Three Economic Myths: Part 3

This is the final part of a 3 part series on economic myths.

Myth 3: The U.S. is sliding into "socialism"

 

From Personal Finance News from Yahoo! Finance

For a system allegedly being strangled in its bed, U.S. capitalism seems to be in astonishingly robust shape.

Numbers published by the Federal Reserve a few weeks ago show that corporate profit margins have just hit record levels. Indeed. Andrew Smithers, the well-regarded financial consultant and author of "Wall Street Revalued," calculates from the Fed's latest Flow of Funds report that corporate profit margins rocketed to 36% in the first quarter. Since records began in 1947 they have never been this high. The highest they got under Ronald Reagan was 30%.

The picture is also similar when you exclude financials.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average (^DJINews) is above 10,000. Small company stocks have rallied astonishingly since early last year: The Russell 2000 index is back to levels seen not long before Lehman imploded. Meanwhile Cap Gemini's latest Wealth Report notes that the North American rich saw an 18% jump in their wealth last year.

Meanwhile, federal spending, about 25% of the economy this year, is expected to fall to about 23% by 2013. In 1983, under Ronald Reagan, it hit 23.5%. In the early 1990s it was around 22%. Some socialism.

These days, three-fifths of the entire budget goes on just three things: Insurance for our old age (through Social Security and Medicare), defense, and debt interest.

Conservatives don't want to cut the $700 billion-plus we spend on defense. We can't cut debt interest payments. And while Social Security and Medicare certainly need reform, the main "problems" are simply rising life expectancy and health care demands. If we didn't provide for the insurance through our taxes we'd have to do it individually.

What about the rest of the budget? It's jumped from around 7% of GDP a few years ago to about 10% now. Out of control? It's been in the 6% to 9% range for decades. It's forecast to fall to about 8% again in a few years.

So much for a revolution. But here comes the counter-revolution just the same.

It's socialism because we have a Democrat in the office of the President. It's "trickle down" when we have a Republican in office. Let's see:

  • Corporate profits up – CHECK
  • Stock market up – CHECK
  • Non-discretionary spending unmovable – CHECK
  • Federal budget as a percentage of the economy hasn't changed much (if at all) – CHECK

Seems like nothing's wrong to me. Oh, sure, the federal government spends a lot of money – money it doesn't have – on some stuff we don't need. But try taking away social security, Medicare, or defense. You'll be out of a job real fast if you're a national politician. Nobody has the wherewithal to do anything about any of this stuff.

So this is what I'd tell the Obama administration, if they asked: GROW the damned economy. Get it to 5-8 percent, and all this debt/deficit talk vanishes, people get hired for good jobs, and Obama gets a second term. It really is the economy, stupid, and Obama should have cracked this nut a while ago.

If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times: The stimulus package was way too small.

And now that both sides of the aisle have either forgotten or dug in their heels on unemployment compensation extensions and further stimulatory legislation, we may be in for a classic double-dip recession.

Only this time, it might drive what seemed to be inevitable and then highly unlikely – a corporate lending and business real estate catastrophe that could dwarf the mortgage meltdown.

Then more cries, this time maybe real, for socialism will come to the forefront. Our brand of market capitalism (highly influenced by the idiots who represent us in Congress) certainly isn't working right now.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • Live
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace

Three Economic Myths: Part 2

This is part 2 of a 3 part series on economic myths.

Economic Myth 2: The markets are panicking about the deficit

 

From Personal Finance News from Yahoo! Finance

 

To hear the G-20 tell it, the U.S. and other top countries had better slash those budget deficits before the world comes to an end.

And maybe the markets should be panicking about the deficits.

But they're not. It's that simple.

If they were, the interest rate on government bonds would be skyrocketing. That's what happens with risky debt: Lenders demand higher and higher interest payments to compensate them for the dangers.

But the rates on U.S. bonds have been plummeting recently. The yield on the 30-year Treasury bond is down to just 4%. By historic standards that's chickenfeed. Panicked? The bond markets are practically snoring.

