Houston, We have a central-bank-run!
Judging by the comments, it seems many of you share my interest in understanding the recent economic news, at least Juha does. So I will continue covering that.
Yesterday, my brother Carlos, who works for BNP in Europe sent me this story: Apparently we are seeing a dumping of US related assets by what is speculated to be... the Chinese..
Forget the computer attacks, Asia's sovereign funds dumping US assets would have a real impact on the economy.
Credit and liquidity crises are not new and, when they turn bad, they turn bad. In 1929, the liquidity scare sparked a bank run. Banks didn't have enough cash and were defaulting, accelerating the mad dash and "bank-run" to get your money out while there was still liquidity. Then, the real economy wound up with no credit, and we all know the sad story from there.
2007 isn't like 1929. It isn't an "end-consumer" bank run. You and I are not going to the corner bank to take our savings out. Our confidence in the markets isn't shaken to that core. People are not freaking out yet. Even the equity markets have recaptured most of their summer losses. However, it would be a mistake to discount the close relationship between the equity and debt markets.
And, right now, the confidence in the credit markets seems seriously shaken. Already heads are rolling at credit rating agencies. Banks in Germany are defaulting. The heads are calling for "transparency in accounting" and "pricing balance sheets to market," per yesterday's FT. Meanwhile, the constipated credit markets are still not pricing. In other words, no one knows what the damage is and, more alarmingly, no one wants to know what the damage is.
So the subprime mess has gone nuclear, Chernobyl style, with fallout still to be determined. Meanwhile, the good, if edgy, mood prevails. Hedge funds are raising money, shrugging off their losses and appealing to our greed by saying: "Look, blood on the streets! Don't you want some?" The Quants' models are being re-tooled with a technological zeal that must dwarf the human genome project. Until the new math predictions come out, old skool is back in on the street. Experience is in vogue and experience with a math background says you are sexy. Period.
To be fair, reasons to remain optimistic include small data points such as global growth (+95% in a Chinese index for the year!)and the fact no one wants to see America Inc. default, not the EU, not Asia and certainly not the US of A.
But what are the police doing? The Fed is engaged in a game of "chicken" with Wall Street. The debate is raging over what the proper role for the Fed should be. From a distance, it looks something like:
The Feds: "We won't bail you out"
The Street: "Oh yes you will"
The Feds: "Oh no we won't, wink-wink,"
...effectively setting the futures market bet on "The Fed will cut interest rates."
But many are not so convinced. The Fed's main tool is interest rates, which is a rather blunt tool and many people point out that there is a limit to what monetary policy can achieve in this particular crisis.
Short of buying the debt and effectively setting a clearance price, the Fed is not helping the markets set a price for many of the debt assets sitting on balance sheets. Worse, as mentioned above, many market participants are actively avoiding price discovery for fear of establishing a market price that would be to their disadvantage. Meanwhile the Chinese are dumping assets? Are they the first ones to say "Gimme my money?"
Will Wall Street pay the price? Well, part of it, as balance sheets of the financial players lose their value due to a market repricing of the paper...if and when it happens.
Many point the fingers to Wall Street and argue that Wall Street's greed is the culprit for the subprime mess: burn them and their fancypants mechanisms for repackaging debt! But, frankly, aside from those who originate the loans, Wall Street was just spreading the risk not adding to it. They were a vehicle of risk, not a source. Arguing whether they add to stability or instability by spreading the risk is an academic discussion. There is, however, a certain Robin Hood morality to this mess by having the Hedgies funding the 'hoods.
But really, all of America participated in the debt binge. Cash-out refinancing of houses turns out to be half of what is considered subprime debt, I read somewhere. If that is the case, that right there is a straight link to the economic jugular and a path for the crisis to spread over the next 18 mos. Mainstream America will stop treating its real-estate as an ATM. It is a good thing, but one that may impact growth of end-consumption.
Many on Wall Street point out that the aftermath of the US debt binge was quietly supported by the political ambition of "Ownership America". Much like Communist Russia, it is an ideological place where everyone owns a house. So, fingers point back at the Fed, at Greenspan, and, gasp, at the complacent and slightly goofy administration in Washington. If the damage was politically underwritten, then it is fair that the bill fall back on the lap of the US tax payers. The morality here is that the ideology had economic consequences that now have to be paid for.
