Why the U.S. Economy is Turning Down

 

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 amounts of money printing. This is the official blog of the the New York Investing meetup.

A number of economic reports have come in lower than expected recently and the talking heads on TV are perplexed as to why a sudden downturn is taking place. Listening to their commentary, you will hear all sorts of fanciful explanations except the most obvious one – the massive government deficit spending that has been the reason for the apparent economic recovery has been frozen because the U.S. national debt ceiling hasn’t been raised by Congress.

The debt ceiling is currently $14.3 trillion and this was reached in May. Debt was already getting close to this figure as early as February however and federal spending was decelerating long before May. Based on the 2011 fiscal year budget (which runs from October 1, 2010 to September 30, 2011), the U.S. was on track for a deficit as high as $1.65 trillion this year. This represents approximately 11% of U.S. GDP. This 11% is just the deficit part of federal government spending, not all of it. Subtract this from GDP, you would see GDP was only around $13 trillion – lower than before the Credit Crisis began.

Moreover, the part of the GDP generated by the deficit is being paid for with borrowed or printed money. Actually, it’s mostly printed money. The amount of quantitative easing planned by the Federal Reserve in the first half of the year is enough to cover 70% of the deficit.  The government issues bonds to pay for the deficit and then the Fed buys them with printed money. This is what has been making the economic numbers look better and is being described by the mainstream media as an economic recovery.

A monkey wrench was thrown into the works however when Congress refused to raise the debt ceiling. As a consequence, deficit spending has ground to a halt for a while (expect it to return soon) and this in turn slowed down the Fed’s effort to inject newly printed money into the economy. How dependent the health of the economy is on deficit spending supported by the Fed’s phony money operation has become apparent in recent economic reports.

The May non-farm payrolls indicated only a 54,000 increase in jobs for the month. Moreover, the previous two months were revised downward by 40,000 jobs. The manufacturing sector, which has been leading the recovery, actually lost 5,000 jobs. Close examination of the figures indicates there are well over two million less people in the labor force than last year at this time. If they had remained in the labor force, the current unemployment rate would be 10.6% rather than the reported 9.1%. It would be highly unusual for the labor force to shrink at all, let alone by over two million, if the economy was growing as it supposedly has been. People leaving the labor force make the unemployment numbers look better than they are though and government statisticians are well aware of this.

Regardless of how much recovery has taken place, it is clear that the goods producing sector of the economy is weakening. While the ISM Manufacturing report for May still indicated expansion, every component was lower than it was in the April reading. New Orders and the Backlog figure were barely positive.  The highest component, as has been the case for many months, was Prices Paid – a measure of inflation. It was down from a whopping 85.5 in April to a still very high 76.5 (above 50 indicates expansion). Much of the growth in manufacturing has occurred because the items coming off the assembly line cost more, not because of there are more of them. The Durable Goods reading from April, the most recent, was down 1.2%, confirming less demand for the output of U.S. factories.

Tying it all together are the Leading Economic Indicators (LEI), an indication of where the economy is heading. These were down 0.3 in April, indicating the economy is likely to continue to lose steam. LEI will probably stay weak until the deficit ceiling is raised and newly printed money can start flowing back into the U.S. economy at its formerly prodigious rate. If this doesn’t happen, Americans might discover that just like the proverbial emperor, the U.S. economy has no clothes.

Disclosure: None

Daryl Montgomery
Organizer, New York Investing meetup
http://investing.meetup.com/21
Author, "Inflation Investing - A Guide for the 2010s", Volume 1
http://www.amazon.com/Inflation-Investing-Guide-2010s-ebook/dp/B0051GU06W/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1307366974&sr=1-3

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 Case Against Reappointing 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.


Economics is one of the few professions where incompetence is regularly rewarded. The attempt to keep Ben Bernanke as head of the Federal Reserve for a second term is one of the most glaring examples of this practice - and one that will have serious negative repercussions for the United States going forward.

When president Obama announced that he was reappointing Bernanke last August, the reason he gave was that 'Bernanke prevented another depression'. This sound bite has been mindlessly repeated by politicians - senate leader Harry Reid most recently - and economically challenged media commentators ever since. Until the U.S. economy returns to its pre-Credit Crisis state, we will not know whether or not that we have been saved from another depression. There is more than enough evidence to indicate that we haven't been - double digit unemployment, bank loan portfolios that continue to deteriorate, rising bankruptcies and bank failures, lack of lending by the banks, and a housing market that only functions because of numerous government programs that prop it up are just a few reasons why this claim is wrong. Obama would not be the first U.S. president to prematurely call the end to a depression, Herbert Hoover did so in June 1930 when he told the press that the Great Depression was over - it was almost three years before the bottom and at least another decade before that was indeed the case.