They aren't seeing inflation either. On the contrary, they're saying it will average just 2.3% a year over the next three decades. That's the gap between the interest rates on inflation-protected Treasury bonds and the rates on the regular bonds. By any modern standard the forecast is low. Instead of worrying about inflation, some are starting to worry about something even more dangerous: deflation, or falling prices.

If that takes hold, cutting spending and raising taxes would be a bad move.

It's certainly possible the lenders buying these bonds are being foolish. And it's worth noting that the Treasury market is also subject to political distortions, because foreign are among the heavy buyers of bonds. So it's worth treating its apparent verdicts with some caution. Nonetheless, the burden of proof, as usual, is on those who argue the market is wrong.

It's the age-old "deficits are bad" baloney. Well, deficits can be bad. But in our case, they're not. We've been running deficits since the 40s, regularly. There was a time when we got close to eliminating the yearly difference between tax revenues and federal spending (late 90s very early 2000s), but Alan Greenspan warned that surpluses were bad.

Maybe he was right. The federal government certainly heeded his warning: We've spend trillions over the past 9 1/2 years, well above our "normal."

But most of that spending has come in terms of non-discretionary spending ("entitlements" that no politician has the courage to challenge, social security being one of the biggies, Medicare being the other horn of a really nasty bull) and very discretionary war spending.

Neither of which, I'll add, stimulates growth in the economy or jobs. Surely, soldiers have jobs, but they had those jobs before the economy tanked. What's going to happen if we every withdraw and don't need them any more? Will the government have the courage and discipline to "lay them off?"

I doubt it.

The problem is that, while we did put together a $787 billion stimulus package, it clearly wasn't enough. Yeah, you read that right.

They should have spent $2 trillion on boosting the economy from the get-go. But that's just my opinion. Prove me wrong :)

 

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • Live
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace

Three Economic Myths: Part One

This is Part 1 of a 3 part series about economic myths. Parts 2 and 3 will follow, hopefully this week :)

Economic Myth 1: Unemployment is below 10%

From Personal Finance News from Yahoo! Finance

What nonsense that is. The official jobless rate, at 9.7%, is a fiction and should be treated as such. It doesn't even count lots of unemployed people. The so-called "underemployment" or U-6 rate is an improvement: For example it counts discouraged job seekers, and those forced to work part-time because they can't get a full-time job.

That rate right now is 16.6%, just below its recent high and twice the level it was a few years ago.

And even that may not tell the full story. Many people have simply dropped out of the labor force statistics.

Consider, for example, the situation among men of prime working age. An analysis of data at the U.S. Labor Department shows that there are 79 million men in America between the ages of 25 and 65. And nearly 18 million of them, or 22%, are out of work completely. (The rate in the 1950s was less than 10%.) And that doesn't even count those who are working part-time because they can't get full-time work. Add those to the mix and about one in four men of prime working age lacks a full-time job.

Dean Baker, economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C., says the numbers may be even worse than that. His research suggests a growing number of men, especially in deprived, urban and minority neighborhoods, have vanished from the statistical rolls altogether.

The verbiage above tells the right story. The official unemployment rate has always been a poor gauge of the employment picture. Only now, it's worse. I'll try to find data to back it up, but my gut tells me there are a lot of people underemployed (not working full time but who need or want to).

By "underemployed," I also mean that people aren't getting paid what they need to survive. Perhaps you lost your cushy 9 to 5 six-figure banking job and now you're working as a retail store manager (big pay cut there). You're working longer and harder but getting paid significantly less than you had been.

That's underemployed. Yes, you have a job and good for you! But you've certainly had to make some lifestyle changes, wouldn't you say?

A lot of personal finance bloggers would tell you that you should always live the frugal life; that's a great opinion to have and if you walk your talk, you're good to go. However, many people cannot live the way you do.

They are married and are the sole providers of their families. Or they have kids or parents to care for. Obligations that they may have acquired at a younger, less financially-aware age.

No matter. For the average man or woman on the street, having a job that fits their basic lifestyle needs is hard to come by right now. And I don't really see any relief on the horizon.

I will say, though, that lots of times the turn in the business cycle is unseen until it happens right in front of your eyes. That is to say, often times nobody sees it coming. Leading indicators are only so good. As they say, "hindsight is 20-10."

