Fox News: "So why do we need a central bank?"
Greenspan: "Well the question is a very interesting one. We have at this particular stage a fiat money which is essentially money printed by a government and it's usually the central bank which is authorized to do so. Some mechanism has got to be in place that restricts the amount of money which is produced, either a gold standard or currency board or something of that nature because unless you do that, all of history suggests that inflation will take hold with very deleterious effects on economic activity. ... There are numbers of us, myself included, who strongly believe that we did very well in the 1870-1914 period with an international gold standard".
Fox News: "We did well without the Federal Reserve. People forget that."
Showing posts with label Corrupt Elites. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Corrupt Elites. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
High Concentrations of Money and Power and Moral Hazards
"High concentrations of money and power provide trigger points for economic calamity that can be brought about by relatively few individuals or institutions. The potential harm which can arise from acts of malfeasance represents a moral hazard in our investment environment. Some financial theorists would argue that this risk is “priced in” to our investments so that what we invest in is fairly valued with respect to its risks. I see little sound rationale to accept this point of view. Risks that can be perceived and quantified can perhaps be priced in to arrive at an estimate of fair value for an investment. Many risks, such as the moral hazard of malfeasance, cannot be effectively quantified. The media, institutional, and governmental approach to representing these types of risks to the general investor seems to be to marginalize these risks. This approach gives a false sense of security and the impression that these risks are non-significant. This may be necessary to manage the perceptions of the general investor and retain confidence in the financial markets. From the perspective of the individual, this approach breeds complacency where there should be vigilance in the wise management of one’s assets."
The Emperor's Clothes: Megatrends Affecting Your Financial and Investment Decisions
The Emperor's Clothes: Megatrends Affecting Your Financial and Investment Decisions
Friday, November 2, 2007
♭: Statistical Finesse
"They Have Got to be Kidding"
http://www.europac.net/externalframeset.asp?from=home&id=10612
Yesterday, as the dollar fell to new record lows and oil and gold prices surged to new highs, Wall Street remained fixated on wholly meaningless government data that managed to report the lowest inflation in the last half century. These bizarre numbers were integral in allowing the Commerce Department to report 3.9% annualized GDP growth in the third quarter, which was heralded by the bulls as evidence that a resilient U.S. economy had shrugged off the problems in the housing and mortgage markets. However, the government’s ability to make “economic growth” magically appear is based purely on statistical finesse.
To arrive at this rate, the government had to assume that inflation during the quarter ran at an annualized rate of .8% (that’s less than 1%). That is the lowest rate of inflation used to calculate U.S. GDP since the Eisenhower administration. With oil priced at almost $100 per barrel, gold futures trading over $800 per ounce, the dollar hitting record lows, and the Fed printing money like it is going out of style, the government has the nerve to claim that current inflation is the lowest it has been in half a century. Unbelievable!
Just in case there is some confusion, the government adjusts nominal GDP gains using the GDP deflator, which represents the inflation rate during the time period being measured. This is done to strip inflation out of the GDP calculation so that only real growth gets counted: not nominal gains that result purely from inflation.
The consensus estimate for 3rd quarter GDP growth was 3.4%. The reason we beat that number was that the government adjusted the nominal 4.7% gain by a mere .8%. Had the government assumed a higher rate of inflation, say 2.6% (identical to the rate used to deflate second quarter GDP,) the 3rd quarter gain would have been only 2.1%, well shy of the consensus forecast. My guess is that inflation is actually running at an annualized rate closer to 10%. Therefore using a more honest deflator, the U.S. economy is actually contracting, which would explain the recent anecdotal evidence provided by various economic polls, voter dissatisfaction and consumer sentiment numbers. In fact, if one simply measures U.S. GDP using gold or any other currency, it is clear that we are already in a recession.
