Tuesday, August 4, 2009

Geithner Loses It


I don't know quite what to make of this. On Friday, Treasury Secretary Geithner, according to WSJ, exploded in an expletive filled tirade at top financial regulators:

...Geithner blasted top U.S. financial regulators in an expletive-laced critique last Friday as frustration grows over the Obama administration's faltering plan to overhaul U.S. financial regulation, according to people familiar with the meeting...

Mr. Geithner told the regulators Friday that "enough is enough," said one person familiar with the meeting. Mr. Geithner said regulators had been given a chance to air their concerns, but that it was time to stop, this person said.

Among those gathered in the Treasury conference room were Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Mary Schapiro and Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman Sheila Bair.

Friday's roughly hourlong meeting was described as unusual, not only because of Mr. Geithner's repeated use of obscenities, but because of the aggressive posture he took with officials from federal agencies generally considered independent of the White House. Mr. Geithner reminded attendees that the administration and Congress set policy, not the regulatory agencies.

Mr. Geithner, without singling out officials, raised concerns about regulators who questioned the wisdom of giving the Federal Reserve more power to oversee the financial system. Ms. Schapiro and Ms. Bair, among others, have argued that more authority should be shared among a council of regulators...

In addition to Mr. Bernanke, Ms. Bair and Ms. Schapiro, other attendees at Friday's meeting were: Fed Governor Daniel Tarullo, Comptroller of the Currency John Dugan, Commodity Futures Trading Commission Chairman Gary Gensler and Office of Thrift Supervision Acting Director John Bowman.
Ha! Geithner exploding over those who have concerns about giving the Fed more power. I'd like to think that, at least in a small way, Ron Paul's movement to audit the Fed is helping push those taking an anti-Federal Reserve stance. For the most part, though, it is a simple turf war.

Monday, August 3, 2009

Where Are We...

Where were we..

Where are we going..

Mario Rizzo asks the big questions about the economy, here---and points out that the difficulty in answering these questions makes counter-cyclical government planning and intervention a bit difficult.

ABC's John Stossel on National Healthcare

This is a great report from John Stossel. In it, he also mentions the problem that innovation will be killed off without the ability for firms an individuals to profit from there innovations. I have mentioned this as a key problem of a national healthcare system, outside of Stossel, I have seen little mention of this great problem. If Obamacare passes, it is likely that we will have peaked as far as innovation, for a very long time, perhaps forever.

Grassroots Uprising

This is remarkable. Drudge has links to video of citizens in Texas, Pennsylvania and New York confronting Congressional leaders over healthcare and expanding government.

Protesters Shout Down Obamacare in Austin...

Crowd Explodes When Sen. Specter Urges We 'Do This Fast'...

UPRISING BACK HOME: Constituents Make Congressman Sweat...

UPDATE: Kane takes on Barney Frank

Klueless Krugman

This Sunday Paul "I Don't Understand the Business Cycle" Krugman displays that his ignorance is much broader than just ignorance about the business cycle. In his NYT column, he lambastes Goldman Sachs for (hold on to your hat) having fast computers:

One involves the rise of high speed trading by some institutions, including Goldman Sachs, have been using superfast computers to get the jump on other investors, buying or selling stocks a tiny fraction of a second before anyone else can react. Profits from high-frequency trading are one reason Goldman is earning record profits and likely to pay record bonuses.
Now, high-powered computers play a role in what is going on, but largely because of the volume of trades being made, the speed is almost ancillary. Goldman is a pretty shady operator, but not because they have fast computers. What would be wrong with having fast computers? It's what they may be doing with the computers that may be a problem. But, what Goldman is doing was probably done when trades were made under the button wood tree, long, long before computers.
There are three possibilities as to what Goldman is doing when they are doing high frequency trading..

A. They may be buying ahead of their own clients. That is, if client x puts in an order for 100,000 shares of IBM, they go in and buy it and then sell it to the client at a tiny fraction higher.

B. They are somehow getting advance word on all trades (their own clients and that of others)that are about to hit the computers, milliseconds before anyone else, and buy ahead of those trades.

C. They do have sophisticated programs that know, for example, when an index hedge fund sells y shares of a stock M, z sales of stock N are likely to follow, and they jump ahead of the N trade.