Let me know your thoughts in the comments.

Next up: Deficits are bad

, , ,

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • Live
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace

Home Building Drops Amid Tax Incentives Expiration

Did anybody expect anything less? In these circumstances (a rough, unstable economy), incentives need to stay in place – ideally – until the natural economy picks up. However, to be safe, the incentives most likely should stay in place until it’s obvious that the economy is rocking and rolling again.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Housing starts fell to a five-month low in May but industrial output rose, evidence of an uneven recovery that has kept inflation at a minimum.

As the government’s tax incentives for homebuyers expired, new home building dropped 10 percent to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 593,000 units, the lowest level since December, the Commerce Department said on Wednesday.

Home building plH – Yahoo! Finance

, , ,

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • Live
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace

Plans to Hide Commercial Real Estate Losses Won’t Avert a Double-Dip Downturn

*** REPRINT ***

By Shah Gilani, Contributing Editor, Money Morning

Sooner or later, mounting losses on commercial real estate could crash through the market's 2009 optimism and send the economy and stocks into a double-dip downturn.

The major problem is that lawmakers and regulators are setting up investors into believing that commercial real estate (CRE) losses are being effectively addressed. The truth is that escalating losses are being hidden as part of a campaign of optimism in a desperate gamble that a robustly reviving economy will save the day.

To protect yourself from another investment beating, here's what you need to know.

Accounting Gimmickry

Two weeks ago, a bipartisan group of 79 members from the U.S. House of Representatives sent a letter to U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke. The lawmakers want the public to know that they are concerned that the "commercial-real-estate industry has the potential to infect our economy and slow a recovery," according to Rep. Paul E. Kanjorski, D-Pa.

Kanjorski, the chairman of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance, and Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs)- which includes the likes of Fannie Mae (NYSE: FNM) and Freddie Mac (NYSE: FRE) – says it's the administration's responsibility to make sure that happens. "The Treasury and Federal Reserve now must take needed and urgent action to stave off a potentially devastating wave of commercial real estate foreclosures and bank losses," Kanjorski said.

So in keeping with how effectively overseen and transparent our capital markets, insurance industry and GSE institutions are, the lawmakers want more accounting gimmickry to be made available to banks that hold commercial-real-estate assets. The lawmakers are concerned that banks may be forced by some regulators to write down the value of performing loans, even when payments are current. And these elected officials want more latitude for banks to manipulate recently issued CRE loan-modification guidelines.

Just what recently issued CRE loan modification guidelines are we referring to?

When is a Bad Loan Not a Bad Loan?

The tooth fairy commeth. On Oct. 30, bank, thrift and credit-union regulators very quietly gave lenders flexibility in how they classify distressed commercial mortgages. Banks can now slice distressed loans into performing and non-performing loans, and institutions will magically be able to reduce the total reserves set aside for non-performing loans.

For example, let's assume that a developer borrowed to build a shopping mall, but only one tenant leased space in the finished project. Cash flow from the project would be insufficient to service the loan, meaning the lending bank would have to set aside reserves against the total loan. Under the new guidelines, however, the mall loan actually could be carved into two loans – a performing loan representing the rented space, and a non-performing loan that represents the empty space.

Theoretically, with fewer reserves having to be set aside, bank balance sheets would look better, leaving lenders with more cash available for loans. But the reality might be very different. Granted, this accounting hocus-pocus might well stave off some bank failures. But with the overhang of non-performing loans still on their books, will those banks really be eager to lend out their precious cash?

That's not the only concern, either. The fact that lawmakers don't want to force banks to write down "performing loans" should be a cause for concern among investors. It's like the riddle: If an airplane crashes exactly on the border of two states, where do you bury the survivors? Hint … you don't bury survivors. And, you don't have to write down performing loans – unless, of course, they're not really "performing."

What's really happening with performing loans is a game called "extend and pretend." When most banks make commercial loans they include an "interest reserve." The reserve amount is part of the total loan, and it is there so that banks can pay themselves their interest until the project generates enough cash flow to start paying interest and principal.