Similar illusions are created in other numbers, such as retail sales, corporate earnings, and stock prices, which are all rising merely as a result of actual inflation being higher than the official reports. For example, higher retail sales reflect consumers paying higher prices for the products that they buy. They may in fact be buying less stuff, but are paying more for it. Further, part of the gains result from tourists using their appreciated foreign currencies to buy products cheaper here than they can in the own countries. I have heard about Canadians checking into U.S. hotels with empty suitcases, crossing the border to indulge in weekend shopping sprees.
Corporate earnings, particularly those of multi-nationals, are padded as their foreign currency denominated earnings translate into more dollars when those earnings are repatriated. However, such gains are illusions, as companies merely earn more dollars of diminished value for the goods they sell. The actual volume of exports does not necessarily improve much, as evidenced by weak industrial production and manufacturing employment. When those additional debased dollars are paid out as dividends, they confer no real increase in global purchasing power to shareholders.
Similarly, just as inflation causes prices to rise for goods and services it causes stock prices to rise as well. Though such gains may be less than the actual increase in the cost of living, as long as the government gets away with using bogus CPI numbers which fail to fully reflect inflation, Wall Street takes credit for nominal gains as if they were real.
However, as ridiculous as the phony GDP number was, yesterday’s biggest joke was a report on global competitiveness put out by the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, which ranked the U.S. economy as the world’s most competitive. To arrive at this conclusion, the forum has obliterated the obvious under a mountain of theory. In determining country rankings, the WEF weighed strengths in their "12 Pillars of Competitiveness", including: institutions, infrastructure, macroeconomic stability, health and primary education, higher education and training, goods market efficiency, labor market efficiency, financial market sophistication, technological readiness, market size, business sophistication and innovation. Completely ignored however are the measurable results of competitiveness, notably a trade surplus and a strong currency.
It is as if the WEF decided to judge a weight loss contest without using a scale, by instead focusing only on mental attitude, dedication, perseverance, and nutritional education! As a result the prize is awarded to the fattest contestant. Based on the empirical evidence of a gargantuan trade deficit, staggering global indebtedness, and a declining currency, the United States is clearly not the most competitive economy in the world.
http://www.europac.net/externalframeset.asp?from=home&id=10612
Yesterday, as the dollar fell to new record lows and oil and gold prices surged to new highs, Wall Street remained fixated on wholly meaningless government data that managed to report the lowest inflation in the last half century. These bizarre numbers were integral in allowing the Commerce Department to report 3.9% annualized GDP growth in the third quarter, which was heralded by the bulls as evidence that a resilient U.S. economy had shrugged off the problems in the housing and mortgage markets. However, the government’s ability to make “economic growth” magically appear is based purely on statistical finesse.
To arrive at this rate, the government had to assume that inflation during the quarter ran at an annualized rate of .8% (that’s less than 1%). That is the lowest rate of inflation used to calculate U.S. GDP since the Eisenhower administration. With oil priced at almost $100 per barrel, gold futures trading over $800 per ounce, the dollar hitting record lows, and the Fed printing money like it is going out of style, the government has the nerve to claim that current inflation is the lowest it has been in half a century. Unbelievable!
Just in case there is some confusion, the government adjusts nominal GDP gains using the GDP deflator, which represents the inflation rate during the time period being measured. This is done to strip inflation out of the GDP calculation so that only real growth gets counted: not nominal gains that result purely from inflation.
The consensus estimate for 3rd quarter GDP growth was 3.4%. The reason we beat that number was that the government adjusted the nominal 4.7% gain by a mere .8%. Had the government assumed a higher rate of inflation, say 2.6% (identical to the rate used to deflate second quarter GDP,) the 3rd quarter gain would have been only 2.1%, well shy of the consensus forecast. My guess is that inflation is actually running at an annualized rate closer to 10%. Therefore using a more honest deflator, the U.S. economy is actually contracting, which would explain the recent anecdotal evidence provided by various economic polls, voter dissatisfaction and consumer sentiment numbers. In fact, if one simply measures U.S. GDP using gold or any other currency, it is clear that we are already in a recession.