Hmmmh, I wonder what the future holds,
marcf
Yesterday, my brother Carlos, who works for BNP in Europe sent me this story: Apparently we are seeing a dumping of US related assets by what is speculated to be... the Chinese..
Forget the computer attacks, Asia's sovereign funds dumping US assets would have a real impact on the economy.
Credit and liquidity crises are not new and, when they turn bad, they turn bad. In 1929, the liquidity scare sparked a bank run. Banks didn't have enough cash and were defaulting, accelerating the mad dash and "bank-run" to get your money out while there was still liquidity. Then, the real economy wound up with no credit, and we all know the sad story from there.
2007 isn't like 1929. It isn't an "end-consumer" bank run. You and I are not going to the corner bank to take our savings out. Our confidence in the markets isn't shaken to that core. People are not freaking out yet. Even the equity markets have recaptured most of their summer losses. However, it would be a mistake to discount the close relationship between the equity and debt markets.
And, right now, the confidence in the credit markets seems seriously shaken. Already heads are rolling at credit rating agencies. Banks in Germany are defaulting. The heads are calling for "transparency in accounting" and "pricing balance sheets to market," per yesterday's FT. Meanwhile, the constipated credit markets are still not pricing. In other words, no one knows what the damage is and, more alarmingly, no one wants to know what the damage is.
So the subprime mess has gone nuclear, Chernobyl style, with fallout still to be determined. Meanwhile, the good, if edgy, mood prevails. Hedge funds are raising money, shrugging off their losses and appealing to our greed by saying: "Look, blood on the streets! Don't you want some?" The Quants' models are being re-tooled with a technological zeal that must dwarf the human genome project. Until the new math predictions come out, old skool is back in on the street. Experience is in vogue and experience with a math background says you are sexy. Period.
To be fair, reasons to remain optimistic include small data points such as global growth (+95% in a Chinese index for the year!)and the fact no one wants to see America Inc. default, not the EU, not Asia and certainly not the US of A.
But what are the police doing? The Fed is engaged in a game of "chicken" with Wall Street. The debate is raging over what the proper role for the Fed should be. From a distance, it looks something like:
The Feds: "We won't bail you out"
The Street: "Oh yes you will"
The Feds: "Oh no we won't, wink-wink,"
...effectively setting the futures market bet on "The Fed will cut interest rates."
But many are not so convinced. The Fed's main tool is interest rates, which is a rather blunt tool and many people point out that there is a limit to what monetary policy can achieve in this particular crisis.
Short of buying the debt and effectively setting a clearance price, the Fed is not helping the markets set a price for many of the debt assets sitting on balance sheets. Worse, as mentioned above, many market participants are actively avoiding price discovery for fear of establishing a market price that would be to their disadvantage. Meanwhile the Chinese are dumping assets? Are they the first ones to say "Gimme my money?"
Will Wall Street pay the price? Well, part of it, as balance sheets of the financial players lose their value due to a market repricing of the paper...if and when it happens.
Many point the fingers to Wall Street and argue that Wall Street's greed is the culprit for the subprime mess: burn them and their fancypants mechanisms for repackaging debt! But, frankly, aside from those who originate the loans, Wall Street was just spreading the risk not adding to it. They were a vehicle of risk, not a source. Arguing whether they add to stability or instability by spreading the risk is an academic discussion. There is, however, a certain Robin Hood morality to this mess by having the Hedgies funding the 'hoods.
But really, all of America participated in the debt binge. Cash-out refinancing of houses turns out to be half of what is considered subprime debt, I read somewhere. If that is the case, that right there is a straight link to the economic jugular and a path for the crisis to spread over the next 18 mos. Mainstream America will stop treating its real-estate as an ATM. It is a good thing, but one that may impact growth of end-consumption.
Many on Wall Street point out that the aftermath of the US debt binge was quietly supported by the political ambition of "Ownership America". Much like Communist Russia, it is an ideological place where everyone owns a house. So, fingers point back at the Fed, at Greenspan, and, gasp, at the complacent and slightly goofy administration in Washington. If the damage was politically underwritten, then it is fair that the bill fall back on the lap of the US tax payers. The morality here is that the ideology had economic consequences that now have to be paid for.
Hmmmh, I wonder what the future holds,
marcf
Comments
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6983594.stm
Spanish Stock Exchange (Ibex 35) went down 2.30%.