Goldman may be doing one of these type trades, two or all three.

Method A is ethically edgy. Method C is about skill and superior intelligence. Method B is outright thievery.

It is not publicly known which of these methods Goldman is using.

Thus, for Krugman to jump up and down about fast computers is idiotic. It isn't the fast computer, per se, it is what the computer is calculating. One thing the computer could be calculating could be the result of sheer savvy on the part of Goldman, one could be edgy, one could be theft. That Krugman doesn't differentiate from these uses of high powered computers and merely talks about fast computers indicates Krugman really doesn't know what the hell he is talking about.

Not satisfied with his lack of understanding of high frequency trading, Krugman, with all his clothes on, dives into the pool of commodity trading with equal idiocy.

He writes:
On a seemingly different front, Sunday’s Times reported on the case of Andrew J. Hall, who leads an arm of Citigroup that speculates on oil and other commodities. His operation has made a lot of money recently, and according to his contract Mr. Hall is owed $100 million.
First error, the arm of Citigroup, Phibro, rarely "speculates" on anything. These aren't traders studying charts all day and trying to predict a direction of a market. These are guys that are involved in moving physical commodities.Yeah, they may have a sense for where the economy is going, but if they are trading oil for example, they know where every oil tanker in the world is, they know how much room every refinery in the world has to refine more oil. But, even with this knowledge they aren't generally taking a flyer on the price of a commodity going up or down.

What they really do is loosen markets in third world countries. By this I mean, by way of example, that say a rare metal may be in strong demand in China, but the only supply is in some third world country where the only open road to get the metal from its source is controlled by rebels. The Phibro trader than has to figure away around the regulation in the third world country to get the metal moving. He also has to figure a way to payoff the the rebels so they don't attack the shipment and work on a dozen other obstacles that would make mere mortals stop before they got started.

These are the traders big paydays, when they move the obstacles out of the way and get product moving to where it is in demand. And make no mistake these traders will think of every angle possible to get the job done.

Marc Rich, who started decades ago at Phibro, was known for thinking of every possible angle. When he secretly owned 50% of Twentieth Century Fox, he let his traders know that if they needed videocasette access to a Twentieth Century movie not yet released, to help move a long a trade, they could get a copy of the videocassette.

Krugman writes of Hall who now oversees Phibro and is owed the $100 million by Citigroup:
What about Mr. Hall? The Times report suggests that he makes money mainly by outsmarting other investors, rather than by directing resources to where they’re needed. Again, it’s hard to see the social value of what he does.
Earth to Krugman, "outsmarting other investors" is directing resources to where they are needed. And, it is very easy to see the value of what he does, he unclogs markets that would be otherwise frozen. Krugman's clueless attack on Hall's pay is really kind of a Krugman vote for market constipation.

Bottom line, when Krugman writes on a topic he has scant knowledge about (which is most of the time), it becomes clear that he has no real understanding of key topics, he doesn't understand how markets work, and he should really be embarrassed by his own clueless writing.

Data Revisions at BEA Change the Recession Picture

Using new input-output analysis, the Bureau of Economic Analysis has just completed a comprehensive revision of all the numbers in the National Income and Product Accounts going back to 1929.

Jeffrey Rogers Hummel details on what all this means for reports on the current recession:

The old estimates reported that real GDP fell by 0.2 percent in the fourth quarter of 2007, whereas the new estimates report that it rose by 2.1 percent. For the first quarter of 2008, the old estimate is a 0.9 percent rise; the new estimate is 0.7 percent fall. Second quarter of 2008: old, 2.8 percent rise; new, 1.5 percent rise. Third quarter of 2008: old, 0.5 percent fall; new, 2.7percent fall. Fourth quarter of 2008: old, 6.3 percent fall; new, 5.4 percent fall.

It is not immediately clear what the recent BEA release of a Q2 Real Gross Domestic Product decline of 1.0% annualized would have been under the prior method of BEA calculation. It's sufficient to say that government calculated numbers, such as GDP, CPI etc. must be taken with a grain of salt. The best numbers are actual price data, followed by industry data. Government calculated data is generally the least reliable--both because of the difficulty in collecting much of the data they attempt to quantify and because there always is the potential for political pressure to distort the numbers.