Similar illusions are created in other numbers, such as retail sales, corporate earnings, and stock prices, which are all rising merely as a result of actual inflation being higher than the official reports. For example, higher retail sales reflect consumers paying higher prices for the products that they buy. They may in fact be buying less stuff, but are paying more for it. Further, part of the gains result from tourists using their appreciated foreign currencies to buy products cheaper here than they can in the own countries. I have heard about Canadians checking into U.S. hotels with empty suitcases, crossing the border to indulge in weekend shopping sprees.
Corporate earnings, particularly those of multi-nationals, are padded as their foreign currency denominated earnings translate into more dollars when those earnings are repatriated. However, such gains are illusions, as companies merely earn more dollars of diminished value for the goods they sell. The actual volume of exports does not necessarily improve much, as evidenced by weak industrial production and manufacturing employment. When those additional debased dollars are paid out as dividends, they confer no real increase in global purchasing power to shareholders.
Similarly, just as inflation causes prices to rise for goods and services it causes stock prices to rise as well. Though such gains may be less than the actual increase in the cost of living, as long as the government gets away with using bogus CPI numbers which fail to fully reflect inflation, Wall Street takes credit for nominal gains as if they were real.
However, as ridiculous as the phony GDP number was, yesterday’s biggest joke was a report on global competitiveness put out by the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, which ranked the U.S. economy as the world’s most competitive. To arrive at this conclusion, the forum has obliterated the obvious under a mountain of theory. In determining country rankings, the WEF weighed strengths in their "12 Pillars of Competitiveness", including: institutions, infrastructure, macroeconomic stability, health and primary education, higher education and training, goods market efficiency, labor market efficiency, financial market sophistication, technological readiness, market size, business sophistication and innovation. Completely ignored however are the measurable results of competitiveness, notably a trade surplus and a strong currency.
It is as if the WEF decided to judge a weight loss contest without using a scale, by instead focusing only on mental attitude, dedication, perseverance, and nutritional education! As a result the prize is awarded to the fattest contestant. Based on the empirical evidence of a gargantuan trade deficit, staggering global indebtedness, and a declining currency, the United States is clearly not the most competitive economy in the world.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Conductor Extraordinaire: George W. Bush (United States President)
Intelligence Czar Can Waive SEC Rules
Now, the White House's top spymaster can cite national security to exempt businesses from reporting requirements.
President George W. Bush has bestowed on his intelligence czar, John Negroponte, broad authority, in the name of national security, to excuse publicly traded companies from their usual accounting and securities-disclosure obligations. Notice of the development came in a brief entry in the Federal Register, dated May 5, 2006, that was opaque to the untrained eye. Unbeknownst to almost all of Washington and the financial world, Bush and every other President since Jimmy Carter have had the authority to exempt companies working on certain top-secret defense projects from portions of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act. Administration officials told BusinessWeek that they believe this is the first time a President has ever delegated the authority to someone outside the Oval Office. It couldn't be immediately determined whether any company has received a waiver under this provision. The timing of Bush's move is intriguing. On the same day the President signed the memo, Porter Goss resigned as director of the Central Intelligence Agency amid criticism of ineffectiveness and poor morale at the agency. Only six days later, on May 11, USA Today reported that the National Security Agency had obtained millions of calling records of ordinary citizens provided by three major U.S. phone companies. Negroponte oversees both the CIA and NSA in his role as the administration's top intelligence official.
FEW ANSWERS.
White House spokeswoman Dana M. Perino said the timing of the May 5 Presidential memo had no significance. "There was nothing specific that prompted this memo," Perino said. In addition to refusing to explain why Bush decided to delegate this authority to Negroponte, the White House declined to say whether Bush or any other President has ever exercised the authority and allowed a company to avoid standard securities disclosure and accounting requirements. The White House wouldn't comment on whether Negroponte has granted such a waiver, and BusinessWeek so far hasn't identified any companies affected by the provision. Negroponte's office did not respond to requests for comment. Securities-law experts said they were unfamiliar with the May 5 memo and the underlying Presidential authority at issue. John C. Coffee, a securities-law professor at Columbia University, speculated that defense contractors might want to use such an exemption to mask secret assignments for the Pentagon or CIA. "What you might hide is investments: You've spent umpteen million dollars that comes out of your working capital to build a plant in Iraq," which the government wants to keep secret. "That's the kind of scenario that would be plausible," Coffee said.
