises disturbing questions: Would we have known about such tax dodging had our best and brightest not wished career advancement in government? And would they have ever paid up if they had not been caught?

Take your pick: On the one side, we have free-market capitalists who took huge amounts of money as their companies eroded the savings of tens of millions; on the other, we have supposedly egalitarian liberals who skipped paying taxes.

The result is the same. Our best-educated, wealthiest and most connected in matters of finance proved our dumbest — and our political leaders were less than ethical in meeting their moral responsibilities as citizens.

* * * * *

If ordinary Americans were to follow the examples of Wall Street and Washington elites, the nation would neither collect needed revenue nor invest its capital. All of that is a recipe for national decline and fall.

Full article:
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=319333609341307 

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

Stimulating the economy on a dollar per day …

February 12, 2009

Uh-oh.

Reid & Pelosi slashed Pres Obama’s pride and joy, the $500 refundable tax credit down to $400 per worker.

I used to make fun of the $500, pointing out that $1.37 per taxpayer per day wasn’t likely to jump start the economy

My hunch: odds are even lower at $1 per day … or, to be peresise, a buck and a dime per day.

* * * * *

Pelosi and Reid also scratched the  GOP’s idea of a $15,000 tax credit on the purchase of a new home.  While I think it would have had a minimal impact, it was at least pay-as-you-go.  Credits could only be claimed when houses were purchased, and there was a cap on the amount.

Would have at least made Congress look like it was trying to address the housing problem.

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

Stimulus tax breaks: going for the capillaries instead of the jugular

February 11, 2009

The tax cuts included in the current version of the stimulus bill deserve the resounding “thud” that they’ve been getting.

Setting ideology aside and just resorting to basic arithmetic reveals the plan’s glowing deficiency: it is so “in the box” and marginal that it is unlikely to have any measurable effect on the economy.  Rather than slashing at the economy’s jugular, the tax cuts barely scratch the capillaries.

For example, take President Obama’s pride and joy, the $500 refundable tax credit.  Does anybody really believe that $1.37 per taxpayer per day is going to jump start the economy?    Or, will an extra $40 per month save many struggling mortgage holders from foreclosure? 

Similarly, take the GOP’s idea of a $15,000 tax credit on the purchase of a new home.  Somebody buying a $150,000 home with a 5%, 30 year mortgage would save about $80 on their monthly mortgage payment (getting it down to about $750) and provide a $15,000 equity cushion, just in case home values fall further.  Is that really enough incentive to pull job-threatened folks off the sidelines? 

The annual AMT adjustment would have happened later in the year anyway, especially since its greatest impact is in Democratic strongholds with high state income taxes (think NY, CA. NJ, and CT). That said, its average impact is about $2,400 for affected taxpayers.  These folks earn enough to have an AMT problem, so an extra $200 per month isn’t likely to change their shopping behavior, let alone their life style.

The biggest business tax break is the tax loss carry backward which allows retroactive tax credits (refundable I assume) for companies that made money during the boom but are tanking during the bust.  Again, the extra money may keep some marginal companies on life support for awhile, but isn’t likely to turn a struggling company into a jobs creator.

Congressional thinking has been trapped in partisan boxes.  Many ideas have been death-branded as either old and tired, or as favoring the rich.  No big ideas have been proposed that could realistically get the economy moving again.

There are big ideas for the politicos to consider if they are really serious about moving the economy forward.

First, there is the tried and true investment tax credit.  Give companies a 15% ITC for investment spending in 2009, and a 10% ITC for investment spending in 2010.  If necessary, sweeten the pot by allowing 2009-2010 investments to be written off on a very accelerated basis (say, over 3 or 5 years).

Second, give multi-nationals a tax holiday on repatriated earnings.  Cut the 2009 rate from 35% to 5% or 10%.  Such a move could bring over $500 billion back into the U.S. from foreign stashes, and generate $25 to $50 billion incremental tax revenue.  Otherwise, companies will use the money in their foreign operations and the U.S. tax take will be zero.

Third, give companies that maintain or grow their workforce a payroll tax rebate.  For example, a company that contributes the same amount of payroll taxes in 2009 as it did in 2008 might get 25% of its aggregate contributions rebated; a company that pays in10% more payroll taxes year-to-year might get a 50% rebate. A company that shrinks its workforce gets no rebate.