I'm glad you're brushing up on your Econ 101 texts, but really... theres only one place to point the finger, the American consumer.
Lets not blame the Fed for cutting rates and making money "cheap". Over the past ~6 years they've used monetary policy effectively to grow the economy from the caca that Clinton left in his wake.
So the side-effect was cheap money. The banks lent it out to the lemmings and now everyone takes a bath when the lemmings can't pay. Blame the lemmings.
Galder, two fruit baskets and a ox cart don't count as a "Stock Exchange". ;-)
It seems as if the world has evolved from the plutonium based balance of fear to financial instruments of war, a whole new balance of fear. Nukes are left for the crazy people hiding in caves to desire, the new financial weapons are operated with much more finesse.
Has China pulled the trigger? I don't think so.
It's not the right time, yet. It would be like cutting off your nose to spite your face. They're heavily dependent on their exports and would suffer themselves in the process. The Chinese consumer is not throwing away her hard earned yuan (and not enough of it) nearly at the same pace as her US comrade is.
No, China needs to get out of the development phase first before it makes sense to pull it off. Doing it now would be an act of desperation.
What does the future hold? China's message is pretty clear, they are looking for better ROI on their USD assets. Good for them. But ultimately USD returns will just generate more USD and USD is only good for buying US property, products and services. Either that or find someone else who wants to buy a piece of USA and who produces something you want and do a currency exchange.
China will continue to make bids to buy more of USA. CNOOC story will repeat. China already bought a $3 bln stake in Blackstone private equity. The desire for better ROI will see more US assets move under Chinese ownership because that's what USD is good for. Maybe next time you go to your corner bank ATM it will say "Bank of China" on it (to be fair, even Chinese will understand that this branding won't do too well in US and figure out more discrete ways to buy USA, a la Blackstone).
The politicians will continue to over-react to this and China scare in the press will continue. In that sense it is history repeating itself with 1980's "Japan is buying America" scare. But when you are in debt you have little choice but to see the ownership move overseas -- either its Middle-East or Asia, take your pick. Either that, or US needs to get creative :-)
Alt-A is the new subprime.
Phrase of the day is "mark to market"
CDO now means, "Close the Door on the way Out"
Buy gold.
Foreigners will start snapping up USA assets--instead of Treasuries. Blackstone was the start.
Buy this book:"The Panic of 1907"
Enjoy the ride!
you're funny, but what kind of astroturfing name is that?
you speak as if it was a foregone conclusion for you that "they" "will" pull the trigger when the time is right. I would hope that their capitalist personality over-rules their communist one here. I am an optimist :)
Capitalist tendency.. hmm... well if you give out a loan, eventually you want your money back with interest, right? That's a good capitalist tendency. And as long as USD is considered to buy something of value, you're happy to get it back as USD.
In 1970's it was gold that foreign countries wanted back in exchange. Apparently your home-country France managed to get a nice pile for herself too. In the 1980's it was land that the Japanese wanted in exchange. In the 21st century... ?
I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that China will pull the trigger. I was giving a bit of doom and gloom in the previous post there. I think what is certain is China, along with others who are sitting on a stockpile of USD (Saudis), will keep buying American assets for better ROI (and they are likely to overpay). I think also that for certain China will remind American politicians that the trigger is there to be pulled. It's a good thing to keep in mind when a populist politician comes along with a lot of ideology how all men in China must be free. It may not be a good idea to force anyone's hand in the administration on the issue.
Over the long term I think the money flowing into China will erode the communist power base. Foreign investor money prefers predictability and transparency. And chinaman is no different from the rest of us, they too are driven by greed :-)
I don't know why the blackstone purchase by chinese funds was such news in the press.
Could it be just diversification of assets with no ulterior motive? I mean when you sit on a sovereign fund, you sit on a lot of money and you are going to deal in most instruments by definition of "a lot of money". no?