One thing that will be pointed to as evidence of recovery will be good GDP numbers later this week - estimates are as high as 6% annualized growth for the fourth quarter of 2009.  If GDP numbers were calculated in a way that measured actual economic growth this would indeed be encouraging. Unfortunately, they are not. U.S. GDP figures for 2008 were positive even though it is universally recognized that the U.S. was in a severe recession the entire year - this is a theoretical impossibility, yet no one talks about it. The lesson of Japan in the 1990s and 2000s warns against using GDP figures as evidence that an economic crisis is over. Japan had quarters of over 10% annualized GDP growth. They were 'saved' from a depression as many as seven times (depends on how you count) in the last two decades. Their economy has nevertheless continued a long, slow leak since 1990 and bigger problems are likely in the next decade, which will be the third one after their crisis began. In reality, Japan extended its depression over a very long period of time; none of its government's actions prevented it.

The defect in the 'saving from depression' argument is an implicit assumption that the economy has two states like a light switch, on and off, instead of an infinite number of possible outcomes. Many of those outcomes involve inflation and hyperinflation. There is no discussion of the negative consequences of Bernanke's actions among his supporters - and all economic policy actions have side effects, many of which can be extremely undesirable. Bernanke himself wrote his PhD thesis on Fed policy errors during the 1930s and demonstrated that restrictive Fed monetary policy led to the debacle. He also came to the conclusion that doing the opposite would fix the problem. If the economy was as simple as a light switch it would. In a complex system, this is not the case. Doing the opposite may simply lead to a different disastrous outcome.

Bernanke also didn't show understanding of the impending problems within the financial system, nor did he react quickly. As late as June 2007, Bernanke was assuring people that there would be no problem with subprime loans. In July the problem blew up. As late as the spring of 2008, the Fed was releasing statements that they were hopeful they would still be able to prevent a recession. The recession had already begun in December 2007, but the Fed was unaware of it. In September 2008, Lehman was allowed to fail with the subsequent excuse being given that no one was interested in buying it. Only days later AIG was nationalized when no one would buy it. The Lehman failure set off a general global financial collapse. Bernanke is now claiming credit from 'saving' the system from this collapse with his quick action. As one commentator astutely observed, this is like an arsonist wanting credit for putting out a fire that he had started.

Bernanke was originally appointed by George Bush and is one of the key economic actors along with the current Treasury secretary Tim Geithner from the Bush administration. While on one hand president Obama constantly criticizes Bush economic policies and how much damage they have caused, on the other he has gone out of his way to keep the Bush economic team mostly in place. This is reminiscent of Obama's newfound criticism of irresponsible giveaways to the big banks. For those who don't recall, the TARP bill originally failed in its first congressional vote. Presidential candidate Obama was instrumental in rounding up enough Democratic votes to get it passed on a second try. Now, Bush deserves the blame.

Bernanke's appointment runs out on January 31st. The slow-moving senate has yet to get around to voting on it. While Bernanke has had his detractors in congress, they became energized after the surprise upset in the Massachusetts special senate election last week that indicated quite clearly that American voters are angry about how the economy has been handled. Senators up for reelection in November (only one-third of the total) particularly began to have second thoughts, as indeed they should. Support for Bernanke may come back to haunt them in the future even more than support for the ill-fated health care bill. Bernanke is almost guaranteed to win the vote to reappoint him however. The White House is leaning heavily on Democratic senators to support him and hoping that the public isn't paying too much attention. Voters tend to notice though when they don't have a job.

Disclosure: None

NEXT: Consumers Lack Confidence, They Also Lack Credit

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.

Geithner Talks, Market Drops ... Again

The 'Helicopter Economics Investing Guide' is meant to help educate people on how to make profitable investing choices in the current economic environment. In addition to the term helicopter economics, we have also coined the term, helicopternomics, to describe the current monetary and fiscal policies of the U.S. government and to update the old-fashioned term wheelbarrow economics.

