Why You Must Invest for Inflation From Now On

The 'Helicopter Economics Investing Guide' is meant to help educate people on how to make profitable investing choices in the current economic environment. We have coined this term to describe the current monetary and fiscal policies of the U.S. government, which involve unprecedented money printing. This is the official blog of the New York Investing meetup.


The Fed made history today by announcing an open-ended money printing policy — a policy heretofore unseen outside of history's hyperinflation havens. The news conference that followed the announcement revealed a central bank acting out of extreme desperation.

While the Fed is doing another round of quantitative easing, QE3 is not the same as QE2. The previous QE involved the purchase of U.S. Treasuries. This time around, the Fed is buying MBSs (mortgage-backed securities). In QE1, various types of securities were bought. The previous QEs also had specific limits to the amount of money that was going to be printed whereas QE3 doesn't. QE3 is supposed to be ongoing until somewhat after the economy and employment situation have been improving for a while. How long that will be is anybody's guess.

Despite several questions in the press conference that followed the announcement, Bernanke made only vague statements about how the Fed would determine when enough money printing was enough. The purchase of mortgage-backed securities is likely to continue for some time because doing so is supposed to reduce unemployment. How that will work is not clear other than perhaps reducing unemployment in the construction industry. The Fed's actions should lower already historically low mortgage rates and Bernanke specifically stated more than once that getting the price of homes up was one of his major goals (he seems to have forgotten that the global financial collapse in 2008 was the result of the collapse of the housing bubble).

Anticipating the obvious objections, Bernanke tried to head off the major criticisms of the Fed's new plan at the beginning of his news conference. While he admitted that the Fed's action hurt savers and would make it difficult to prepare for retirement, he said that if you don't  have a job you wouldn't have any money to save anyway. So, apparently the large majority of people who have a job should risk having their retirement unfunded in order to pursue Bernanke's high risk policies that have been tried for the last five years, but haven't worked. I wouldn't have been surprised if a couple of retired people were brought up to the podium and Bernanke kicked them a few times to emphasize his point.

Bernanke also denied that the new round of money printing will cause inflation. The basis of his argument was that the members of the FOMC aren't prediction inflation in their projections, so obviously it's not going to happen (these are the same people that failed to foresee the subprime crisis coming). Also Bernanke claimed inflation has been around 2% for years, so there is no problem. Even a casual perusal of commodity prices since 2009 shows increases of 100%, 150%, 200% and sometimes more however. It is true the government isn't reporting inflation, but that isn't the same as it doesn't exist. The head of the Weimar German central bank also claimed inflation wasn't a problem as he printed more and more money. Eventually, inflation reached 300 million percent.

One of the real eye-openers of the Bernanke news conference was his admitting the impotency of the Fed and monetary policy. Over and over again Bernanke stated that the Fed's actions were, "not a panacea". He said that, "We [the Fed] can't solve the problems by ourselves". He also emphasized that the Fed's, "tools are not so powerful that they can solve the problem". If the chances of success are so limited, why is the Fed taking a course of action that could have serious negative consequences for the American people?

In addition to his desire to reinflate the housing bubble, Bernanke was also proud that when the Fed speaks, economic forecasters change their numbers and that, "markets respond to [the Fed's] guidance".  This was a blatant admission that the Fed purposely manipulates the stock and bond markets and financial news. Obviously, this destruction of free market mechanisms is not something that he considers shameful, even though this represents a major power grab on the part of the Fed.

Bernanke was much more coy however when the question of whether or not the Fed's money printing decision was base on political considerations. One reporter mentioned that Romney was not planning on reappointing Bernanke and asked if the policy shift was an attempt to help reelect President Obama. Bernanke denied this of course, his voice almost breaking when he stammered out, "our decisions are based entirely on the state of the economy." I must admit that I am personally surprised that the Fed did this before the election because this question is only going to be the beginning and the Fed has now made itself an ongoing issue in the presidential campaign. I didn't think Bernanke was so foolish to take this risk, but obviously I overestimated his political awareness.

Earlier this month, ECB head Mario Draghi promised unlimited bond buying. This is different from what the Fed is doing because those purchases are supposed to be sterilized (new liquidity put in is neutralized by liquidity being removed). Many people however believe that the ECB will have to engage in money printing despite its claims. Added to the Fed, this means inflation investments will have a bid under them for some time to come.  Investors should be looking at gold and silver, energy and agriculture. Ironically, shorting Treasury bonds also look like a good bet now as well, since the Fed is not buying them as part of its QE program (Operation Twist though will be going on to the end of 2012 however and this acts to lower interest rates around the 7 to 10-year maturity level so be careful). Keep buying as long as the Fed keeps printing.


Disclosure: None


Daryl Montgomery
Author: "Inflation Investing - A Guide for the 2010s"
Organizer, New York Investing meetup
http://investing.meetup.com/21

This posting is editorial opinion. There is no intention to endorse the purchase or sale of any security.

U.S. Employment in Long-Term Downtrend

 

The 'Helicopter Economics Investing Guide' is meant to help educate people on how to make profitable investing choices in the current economic environment. We have coined this term to describe the current monetary and fiscal policies of the U.S. government, which involve unprecedented money printing. This is the official blog of the New York Investing meetup.

The August employment report released on September 7th was not particularly good by any measure. While the month to month changes seem lackluster, the longer term picture is truly dismal.

The headline numbers indicated that 96,000 jobs were created in August and that the unemployment rate declined from 8.3% to 8.1%. The previous two months were revised down by 41,000 however. Manufacturing employment was down 15,000 from July. "Food Services and Drinking Places" was the category with the biggest gains, adding 28,000 jobs last month.

Underneath the surface, the picture wasn't mediocre, it was negative. Looking at the total number of people listed as Employed in Table A indicated that 119,000 fewer Americans had jobs in August than in July. This comes from the Household survey and receives little attention from the mainstream media. This number was negative in the July release as well. Why isn't this reported?  Well perhaps the media doesn't trust people to know whether or not they actually have a job.

What happened to employment between July and August though was minor compared to the weakening jobs picture over the last five years. It was in August 2007 that the Fed cut the discount rate, which was the beginning of its attempts to stimulate the economy. By the end of 2008, the Fed's Fund rate was at zero and a number of special programs had been implemented to handle the Credit Crisis. The first quantitative easing program had begun and a second round took place after that. In respect to jobs, the figures indicate that the Fed's efforts have been an utter failure.

In August 2007, 145,794,000 people were employed in the U.S. Last month, five years later, 142,101,000 people had jobs. So after all of the Fed's efforts and all the stimulus programs implemented by the Obama administration, there were 3,693,000 less jobs in the United States.   In his Jackson Hole Speech in August, Fed Chair Ben Bernanke stated the Fed's efforts "increased private payroll employment by more than 2 million jobs". Oh really?  Why don't those jobs show up in the government's own statistics Mr. Bernanke?

What caused the unemployment rate to be reported as lower in August than in July was a decline in the labor force. It shrank by 368,000. This is only a continuation of a multi-year trend though. In August 2007 there were 79,319,000 people not in the U.S. labor force. By last month, 88,921,000 didn't have jobs. That's an increase of 9,602,000 in five years. Yet, at the same time the employable population has grown substantially.