Fourth, since a depressed housing market is the root cause of the economic turmoil, adjust the standard income tax deduction a bit and allow the two-thirds of all taxpayers who use it to deduct their home mortgage interest payments.  This move alone would put money into more than 35 million pockets, might save a few people from foreclosure, and could coax some new buyers into the market.

Fifth, eliminate capital gains taxes on all residential real estate purchased in 2009 that is held at least 18 months. This initiative would certainly get investor-landlords back into the market.  They could buy some of the existing excess homes’ inventory, and deploy it as affordable rental housing.

Sixth, eliminate capital gains on all stocks bought in 2009 and held for at least 18 months.  Doing so would jolt the stock market upwards.  Would it favor the rich? Sure.  But it would also help restore the value of soon-to-retire baby boomer’s IRAs.

These ideas are representative of the pool of big ideas that have been overlooked in the stimulus package. It is time for Congress and the President stop playing small ball and go for the fences.  Give us something that we can believe will work.

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

Stemming foreclosures is tricky … no kidding

February 11, 2009

Excerpted from WSJ, “Finding a Way to Stem Foreclosures Proves Tricky”, Feb 11, 2009

The Obama administration provided few details about its plans to address the foreclosure crisis when laying out its economic-recovery program Tuesday, highlighting the challenges of creating a program that is fair and effective.

Nearly five million families could lose their homes between 2009 and 2011.One question facing the administration is how to win investor support for modification efforts while providing meaningful relief to borrowers.

President Barack Obama suggested that he would propose legislation to make it easier for loan-servicing companies to ease up on troubled borrowers while taking steps that might win investors’ support. Right now, he said, servicers are limited in their ability to modify mortgages that have been packaged into securities and sold to multiple investors. In addition, “the borrower is going to have to probably — if they get some assistance — agree to give up some equity once housing prices recover”.

Another challenge is determining who should get help. Those facing foreclosure aren’t just local residents hurt by job losses, but also real-estate speculators.

Another worry is moral hazard, or how to help those truly in need without encouraging others to fall behind on their payments.

Government officials are expected to create national standards for loan modifications that would be adopted by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But there is little data on what types of workouts are most cost-effective. Data released in December by federal banking regulators show that more than 40% of borrowers were at least 60 days past due eight months after their loan was modified.

Forty-seven percent of loan modifications completed in November resulted in higher payments for borrowers, typically because unpaid interest and fees were added to the loan balance.

Coming up with an effective modification is complicated by the fact that many troubled borrowers also have home-equity loans or credit-card debt, auto loans or other obligations that can make it difficult to afford even a lower mortgage payment.

“You don’t want to modify a loan that you think will eventually redefault …. All that will do is delay the process and increase the cost.”

A focus for the government has been on how to determine the “net present value” of homes. Government officials think that if they can agree on a common metric for determining a home’s value, they can expedite how the loan is modified.

Full article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123431365164570827.html 

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

“Up to 4 million jobs created or saved”

February 10, 2009

Call me cynical, but Pres Obama’s promise of  “up to 4 million jobs created or saved” sounds like a pretty soft metric to me.

First, there’s the “up to” part.  So, if the final answer is, say 2 million, the metric is made.

But, the real weasle room is in the “created or saved”.  What exactly is a saved job?  How do you know one when you see it?

My bet: For the next year or two, we’ll be hearing that Bush’s failed policies left the economy in even worse shape than anyone imagined and we’ll get bombarded with TARP-like claims that things would have been even worse without the added spending.  Jobs will continue to evaporate, but at a slower rate than some made up “what if” number.

For sure, we’ll have saved up to 4 million jobs.

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

My Take: Another mis-step … delaying the announcement of the bank bailout plan

February 9, 2009

According to Obama’s economic adviser Lawrence Summers,  Barack-O decided to delay unveiling the administration’s new bank bailout plan until Tuesday, in an effort to keep Washington’s focus on the stimulus package now before Congress.

In other words: to keep the spotlight on the President’s prime time press conference tonight.

My prediction: the market will tank today because of the bank plan delay — the delay prolongs uncertainty and creates doubt that the administration — with an avowed policy of “big & fast” over “deliberate & right” —  has figured out what to do.