Our Video Related to this Blog:

Treasury Secretary Geithner appeared on Face the Nation on Sunday. Stocks in the U.S. are selling off this morning (even though there was a decent rally in Asia last night). Stock selling seems to be the most likely response whenever Geithner speaks and anyone long the market should worry whenever Geithner's mouth is about to open. The interview dealt with the administration's latest imbroglio, the attempt to force GM into bankruptcy and how well the various current bank bailouts are going. Geithner did state, "we want greater lending". He didn't come up with any reason why this might happen.

When Geithner was asked whether the government will force banks to sell their toxic assets to improve conditions for lending, he said that "banks have a large incentive to clean up their balance sheets." A news item released in Europe (please note that this news was not originally published in the U.S.) last Thursday certainly brings that into question. It was reported that a number of large banks including Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and JP Morgan Chase were considering buying toxic assets to be sold by rivals under the U.S. Treasury’s latest one trillion bailout plan. The purpose of this plan is of course to get toxic assets off the bank's books. Nothing in the law apparently said the banks couldn't participate in the this free money government give away. So of course, they want the goodies too. The result of this congressional oversight could be a huge amount of government spending that results in just moving the toxic assets around the banking system instead of getting them out of it. Geithner also made it very clear in the interview that Treasury's "obligation is to apply the laws passed by Congress".

As for GM, Geithner stated multiple times that "GM is going to be part of this country's future." He followed up with "We want to see a strong automotive industry emerge from this recession," , and added that the government must be sure that GM "can emerge strong enough without having to have government help on an ongoing basis." As to whether GM will have to file for bankruptcy protection, Geithner said "there's a range of options. They've made some progress on restructuring but they're not there yet." What was not stated in the interview is what would the costs be of GM going bankrupt versus it being bailed out.

Bailing out GM will probably be many, many times cheaper than letting it go bankrupt. But hey, when dealing with taxpayer money, why not consider the most expensive option possible. The much higher costs of not bailing out GM are a consequence of the government already having bailed out the banks and the need to increase those bailouts if GM fails. Although the auto companies have been badly managed for years, the idea that the U.S. government knows better about how the auto industry should be run is ridiculous. How they've handled the bank bailouts is a good indication of just how much the government knows about anything to do with business.

NEXT: How to Handle Earnings Season

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 Slippery Slope of Media Oil Coverage

The 'Helicopter Economics Investing Guide' is meant to help educate people on how to make profitable investing choices in the current economic environment. In addition to the term helicopter economics, we have also coined the term, helicopternomics, to describe the current monetary and fiscal policies of the U.S. government and to update the old-fashioned term wheelbarrow economics.

Our Video Related to this Blog:

Most investors have trouble making money in the market because they pay too much attention to the mass media. The financial press is mostly a gigantic PR outlet for Wall Street and whatever bill of goods it is trying to sell the public at the moment. Wall Streeters are of course usually doing just the opposite of the what the media is telling you to do with your investments. This is how they make their money. While Wall Street can mislead through the press, hiding its true intentions is difficult in the charts, which is why everyone should understand at least basic technical analysis.

I am looking closely at oil at the moment. If you relied on the press you wouldn't be paying any attention at all. I have read all sorts of arguments lately about why oil can't go up this year. These include such fantastic claims as a new political stability in Iraq, Iran and Nigeria (yeahh, that can happen), although they usually center around a claim that oil can't rally until the economy improves. This argument in turn relies on the basic economic principle that prices don't rise if demand is falling (certainly happening because of the crashing global economy) and supply stays the same. There is somewhat less than a zero chance that supply will stay the same however. When oil prices drop, production gets cut practically everywhere. OPEC's announced plans for another round of major cuts at its March meeting are just the tip of the iceberg. My sources in Texas tell me oil production is being shut down all over the state. I read the other day, that the tar sands in Alberta need oil to sell in the low 40's to break even. How long will production continue if oil falls and stays below that price? In fact, much of the oil that came online in the last few years is expensive oil that will no longer be produced if oil prices remain low. Given this set of circumstances, oil supply could easily fall below demand and the price of oil would then rise, not go down as all the 'pundits' claim.

The press is also giving a lot of coverage of the Stimulus Plan and whether or not it will be passed. Passage is presumed to be good for oil because the stimulus plan will revive the economy. It will certainly have some positive impact, since it is difficult for a government spending program not to (the TARP is one of those rare exceptions). The media is wasting a lot of ink on whether or not the Stimulus Plan will be passed. This is another absurdity. There is zero chance that it won't be. The vote of the typical member of the U.S. Congress is more available for sale than a crack-addicted street whore. Sure the price is more expensive and usually has to be paid in taxpayer funded giveaways, but no one in Washington cares about that.