What about during just the Obama administration? His employment record is a big issue in the current presidential election after all. The labor force population has increased from 234,552,000 to 243,555,000 or by 9,003,000 so far during Obama's term. The current participation rate of 63.5% (low for the last few decades) would indicate that approximately 5,717,000 jobs should have been created to keep employment at a steady state. When Obama took office in January 2009, 142,099,000 Americans were employed. As of August 2012, 142,101,000 Americans were employed. There was a net increase of only 2,000 jobs. This represents a huge relative loss since the U.S. needed 5.7 million jobs just to maintain the same level of employment. More jobs would have been needed to make things better.

At his Jackson Hole speech Bernanke stated how concerned he was at the unemployment problem in the United States and that the Fed was willing to do more. Considering how little impact the Fed's high risk money-printing policies have had and how little seems to have resulted from the numerous stimulus programs that have been implemented, there is no reason to believe either will be improving the economy in the future. They are good for juicing stock prices however — at least in the short term. In the long run the gains will prove to be illusory.

Sources for the above from Table A of the August 2007,  January 2009 and August 2012 Employment Situation report from the BLS. The URLs for the websites are:
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/history/empsit_09072007.txt
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_02062009.htm
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.a.htm


Disclosure: None


Daryl Montgomery
Author: "Inflation Investing - A Guide for the 2010s"
Organizer, New York Investing meetup
http://investing.meetup.com/21

This posting is editorial opinion. There is no intention to endorse the purchase or sale of any security.

Bernanke Makes No New Promises at Jackson Hole

 

The 'Helicopter Economics Investing Guide' is meant to help educate people on how to make profitable investing choices in the current economic environment. We have coined this term to describe the current monetary and fiscal policies of the U.S. government, which involve unprecedented money printing. This is the official blog of the New York Investing meetup.

Stocks underwent wild gyrations on Friday morning. First the Dow was up over 100 points just after the open on hopes that Fed Chair Bernanke would promise more QE in his Jackson Hole speech. Then, as Bernanke gave his remarks almost the entire rally disappeared. Then a few minutes later the Dow was up 100 points again.

Did anything happen to justify these market movements? The answer is no for the first rally and no for the second rally. Only the selling made sense. There was no promise in the speech for any additional QE in the immediate future. Bernanke did say "the Federal Reserve will provide additional policy accommodation as needed" as he has already stated dozens of times. This is a meaningless platitude that he repeats as often as a mindless parrot. He basically can't take any other position.

Bernanke had to admit that the economy wasn't in really awful shape, but he did emphasize that getting the unemployment rate lower was an important consideration for the FOMC. He did not make any case, nor did he offer proof that doing more quantitative easing would be effective in accomplishing this goal.  He did admit however that, "estimates of the effects of nontraditional policies on economic activity and inflation are uncertain". In other words, the central bank is playing a potentially dangerous game that might have very negative unforeseen consequences in the future.

Bernanke did admit that doing QE could disrupt the Treasury market. He stated that, "if the Federal Reserve became too dominant a buyer in certain segments of these markets, trading among private agents could dry up, degrading liquidity and price discovery".  All of the Fed's actions degrade free markets. That's why they are supposed to be effective. History has shown that markets always dominate in the end however.

Bernanke made it obvious in his speech that he doesn't think any underlying changes have taken place in the economy or financial markets. The ever-insightful Fed Chair also thought in the spring of 2007 that a mountain of subprime mortgage debt posed no risk to the economy or markets. This time Bernanke said, "rather than attributing the slow recovery to longer-term structural factors, I see growth being held back currently by a number of headwinds". Consider the Fed has been taking action since August 2007 (yes, it's been five years) and the economy still is not in great shape, you would think it might occur to him that maybe his policies don't work particularly well (note to readers: many economists are not particularly good at reality-based thinking).

Within the last few days, it has become obvious that Bernanke wouldn't promise anything at Jackson Hole. The QE touts were already making media appearances and publishing articles admitting this, but claiming that the Fed would be taking action at its September meeting. The same people said the Fed would be announcing QE at its June meeting and when that didn't happen, they said it would occur at the July/August meeting. Then it was supposed to take place at Jackson Hole. Now it's going to happen in September. Don't hold your breath.

There is no way the Fed can do QE3 before the election (unless Europe has a major collapse). It would just be too much of a political hot potato. While there are those who state correctly that the Fed has acted prior to presidential elections in the past, that was before the "Audit the Fed" movement started and before the Republicans started criticizing Bernanke's money printing. Romney has already said that if elected, he is going to dump Bernanke. Doing QE again with only the flimsiest of justifications would be seen as a blatant act to help reelect Obama and save his own job. Like QE itself, this could have "uncertain" consequences and many of them could be unpleasant.

The text of Bernanke's speech at Jackson Hole can be found here: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/text-of-bernanke-speech-at-jackson-hole-2012-08-31?pagenumber=2


Disclosure: None

Daryl Montgomery
Author: "Inflation Investing - A Guide for the 2010s"
Organizer, New York Investing meetup
http://investing.meetup.com/21

This posting is editorial opinion. There is no intention to endorse the purchase or sale of any security.

U.S Credit Rating Downgrade - A Humpty Dumpty Moment

 

The 'Helicopter Economics Investing Guide' is meant to help educate people on how to make profitable investing choices in the current economic environment. We have coined this term to describe the current monetary and fiscal policies of the U.S. government, which involve unprecedented money printing. This is the official blog of the New York Investing meetup.

As everyone knows by now, S&P downgraded the U.S. sovereign debt rating from AAA to AA+ on Friday. While the extent of the downgrade is minor, the implications are major. As the recent debt ceiling negotiations revealed, the U.S. cannot run its day-to-day operations without borrowing money. It lives on credit (as do most countries in the world today) and anything that impacts its ability to borrow money has serious consequences.

It takes a lot for a credit rating agency to lower the credit rating of a top corporation or country. This is usually only done long after the actual credit worthiness has experienced a significant decline.  The last major Friday afternoon credit downgrade from the credit rating agencies was when they lowered Bear Stearns rating on March 14, 2008. The company didn't open its doors again the following Monday.  The rating agencies were also tardy with lowering the credit ratings of accounting fraud poster child Enron, although they all did finally lower its rating to junk status four days before it declared bankruptcy. Perhaps the best analogy to the current U.S. situation though is the AAA ratings given to a number of securitized bonds that held subprime mortgages. These turned out not to be worthy of a top credit rating after all.

The farcical nature of how the credit agencies determine the rating of U.S. government debt was made clear during the debt ceiling negotiations. Numerous articles in the press reported that failure to come to an agreement, which would allow the U.S. to continue to spend money it didn't have because it could borrow more, would be viewed as fiscally irresponsible! A more rational response would have been, it's quite obvious that the U.S. can't function without borrowing an increasing amount of money and it is therefore insolvent. Under such circumstances its credit rating should be at the junk level - a BB or less - not an AA+. Eventually, this might happen, but as was the case with Enron, this would mean the U.S. would likely be going under a few days later.