Greenspan On Where a Second Housing Break Will Cause Massive New Foreclosures

Former Fed Chairman is a trend follower when it comes to the overall economy. Thus in his appearance Sunday on ABC News' This Week, he is much more optimistic about the economy than he was a year ago. However, trend following is about as useful in forecasting future events in the economy as projecting the future weather in New York City for January 2010, by extrapolating August 2009 weather, i.e., totally useless.

However, where Greenspan can be of value is when he points out certain facts and break points because he does look at data very closely. He will know breakpoints. Thus, I found his comments on the housing market quite instructive:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, the Case-Shiller has shown that they probably have stabilized some.

GREENSPAN: Well, they have stabilized temporarily. And the problem with the data on home prices is they're very difficult to measure in their regional data.

It is possible. I don't think it's going to happen, but I do think it is possible that we could get a second wave down. But the important issue is, if we don't -- and I think the probability is that we won't, that we are close to stabilization.

Under those conditions, you will begin to get a very significant change in the underlying confidence in the consumer area.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And then you might see that in the consumer area; you might see that in the stock markets. So that is the -- is the trigger, possibly -- you say it's unlikely -- that that could be the trigger to a second dip?

GREENSPAN: If you get another dip and a renewed decline in prices, we're going to run into an acceleration of a number of homes that are mortgaged and are underwater; that is that the value of the properties are less than the debt.

If that happens -- and, clearly, looking at the structure of where debt and values, it would, if, for example, home prices fell by 10 percent or more, that would create a major acceleration in foreclosures. And I think it could be a factor...
What Greenspan has done here is look to see at what point a further decrease in housing prices creates a significant increase in foreclosures. Cranking out the numbers, he tells us it is 10%. I have no reason to dispute this number.

Thus, while Greenspan remarkably, doesn't seem to watch money growth, or the current lack of it, the slowdown in money supply will cause a second dip in the economy. If the break is strong enough to push home prices down by 10% (and this appears to be a strong possibility given how long money growth has slowed) all hell will break loose in the financial sector, again.

Stay tuned.

Obama's True View on Total Government Takeover of Healthcare



ViaDrudgeReport

Why You Might Be Happier Than Bill Gates

Tyler Cowen explains in the video, below.

There is much to be debated in Cowen's views about the internet and the role of money, but, as I have said before, Cowen's new book, Create Your Own Economy: The Path to Prosperity in a Disordered World is pathbreaking in its analysis of individual minds and how they order information. There are many details I don't agree with in Cowen's analysis (and comments on this video), but his Big Picture view of the different ordering methods of different minds and its relation to the internet is a significant new direction in attempting to understand the human mind.

As a bonus, there is a nice warning from Cowen on the penchant by President Obama to lock out those who refuse to go along with plans he has devised.

Krugman Finds Out What Canadians Think About Their National Healthcare



ViaBobMurphy

Getting the Edge in Coin Tosses

Stanford researchers figure out the angle:

...recent research into coin flips has discovered that the laws of mechanics determine the outcome of coin tosses: The startling finding is they aren't random. Instead, for natural flips, the chance of a coin coming up on the same side as it started is about 51 percent. Heads facing up predicts heads; tails facing up predicts tails.

Three academics—Persi Diaconis, Susan Holmes, and Richard Montgomery—through vigorous analysis made an interesting discovery at Stanford University. As they note in their published results, "Dynamical Bias in the Coin Toss," laws of mechanics govern coin flips, meaning, "their flight is determined by their initial conditions."

The physics—and math—behind this discovery are very complex. But some of the basic ideas are simple: If the force of the flip is the same, the outcome is the same. To understand more about flips, the academics built a coin-tossing machine and filmed it using a slow-motion camera. This confirmed that the outcome of flips isn't random. The machine could make the toss come out heads every time.

When people, rather than a machine, flipped the coin, results were less predictable, but there was still a slight physical bias favoring the position the coin started in. If the coin started heads up, then it would land heads up 51 percent of the time. Part of the reason real flips are less certain isn't just that the force of the flip can vary; it's that coins flipped by humans tend to rotate around several axes at once. Flipped coins tumble over and over, but they also spin around and around, like pizza dough being twirled.
The full story is here.