All the chatter today will be about the market slide and bank plan.  Maybe that’s the strategy — take people’s eyes off the (un)stimulus package.

WSJ article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123410527886060705.html?mod=article-outset-box

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

The case for (some) economic optimism …

February 9, 2009

Ken’s Take: With the stock market down and politicos running around saying that the sky is falling, it’s easy to tailspin into pessimism.  While everybody feels some worry about job security and older folks fret about retirement … the fact is that more than 9 of 10 folks are still doing pretty well, and there are some signs that things have bottomed out.

* * * * *

Excerpted from Rasmussen Reports, “Jobs Down, Stocks Up?”, Lawrence Kudlow, Saturday, February 07, 2009

Broad stock indexes are up 15 percent to 20 percent from their November lows. How can this be? Well, the stock market is telling us that the economy’s future is a lot brighter than its past.

For the 92.4 percent, or 135 million workers, still employed, wages now stand nearly 4 percent higher than a year ago. With zero inflation, that’s a real increase in worker purchasing power

The Federal Reserve has pumped almost $600 billion to the money supply to offset credit and asset deflation … a 20 percent annual rate of increase. Increases in the money supply historically kick in (to help the economy) somewhere between six and 12 months. Money growth could well produce the biggest economic surprise this year.

And while the quantity of money is rising significantly, the quality of credit is improving, too. All the credit-fear indicators — from LIBOR all the way out to corporate-bond spreads — have declined substantially.

And, there’s the simple fact that marginal tax rates will not be raised. Obama seems to have shelved that notion — at least for 2009.

So cheaper energy, bundles of new money creation, zero inflation and no tax hikes could very well combine to produce a stronger economy as the year progresses — to the great surprise of the majority of economic pundits. 

Full article:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_lawrence_kudlow/jobs_down_stocks_up 

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

A $545 billion stimulus plan … with no additional debt or taxes … too sensible to be enacted.

January 29, 2009

Ken’s Take: Two proven ideas have gotten little (i.e. no) visible discussion as part of the current grab-bag stimulus plan: (1) investment tax credits that reliably get businesses to step-up and accelerate capital spending plans, and (2) low tax repatriation of foreign earnings.  Most US multi-nationals park sizable cash stashes in foreign subsidiaries to legally avoid high US corporate income tax rates.  If that money were brought back on-shore, it would certainly provide some impetus to the slow economy.

* * * * *

Excerpted from WSJ, “A $545 Billion Private Stimulus Plan”, Sinai, Jan. 28, 2009

The Obama team should implement a private-sector funded stimulus and allow a temporary reduction in the 35% tax rate that U.S. companies pay to repatriate foreign subsidiary earnings. Doing so could inject more than $545 billion into the U.S. economy without expanding the deficit.

Driven by previously strong foreign economies and a low dollar, the foreign subsidiaries of many successful U.S.-based companies have generated substantial earnings that could be invested in the U.S. economy at virtually no cost to the federal government. These earnings reside overseas, however, because of U.S. tax laws that many foreign competitors do not face.

Under the current system, U.S. corporations are charged 35 cents for each foreign-earned dollar they bring back home to the U.S. If they keep that income overseas, it is taxed at lower rates. As a result, those dollars tend to stay overseas permanently, since companies know they will automatically lose more money by bringing that income home than they can reasonably expect to make by reinvesting it once it is here.

In 2004, the American Jobs Creation Act incentivized U.S. businesses to bring $360 billion of foreign subsidiary earnings back into the U.S. at a reduced corporate tax rate of 5.25% for one year. On average, 25% of those funds went for capital investment, 23% for hiring and training of U.S. employees, 14% for U.S.-based R&D, and 13% for U.S. debt reduction.

A similar opportunity exists now … lowering the tax on repatriating foreign-earned income would inject $545 billion into our economy.

A private-sector stimulus could be a win-win for government.

Full article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123310439653922291.html 

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

Doubts on stimulus plan mount … combo of bad fundamentals and bad marketing

January 28, 2009

Below is a summary of the proposed stimulus plan.