The difference between the AA+ credit rating and the BB or lower one is caused by the fantasy factor. The AA+ rating is based on the glorious financial past of the U.S. and ignores the current downward trajectory it is on. Before the debt ceiling problems temporarily curtailed spending for a while, the U.S. was on course for as much as a $1.65 trillion budget deficit. This represents 11% of the current GDP number of $15 trillion (there are many reasons to think GDP is substantially overstated). It is true, that the U.S. is not borrowing money to pay for most of this deficit however - it's printing it. Quantitative Easing 2, a form of money printing, conducted by the Fed covered 70% of the deficit in the first half of the year. A country doing this certainly does not deserve an AAA credit rating, nor does it deserve an AA+ credit rating unless you can make a case that a company engaged in the business of counterfeiting money also deserves a close to top credit rating.

The Obama administration complained that S&P overestimated future U.S. deficits by $2 trillion. What this means is that S&P refused to accept the pie-in-the sky budgets numbers that the government generates. If you look at these, you will see that they assume GDP growth of over 5% a year, each and every year, until 2016. One year of GDP growth over 5% would be good and continual annual GDP growth of over 5% for the U.S. economy just isn't possible. The budget scenario also assumes very low inflation, which would certainly not be the case if the high growth it assumes takes place.  A combined deficit of $20 trillion in the next decade instead of the administration's $7.7 trillion would be more plausible. S&P assuming $2 more is still ridiculously low.

The immediate impact of the U.S. credit downgrade will be to cap the credit rating of companies at AA+. The government of the country has to have the highest credit rating in that country because in theory it has no default risk. Economists say that governments can use their ability to tax to pay off their debts. Although as finances deteriorate it is much more likely governments will print money to pay off their debts. No fiscally solvent government ever engages in excess money printing however. The U.S. Fed had increased its balance sheet (a measure of money printing) by $2 trillion since 2007. It doesn't appear that the credit agencies are taking this into account.

The longer-term implications for the lowered credit rating are far more serious.  More downgrades are likely. Interest rates will go up. Money will leave the United States. The U.S. dollar will lose its reserve currency status and this will lower its value substantially. Higher interest rates and a falling currency will both be inflationary. 

The financial world operates very much on image and reputation. Once that's shattered, it can take years to repair it, if it can be done at all.  When Bear Stearns was downgraded in March 2008, the damage to its ability to operate in the financial markets was terminal. The company imploded like an overinflated balloon that had a pin stuck in it. Fortunately, this is not likely to happen to the U.S. - at least not yet.

Disclosure: None

Daryl Montgomery
Organizer, New York Investing meetup
http://investing.meetup.com/21
Author: Inflation Investing - A Guide for the 2010s

This posting is editorial opinion. Like all other postings for this blog, there is no intention to endorse the purchase or sale of any security.

New Foreclosure Crisis Has Much Broader Implications

The 'Helicopter Economics Investing Guide' is meant to help educate people on how to make profitable investing choices in the current economic environment. We have coined this term to describe the current monetary and fiscal policies of the U.S. government, which involve unprecedented money printing. This is the official blog of the New York Investing meetup.


According to international economist Hernando De Soto, one of the key differences between an undeveloped economy and a developed one is clarity of ownership of real estate. The recently emerging foreclosure crisis in the United States indicates a movement toward the the third world model.

There is still a large overhang of U.S. properties with severe mortgage delinquencies and this problem is likely to continue for several more years. As early as three years ago however, problems with implementing the foreclosure process became evident. During the housing bubble, banks became sloppy and didn't properly transfer ownership papers when loans were securitized into bonds. The current owners of those bonds frequently can't produce the appropriate documents in foreclosures cases in the 23 states that require court action for a foreclosure. This led to the 'show me the note' movement after a federal judge ruled in 2007 that Deutsche Bank lacked standing in 14 foreclosure cases because it could not produce the relevant documents. A number of similar judicial rulings followed.

The banks have gotten around this problem by producing notarized affidavits from 'expert' witnesses who claim they have thoroughly reviewed a packet of documents related to an individual foreclosure and that they are valid and complete. One such 'expert' was Jeffrey Stephan, who has admitted under oath to having signed off on the documents for 10,000 foreclosure cases per month for the last five years. Mr. Stephan not only did this for GMAC (its parent Ally Financial is 56% owned by the U.S. government), but also for J.P. Morgan Chase and numerous other banks. This process is now being called robo-signing. It should be referred to as robo-perjury. While I am not a lawyer, it would seem to me that a number of other possible crimes might also be involved here as well, such as racketeering and criminal conspiracy Whatever criminal activity took place, a majority government owned enterprise participated in it. 

Readers should ask themselves if there is any reason to think that the big banks are acting any differently in their other consumer credit cases, such as defaults on credit cards.

The revelations from GMAC loan officer Stephan have caused a foreclosure moratorium to be put into effect by a number of lenders. The lenders were apparently shocked to find out that one person couldn't actually read and thoroughly review 10,000 legally dense document packets per month. Apparently none of the 'brilliant' members of the U.S. judiciary caught on either. Yes, it would certainly have taken a legal genius of Clarence Darrow's caliber to figure out that something that was impossible just couldn't happen. GMAC was the first to stop foreclosures in the 23 judicial states (those that require court cases for foreclosure). J.P. Morgan Chase followed. On October 8th, Bank of America suspended foreclosure activity in all 50 states.

Interestingly, the current administration is opposed to a foreclosure freeze. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, employees of J.P. Morgan Chase, Citigroup and Goldman Sachs were three of the largest sources of funds for Obama's 2008 presidential bid. Only a cynic would think that this would have something to do with his administration's pro-bank view in the foreclosure crisis. Some might even claim that it looks like everything is being done to further the interests of a economic and political elite, just as happens in a corrupt third world country. If this were true, the banks won't be punished for flagrantly disregarding the rule of law, since it is only the little people that need to worry about such niceties.

Disclosure: No positions.

Daryl Montgomery
Organizer, New York Investing meetup
http://investing.meetup.com/21

This posting is editorial opinion. There is no intention to endorse the purchase or sale of any security.

September Jobs Report Indicates Economy Dead in the Water

The 'Helicopter Economics Investing Guide' is meant to help educate people on how to make profitable investing choices in the current economic environment. We have coined this term to describe the current monetary and fiscal policies of the U.S. government, which involve unprecedented money printing. This is the official blog of the New York Investing meetup.


September was the 15th month with the U.S. unemployment rate was at or above 9.5%.  The underemployment rate, which includes forced part-time and some discouraged workers, rose to 17.1%. While the Great Recession supposedly ended in June 2009, well over a year later the employment figures have still failed to show any significant improvement.

Private sector hiring was tepid to say the least in September. While the BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics) claims that there were 64,000 private sector jobs added last month, only two categories dominated hiring - 'leisure and hospitality' and 'health care and social services'. Leisure and hospitality, which includes drinking establishments, added 38,000 jobs. It is perfectly understandable why people would want to drink more considering the state of the economy.  Health care and social services (the mainstream media always leaves out the social services part), which is the only category that continually added jobs during the recession, added 32,000 jobs. Why social service jobs are counted as private sector jobs is a of course a mystery known only to the BLS. Education jobs are also counted as private sector, even though most of them are paid for with taxpayer money. Many health care jobs are of course also government funded.