Thanks for an informed post. The panic of 1907 is indeed VERY informative, especially the part about JPMorgan. The balls was to think that they could stop the crisis by themselves, because if you make that bet and fail to un-engage the downward spiral, ouch.
from wikipedia:
The Panic of 1907, also known as the 1907 Bankers' Panic, was a financial crisis in the United States. The stock market fell nearly 50% from its peak in 1906, the economy was in recession, and there were numerous runs on banks and trust companies. Its primary cause was a retraction of loans by some banks that began in New York and soon spread across the nation, leading to the closings of banks and businesses. The severity of the downturn was such that it eventually pressured the United States Congress to accept the proposal by a group of bankers to pass the Glass-Owen Bill, essentially a blueprint of the Nelson W. Aldrich plan that had been defeated in congress earlier. This bill allowed a group of bankers to create, buy the shares, and own the Federal Reserve System in 1913. The 1907 panic was the fourth panic in 34 years.
One of the contributing factors of the Panic involved F. Augustus Heinze and his bank, Knickerbocker Trust Company. Heinze copied the speculation tactics of Charles W. Morse, who had obtained control of the Bank of North America and other banks to float consolidations and other schemes. In 1906, Heinze sold his shares in Montana copper mines for $12 million. He then moved to New York, bought Knickerbocker Trust and became a director in a national financial chain. Banking industry leaders, threatened by the developing trusts, staged a financial attack on Heinze's Knickerbocker Trust. Their motive was to sway public and congressional opinion against trusts.
In March 1907, over-expansion and poor speculation led to a stock market crash. Money became extremely tight. A second crash occurred in October 1907. This time, the crash was directly precipitated by Heinze's brothers, who had used money borrowed from Knickerbocker Trust in a failed attempt to corner United Copper. In the wake of the crash, Heinze was forced to resign as bank president. On October 21, the National Bank of Commerce ceased to honor checks of Knickerbocker Trust, causing a run on the Knickerbocker Trust. By the end of October 22, the National Bank of North America had failed and runs were sparked on nearly every trust in New York.
To bring relief to the situation, United States Secretary of the Treasury George B. Cortelyou earmarked $35 million of Federal money to quell the storm. Complete ruin of the national economy was averted when J.P. Morgan stepped in to meet the crisis. Morgan organized a team of bank and trust executives. The team redirected money between banks, secured further international lines of credit, and bought plummeting stocks of healthy corporations. Within a few weeks the panic passed, with only minimal effects on the country.
By February 1908, confidence in the economy was restored.
In May, Congress passed the Aldrich-Vreeland Act which established the National Monetary Commission to investigate the panic and to propose legislation to regulate banking. In 1913, the commission recommended the adoption of the Federal Reserve Act, which mandated the creation of a central banking system to dampen the effects of future panics. It was enacted the day before Christmas Eve the same year.
I don't know why the blackstone purchase by chinese funds was such news in the press.
Owning treasuries is considered "safer" (although the risk of run still exists as you pointed out) than active ownership of companies, where you can supposedly gain internal information or control of what is considered strategically or militarily important.
CNOOC's bid on Unocal is a good example of this where CNOOC eventually pulled out because of political opposition. Same with the ports deal to Middle East company (Dubai?)
Not necessarily agreeing with the logic above but that seems to be the core of the argument driving some American politicians.
So maybe private equity is just a valid alternative investment strategy, as you say. While the military tensions between the two countries exist, it's not convincing enough for some people with political power to stop it.
On the opposite side, some argue that is in fact China that is putting itself at disadvantage if it relies on assets that are effectively under US legislation and control, essentially "giving hostages" to US. This way you can argue that increased commerce between countries is in fact reducing military tension.
It's interesting that this economic trend has not occurred here in Canada at all. Our housing sector is very strong. Our lenders have had very tight controls on lending for mortgages - no such thing as a $0 down mortgage here. Most lenders require a 25% down-payment on the principal before even considering you. Now I know the problems afflicting the US economy will ripple out to the rest of the world, and naturally to Canadians as you are our biggest trading partner by far. Already, since the dollar is just about 1:1 for the first time since the 60's you are seeing some hit in the export manufacturers - but others, namely the chinese are stepping in and filling in the gaps. They are starving for our lumber, oil, and just about anything else they can get their hands on.
One of the most interesting angles to this whole "economics issue" will be how it translates into the wider geo-political picture. Will the US continue the world dominance in military power and projection of power around the world? Already Iran is showing it does not give a crap what the US wants. North Korea bluffed the US into getting what it wanted. What about central European interests? Will they start making more demands and concessions on the US in trade and other issues?
We are certainly living in interesting times - who knows what things will look like in 10 years.