Ken’s Take: (1) No question but that a stimulus is needed to kick the economy back into gear (2) But, a stimulus should stimulate, not be used as a trojan horse to advance a socio-political agenda (3) the Dems made a mistake throwing everything — including the kitchen sink — into the plan — especially controversial stuff like abortion aid and global warming studies and  (4) the Dems make a mistake everyday letting Reid & Pelosi out in public to explain the plan (5) If I were a GOP rep, I’d vote no on the plan — it’s going to pass anyway — conspicuous benefits are unlikely (it’ll be more TARP-talk: “would have been worse without it) — so, let Obama-Reid-Pelosi own it (“we won – we write the laws now”)  — and let them get the credit in the unlikely event that it does work.

* * * * *

Excerpted from WSJ, ” Doubts on Obama Plan Mount” & “Stimulus Bill Near $900 Billion”, Jan. 27, 2009 

The economic stimulus package proposed by Democratic House leaders totals $825 billion and includes three broad pieces: a $365.6 billion spending measure for such brick-and-mortar projects as highways and bridges; a $180 billion measure to boost jobless benefits and Medicaid, and a $275 billion tax-relief package, which includes a plan to give a $500 payroll tax holiday to all workers (a proposal from Mr. Obama’s presidential campaign).

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that $169 billion (~ 20%) of the $825 billion in stimulus will hit the economy before the end of September and that the bulk of it will show up in 2010 and 2011.

CBO also said that government borrowing prompted by enactment of the plan would add another $347 billion, pushing the estimated cost of the stimulus plan to more than $1 trillion, including interest.

* * * * *

The estimates point to one of the challenges of formulating an effective plan. Tax cuts can be implemented quickly, but many economists think they wouldn’t stimulate much new spending because consumers and businesses are so keen on saving. Government spending would generate economic activity more quickly, but it is hard to ramp up right away.

The one thing that is certain to flow from the stimulus is a large increase in the federal debt. Large government budget deficits are showing signs of starting to nudge interest rates on government debt higher, from very low levels.

If that persists, it could eventually damp some of the stimulus-plan’s benefits. Higher government rates raise the cost of borrowing not only for the Treasury, but also for many private-sector borrowers, since corporate bonds and mortgage bonds are often benchmarked to Treasury yields.

Bond markets have been hit by a flood of new supply of Treasury debt in the past few weeks, a factor that some traders say has pushed up rates. The yield on a 10-year note hit 2.519% Tuesday, up from a little over 2.00% at the end of 2008.

* * * * *

It’s projected that deficits in 2009 and 2010 will reach between 10% and 12% of gross domestic product, respectively, roughly double the previous peacetime records set in the Reagan years. It added that federal debt will soar from about 70% of GDP to more than 90% of GDP.

Economists say that the rise in debt will eventually lead to slower economic growth and diminished standards of living in the U.S.

Full article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123311521129023245.html?mod=article-outset-box 

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

Quick Takes from the Weekend … Geithner, Stimulus, Infrastructure

January 26, 2009

Is it just me, or is this stuff getting nuttier and nuttier by the day?

The very same people who are railing that the TARP hasn’t worked (I agree), say that Geithner (one of the plan’s key architects) needs to be confirmed because he’s the best man for the job (really?) and provides needed continuity (for a plan that they say isn’t working).  Huh?

Geithner — who will head IRS as Treasury Secretary — testified that he does his own  taxes using TurboTax (that’s good, I guess) and blames the software package for not prompting him that he needed to pay self-employment taxes.  And not a single Senator burst out laughing.

I really do think that cheating on your taxes is disqualifying for a job heading up the IRS.

* * * * *

The Congressional Budget Office says that less than 25% of the proposed stimulus package will impact 2009.

Geithner’s answer: 1/3 are refundable tax credits.  When it was pointed out that less than 12% of last year’s tax rebate checks provided any stimulus to the economy, Geithner replied “yes, but that will just be the first installment of a continuing program that (candidate) Obama promised the people”.  So, if it doesn’t stimulate, why’s it in a stimulus package?

* * * * *
Conservative critics are having a field day with some of the specifics, e.g. “aid to contraception clinics”.  An administration spokesperson said that part of the stimulus plan is geared to rebuilding the U.S.  infrastructure … and that the infrastucture is both physical (like bridges) and social.  Talk about Trojan horses. 