Government jobs actually counted as government jobs dropped 159,000 in September. Almost half of this was accounted for by a loss of 77,000 Census positions. Considering the Census was supposedly finished months ago, this leads to the obvious question: What have these people been doing since then? Another 76,000 jobs were lost by local government. The Obama administration's February 2009 stimulus package provided a lot of funding for localities to pay for police, fireman and teachers. This funding seems to already be running out. What will happen in 2011, when the stimulus money has been completely spent?

The economic establishment has told us that the U.S. economy has had four quarters of recovery so far and we have already in the fifth. Employment hasn't shown any recovery however. Up to now, the claim have been that this is because employment is a lagging indicator (something that only showed up in the 1990s after a number of 'adjustments' had been made to how GDP and the inflation figures were calculated). The employment lag has already been several quarters and it now looks like it is heading for several years.

Disclosure: No positions.

Daryl Montgomery
Organizer, New York Investing meetup
http://investing.meetup.com/21

This posting is editorial opinion. There is no intention to endorse the purchase or sale of any security.

Some Recovery, Half a Million More Unemployed Last Week

The 'Helicopter Economics Investing Guide' is meant to help educate people on how to make profitable investing choices in the current economic environment. We have coined this term to describe the current monetary and fiscal policies of the U.S. government, which involve unprecedented money printing. This is the official blog of the New York Investing meetup.


After more than a year of economic 'recovery', the Department of Labor reported weekly unemployment claims rose to 500,000 last week. Any number at 400,000 or higher indicates recession. The last time weekly claims were below that number was the week of July 17, 2007 - more than three years ago.

The unemployment problem has two components - not enough hiring in the private sector and too many job losses for people who have jobs. The lack of hiring can be seen in the monthly non-farm payrolls report and the too much firing shows up in the weekly unemployment claims. Not all U.S. workers are eligible to collect unemployment however so the weekly claims numbers understate the actual number of people who lost their job. Even with the understatement, unemployment looks bad enough as is.

The number of former workers collecting extended benefits rose to 4,753,456 in the week ending July 31st (the most recent data). This was up 260,105 or over 5% from the previous week. A year earlier in 2009, only 2,961,457 were in this category, which includes people unemployed for over 26 weeks. So the number of people who are long-term unemployed and have not yet exhausted their benefits has risen over 60% in the last year -a year when economic recovery was supposedly taking place.

Since November 2009, the weekly jobless claims have mostly been in the 450,000 to 500,000 range. There is no noticeable trend of improvement. This is amazing, not just because of trillions in deficit spending that the government told us would make the economy better, but over the long-term (and three years is the long-term) this number should automatically drift down. Companies have to have a certain minimal amount of employees to run their operations. As time goes on, the number of people that can be terminated drops significantly and so should weekly unemployment claims. This drop in claims wouldn't mean the economy is getting better, although the mainstream media would blast headlines claiming that was happening, it would mean that there aren't a lot of people left to fire. At this point in the cycle, since claims aren't dropping, business activity has to be continually declining to maintain the same high unemployment numbers. That's the definition of a recession, not a recovery.

Investors should not be surprised if the weekly unemployment claims numbers start looking better soon and for the next couple of months. The U.S. employment situation is a major embarassment for the administation and there is an important election in November. This week, the president is making appearances in  five states to make the case that it was worth borrowing trillions of dollars for stimulus spending and doing so has put America 'back on the road to recovery'. The last nine months of weekly unemployment claims certainly aren't supporting this view. With a statistical adjustment here and there though, the numbers could suddenly look a whole lot better, even if the economy isn't improving at all.

Disclosure: No positions.

Daryl Montgomery
Organizer, New York Investing meetup
http://investing.meetup.com/21

This posting is editorial opinion. Like all other postings for this blog, there is no intention to endorse the purchase or sale of any security.

G-20 Meeting's Deficit Goals Are Meaningless

The 'Helicopter Economics Investing Guide' is meant to help educate people on how to make profitable investing choices in the current economic environment. We have coined this term to describe the current monetary and fiscal policies of the U.S. government, which involve unprecedented money printing. This is the official blog of the New York Investing meetup.


The G-20 met this weekend and set a goal that member countries should cut their deficits in half by 2013. The agreement also calls for G-20 countries to start reducing their deficit to GDP ratio by 2016. Even with such easy to reach targets, success is by no means guaranteed.

For some reason the G-20 recently woke up and realized countries can't continue to forever spend a lot more than their income from tax receipts. Some of them have been doing just this for many decades at this point. The statement released from the meeting said, "Sound fiscal finances are essential to sustain recovery, provide flexibility to respond to new shocks, ensure the capacity to meet the challenges of aging populations, and avoid leaving future generations with a legacy of deficits and debt."  So at least ten years after the horse has left the corral, the G-20 now wants to close the gait.... but not all the way.

The original proposal for cutting deficits in half was changed from would to should because Japan, the U.S. and India objected. No one actually seems to think that Japan will be able to accomplish this goal. Japan is the most indebted major country on earth with its debt to GDP ratio reaching over 200% this year. Interestingly, the long-term budget projections of the Obama administration are for a deficit of $778 billion for 2013, which would be less than half of the $1.6 trillion projected budget deficit for 2010. The 2013 figure is still almost double the biggest deficit prior to the Credit Crisis however. It also assumes robust GDP growth and minimal inflation during the next few years. Another recession or rising inflation could easily move the U.S. deficit numbers back to well above a trillion dollars. 

European markets were up on the news today and the U.S. market is rallying slightly as well in morning trade. It should be clear to the markets that world leaders are not really serious about reducing government spending. Although, the markets might be worried that even small spending reductions could turn the global economy back down and risk another recession - assuming the first recession actually ended that is.

Disclosure: None

Daryl Montgomery
Organizer, New York Investing meetup
http://investing.meetup.com/21

This posting is editorial opinion. There is no intention to endorse the purchase or sale of any security.

More Evidence for a Double Dip Recession

The 'Helicopter Economics Investing Guide' is meant to help educate people on how to make profitable investing choices in the current economic environment. We have coined this term to describe the current monetary and fiscal policies of the U.S. government, which involve unprecedented money printing. This is the official blog of the New York Investing meetup.


The U.S. economy continues to look weaker and serious problems with the financial system are still lurking in Europe. EU countries are trying to outdo each other to see who can increase taxes and cut spending the most. Copper, known as the commodity with a PhD in economics, is in a confirmed sell off.

U.S. Existing Homes Sales were released this morning and they came in well below expectations. This is only one of a number of reports lately where analysts have proven to be much too bullish. Despite the federal government tax credit that was juicing up home sales, they still managed to drop 2.2% (the credit expired on April 30th, but buyers have until June 30th to close and the sales figures are based on closings). The annual sales rate in May was 5.66 million units, compared to over 7 million in 2005. Inventories of homes for sale managed to drop just below 4 million last month. In 2005, they were under 3 million and the year before barely over 2 million. So a lot less homes are being sold now and there are a lot more homes available for sale. A number of sources are claiming that both HUD and the big banks are holding back on foreclosures to prevent the inventory of unsold homes from becoming even worse.

In a separate report, more people have dropped out of the Obama administrations HAMP (Home Affordable Mortgage Program) that have stayed in it. At best, this program is delaying foreclosures and it appears unlikely that it will ultimately prevent very many - all at a huge cost to the American taxpayer of course.