Investors should keep in mind that by the time some change in the market is getting a lot of press coverage, it is usually well advanced. When the average person starts to be concerned, Wall Streeters have long ago taken their positions and are probably getting ready to close them out (the old 'buy on the rumor and sell on the news' saw that has been around the Street forever). Markets also don't go straight down or up forever either. Even if a long-term trend is well in place, significant reversals are likely along the way. You can make a lot of money in those reversals, but not if you pay attention to the mainstream media.

NEXT: It's Amateur Night at the U.S. Treasury

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.

New York Investing Meetup Versus the SEC

The 'Helicopter Economics Investing Guide' is meant to help educate people on how to make profitable investing choices in the current economic environment. In addition to the term helicopter economics, we have also coined the term, helicopternomics, to describe the current monetary and fiscal policies of the U.S. government and to update the old-fashioned term wheelbarrow economics.

Our Video Related to this Blog:

I would like to thank the 145 people who braved a snow storm last night to come to the February general meeting of the New York Investing meetup. In addition to the scheduled talks on the State of the Market (and why gold is looking good and oil could have a pop up in the near future), the Credit Crisis Update and Art Investing, Shelley Gould flew in from San Francisco and gave a couple of minute introduction to her new SmartStops service. While New York Investing meets the needs of the investing public as long as New York City hasn't been shut down, investors unfortunately don't receive such dedication from the watchdog government agencies that are suppose to be protecting their money.

New allegations arose last night against the SEC and FINRA (the the brokerage industry's self-policing organization). Harry Markopolos, the securities industry executive and fraud investigator who brought allegations against Bernard Madoff to the SEC by 2000, if not earlier, is now saying he feared for his personal and family's safety because of the SEC's inaction (and indeed he should have). Markopolos submitted detailed evidence to the SEC in Boston, New York, and Washington about Madoff's scam and as we all know too well, the SEC did nothing. Markopolos will be appearing before a congressional investigatory committee today.

Markopolos was not alone in being suspicious of Madoff. Anyone who examined his trading strategy knew immediately it was a fraud. How? His trading would have been bigger than the entire volume of the markets he claimed to be trading in. While even a casual observer would realize something crooked was going on, the public watchdog SEC couldn't figure it out. While you may think nothing like this could have happened before, you would be mistaken. The 1962 Salad Oil Scandal (a $175 million fraud then or about $1 billion in today's money) required the same suspension of common sense from the 51 Wall Street banks that lent money to the perpetrator, Tino De Angelis. De Angelis borrowed money from these banks based on his inventory of salad oil, stored in huge tanks in New Jersey which actually contained water with a thin layer of salad oil floating on the top (so field inspectors did indeed see oil when they looked into the top of the tanks). However, publicly available information published by the U.S. government indicated there was less salad oil in the entire United States than De Angelis claimed he had in his New Jersey storage facilities. Apparently this wasn't enough to make Wall Street banks avoid lending to him, just as their contemporaries would make loans to people without any income or assets. Consider this the next time you are tempted to follow Wall Street's investing advice.

In case you may also be thinking things are now going to get a lot better, I would advise you not to get too hopeful just yet. The new head of the SEC is Mary Schapiro (replacing See-No-Evil Christopher Cox). Ms. Schapiro was previously the head of FINRA (Financial Industry Regulatory Authority). FINRA at least investigated Madoff several times. They found nothing out of the ordinary and claim they couldn't have because they were only empowered to examine his brokerage business (an almost guaranteed destination of some of the missing $50 billion) and the fraud was perpetrated through his investment business. Congress claims that it was not particularly impressed with It's-Not-My-Job Mary Schapiro's performance in this circumstance. Nevertheless she is now in charge of protecting the public's investments.

NEXT: Only TARP Recipients Should Worry About Deflation

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.

Government Action on Both Sides of the Pacific

The 'Helicopter Economics Investing Guide' is meant to help educate people on how to make profitable investing choices in the current economic environment. In addition to the term helicopter economics, we have also coined the term, helicopternomics, to describe the current monetary and fiscal policies of the U.S. government and to update the old-fashioned term wheelbarrow economics.