* * * * *

On the plus side, critics are opposed to the gov’t replacing much of its auto fleet with new cars.  I like that idea since it’s immediate, helps the auto industry, and can get some more fuel efficient cars on the road (provided that the replaced cars are taken out of service).

Also, there’s much opposition to sweetening unemployment payouts and food stamp programs.  Even if they are usually subject to abuse and usually become permanent entitlements, I say that it’s worth the price to help folks who are really struggling.

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

Recession Batters Law Firms … a silver lining ?

January 26, 2009
    Excerpted from WSJ, “Recession Batters Law Firms”, Triggering Layoffs, Closings, Jan. 26, 2009

    * * * * *

    “Law firms are not the kind of companies that do well in adversity”

    After upending a succession of U.S. industries, the recession has arrived for U.S. law firms, which have long seen themselves as partially insulated from economic downturns. Profits, on average, were down 8% to 12% across the industry last year, after 15 years of consistent profit growth. Throughout the industry, business has dropped off in such key practice areas as mergers, public offerings, and corporate finance. Litigation, often counted on to carry firms through downturns, has become less profitable as clients increasingly settle big cases, forgo lawsuits altogether, or pressure firms to discount their fees

    Pay cuts and layoffs are becoming commonplace …   New York legal giant Cravath, Swaine & Moore announced it was reducing year-end bonuses for junior lawyers, and that it wouldn’t raise its billing rates in 2009 …  Latham , one of the nation’s highest-grossing firms, said that associates would not get raises in 2009 — a move followed by many other firms.

    The glimmers of hope (for lawyers): Some practice areas, such as bankruptcy, are robust … [and, the new administration is tight with trial lawyers}.

    Full article (with an interesting case study):
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123292954232713979.html?mod=testMod * * * * *

    Want more from the Homa Files?
    Click link =>
      The Homa Files Blog

What Really Lies Behind the Financial Crisis?

January 23, 2009

Published: January 21, 2009 in Knowledge@Wharton

Ken’s Take: Jeremy Siegel (a heavyweight finance prof) dismisses gov’t programs that encouraged sub-prime mortgage lending and pins the tail on investment banks, etc., that undermanaged a few “smart guys” who took large, over-leveraged bets on assets that had fatal levels of hidden risks.  His value add: pointed out that when IBs were privately held they managed risk more prudently because they were playing with their own money.  After going public, they were playing with shareholders’ money …

I think he underestimates the impact of “action one” — the origination of fundamentally bad loans.  But, I hadn’t heard the argument that public ownership of IBs enabled the problem.

* * * * *
What was the true cause of the worst financial crisis the world has seen since the Great Depression? Was it excessive greed on Wall Street? Was it mark-to-market accounting? The answer is none of the above, says Jeremy Siegel, a professor of finance at Wharton. While these factors contributed to the crisis, they do not represent its most significant cause.

While angry investors and taxpayers are anxiously looking to assign blame for the current state of the economy, it’s important to know not only which factors led to the meltdown, but which ones did not. The government programs encouraging home-buying by low- and middle-income families and short-selling of financial stocks — which was halted for a time last fall — have little to do with the crisis on Wall Street.

* * * * *

Betting the house on mortgage backed securities

Here is the primary reason: Financial firms bought, held and insured large quantities of risky, mortgage-related assets on borrowed money.

The irony is that these financial giants had little need to hold these securities; they were already making enormous profits simply from creating, bundling and selling them.

“During dot-com IPOs of the early 1990s, the firms that underwrote the stock offerings did not hold on to those stocks … They flipped them. But in this case, the financial firms decided mortgage-backed securities were good assets to hold. That was their fatal flaw.”

There was a massive failure, not only by traders, but by CEOs of financial firms, their risk management specialists and the major rating agencies to recognize that an unprecedented housing-price bubble began building after 2000.

Their faulty reasoning was that the inability of homeowners to pay their mortgages — and the consequent foreclosures — would not pose a threat to their mortgage-backed securities. They believed that as long as home prices kept rising, the underlying value of the real estate would provide a hedge against the risk of such defaults.

They failed to realize that this reasoning was based on the assumption that home prices would go in just one direction — up. In fact, these assets became enormously risky once the housing bubble burst and home prices began their inevitable decline.