Meanwhile in Europe, the future stall engine for the world economy, the UK announced its plans to eliminate its budget deficit in five years. Higher taxes and big spending cuts are the approach it will be taking. Capital gains taxes will be raised from 18% to 28% (investing capital will flow to countries with lower rates) and the VAT will go up from 17.5% to 20%. Similar moves are taking place throughout the EU.

There seems to be no realization on the other side of the pond that higher taxes are a negative for economic growth. The proposed spending cuts will also have the same impact. Significantly lower economic growth and lower tax receipts are not being projected for the future however by the Europeans. Obviously they are going to be as surprised as they were by the euro crisis. Problems in the region's financial system have not gone away as is.  Fitch today slashed its view on BNP Paribas, the largest bank in the eurozone.

The augurs of a renewed recession can also be found in the ECRI weekly leading indicators, which indicated a growth rate of -5.7% last week (this number shouldn't be interpreted literally) and by looking at the price of copper. It is amusing to see the spokesperson for the ECRI trying to explain away the negative implications of the ECRI's leading indicators after the company has spent decades building up their credibility. It's enough to make one wonder if the company is changing its emphasis to providing economic cheerleading instead of an accurate view of the U.S. economy?

The price behavior of copper is confirming the ECRI data. Copper is more sensitive to economic activity than any other commodity. If you look at a chart of its ETF JJC, you will notice that the 50-day moving average crossed the 200-day on Monday producing a classic technical sell signal. Over time, copper has proven itself to be a lot smarter than the politicians that run the world's economies.

Disclosure: None

Daryl Montgomery
Organizer, New York Investing meetup
http://investing.meetup.com/21

This posting is editorial opinion. Like all other postings for this blog, there is no intention to endorse the purchase or sale of any security.

Some Curiosities in Wednesday's Market Rally

The 'Helicopter Economics Investing Guide' is meant to help educate people on how to make profitable investing choices in the current economic environment. We have coined this term to describe the current monetary and fiscal policies of the U.S. government, which involve unprecedented money printing. This is the official blog of the New York Investing meetup.


U.S. stocks had a big rally yesterday with a surge starting at approximately 2:20PM New York time. This rally was counter to the direction of the news flow and had many of the earmarks of central bank intervention.

Central banks will pump liquidity into the global financial system to prop it up at key points (informed cynics would use the word manipulate and might cite the U.S. Plunge Protection Team as the source of these activities). A recent example of this was the ECB's huge injection on the morning of May 10th, which caused an explosive rally for U.S. stocks on the open.  Draining the liquidity the following week caused the market to drop back down again however. These central bank activities would therefore be more accurately be described as massive pump and dump operations. If a stock manipulator in the U.S. was caught doing this, he or she would go to jail.  Governments though don't think they have to follow the rules they make for the little people.

A big liquidity injection will usually take almost all stocks up, even some highly improbable ones.  Currently stocks related to the BP oil spill off the Louisiana coast would be the best examples of this. PB had has a series of failed attempts at controlling the massive leak that is now threatening Florida beaches.  Its Operation Saw effort failed yesterday when the riser package got jammed and this could be seen through a live feed on the Internet (the saw now seems to have been freed). The situation has become so bad that Internet buzz is starting to question BP's survival. The lawsuits against the company keep escalating and some of the potentially biggest ones aren't even on the company's radar screen yet.

On this continual wave of bad news, how did the companies connected to the oil spill perform in yesterday's market?  British Petroleum (BP) was up 3.0%.  Anadarko (APC), which owns 25% of the operation, was up 5.1%. Cameron International (CAM), the provider of the failed blowout converter, was up 7.0%. Halliburton did the best of all rising 10.7%. Only Transocean (RIG) was down, falling 3.5% (although it is up by 3.5% as this is being written). Interestingly, I saw mainstream news reports that only cited the drop in Transocean stock and ignored the huge and rather inexplicable gains for the other companies.

The timing of yesterday's rally was also a bit too convenient. President Obama gave a speech on the state of the U.S. economy in Pittsburgh that ended around 2:20PM. As the speech ended, critical commentary was hitting the news wires about how his efforts to fix it have failed. Obama's February 2009 almost $1 trillion stimulus package for instance was supposed to keep unemployment from rising to 8.5% and it is now 9.9% more than a year later. Without the hiring of 1.2 million temporary census workers (twice the number used in 2000) unemployment would be significantly worse. Nevertheless, the market took off in a huge rally as the speech ended. This well-timed ringing endorsement from Wall Street of Washington's failed policies could have been mere coincidence or the invisible hand of the Federal Reserve acting behind the scenes.

During the Credit Crisis in 2008 the market constantly had big up and down days. As time went on stocks continued their downward slant because the up days were always undone within a week or so. Only when the market finally calmed down in March 2009 was a sustainable rally possible. Volatility began rising in 2007 though and the early increases, similar to the ones taking place now, were merely a warning of much worse things to come the following year.

Disclosure: None

Daryl Montgomery
Organizer, New York Investing meetup
http://investing.meetup.com/21

This posting is editorial opinion. Like all other postings for this blog, there is no intention to endorse the purchase or sale of any security.

The Good News, Bad News Jobs Report

The 'Helicopter Economics Investing Guide' is meant to help educate people on how to make profitable investing choices in the current economic environment. We have coined this term to describe the current monetary and fiscal policies of the U.S. government, which involve unprecedented money printing. This is the official blog of the New York Investing meetup.


There was something for both bulls and bears in the April employment report. The government stated that 290,000 jobs were created last month, a solid enough number. Despite these job gains, the headline unemployment rate rose to 9.9%. If certain discouraged workers and forced part-timers were added, the unemployment rate would have been an incredibly high 17.1%.

It is of course puzzling that the unemployment rate can go up from 9.7% to 9.9% while the U.S. economy is supposedly adding 290,000 jobs. The mystery is solved according to the BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics) by noting that 805,000 jobseekers reentered the labor market in April. Interestingly, a similar number of workers left the U.S. labor market in a one-month period between December 2009 and January 2010. Perhaps the BLS just misplaced them for four months and finally found them again? Labor force participation is one of the areas where it is easiest to fudge the numbers to make the employment statistics look better.

Seasonal 'adjustments' can also improve the numbers quite a bit as well. The economy usually adds jobs at this time of year and they are appearing right on schedule in the employment report. For an example of how seasonal adjustment works, note the employment numbers in the education category in June. There is generally a 20% reduction in education employment once the school year ends. You will see no such drop in the employment report. The BLS should perhaps give the seasonal adjustment term another name, such as 'make-believe adjustment' for instance, so the public can have better insight into how the employment numbers are created.

The BLS did at least admit that the government hired 66,000 temporary workers in April to help conduct the census. Census hiring has been going on since March 2009 and should have peaked in the last two months. Sources estimate total census-hiring in the range of 1.2 million. I have not found anything near this amount added to the government category in previous reports. However, temporary workers in the Business and Professional category have ballooned during the census hiring period. A footnote in the employment report indicates that jobs added in 'other' categories may be included in the Business and Professional category. We will have to see what happens there in a few months when almost all of the 1.2 million census workers are no longer employed.