And maybe add a third variable...inflation of necessities...food and energy. Fewer and fewer will afford to be able to heat/cool their home to the degree they are used to and personal transportation may well become too expensive for more people.
A terrible "perfect" storm to bring American standards of living for most closer to world standards.
you crack me up!
I was thinking about your 100k FDIC insured point, that is the most paranoid thing I have heard.
Well right after the keeping gold and silver to survive. I don't even know what "money" looks like, to me it is a number in a computer somewhere and a plastic card to access it.
I do grasp the notion of keeping a stash of drugs on hand in case of world meltdown. Army nova's guide to surviving credit markets turmoil is guns, gold, and weed.
God forbid! I love this way of life!
The crisis of 1907, resulted in the birth of the Fed to prevent similar crisis. In other words, i would hope we are getting more savvy at dealing with these shocks.
From this morning FT paper, page 9:
"This game of chicken between wary sellers and astute buyers is bound to end at some point and, when it does, I suspect that liquidity will return to the debt markets as abruptly as it vanished this summer. We will just have to wait a bit."
Which is a very optimistic view of the problem: just wait.
Dan, when I bought my new home I had the same concern as you. Would I be able to maintain it 10-20 years from now when energy prices are expected to soar? I seriously looked into solar but found it was still ridiculously expensive. Wind is not feasible where I live. Imagine if the US had spent the 450B it did on the Iraq war on alternative energy research and subsidies? Makes me feel like a jack-ass for supporting the initial invasion.
Yes, its the government's job to tell me what house I can and can't buy and then bail me out because I was too stupid to realize I couldn't afford living next to the Fleury's.
[Its the government's job to regulate the undisciplined.]
You should move to Cuba. ;-)
US paper money wasn't worth anything to a good number of people...in particular in exchange for food or water. Gold and silver weren't good either - Americans don't even know what those are worth for the most part. Now...cigarettes, liquor, weed, and a hot shower were worth a lot! So was a gun and the ability/willingness to use it.
One friend befriended the people manning the national guard outpost set up down the street from his house - said they were tough on him at first, but after letting them use the shower and they got to know him, he became "exempt" from martial law curfews, restrictions.
very bad language and attitude follows. it is not all serious:
http://del.icio.us/holon67/bailout
just a dude, remember the good times of '99?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=W16qzZ7J5YQ
shit, i lived on natoma and 6th, i applied to jboss when there were 3 of you, but my skillz sux'd. oh well
Living standards decline for most Americans (not you, or even me to a point) when oil prices rise from $25 to $50 to $75 to $100 to ? $500 (?, I get hit at $500, even in midtown!) per barrel.
Add to it the end of the housing ATM which propped up a lot of lifestyles...you get a slow decline in the standard of living for many.
Which is a very optimistic view of the problem: just wait.
A strategy that has not failed in the last 100 years or so... :-)
On the positive side, with all the walking we'll have to do, the US will no longer have the most obese citizens on the planet. Heart disease will probably drop. (Of course, research on heart disease will suffer. Oh well, not everyone can win.)
A strategy that has not failed in the last 100 years or so... :-)
Unfortunately, prematurely attacking a problem, before proper analysis is done, doesn't seem to be working out well right now.
Dead on. I think people in EU cities or NYC are less overweight because of all this walking around.
Luckily, I'm 4 miles from downtown Atlanta and Buckhead and 2 miles from Midtown and within 1 mile of quite a bit of shopping choice. I need about 20 lbs of walking to do :-)
An article I read in our local paper a year ago said that 20 and 30 somethings in the US are moving into urban areas again. One reason mentioned is an escape from the need to drive everywhere. I'd be interested to see the results of any longitudinal studies of those age groups in 10 years with regard to obesity.
Cities I've found with the best walking are Boston, New York, Chicago, and San Francisco. We stayed at a B&B in the Virginia Highlands - the Gaslamp Inn I think - and found that area walkable. We purposefully chose a villagey area for our current home where we can walk to everything we need in 10 minutes. It's not Boston, but then again it's affordable!
Sorry to hijack the thread.
It may look like a bit of exaggeration or even propaganda but there is something that can be picked up from what is written to understand the ever-increasing conflicts in this world.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30400-1284080,00.html
ps here's to hoping we dont lose the ability to comment from massive popularity, like marc aka marq