Our Video Related to this Blog:

The Japanese are at it again. The Bank of Japan is now instituting yet another program to buy shares of bank stocks. The history of their interference in the Japanese stock market goes way back and has proven to be a failed approach over and over again. Apparently just because something doesn't work is not a good enough reason for the Japanese (or almost any other government for that matter) to abandon it. While the U.S. is close to emulating Japan's disastrous market interference policies, there is a common-sense bill in Congress that would limit Credit Default Swaps. These instruments are more responsible for the financial market collapse worldwide than anything else. The discredited U.S. financial industry of course opposes the bill. Just because it is obvious they have no idea what they are doing, doesn't mean the U.S. government won't follow their suggestions.

When the Japanese government decided it was better than the Free Market in determining stock prices is not clear. It is known that during the 1987 crash, which was less serious in Japan than in other countries, that the Ministry of Finance called all the major brokerage houses to a meeting and told them to buy stocks (with at least a tacit agreement that the government would make good on the losses). After the Nikkei started tanking from its high of 40,000 set the first day of 1990, various schemes were used by the government to funnel money into stock purchases. While these moved the market up for awhile, each one eventually failed, but the market looked like it might have finally hit bottom after a 13 year sell off in spring of 2003 (the Nikkei was in the low 7000s). But this was not the case.

As per usual the Japanese government helped establish the 2003 stock market low by buying banking stocks. This last stock purchase program took place between November 2002 and September 2004. The Bank of Japan began disposing of these holdings in October 2007 (when international stock markets were at their peak). They had to suspend their selling by September 2008 when they still had 1.3 trillion Yen of stock on the books (at least that's the 'official' number). The Nikkei then hit a new 18 year low after that. The Bank of Japan's just released scheme is to buy one trillion Yen of bank shares, but there a plan in the works to add a 20 trillion Yen to that amount. Unfortunately, at some point these Bank of Japan purchased shares will have to be sold, otherwise the Japanese government would eventually wind up owning most, if not all, of the shares of their major banks. It is quite possible any new selling will cause a new market low to be established. If the Japanese government's real objective is to create the longest stock market sell off in history, they might be successful. If it is to fix their financial system, they should realize that they don't know more than the Free Market.

As for the proposed ban on Credit Default Swaps (CDS) in the U.S. This bill would limit the purchase of CDSs to parties that have an underlying economic interest and reduce the size of the market (and associated risk in it) substantially. CDSs, because they allowed huge leverage in the financial system were key components of the implosion that we are currently witnessing. One industry witness testified that this bill could 'collapse' the $31 trillion CDS market. I seem to remember the less than a year ago the CDS market was $62 trillion is size. Looks to me like the CDS market already collapsed by itself.

NEXT: New York Investing Meetup Versus the SEC

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.

Herbert Hoover Policy - Working Just as Well Today as in the 1930s

The 'Helicopter Economics Investing Guide' is meant to help educate people on how to make profitable investing choices in the current economic environment. In addition to the term helicopter economics, we have also coined the term, helicopternomics, to describe the current monetary and fiscal policies of the U.S. government and to update the old-fashioned term wheelbarrow economics.

Our Video Related to this Blog:

Congressional Republicans got in touch with their Herbert Hoover roots last night when they defeated the proposed $14 billion auto bailout. Republicans wanted wage concessions from union workers, even though they failed to be as specific in reigning in multi-million dollar banker and broker salaries when the $700 billion Wall Street welfare bill (TARP) was passed. Fiscal conservative when it is convenient, Republican Senator Grassley, stated "I think it would appear that the people who voted against this are carrying out the will of the voters as expressed through the phone calls to our offices". While calls against TARP to congressional offices ran up to 100 to 1 against the bill, a large number of Senate Republicans saw no need to carry out the will of the people in that case. Senator Grassley was among that group.

While I am generally opposed to bailouts, I am 100% opposed to hypocrisy and governmental stupidity. You can make a case for bailing out no one and you can make a case for bailing out everyone, but bailing out some companies and industries and not others produces the worst results at the highest taxpayer cost. Ultimately the U.S auto companies will be bailed out, either immediately through funds released from TARP by President Bush (the White House released a statement this morning saying it was thinking about it) or when the new congress meets in January. The justification for putting Wall Street on the dole for $700 billion and refusing $14 billion dollars for the car makers is simply not going to fly.

Ironically, the most negative reaction to the failed auto bailout bill took place in Asia overnight. Both the Nikkei in Japan and the Hang Seng in Hong Kong had crash level drops of 5.6% and 5.4% respectively. Japanese and Korean auto stocks were the most pummelled, falling around 10%. The Yen rallied strongly against the dollar reaching 88 to 1 range at one point. Oil (light sweet crude) fell to the $46 range, still well above its low of $40.50 reached several days ago. European indices was spared the full carnage because an announcement of a new $267 billion economic stimulus plan for the 27 country eurozone was released in the morning their time. While U.S. stock futures were way down before the opening, the selling was muted (not accidentally I might point out) by the White House's conveniently timed statement on the possible use of TARP funds to bail out the auto makers.