To see if the job situation is actually improving, it is always a good idea to compare year over year figures. According to the BLS, the number of people 'not in the labor force' is over two million higher in April 2010 than it was in April 2009. This increase reduces the reported unemployment rate. The employment to population ratio is more than a percent lower today than a year earlier. The worse comparison though is for long-term unemployment (27 weeks or over). This number has grown considerably and is on its way to doubling. A year ago there were 3.7 million long-term unemployed and last month there were 6.7 million. This indicates that the unemployment rate is not just high, but a significant number of the unemployed are having trouble getting new jobs - and this will continue to be the case.

According to recent polls, just 21% of Americans consider the economy to be in good condition. The view of the average person is very different from the numbers produced by the statisticians in Washington. Even with the job increases that took place in April, there are approximately 1.5 million less people employed in the U.S. today than one year ago. When the $800 billion stimulus bill was passed in February 2009, the Obama administration claimed it would create 3.5 million additional jobs. There seems to be some inconsistency between the hype and what has actually taken place. Is it any wonder that the American people don't trust the numbers coming out of Washington?

Disclosure: None relevant.

Daryl Montgomery
Organizer, New York Investing meetup
http://investing.meetup.com/21

This posting is editorial opinion. Like all other postings for this blog, there is no intention to endorse the purchase or sale of any security.

Why China is About to Change Its Currency Policy

The 'Helicopter Economics Investing Guide' is meant to help educate people on how to make profitable investing choices in the current economic environment. We have coined this term to describe the current monetary and fiscal policies of the U.S. government, which involve unprecedented money printing. This is the official blog of the New York Investing meetup.


Reports are out today, April 8th, that China is about to abandon its fixed rate currency policy instituted in July 2008. It is likely to let the renminbi revalue upward a small amount immediately and then trade in a narrow trading band on any give day after that. China took such an approach in 2005. The U.S. has been pressuring China for this change.

The Obama administration had a report that was supposed to be delivered to congress on April 15th on whether or not China was a currency manipulator. This has become an increasingly sore point in U.S. China relations. It was abruptly announced a few days ago that the report would be delayed. Treasury Secretary Geithner has since gone to China and met with officials to get them to be more flexible with the renimbi's exchange rate. The Chinese have remained adamant that their currency isn't undervalued. If that was indeed the case, they should simply let it float freely and everyone would be happy. There is of course zero chance that that is going to happen at this point in time.

Keeping the value of a currency artificially low is a boon for a country's exporters because it makes their goods cheaper. Business and labor interests in the country with the artificially high currency necessarily lose out. This is a good description of Japanese U.S. trade situation in the 1970s and early 1980s. Now China has a huge trade surplus with the United States and has accumulated approximately a trillion dollars in reserves of U.S. currency.  The U.S. gains from China's undervalued currency policy because China recycles the hoard of dollars its gets from its trade surplus by buying U.S. treasuries (Japan did the same thing). This allows the U.S. in turn to run massive budget deficits because it can borrow a lot of money from China. That game may be up however. China was a net seller of treasuries for three months in a row up to this January (the latest month for which figures are available).

Keeping a currency undervalued is not without its risks. One of those major risks is inflation. China has compounded that risk even further by engaging in a massive stimulus program while its currency was frozen. Inflation does seem to be bubbling up internally within the country and even beyond its borders in higher prices for commodities. Chinese buying is the key driver of commodity prices.  China is in fact the epicenter for potential global inflation and this will impact the U.S. despite any moves the Federal Reserve takes to try to dampen rising prices.

In the long-term, China will have to let the renminbi peg to the U.S. dollar, China will still need to maintain stringent capital controls to prevent big moves in its currency if the renminbi is inappropriately valued (many experts claims it would rise 40% if it floated freely).  Economic forces always win in the end and the Chinese leadership will eventually find this out.

ETNs that can be used to take a position in the renminbi are CYB and CNY.

Disclosure: None

NEXT: Currencies React to Ongoing Greek Debt Crisis

Daryl Montgomery
Organizer, New York Investing meetup
http://investing.meetup.com/21

This posting is editorial opinion. Like all other postings for this blog, there is no intention to endorse the purchase or sale of any security.

The Economy's House of Cards

The 'Helicopter Economics Investing Guide' is meant to help educate people on how to make profitable investing choices in the current economic environment. We have coined this term to describe the current monetary and fiscal policies of the U.S. government, which involve unprecedented money printing. This is the official blog of the New York Investing meetup.


Foreclosure stats for February indicate that 308,000 U.S. households received some type of foreclosure related notice during the month. Of all U.S. residential mortgage holders, 15% have either missed some payments or are in foreclosure. Mainstream news outlets reported these depression level numbers as 'good news' because the rate of foreclosure activity was only 6% higher in February than the huge level that had been reached a year earlier.

Housing is at the epicenter of the economy's problems and the situation has consistently gotten worse since the market peak in September 2005. The decline has continued even though there are numerous federal and state programs aimed at shoring up the housing market. Government policy seems to have been highly effective at creating the housing bubble, but impotent in cleaning up the mess. President Obama stated in a speech in Mesa, Arizona in February 2009 that his administration's housing programs would help three to four million homeowners avoid foreclosure through loan modification programs.  More than a year after that speech, the latest figures indicate that 116,300 home mortgages have been modified through federal programs. At that rate, it will take as long as 34.4 years to fulfill Obama's promise.

The abysmal failure of its loan modification efforts seems to have led the administration into new directions. As part of last November's "Home Affordable Modification Program", the federal government will now pay to get people out of their homes by encouraging short sales. A short sale in real estate is when a bank agrees to accept less than the outstanding mortgage owed as payment for a house. The government's plan pays the owner $1500 and the bank $1000 to agree. Real estate agents get much more however. They have to appraise the house (a major arena for corrupt practices during the housing bubble) and get a commission for arranging the sale. Neither homeowners, nor banks are likely to be pleased with this gift to the real estate industry - an industry known for its generous political contributions.

It was noted in news reports by early 2006 that U.S. foreclosure rates were starting to climb and a possible crisis was imminent. After four years, government programs haven't 'fixed' the problem, nor are they likely to in the foreseeable future. Mainstream news outlets are now reporting that U.S. foreclosures this February experienced their lowest rate of increase in four years. Foreclosures are continuing to go up, but at a slower rate. The numbers are not getting better. A casual reader of the news might miss that important point.

The ultimate nightmare ending of a housing collapse in a bad economy can be seen in Detroit today. The mayor of Detroit has just suggested bulldozing up to a quarter of the city. In some areas only one or two buildings are occupied per block. Faced with a $300 million budget shortfall, the cost of maintaining city services for these areas is prohibitive. Youngstown, Ohio and Flint, Michigan already have programs to demolish empty neighborhoods. Kansas City just voted to close down half of its schools and along with a number of Midwestern industrial cities might be implementing such programs in the future. Federal assistance will be needed to help Detroit implement its program. Perhaps this new housing aid program will be called the "Home Bulldozing Modification Program".

Disclosure: None

NEXT:

Daryl Montgomery
Organizer,New York Investing meetup
http://investing.meetup.com/21

This posting is editorial opinion. Like all other postings for this blog, there is no intention to endorse the purchase or sale of any security.