* * * * *
Under-managing the (few) smartest guys in the room

Many troubled banks and insurers continued to prosper in almost every other aspect of their businesses right up to the 2008 meltdown. The exception was the billions of dollars in mortgage-backed securities that they bought and held on to or insured even after U.S. home prices went into a free-fall more than two years ago.

AIG —  the insurer that received an $85 billion federal rescue package last September — is a prime example. Some 95% of its business units were profitable when the company collapsed. “AIG has 125,000 employees … Basically, 80 of them tanked the firm. It was the New Products Division, which had an office in London and a small branch office in Connecticut. They came up with the idea of insuring mortgage-backed assets, and nobody at the top decided it wasn’t a good idea. So they bet the house — and the company went under.”

Ultimately, the buck stops with corporate CEOs who didn’t ask hard enough questions about the risks posed by mortgage-backed assets.

* * * * *
Playing with other people’s money

Firms like Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns and Morgan Stanley  survived the much more severe Great Depression of the 1930s but collapsed during 2008. Why? One reason: back then, these firms were organized as partnerships. In such an organizational structure, the partners would have to risk their own capital. When the partnerships were reorganized as widely held public companies, however, they no longer had such constraints. “Back when it was a partnership, you had your life invested in that company.” Investment banks began making higher-return but higher-risk investments in recent years as public ownership increased.

* * * * *

By many important measures, the economy is not nearly as battered as it was during the early 1980s, when unemployment, inflation, and interest rates were all considerably higher than they are today. Stocks — as evaluated by their price-to-earnings ratios — are undervalued to the point where they could draw enough investors to spark a recovery before the end of 2009.

* * * * * 

Full article:
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=2148#

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

Talk about rewarding failure … How about free housing for mortgage defaulters ? … Here’s the math

January 22, 2009

There are plenty reasons to object to the recent groundswell of support for modifying distressed mortgages (badly delinquent or already in foreclosure) by slashing rates, lengthening payback periods, and writing off part of the loan balance if a home is under water (i.e. the loan balance is greater than the market value of the home.  The latter provision — forgiving part of the loan because housing prices have fallen is particularly troublesome.

First, there’s the moral issue: when somebody borrows money, they accept both a legal and a moral responsibility to pay it back.  Whether or not the collateral they posted retains its value is irrelevant.  Brokerage houses don’t write-down clients’ margin accounts because the stock market tanked.  Banks don’t write-down auto loans if a borrower totals their car.

If that argument doesn’t carry sway, consider this: under reasonably realistic assumptions, folks who default on their mortgages and get government induced loan modifications may, in effect, get their housing for free for an extended period.  Here’s the math.

Assume the Subprime Sam “buys” a home for $150,000 with no downpayment.  After making a couple of payments, he stiffs the bank.  Property values fall in his neighborhood — say, by 25%.

In the old days, the bank would have simply foreclosed on the loan and booted Sam out of the house.  Not so fast these days.

Instead, the Feds “encourage” the lender to modify the loan — say, by lowering the mortgage rate to 4.5%, by lengthen the term to 40 years, and by reducing the loan balance to the current fair market value of the house. 

Let’s say that Sam’s house dropped by the 25% neighborhood average and has a current $112,500 fair market value.

The bank writes off $37,500 of the original $150,000 loan, and Sam’s monthly mortgage payment drops to $500 — less than half of what he used to pay. (Trust me on the math).

Now, things get interesting,

If Sam is an typical mortgage loan “modifiee”, then — based on empirical data — there is at least a 40% chance that he’ll default on the loan again — within 6 months.  That is, unless housing prices fall more — in which case, Sam is virtually certain to default again and walk away from the home and his mortgage obligation.

Let’s be positive, though, and assume that Sam takes his debt seriously this time, and that real estate prices bottom and start to creep up again.

For the sake of argument, let’s pretend that home values claw their way back up.  Let’s pretend that — in around 7 years — Sam’s  house is worth the original $150,000 again.  (Note: that’s a home inflation rate of less than 5% annually — maybe a bit optimistic, but not wildly so)

And, let’s pretend that Sam sells the house then and walks away with about $40,000 —  $150,000 from the sale, less the roughly $110,000 he’d still owe on his loan. (Note: Principal pay-down is minimal during the early years of a 40 year mortgage).