AUTHORITY GRANTED.
William McLucas, the Securities & Exchange Commission's former enforcement chief, suggested that the ability to conceal financial information in the name of national security could lead some companies "to play fast and loose with their numbers." McLucas, a partner at the law firm Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr in Washington, added: "It could be that you have a bunch of books and records out there that no one knows about." The memo Bush signed on May 5, which was published seven days later in the Federal Register, had the unrevealing title "Assignment of Function Relating to Granting of Authority for Issuance of Certain Directives: Memorandum for the Director of National Intelligence." In the document, Bush addressed Negroponte, saying: "I hereby assign to you the function of the President under section 13(b)(3)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended."
A trip to the statute books showed that the amended version of the 1934 act states that "with respect to matters concerning the national security of the United States," the President or the head of an Executive Branch agency may exempt companies from certain critical legal obligations. These obligations include keeping accurate "books, records, and accounts" and maintaining "a system of internal accounting controls sufficient" to ensure the propriety of financial transactions and the preparation of financial statements in compliance with "generally accepted accounting principles."
Dawn Kopecki. BusinessWeek
Now, the White House's top spymaster can cite national security to exempt businesses from reporting requirements.
President George W. Bush has bestowed on his intelligence czar, John Negroponte, broad authority, in the name of national security, to excuse publicly traded companies from their usual accounting and securities-disclosure obligations. Notice of the development came in a brief entry in the Federal Register, dated May 5, 2006, that was opaque to the untrained eye. Unbeknownst to almost all of Washington and the financial world, Bush and every other President since Jimmy Carter have had the authority to exempt companies working on certain top-secret defense projects from portions of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act. Administration officials told BusinessWeek that they believe this is the first time a President has ever delegated the authority to someone outside the Oval Office. It couldn't be immediately determined whether any company has received a waiver under this provision. The timing of Bush's move is intriguing. On the same day the President signed the memo, Porter Goss resigned as director of the Central Intelligence Agency amid criticism of ineffectiveness and poor morale at the agency. Only six days later, on May 11, USA Today reported that the National Security Agency had obtained millions of calling records of ordinary citizens provided by three major U.S. phone companies. Negroponte oversees both the CIA and NSA in his role as the administration's top intelligence official.
FEW ANSWERS.
White House spokeswoman Dana M. Perino said the timing of the May 5 Presidential memo had no significance. "There was nothing specific that prompted this memo," Perino said. In addition to refusing to explain why Bush decided to delegate this authority to Negroponte, the White House declined to say whether Bush or any other President has ever exercised the authority and allowed a company to avoid standard securities disclosure and accounting requirements. The White House wouldn't comment on whether Negroponte has granted such a waiver, and BusinessWeek so far hasn't identified any companies affected by the provision. Negroponte's office did not respond to requests for comment. Securities-law experts said they were unfamiliar with the May 5 memo and the underlying Presidential authority at issue. John C. Coffee, a securities-law professor at Columbia University, speculated that defense contractors might want to use such an exemption to mask secret assignments for the Pentagon or CIA. "What you might hide is investments: You've spent umpteen million dollars that comes out of your working capital to build a plant in Iraq," which the government wants to keep secret. "That's the kind of scenario that would be plausible," Coffee said.
AUTHORITY GRANTED.
William McLucas, the Securities & Exchange Commission's former enforcement chief, suggested that the ability to conceal financial information in the name of national security could lead some companies "to play fast and loose with their numbers." McLucas, a partner at the law firm Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr in Washington, added: "It could be that you have a bunch of books and records out there that no one knows about." The memo Bush signed on May 5, which was published seven days later in the Federal Register, had the unrevealing title "Assignment of Function Relating to Granting of Authority for Issuance of Certain Directives: Memorandum for the Director of National Intelligence." In the document, Bush addressed Negroponte, saying: "I hereby assign to you the function of the President under section 13(b)(3)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended."