Currency Markets - California Dreaming is Greek to Me

The 'Helicopter Economics Investing Guide' is meant to help educate people on how to make profitable investing choices in the current economic environment. We have coined this term to describe the current monetary and fiscal policies of the U.S. government, which involve unprecedented money printing. This is the official blog of the New York Investing meetup.


The trade-weighted U.S. dollar has been rallying since early December 2009. Except for a sell off after the beginning of this year, the rally continued because of trouble in the euro zone centered around Greece. The euro, representing more than 50% by weight of the basket of currencies that make up the trade-weighted dollar, hit a seven-month low and lost more than 7% of its value from its recent high. It takes a huge leap of logic to think that fiscal troubles in the euro zone are bigger those in the United States, but this is what the mainstream media has dished up as the explanation for what is going on. The invisible hand of the ECB (European Central Bank) manipulating the currency markets would offer a more rational explanation.

Greece represents 2% of the euro zone economy, compared to California which represent 13% of the U.S. economy. Both are in fiscal trouble. Neither can print their own money to get out of that trouble because they are both part of currency unions. While it is generally not recognized, U.S. states are de facto part of a currency union for the dollar, which was established in the 1800s. Their fiscal problems should be considered as analagous to european countries that are part of the euro zone. California is essentially in default and is only being kept afloat by constant cash infusions from a number of federal stimulus programs. It represents a much bigger drain on the U.S. dollar, than Greece does for the euro.

Selling the euro and buying the U.S. dollar because of the fiscal profligacy of countries like Greece is also absurd considering that the U.S federal government is just, if not more profligate, than the most fiscally irresponsible euro zone countries. It is considered outrageous that Greece had a budget deficit that represents 13% of its GDP. The 2011 U.S. federal budget submitted by president Obama on February 1st has a deficit of 11% of GDP (U.S. GDP figures are grossly overstated). For every dollar the U.S. intends to spend in 2011, 40 cents will have to be borrowed or printed.  Does that sound like a country that is protecting the value of its currency?

Greece has submitted a plan to the European Union (EU) for slashing its budget deficit to 3% by 2012 - the maximum allowed by the EU. While many people think that this is unlikely to happen, the U.S. has no intention whatsoever of slashing its budget deficit to that level in 2012 and will be fortunate if it is even lower than current levels. As for California, there seems to be no path to fixing the problem there without a massive federal government bailout - and it is only one of several U.S. states that have serious fiscal problems. Yet, the markets are selling the euro and buying the U.S. dollar because the U.S. is viewed as being in better fiscal shape that the euro zone? Perhaps I missed something when I took Logic 101.

Disclosure: None

NEXT: Withdrawal of Liquidity Threatens Second Global Meltdown

Daryl Montgomery
Organizer, New York Investing meetup
http://investing.meetup.com/21

This posting is editorial opinion. Like all other postings for this blog, there is no intention to endorse the purchase or sale of any security.

The 2011 U.S Budget - Inflationary and Out of Control

The 'Helicopter Economics Investing Guide' is meant to help educate people on how to make profitable investing choices in the current economic environment. We have coined this term to describe the current monetary and fiscal policies of the U.S. government, which involve unprecedented money printing. This is the official blog of the New York Investing meetup.


Two things happened the week before president Obama released his proposed 2011 budget today. First, in his State of Union address Obama promised a three-year freeze on domestic spending. Almost simultaneously, the U.S. congress raised the national debt ceiling by $1.9 trillion to $14.29 trillion. When it comes to politicians, investors would be wise to watch what they do and pay no attention to what they say.

There is no reason to believe that the U.S. spending orgy that was ratcheted up with the Credit Crisis is going to be controlled now, next year, the year after, nor the year after that. The 2011 fiscal year begins October 1, 2010. Obama's proposed budget includes $3.83 trillion in total spending and an estimated deficit of $1.27 trillion. The deficit would be much worse if the Bush tax cuts didn't expire at the end of 2010 and a proposed $90 billion tax on big banks wasn't being factored in. Higher taxes are Obama's approach to controlling the deficit, not less spending - and he is going to be raising taxes much higher if any deficit reduction is going to take place.

To be fair, president Obama only promised to control a small amount of the domestic spending part of the U.S. budget. This is estimated to be $447 billion or less than 12% of 2011 spending. The biggest U.S. budget items - military, social security and Medicare are not being frozen. No significant spending control is possible with this approach, but the public would never know it if they read the mainstream media headlines indicating otherwise.

The 2010 budget is also being affected by Obama's revised spending agenda. Last February, the 2010 budget deficit was supposed to come in at $1.2 trillion. In August, this was revised upward to $1.5 trillion. In a big news release, also just last week, the figure was lowered to $1.35 trillion. This allowed Obama to state that the deficit for 2010, the first budget Obama fully controlled, was less than the over $1.4 trillion in 2009. Well, that was last week when the cameras were rolling. Now that the State of the Union address is over, the 2010 deficit is now estimated at $1.56 trillion - almost $200 billion higher only one week later.

The U.S. national debt was an already huge $8.95 trillion by the end of 2007, when the Credit Crisis began to unfold. It could easily get to the new debt limit of $14.29 trillion long before the 2011 fiscal year is even finished (the national debt can increase by much more than just the budget deficit because of accounting tricks played with inter-governmental money transfers). The United States has only two ways of paying for its budget deficits. We either borrow the money - almost all of which comes from foreign sources - or we print it. At some point our lenders are going to say enough is enough and then the printing press will be our only option. There will be no way limit how much inflation will exist once that happens.

Disclosure: None

NEXT: Gold Rallies Off Support; Inflation Threat Hasn't Disappeared

Daryl Montgomery
Organizer, New York Investing meetup
http://investing.meetup.com/21

This posting is editorial opinion. Like all other postings for this blog, there is no intention to endorse the purchase or sale of any security.

The Twilight of Ben Bernanke

The 'Helicopter Economics Investing Guide' is meant to help educate people on how to make profitable investing choices in the current economic environment. We have coined this term to describe the current monetary and fiscal policies of the U.S. government, which involve unprecedented money printing. This is the official blog of the New York Investing meetup.


Fed Chair Ben Bernanke survived the U.S. Senate vote for his reappointment, but it was touch and go for a while. The vote was 70 to 30 - an unprecedented lack of support for a sitting head of the Federal Open Market Committee. The previous lowest level of support was for Paul Volcker in 1983. His vote was 84 to 16, much better than Bernanke's. Volcker failed to get support for another nomination however. He was out in the next term. Bernanke will be lucky if he lasts even that long.

Opposition to Bernanke first arose in the blogosphere and then spread through the politically activist communities on both the Left and the Right. Even with that, the senate might still have engaged in its usual rubber stamp support for the president's nominee for Fed Chair.  The surprise upset in the Massachusetts special election for Ted Kennedy's seat indicated how angry the public was about the handling of the economy and that no senator could expect automatic voter support this fall. The one-third of senators up for reelection in November seemed particularly reluctant to support Bernanke. The White House had to get involved to salvage Bernanke's nomination. Without pressure from the president and congressional leadership, he might have gone under.