Now, over that time period, Sam made 80 monthly mortgage payments of $500 each — totaling about $40,000

So, Sam pitched in zero down payment and $40,000 in mortgage payments — then, he netted $40,000 on the sale. Presto.  Free housing for about 7 years.

Of course, home prices might stay in the dumper and Sam may end up “out of pocket” for his housing.

But, that’s only fair.  Especially since his mortgage payments are less than half of his non-defaulting neighbor’s, and since the bank had to write-off $37,500 to get the whacky process rolling.

Talk about unintended consequences and moral hazard …

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

$1 trillion down, $1 trillion to go …

January 19, 2009

Goldman Sachs economists estimate that financial institutions and investors world-wide will ultimately realize $2 trillion in losses on U.S. loans, but have recognized only half those losses so far.

Note: roughly half of the projected write-offs are residential mortgages.  Good news: “only” $234 billion in commercial real estate.

image

Source: WSJ, “U.S. Plots New Phase in Banking Bailout”, Jan. 17, 2009
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123214588361091677.html

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

To stem foreclosures, you have to “cram down” loan balances … NOT !!!

January 16, 2009

If you’re up to speed on the proposals to modify mortgages to stop foreclosures, scroll down to  Loan Modification Math …

Background:

There seems to be momentum to “keeping people in their homes” by modifying the bulk of the 4.6 million mortgages that are currently in foreclosure or payment delinquent for longer than 90 days.

There have already been some voluntary lender efforts to modify distressed mortgages by lowering interest rates or extending the term of the mortgages (say, from 30 to 40 years).  Generally, the programs haven’t generated many modified loans … and for the loans that have been modified, about 40% become delinquent again within 6 months. (Note: I’ve seen ranges on this number from 35% to over 50%).

So, the Feds are pushing lenders to sweeten the mortgage modification packages.  Specifically, there’s talk of a broadscale government program that would pare mortgage interest rates to 4.5%.  And, there seems to be support for “cram downs” — having lenders reduce the principal loan balances to the current fair market value of the homes collateralizing the loans.  That is, if a defaulting loan is on a home that is “below water” — i.e. loan balance is greater than the home’s market value — the lender writes off the difference and issues a revised mortgage at the home’s market value.

These proposals strike me as both naive and very problematic.  In this and subsequent posts, I’ll summarize why I think cram downs are a bad idea.

* * * * *

Loan Modification Math

A frequent pundit refrain is that “you can’t get there with just rate and term adjustments — you have to reduce the loan balance to keep these loans out of foreclosure.”  Not surprisingly, there’s a lot of hand-waving but few numbers.

For the record, here’s how the math works.

Say, a person buys a home for $150,000 with no downpayment (as is typical with sub-primes), a 10% mortgage interest rate (maybe a bit low for sub-prime loans), and a 30 year term.  The monthly mortgage payment — for principal and interest — would be $1,269.

If the interest rate on the loan is cut to 4.5%, the monthly payment would drop by over 40% to $752.

If the interest rate is cut to 4.5% and the loan’s payback period is extended from 30 to 40 years, then the  monthly payment would drop to $666.  That’s about half of the original monthly payment! {Note: If the starting interest were more than 10%, the new payment would be more than half off).

Apparently, some politicos think that cutting the payment in half isn’t enough to make a difference.  So, they propose that lenders accept “cram downs” and reduce loan balances.

Let’s assume that the home’s fair market value fell by 25% since the time of purchase.  That would mean writing off $37,500 of the loan balance and reissuing it with a $112,500 balance.

If the interest rate is cut to 4.5%, the loan’s payback period is extended from 30 to 40 years, and the principal balance is reduced to $112,500, then the monthly payment drops to $499.  That’s less than 40% of the original monthly mortgage payment — a discount of more than 60%.

Are these folks serious ???

Cutting the mortgage rate in half for a defaulter — while keeping the hardworking, creditworthy folks next door at the full rate — is morally bankrupt.  Especially when the defaulter didn’t legitimately qualify for the loan by any reasonable underwriting standards … and is equally likely to default again.