A trip to the statute books showed that the amended version of the 1934 act states that "with respect to matters concerning the national security of the United States," the President or the head of an Executive Branch agency may exempt companies from certain critical legal obligations. These obligations include keeping accurate "books, records, and accounts" and maintaining "a system of internal accounting controls sufficient" to ensure the propriety of financial transactions and the preparation of financial statements in compliance with "generally accepted accounting principles."
Dawn Kopecki. BusinessWeek
Virtuoso: J.P.Morgan's Extravagant Market Manipulation Scheme
Regalian Powers, It's good to be the King!
J.P. Morgan Chase’s derivatives book has swelled by a cool 10 Trillion in notional in Q2-2007
In case any of you are wondering how big new growth of 10 Trillion in notional really is: 10 Trillion / 66 business days = 151 Billion per day
Can anyone tell me how or where it is possible to generate 151 Billion in new business per day – for 66 straight business days - in ANYTHING? Not even China can pull this off.
J.P. Morgan Chase’s derivatives book has swelled by a cool 10 Trillion in notional in Q2-2007
In case any of you are wondering how big new growth of 10 Trillion in notional really is: 10 Trillion / 66 business days = 151 Billion per day
Can anyone tell me how or where it is possible to generate 151 Billion in new business per day – for 66 straight business days - in ANYTHING? Not even China can pull this off.
As reported in the Treasury's OCC’s Quarterly Report on Bank Derivatives Activities - Second Quarter 2007, on page 23:
http://www.occ.treas.gov/ftp/deriv/dq207.pdf
Conductor Extraordinaire: Hank Paulson (United States Secretary of the Treasury and ex-CEO at Goldman Sachs)
Henry Paulson presses for aid to sub-prime lenders
Suzy Jagger in New York
Henry Paulson, the US Treasury Secretary, is seeking to persuade the White House to offer financial compensation to American mortgage lenders that try to help troubled homeowners by renegotiating the terms of their loans.
The Times has learnt that Mr Paulson is lobbying President Bush to provide funds so that mortgage lenders can reduce the loss that they would incur from either reducing the rate of an adjustable home loan or extending the life of the mortgage to make it cheaper for the property owner.
It is understood that Mr Paulson’s proposals are meeting significant resistance within Washington, where it is perceived that such a move would be a bank bail-out scheme.
Washington is nervous about being seen to be preventing Wall Street companies from having to face the financial implications of their own lax lending practices and ill-judged investment decisions.
America is suffering its worst housing recession for 16 years. Mortgage arrears and foreclosures have soared as homeowners have struggled to keep up with their mortgage repayments.
A number of those homeowners — who typically have low incomes and poor credit histories — took out sub-prime mortgages that begin with a low introductory interest rate but which increase in their cost throughout the life of the loan.
Sub-prime borrowers bet that by the time the interest rate rises, the value of their home will have appreciated sufficiently to allow them to remortgage. Unfortunately, the housing slowdown has seen some states suffer house price falls of 40 per cent.
In the summer, President Bush sought to avert a deepening mortgage crisis and reduce the number of Americans who faced losing their homes. He urged mortgage lenders to contact borrowers and try to renegotiate the terms of their mortgages.
Earlier this week, Countrywide, America’s biggest mortgage lender, said it would begin contacting borrowers and modify $16 billion (£7.8 billion) worth of home loans whose interest rate will reset by the end of 2008.
David Sambol, Countrywide president and chief operating officer, said: “We are determined to assist borrowers who have the willingness and wherewithal to remain in their homes but need a little help to do it.”
It is expected that other mortgage lenders will follow suit, even though the cost of negotiating the terms of sub-prime mortgages will eat into their profits.
It is understood that Mr Paulson wants to offer the lenders compensation to offset these losses.