The government PR machine has been trying to turn Bernanke's first term at the head of the Fed from the fiasco it has been into a great triumph. They came up with the tag line that 'he saved the U.S. from another depression'. Obama and a number of Democratic leaders repeated this outrageous claim over and over again. There is only limited proof that this might be the case. The U.S. economy still faces a depression or at the very least an ongoing recessionary period that could last for years. The White House and the Fed may indeed be oblivious to this idea, since they both seem to believe their own press releases rather than the hard evidence that indicates otherwise. In truth, Bernanke is one of the most incompetent leaders the Fed has ever had. He failed to see the Credit Crisis coming, he failed to react quickly when it did, and when he did he took questionable actions that benefited Wall Street at the expense of Main Street. Bernanke's associates, Tim Geithner and Henry Paulson, the current and former Treasury Secretaries, also claim they did a great job handling the Credit Crisis and that they too saved the U.S. from another depression.

Why Obama submitted Bernanke's name for reappointment is indeed a mystery - at least if you believe his rhetoric about 'change you can believe in'. Bernanke was originally appointed by George Bush and is a Republican. Obama constantly complains about the big mess with the economy that George Bush left him to untangle. Yet, Obama renominates, with obsequious praise, the key architect of the Bush economy. Did he even look for someone else to fill the position?  My guess is he didn't. The rap about why senators should support Bernanke has included 'no one else would probably have done a better job handling the Credit Crisis' (an indirect admission that Bernanke didn't perform well) and 'someone else wouldn't be much different as Fed Chair'. While Washington is willing to accept mediocrity and substandard performance in top government positions, the American public seems to finally be getting fed up with Beltway incompetence.

Bernanke's loss of power is not just due to his poor handling of the economy and financial system. He is a complete contrast to the politically savvy Alan Greenspan, who survived for 19 years as Fed Chair, through both Republican and Democratic administrations. Bernanke seems to be politically tone-deaf. The Fed's actions at this month's meeting, which ended on Wednesday, included an announcement that it was closing down a number of its programs that provide liquidity to the system. Stocks gyrated wildly after the announcement and the market could easily have gone into a tailspin. Not exactly a wise move for a Fed Chair ever and particularly not smart the day before a vote for renomination where senators are looking for a reason not to support you.

Bernanke also seems to have confused the idea that the Fed should be independent with the Fed should be above the law. This imperial view does not sit well with the American public. Bernanke's renomination will only further empower the forces that want to audit the Fed and reign it in. From now on, he is Barack Obama's Fed Chair and not George Bush's. Bernanke's reappointment is likely to be one more decision that president Obama will regret having made. And if he doesn't, the voters will probably make sure he does.

Disclosure: None.
NEXT: U.S. 4th Quarter GDP - Slower Decline Leads to Growth


Daryl Montgomery
Organizer,New York Investing meetup
http://investing.meetup.com/21

This posting is editorial opinion. Like all other postings for this blog, there is no intention to endorse the purchase or sale of any security.

The State of the Union for Investors

The 'Helicopter Economics Investing Guide' is meant to help educate people on how to make profitable investing choices in the current economic environment. We have coined this term to describe the current monetary and fiscal policies of the U.S. government, which involve unprecedented money printing. This is the official blog of the New York Investing meetup.


We live in extraordinary times. The U.S. economy is at risk of veering toward a multi-year depressionary state or experiencing a massive bout of inflation. Based on president Obama's State of the Union address last night, investors should still be worrying about both possibilities.

The impact of the global Credit Crisis that began in 2007 has been deep and prolonged so far. It was met with extraordinary government action in terms of spending and in pumping liquidity into the financial system - both of which are inflationary in the long-term. Despite these efforts, economic recovery in the U.S. has been tepid and elusive so far. This has not stopped our leadership from taking credit for 'saving us from another depression' despite the lack of evidence to support this view. On a number of economic fronts, the situation has continued to deteriorate, but Washington continues to congratulate itself on its great performance. The State of the Union address with its almost uninterrupted applause for a long litany of meaningless political platitudes provides the perfect picture of just how out of touch Washington is and how oblivious they are to their record of failure.

In his speech last night, president Obama emphasized that jobs creation would be the focus of his administration this year. For those with short memories, this was also stated as the prime focus of the White House in January 2009. The U.S. unemployment rate was 7.2% at that time and the claim was that if congress didn't pass the proposed $845 billion stimulus package, unemployment would reach double digits by the end of the year. Democrats said they emphasized government spending over tax relief in the bill because that was the best and fastest way to create jobs. Well, congress passed Obama's package, really a massive giveaway to a number of special interests, and the unemployment rate was 10.0% at the end of the year.  Based on their own criteria, the White House's 2009 attempt at job creation was a complete failure and a big waste of taxpayer dollars. For some reason this wasn't mentioned in the president's upbeat speech.

By this point, I don't think anyone should expect an honest appraisal from the White House on any aspect of the administration's performance. Obama made a number of negative references in his speech to the much derided Wall Street bailout program, TARP. He stated that it was "about as popular as a root canal" and it was something which "I hated". What was left unstated was that while he was a presidential candidate Obama made phone calls to round up Democratic support for the bill and this was instrumental in passing it and one of the first acts of his administration in 2009 was to get congress to release the second $350 billion allocated in the bill so it could be spent. Imagine what he would have done if he had liked TARP.

Deficit reduction was another item highlighted in the State of the Union speech. Perhaps this was meant as the comic relief - I don't know. Apparently this will start in the 2011 budget. Obama stated that he had already found $20 billion in inefficient programs in next year's budget and would pore over it "line by line" to find even more. The 2011 budget hasn't been released yet, but the budget deficit for the 2010 budget (starting on October 1, 2009) is now estimated to be $1.35 trillion. A savings of $20 billion would reduce the current deficit by less than 1.5% and lower it to only $1.33 trillion. Doesn't exactly look like a big dent in profligate government spending does it?  While this is completely meaningless, Obama also claimed that if his health care program was passed it would result in a trillion dollar reduction in the budget deficit (over a many year period, but that wasn't emphasized). A big spending government program leading to deficit reduction?  Yeah, that can happen. Any investor who believes this should stop investing immediately because you are probably buying stock in the Brooklyn Bridge.

Despite the claims coming from Washington, the recession is not over. The White House, congress, and even the Federal Reserve seem incapable of recognizing this because it would be an admission of failure on their part. At some point it will be recognized however because the American public will insist on it (the message from the surprise upset in the Massachusetts senate race seems to have eluded the White House so far). Modern democracies will always eventually err on the side of more government spending. As we have seen in the last year, this doesn't necessarily solve the problem of a bad economy and thus it is still possible for an intractable depression to take hold. Too much government spending does eventually lead to the problem of excessive government debt though and at some point the debt becomes so high that it is impossible to pay off. That's when intractable inflation shows up. Historically, the worst economic disasters take place when government is most oblivious to these unfolding problems. In that case, Americans have a lot to worry about. President Obama stated more than once in his speech last night "I don't quit". Based on his first year in office, he should have said, "I don't listen".

Disclosure: Not applicable.

NEXT: The Twilight of Ben Bernanke

Daryl Montgomery
Organizer, New York Investing meetup
http://investing.meetup.com/21

This posting is editorial opinion. Like all other postings for this blog, there is no intention to endorse the purchase or sale of any security.