Pay People Not to Work...


and, they won't.

Reuters reports:

[Chief Obamaa economic advisor Larry] Summers and U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said the Obama administration would work with Congress on ways to extend unemployment benefits later this year.

"We'll do what's necessary to make appropriate unemployment benefits available," said Summers, adding that this has helped maintain consumer spending.
This will only aggravate the recession. It is allowing people to stay out of the workforce, and results in less production in the United States and thus a lower standard of living for all.

Whenever these people come back into the workforce, it will cause adjustments in the economy that could be taken care of now, if unemployment benefits are not extended.

So This Is How You Make Huge Trading Profits...

Harry Sender at FT reports:

Wall Street banks are reaping outsized profits by trading with the Federal Reserve, raising questions about whether the central bank is driving hard enough bargains in its dealings with private sector counterparties, officials and industry executives say.

The Fed has emerged as one of Wall Street’s biggest customers during the financial crisis, buying massive amounts of securities to help stabilise the markets. In some cases, such as the market for mortgage-backed securities, the Fed buys more bonds than any other party.

However, the Fed is not a typical market player. In the interests of transparency, it often announces its intention to buy particular securities in advance. A former Fed official said this strategy enables banks to sell these securities to the Fed at an inflated price.

The resulting profits represent a relatively hidden form of support for banks, and Wall Street has geared up to take advantage...

A former official of the US Treasury and the Fed said the situation had reached the point that “everyone games them. Their transparency hurts them. Everyone picks their pocket.”
The firms that are in the berst position to take advantage of this istuation are Fed designated "primary dealers." The primary dealers are:


BNP Paribas Securities Corp.
Banc of America Securities LLC
Barclays Capital Inc.
Cantor Fitzgerald & Co.
Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC
Daiwa Securities America Inc.
Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.
Goldman, Sachs & Co.
HSBC Securities (USA) Inc.
Jefferies & Company, Inc.
J. P. Morgan Securities Inc.
Mizuho Securities USA Inc.
Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated
Nomura Securities International, Inc.
RBC Capital Markets Corporation
RBS Securities Inc.
UBS Securities LLC.

No wonder Bernanke doesn't want an audit. Wouldn't it be nice to see what the Fed is buying, at what price and from whom? How many ways is the Fed shoveling money to Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, et al.

Saturday, August 1, 2009

Cash fo Clunkers is About Clunking the Economy

Peter Schiff nails it:

The recently passed “cash for clunkers” program (currently on-hold, as it ran out of funding in one week) is a perfect example of how government policy can make the economy worse. By incentivizing Americans to destroy fully paid-for cars so they can go deeper into debt buying brand new ones, the government weakens an already crippled economy. The last thing we want to do is subsidize Americans to go deeper into debt by buying more stuff. Don’t they realize that is precisely the behavior that got us into this mess?

Think about it this way. If your friend were in trouble because he had too much debt, would you encourage him to take on even more? Wouldn’t a real sign of progress be a reduction of debt, even if he had to cut back on his everyday expenses?

Money misdirected towards new cars, when the old ones are fine, is money that will not be available for investment in other sectors of the economy, where it would naturally flow. It is Obama solidifying the vote of the financially unsophiticated--while he props up the union infiltrated auto industry--all the while distorting the natural flow of the economy.

MAJOR ALERT: Watch This Before Getting Involved with Cash for Clunkers

I dare you to use your computer to go to Cars.gov after viewing this Glen Beck clip. WARNING: Do not go to cars.gov until you see this clip.



Via David Kramer at LRC

Oh Boy

Drudge Report one liner:

The government plans big revisions to historical economic data...
Developing...

Traditionally changes to economic data have been politically driven, including the change in focus from CPI to "core" CPI and from GNP to GDP.

"Big revisions" in an activist government like Obama's is not a good sign.

KKR Eyes Market Blitz of Up to Six IPOs

Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, the world’s biggest buy-out group, is preparing up to six companies for initial public offerings worth billions of dollars, including Toys R Us, FT is reporting.

Is KKR thinking double dip recession? Their has all the hallmarks of attempting to take advantage of a market window that may not last long.

Especially when you consider, KKR itself is also looking to become publicly traded.