While the Herbert Hoover administration actually implemented a number of programs to deal with the collapsing U.S. economy in the early 1930s, these programs were spotty and inconsistent. Hoover himself frequently chose denial over reality in dealing with the unfolding depression, even going so far as to give a press conference in June 1930 announcing that the depression was over (it was actually just beginning). The U.S. congress seems determined to follow in his footsteps.

NEXT: Indecent Exposure - Madoff Caught Swimming Naked

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.

Market Must Hold in Here

The 'Helicopter Economics Investing Guide' is meant to help educate people on how to make profitable investing choices in the current economic environment. In addition to the term helicopter economics, we have also coined the term, helicopternomics, to describe the current monetary and fiscal policies of the U.S. government and to update the old-fashioned term wheelbarrow economics.

Our Video Related to this Blog:

The major U.S. stock indices hit five year lows yesterday. The Dow and the S&P 500 are now going to test their 2002 lows, also the 1998 low in the case of the Dow, around 7200 and 775 respectively (mentioned many times in this blog as the target price to look out for). Nasdaq is heading toward a support level in the 1250 to 1300 range, the shoulder area of the reverse head and shoulder pattern that it made in 2002 to 2003. Its stronger support is around 1100. This would be the next place to look for a market sell off to stop. The Dow, and even more likely the S&P, would be below their 2002 lows if this happened. The charts offer little guidance for any significant breaks of the 2002 lows, since there is no significant support until much, much lower levels.

Once again yesterday was a crash day, with all the major U.S. indices closing down 5% or more. I have lost count how many times this has happened in the last three months. The gains from last Thursday's mystery rally were completely dissipated in four trading days. The Dow held up the best with only a 5.1% drop, but closed at 7997, the first close below 8000 since 2003. Small caps were the hardest hit, with the Russell 2000 falling 7.9%. The S&P 500 and Nasdaq were in between with 6.1% and 6.5% drops respectively. Financial stocks had the biggest losses, with Citibank leading the way down with a 23% loss (the New York Investing meetup has been saying since fall of 2007 that Citi is insolvent and the market is now realizing it). Bank America, JP Morgan, Wells Fargo, and Goldman Sachs all had 10% or greater drops. GE, the next major bailout prospect, fell 10%. Autos of course were also hit hard, with GM falling 10% and Ford 25%. Ford barely remained above penny stock levels.

What is currently roiling the market, other than the usual unrelentingly bad economic news, was that the bailout prospects for the auto industry fell apart on Capitol Hill yesterday. Members of congress grilled the auto chieftains on their extravagant spending, including the private jet trips they took to the hearings. While there is certainly profligacy in auto company spending, it can't compare to Wall Street. The TARP legislation failed to eliminate multi-million (or even deca-million) bonuses given to Wall Street management, their high salaries, lavish executive perks as was revealed recently with AIG, nor the dividends they are paying to their shareholders with government bailout money. Suddenly Congress has discovered that taxpayer money shouldn't be wasted irresponsibly with auto companies (whose political contributions can't match Wall Street's). While overall this is certainly a good thing, the economic impact of all the major U.S. auto companies going into bankruptcy should not be underestimated. Market action yesterday made that very clear.

Having a policy of selective government bailouts is the worse of all choices. A government can bail out no company if it wants to maintain a free market system or it can bailout every company if it doesn't. The government certainly shouldn't do bailouts based on political favoritism. At hit or miss bailout policy also is likely to insure the least results for the most money spent -. something the U.S. government has proven particularly adept at in the last several years.

NEXT: Five Year Lows are Bad, Eleven Year Lows are Worse

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.

T & A and the GS-20 Summit

The 'Helicopter Economics Investing Guide' is meant to help educate people on how to make profitable investing choices in the current economic environment. In addition to the term helicopter economics, we have also coined the term, helicopternomics, to describe the current monetary and fiscal policies of the U.S. government and to update the old-fashioned term wheelbarrow economics.

Our Video Related to this Blog:

Last Wednesday Treasury Secretary Paulson announced the T&A would be taken out of TARP (the Wall Street bailout bill passed in early October). The raison d'etre given by the Bush administration to congress for passing TARP was that only by purchasing troubled assets on bank balance sheets could banks be freed up to lend again and get the economy going. After the legislation was passed, congressional leadership from both parties announced with great fanfare how they were saving the American economy with this program. The ink was barely dry on the bill however, before Paulson announced that preferred stock was going to be purchased in troubled financial institutions instead. While the first $250 billion will still be earmarked for that purpose, Paulson has now decided that the remaining funds should be used to support financial markets that supply credit for credit card debt, auto loans and student loans. Of course next week, there might be a better way to save the American economy and the six week old program could be changed even again. If all this looks like no one in Washington has the slightest idea what they are doing, it's because they don't.

This is not to say that the new ideas for TARP are not an improvement on the original provisions of the bill which were essentially a form of welfare for Wall Street. Unlike welfare for the poor though, welfare for the rich comes with fewer limitations. While TARP has a provision for 'restriction' of bonuses, it doesn't eliminate them, nor does it force companies that can't continue to exist without government support to pay their executives salaries that top government officials would get. Nevertheless, over the weekend seven top Goldman Sachs (Paulson's old firm) managers graciously renounced their bonuses for 2008. Why they would have been getting bonuses when the company's stock has fallen 70% in the last twelve months is not exactly clear. CEO Lloyd Blankfein received a Wall Street record $68 million bonus last year when he was making the decisions that lead to this year's disastrous performance.

Like everything else in the contemporary economy, lack of effective ideas for handling the credit crisis is global as well. The GS-20 meeting of world leaders this weekend in Washington produced mostly a commitment to free trade and further monetary and fiscal stimulus (in other words governments throughout the world are going to print more paper money which will be backed by nothing other than their leaders hot air). British PM Gordon Brown, who decided to sell half of Britain's gold at the bottom of the market in 1999 and has presided over a worse subprime crisis than in the U.S., led the charge for increased stimulus measures. Other ideas bandied about included multinational supervision for global banks, more oversight for credit rating agencies and regulation for hedge funds. These useful suggestions didn't get much beyond the bandying stage however. Essentially anything concrete was put off until the next meeting in April. The do-nothing summit was immediately declared a success by President Bush.

Shortly thereafter, Japan announced a second quarter of negative GDP confirming it was in recession as the euro zone did last Friday. Since this was not exactly surprising news, Asian markets were little changed overnight, even despite the drop in the U.S. on Friday. The out of the blue rally in American markets last Thursday faded almost as quickly as it arriveed with the Dow down 3.8% and the Nasdaq down 5.0%. Technically speaking this was another crash day on the Nasdaq, but as I have said many times, no one pays attention anymore to just a 5% or 6% drop - and that includes world leaders.

NEXT: Trojan Horse of Earnings Surprises

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.

Landslide Elections and the U.S. Stock Market

The 'Helicopter Economics Investing Guide' is meant to help educate people on how to make profitable investing choices in the current economic environment. In addition to the term helicopter economics, we have also coined the term, helicopternomics, to describe the current monetary and fiscal policies of the U.S. government and to update the old-fashioned term wheelbarrow economics.

Our Video Related to this Blog:

There seem to be only two things that Americans voters will not forgive their politicians for. In the case of the President it is a failed economy, which led to a Democratic landslide in 1932 and a Republican landslide in 1980. While congressional voting is strongly affected by the economy as well, there is an additional factor of failing to deliver on a political party's core promises. When the Democrats couldn't pass a health care bill (something they had campaigned on for almost 50 years) in 1993, the voters turned on them en mass. This year, there is not only economic turmoil going into the election, but many Republicans in congress abandoned one of their party's most fundamental principals, fiscal conservatism, by supporting the Wall Street bailout bill. Conditions are ripe for a major political shift.

Presidential landslides are usually preceded by shifts in Congress two years earlier. In 1930, the Republicans, who had totally controlled Washington for the proceeding 10 years, lost 52 House seats and 8 Senate seats as the economy started to fall headlong into the Depression. Even with these losses, Republicans still had slight control of the U.S. senate and only lost their majority in the House after further defeats in special elections. While the U.S. economy was allegedly in good shape in 2006 (at least according to the official highly manipulated government figures), Republicans lost 30 House seats and 6 Senate seats in the election that year. This gave Democrats solid control of the House and a bare majority in the senate.

As bad as 1930 was for the Republicans, it was nothing like the political bloodbath that followed in 1932 when they lost 101 seats in the House and 12 seats in the senate. Best guesstimates as of now is that Democrats will pick up another 30 House seats this November. Interestingly, as many as 12 senate seats could also shift from Republican to Democratic hands this year, although the Democrats would only need 9 seats to have a filibuster proof majority. There is probably a slightly less than 50% chance of this happening, so it isn't a done deal yet. Wall Street would not react positively to this outcome and it has almost certainly not been factored into stock prices as of yet.

As for the Presidential election, Obama is clearly ahead of McCain and some perennial Republican strongholds like Indiana, North Carolina, North Dakota, and Virginia may go his way in addition to almost every swing state. Obama has the advantage in ad spending and field operations. Most polls show him way ahead in the race. While there are a few that don't, closer examination of them reveal that they are as statistically suspect as the U.S. governments inflation and GDP figures.

So what has a major political shift said about the prospects for the U.S. stock market in the past? The stock market actually bottomed before the 1932 election and entered a multi-year rally period after FDR's inauguration in March. In 1980, Regan was elected while a recession was already underway (as is the case in 2008) and another recession immediately followed that one.
Two years later though, U.S. stocks started an 18 year secular bull market. Generally, things have to be very bad economically for there to be a large change in the previous U.S. political balance. By the time this happens, the worst is likely to be over soon thereafter.

NEXT: Start Looking for Capitulation

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.

Exposing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - The Bailout

The 'Helicopter Economics Investing Guide' is meant to help educate people on how to make profitable investing choices in the current economic environment. In addition to the term helicopter economics, we have also coined the term, helicopternomics, to describe the current monetary and fiscal policies of the U.S. government and to update the old-fashioned term wheelbarrow economics.

Our video for this posting can be found at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8XU5XhwdyY..

In mid-July 2008, Fannie and Freddie's stock prices were plummeting, with Freddies stock getting into the low single digits. Knowing that they had to do something right away, the Federal Reserve and Treasury department announced emergency measures to rescue the two companies. First, the Fed opened its discount window to Fannie and Freddie, something that had only been available to commercial banks for more than seven decades until broker-dealers also got access to the Fed in March 2008 (it was clear that the expansion of this privilege to more and more industries was a trend in the making). Secondly, the Treasury department went to Congress with a bailout plan. Secretary Paulson asked for a blank check from the U.S. government on behalf of Fannie and Freddie on the grounds that just having such strong financial backing would prevent their problems from getting worse. In less than two months the U.S. government would be forced to take direct control of both institutions, indicating that this was either one of biggest lies or most imbecilic statements in U.S. financial history.

The U.S. congress passed the 'Federal Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008' in late July. In the bill, Paulson got the blank check he requested, at least until the end of 2009. Provisions were also made to give up to 400,000 homeowners lower fixed-rate interest rates loans and an additional $3.9 billion was allocated for neighborhood grants (which seemed to be some pork barrel provision). The bill also established a new regulator for Fannie and Freddie to replace OFHEO. There was nothing wrong per se with OFHEO's regulation, other than every time it tried to control Fannie or Freddie, powerful politicians stepped in to prevent it. Of course, the politicians responsible for creating the Fannie and Freddie mess were not going to put the blame on themselves, but tried to make OFHEO the fall guy instead.

Without question, the most outrageous part of the bailout bill was its cost estimate. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) predicted it would cost only $25 billion (the same as the cost they predicted for the Iraq War, now estimated by a recent outside study to be over 100 times higher at $3.2 trillion). The CBO even made the preposterous statement that there was a greater than 50% chance the bailout would cost U.S. taxpayers nothing. What thinking, or lack thereof, led to this conclusion is not clear. Since everyone agreed that Freddie Mac was insolvent, by definition it would have to have money pumped into it to keep it operating. So from the beginning there was a zero percent chance that the bailout would cost nothing.

There is certainly evidence that Congress itself had a more realistic assessment of the potential bailout costs. As part of the rescue package, they raised the national debt ceiling $800 billion (the sixth time the national debt ceiling was raised during the Bush administration) to $10.6 trillion. If the bailout was going to cost only $25 billion, there was no need for a higher debt ceiling. Clearly the cost estimates were meant for a gullible public, not Washington insiders who knew the truth. It was the New York Investing meetup's opinion that the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bailout would cost U.S. taxpayers at least a trillion dollars - and even that might be an optimistic projection.

NEXT: Exposing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - Future Risks

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.