Chris Whalen, of Institutional Risk Analytics, said: “Paulson can’t go there. Paulson wouldn’t just be trying to help the banks, he would be trying to help the dealers, Wall Street as a whole. Ultimately, it’s the investors who take the hit.”
Mr Whalen added: “It is wrong for the Government to try to mandate loan modification. It sounds brutal, but a lot of these families should not have got mortgages in the first place. They couldn’t afford them. Modifying the loan in a number of cases won’t work. Historically, 30 to 40 per cent of borrowers whose loans are modified default again.”
The US Treasury and Countrywide failed to return calls yesterday.
Suzy Jagger in New York
Henry Paulson, the US Treasury Secretary, is seeking to persuade the White House to offer financial compensation to American mortgage lenders that try to help troubled homeowners by renegotiating the terms of their loans.
The Times has learnt that Mr Paulson is lobbying President Bush to provide funds so that mortgage lenders can reduce the loss that they would incur from either reducing the rate of an adjustable home loan or extending the life of the mortgage to make it cheaper for the property owner.
It is understood that Mr Paulson’s proposals are meeting significant resistance within Washington, where it is perceived that such a move would be a bank bail-out scheme.
Washington is nervous about being seen to be preventing Wall Street companies from having to face the financial implications of their own lax lending practices and ill-judged investment decisions.
America is suffering its worst housing recession for 16 years. Mortgage arrears and foreclosures have soared as homeowners have struggled to keep up with their mortgage repayments.
A number of those homeowners — who typically have low incomes and poor credit histories — took out sub-prime mortgages that begin with a low introductory interest rate but which increase in their cost throughout the life of the loan.
Sub-prime borrowers bet that by the time the interest rate rises, the value of their home will have appreciated sufficiently to allow them to remortgage. Unfortunately, the housing slowdown has seen some states suffer house price falls of 40 per cent.
In the summer, President Bush sought to avert a deepening mortgage crisis and reduce the number of Americans who faced losing their homes. He urged mortgage lenders to contact borrowers and try to renegotiate the terms of their mortgages.
Earlier this week, Countrywide, America’s biggest mortgage lender, said it would begin contacting borrowers and modify $16 billion (£7.8 billion) worth of home loans whose interest rate will reset by the end of 2008.
David Sambol, Countrywide president and chief operating officer, said: “We are determined to assist borrowers who have the willingness and wherewithal to remain in their homes but need a little help to do it.”
It is expected that other mortgage lenders will follow suit, even though the cost of negotiating the terms of sub-prime mortgages will eat into their profits.
It is understood that Mr Paulson wants to offer the lenders compensation to offset these losses.
Chris Whalen, of Institutional Risk Analytics, said: “Paulson can’t go there. Paulson wouldn’t just be trying to help the banks, he would be trying to help the dealers, Wall Street as a whole. Ultimately, it’s the investors who take the hit.”
Mr Whalen added: “It is wrong for the Government to try to mandate loan modification. It sounds brutal, but a lot of these families should not have got mortgages in the first place. They couldn’t afford them. Modifying the loan in a number of cases won’t work. Historically, 30 to 40 per cent of borrowers whose loans are modified default again.”
The US Treasury and Countrywide failed to return calls yesterday.
Conductor Extraordinaire: Hank Paulson (United States Secretary of the Treasury and ex-CEO at Goldman Sachs)
"The US has responded in an ad hoc way by carrying on a “strategic dialogue” with China – by far the largest economy with an exchange rate linked to the dollar – backed by congressional threats to address exchange rate issues using the tools of trade policy and references to communiqués from the Group of Seven leading industrial nations. In reality the dialogue is anything but strategic. Like so much of American international policy in recent years, it seems to confuse the firm statement of legitimate desire with the serious conduct of diplomacy."
Lawrence Summers (United States Secretary of the Treasury and M.D. at D.E. Shaw)
Lawrence Summers (United States Secretary of the Treasury and M.D. at D.E. Shaw)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