What about the hardworking guy who has made payments for years but but just got got laid off in the tough economy?  Well, the half-payment may even be too much for him to handle.  Unfortunate, but true.  I say the bank (and Feds) should give that guy plenty of breathing space (e.g. suspend payments for 6 months).

In a subsequent post, I’ll show how government largesse might even give a defaulter free housing under the proposed plan.  This stuff gets nuttier by the day …

* * * * *

Technical Stuff

Below is a graphical display of the above math.  The top line is reducing the interest rate to 4.5%; the middle line reduces the interest rate to 4.5% and extends the term to 40 years; the bottom line reduces the interest rate to 4.5%, extends the term to 40 years, and writes off 25% of the loan balance.

The takeaway: within a representative range of original interest rates, modified mortgage payments can be roughly halved by simply cutting the interest rate to 4.5% and extending the loan term to 40 years.

image

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

Stop foreclosures: Keep people in "their" homes … huh?

January 15, 2009

Background

There seems to be momentum to “keep people in their homes” by modifying the bulk of the 4.6 million mortgages that are currently in foreclosure or payment delinquent for longer than 90 days.

There have already been some voluntary lender efforts to modify distressed mortgages by lowering interest rates or extending the term of the mortgages (say, from 30 to 40 years).  Generally, the programs hadn’t generated many modified loans … and for the loans that have been modified, about 40% become delinquent again within 6 months. (Note: I’ve seen ranges on this number from 35% to over 50%).

So, the Feds are pushing lenders to sweeten the mortgage modification packages.  Specifically, there’s talk of a broadscale government program that would pare mortgage interest rates to 4.5%.  And, there seems to be support for “cram downs” — having lenders reduce the principal loan balances to the current fair market value of the homes collateralizing the loans.  That is, if a defaulting loan is on a home that is “below water” — i.e. loan balance is greater than the home’s market value — the lender writes off the difference and issues a revised mortgage at the home’s market value.

These proposals strike me as both naive and very problematic.  Here’s another take on why these loan modification programs are generally bad ideas, and why cram downs, specifically, are a bad idea.

* * * * *

Ken’s Take: Keep people in”their” homes … huh? 

The underlying premise of the proposed loan modifications —  “keep people in their homes” — is logically flawed

The overwhelming majority of foreclosures are investor-speculators and sub-primers — people with shaky credit ratings and undocumented incomes who put little or no money down when they “bought” their homes, who often made few if any mortgage payments — not even making a rounding error dent in their principal loan balances, and who have seen home prices slide in their neighborhood — putting their loan “under water”. 

Said differently, most of the mortgage delinquencies and foreclosures are on people who have no equity in the homes — they never did if they didn’t make a downpayment or a couple of years of mortgage payments and, in most cases, they have “negative equity” — since they owe more than the the homes are worth on the open market.

Bottom line: these folks are “occupants” not “owners” — unless they get credit for some sort of squatter’s rights.  There may be some legitimate reasons for enabling them to stay in the homes — but there’s no way that the homes are their homes.

In the next couple of posts, I’ll walk thru the economics: what crams downs aren’t even necessary, and the “free housing” moral hazard.  

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

The economic crisis in a nutshell …

January 13, 2009

Ken’s Take: This guy has really cut through to the essence of the economic crisis. Of course, problem identification is always easier than problem solution.

Still, simply memorize the following synopsis and you’ll impress folks at cocktail parties

* * * * *

This economic crisis consists of three parts:

  • Mountains of bad loans, which are weighing down banks and other financial institutions
  • Rapid retrenchment by businesses, which is causing them to cut jobs and investment
  • Trillions of dollars in excess consumer debt, which is forcing households to cut back on spending.

These three factors together are feeding on each other:

  • Because banks are lending less, it’s harder for businesses and consumers to spend.
  • Because businesses are cutting workers so quickly, loan defaults are rising and it’s harder for consumers to pay back debt, and
  • Because consumer debt has risen from 96% of disposable income in 2000 to 130% of disposable income today, Americans are completely maxed out.
  • As a result, any job cuts immediately mean more loan defaults.

Excerpted from Business Week, Why Big Tax Cuts Are Essential, January 10, 2009
http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/economicsunbound/archives/2009/01/why_big_tax_cut.html?chan=top+news_top+news+index+-+temp_news+%2B+analysis

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
The Homa Files Blog