The unvarnished truth is that innumerable commercial loans are in distress right now because projects aren't being finished. And if they are , tenants aren't leasing. So rather than write down the loans, banks are extending the terms of the debt with more interest reserves included so they can continue to classify the loans as "performing."

Hiding behind the extend-and-pretend game is the dark reality that property values have declined at an alarming rate – racing ahead of the rate at which banks are writing down these loans.

Nor is that the only concern. Because interest reserves do not repay any of the loan principal, there is no amortization on these debts.  In other words, banks are extending loans that they would never make now, because borrowers are already grossly upside-down.

A Real Race Against Time

Lawmakers and regulators are desperately hoping that a strong economic rebound will stimulate job growth, consumption and demand for the commercial real estate that banks continue to hold.

But let's be real: There isn't enough time on any clock to ever win that race.

Why do I say that? Because, in order for the United States to rebound to a full-employment rate of at least 5%, the nation's economy would have to create 200,000 jobs per month – for seven years.

Although all the big banks hold significant amounts of underperforming-commercial-real-estate loans, this exposure as a percentage of total-balance-sheet assets averages only 10% to 20%. And these banks have other income streams, such as proprietary-trading revenue, investment-banking fees, and credit-card fees and charges to bolster their bottom lines.

Regional and local community banks have as much as 80% of their balance sheets tied up in commercial real estate, and very few other sources of significant fee income to offset CRE losses.

It's not the too-big-to-fail banks that are lending to consumers; they're too busy catering to huge corporations, enslaving the credit card borrowers they pressed into servitude with low teaser rates, and pandering to lawmakers to preserve their monopolies and their outrageous executive compensation packages.

It's the regional and community banks that lend to individuals and small businesses that are sinking fast under the weight of CRE. How are they going to be the credit providers to consumers and the backers of the small businesses we are counting on to create jobs for the country's 18 million unemployed?

Lawmakers and regulators expect to buy time for the economy to grow in order to drive up commercial-real-estate prices and save the banks that are threatened. But their rescue vehicle of choice is the banking sector that is foundering because of the growing gale of commercial-real-estate losses. So please forgive me if I label these Washington insiders as grossly incompetent, self-serving and deluded.

The Only Way to Win

If we continue to chart this course, we're headed right for a double-dip downturn in the economy and in the stock market.

But there is a way out.

First, break up all the too-big-to-fail banks into "bad banks" by saddling them with all the bad bank loans. Don't worry: It won't take long for those institutions to discover how to make money from these non-performing loans.

Let these "new" institutions keep their proprietary trading desks so they can steal money from the big corporations and investment banking clients they front-run.

Cap all compensation for the top 25% of earners at those banks. And make these top-tier executives stay and work at their new employer for seven years, which is the same amount of time it takes to discharge a bankruptcy. That's only fair since bankruptcy is where these institutions force credit-card borrowers after ripping them off with hidden, retroactive fees and usurious interest rates. Phase out all taxpayer backing over the same seven years. Limit each bank's leverage and require them to add equity capital on a pre-set ratio relative to balance-sheet risk.

Spin off all big-bank credit-card operations into four regionally based trusts and make them operate as not-for-profit entities. Cap interest rates at some nationally set level above the prime rate, and make credit limits a function of income, assets and credit history. While we're at it, only charge merchants and credit-card users 50 cents each per any transaction.

Make community banks "good banks" by spreading the big banks performing loans across their balance sheets so banking is more "localized" and community-centric. Limit the size they can grow to – period. If there's additional business to be had in a particular locale, let another bank open up and help drive down the cost of services.

Create a compensation arrangement for bankers that rewards them generously for creating jobs, improving standards of living in their communities and running their banks profitably relative to standardized risk metrics.

As far as big loans and securitizing and selling asset-backed pools, make the banks syndicate and spread risks between themselves, all of them. They'll actually become experts in risk management as opposed to paying lip service to schemes like Value at Risk.

I'd like to say that I'm kidding, and that everything will work out just fine if we do nothing. But the reality is that only a comprehensive overhaul of banking regulations will save the U.S. economy and stock market from significant pain. Hiding behind accounting gimmickry is just another tarp being thrown over our problems by same special interests that got us into this mess in the first place.

 

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • Live
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace