11 July 2008

In Times of Crisis Remember the "Three L's"




Liquidity, Liquidity, Liquidity.


Your size makes you more 'agile' than the big players who will urge you to stay invested, to hold your ground.
Your weakness is that information is not being given to everyone in the market at the same time.

No debt. Liquidity. But where to keep it?

That's the challenge.

We like hard currencies, short term Treasuries, cash, and gold and silver.
The time to buy equities will be coming, but not quite yet.

But that's just our opinion, and we could be wrong.





Housing Bubble Collapse Deals a Serious Blow to Middle Class Retirees



'At this festive season of the year, Mr Scrooge,' said the gentleman, taking up a pen, 'it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir.'

'The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?' said Scrooge.

'They are. Still,' returned the gentleman,' I wish I could say they were not.'

'Are there no prisons?"

'Plenty of prisons,' said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.

'And the Union workhouses.' demanded Scrooge. 'Are they still in operation?'

'Both very busy, sir.'

'Oh. I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,' said Scrooge. 'I'm very glad to hear it.'

Sorry, we needed your Social Security taxes to bail out Wall Street.

Whiners.



Housing Market Meltdown Will Cause Massive Losses in Household Wealth
Plummeting house prices will leave millions of homeowners dependent almost exclusively on Social Security in their retirement

Center for Economic and Policy Research
July 9, 2008

WASHINGTON, DC- As Senators McCain and Obama fine-tune their plans for Social Security in preparation for the 2008 presidential election, a new report from the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) shows that, due to the collapse of the housing bubble, the vast majority of Americans have accumulated little or no wealth. This means that they will be almost completely reliant on Social Security and Medicare to support them in their retirement years.

The study, “The Impact of the Housing Crash on Family Wealth,” analyzed the wealth holdings of families in all age cohorts in 2004 and projected the wealth of these families in 2009. The findings are presented by income quintile under three scenarios- real house prices remain at current levels, real house prices fall by an additional 10 percent, or real house prices fall by an additional 20 percent. In all three scenarios, the vast majority of these families will have little or no housing wealth in 2009.

“This extraordinary destruction of wealth will have tremendous implications for millions of families,” said report co-author Dean Baker. “Coupled with a very low personal savings rate, this means that many people, especially those near retirement will only have Social Security and Medicare to rely on once they leave the workforce.”

The report projects that if house prices stay the same through 2009, the median household headed by a person between the ages of 45 and 54, those in their prime earning years, will have 24.7 percent less wealth than did the median household in this age group in 2004. These households will have accumulated just $113,268 in net worth in 2009, barely $15,000 more than their counterparts in 1989, whose net worth totaled $97,600.

If real house prices fall 10 percent, the median household in the 45 to 54 cohort will see a 34.6 percent loss in wealth compared with the median in 2004 while families in the 18 to 34 cohort will lose of 67.6 percent. If prices fall by 20 percent, the most pessimistic scenario, families in the 55-64 cohort will experience a loss of 49.6 percent of their wealth compared to the same cohort in 2004.

This analysis should also prompt serious re-examination of policy proposals to cut Social Security and Medicare for near retirees. Baker commented, “policies that perhaps could have been justified at the peak of the housing bubble make much less sense now that tens of millions of near-retirees have just seen most of their wealth disappear.”

In analyzing wealth holdings for these families, the authors used data from the Federal Reserve Board’s 2004 Survey of Consumer Finance. The authors also used the S&P 500 and the Case-Shiller 20-City Composite Index to adjust for equity values and home price changes between 2004 and 2009.

Contact: Alan Barber, (202) 293-5380 x 115

There is No Recession, the US is just a " Nation of Whiners" - Phil Gramm


This is from Phil Gramm who has been an active participant in bringing us into our current financial crisis.

Stop whining you guys. Stop whining about high prices, corrupt politicians, and dying in foreign wars for the personal enrichment of a few crony capitalist insiders. Stop whining about lost jobs, government lies, and a financial system that has become nothing but a con game.

Time to get out the tar and feathers instead.

And vote every Republican and the Democratic 'do nothing' leadership out of office this fall.

That will be good for openers.

How Phil Gramm Helped to Destroy the US Financial System



McCain Disagrees With 'Whiners' Remark
By LIZ SIDOTI,AP
2008-07-11 09:11:18
AOL News

FAIRFAX, Va. (July 10) -- Republican John McCain distanced himself from an economic adviser who dubbed the United States "a nation of whiners" in a "mental recession" as Democrat Barack Obama turned the remarks against his rival.

"I strongly disagree" with Phil Gramm's remarks, McCain told reporters in Belleville, Mich. "Phil Gramm does not speak for me. I speak for me." (Phil Gramm is McCain's chief economic advisor - Jesse)

The Republican presidential hopeful said a person who just lost a job "isn't suffering from a mental recession."

"America is in great difficulty. And we are experiencing enormous economic challenges as well as others,"
McCain said, seeking to stem the fallout of Gramm's comments.

Gramm, a former Texas senator who is a vice chairman of the Swiss bank UBS, made the remarks in an interview with The Washington Times. Gramm has a doctorate in economics.

In Virginia, Obama seized on the comments as he tried to paint McCain as out of touch: "America already has one Dr. Phil. We don't need another one when it comes to the economy."

He drew cheers and laughter with that comment referencing television psychologist "Dr. Phil" McGraw — and boos and hisses when he read Gramm's quotes to his audience. He contrasted them with rising gas and food prices, home foreclosures and job layoffs.

"It's not just a figment of your imagination," Obama said at a town-hall event focused on helping women advance economically. "Let's be clear. This economic downturn is not in your head."

"It isn't whining to ask government to step in and give families some relief," he said, drawing a standing ovation from the nearly 3,000 people in a high school gymnasium. "And I think it's time we had a president who doesn't deny our problems or blame the American people for them but takes responsibility and provides the leadership to solve them."

The economy is the top issue for voters, and, thus, has become the No. 1 issue in the presidential campaign. Each candidate is seeking to portray the other as out of touch with the country's struggles and himself as the leader able to pull the nation out of tenuous times.

Gramm's quotes in the Washington newspaper gave McCain heartburn and Obama an opportunity.

"You've heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession," Gramm told the Times. He noted that growth has held up at about 1 percent despite all the publicity over losing jobs to India, China, illegal immigration, housing and credit problems and record oil prices. "We may have a recession; we haven't had one yet."

"We have sort of become a nation of whiners," Gramm said. "You just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline" despite a major export boom that is the primary reason that growth continues in the economy, he said.


Associated Press writer Charles Babington in Michigan contributed to this report.



US Considers Nationalizing Fannie and Freddie


July 11, 2008
U.S. Weighs Takeover of Two Mortgage Giants
By STEPHEN LABATON and STEVEN R. WEISMAN
New York Times

WASHINGTON — Alarmed by the growing financial stress at the nation’s two largest mortgage finance companies, senior Bush administration officials are considering a plan to have the government take over one or both of the companies and place them in a conservatorship if their problems worsen, people briefed about the plan said on Thursday.

The companies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, have been hit hard by the mortgage foreclosure crisis. Their shares are plummeting and their borrowing costs are rising as investors worry that the companies will suffer losses far larger than the $11 billion they have already lost in recent months. Now, as housing prices decline further and foreclosures grow, the markets are worried that Fannie and Freddie themselves may default on their debt. (At one time we estimated the money market funds exposure to Fan and Fred at about 8%. It most surely is much lower now just because of their price collapse. But just how secure are those 1.00 NAVs? - Jesse)

Under a conservatorship, the shares of Fannie and Freddie would be worth little or nothing, and any losses on mortgages they own or guarantee — which could be staggering — would be paid by taxpayers. (Social Services for banks are our highest priority - Jesse)

The government officials said that the administration had also considered calling for legislation that would offer an explicit government guarantee on the $5 trillion of debt owned or guaranteed by the companies. But that is a far less attractive option, they said, because it would effectively double the size of the public debt.

The officials also said that such a step would be ineffective because the markets already widely accept that the government stands behind the companies. (But not with an overly wide stance - Jesse)

The officials involved in the discussions stressed that no action by the administration was imminent, and that Fannie and Freddie are not considered to be in a crisis situation. (When will they be in a crisis, when their stocks go to zero? When the Republicans leave office in disgrace? - Jesse) But in recent days, enough concern has built among senior government officials over the health of the giant mortgage finance companies for them to hold a series of meetings and conference calls to discuss contingency plans.

A conservatorship or other rescue operation would be the second time in four months that the Bush administration has stepped in to engineer a rescue to prevent the financial system from collapsing. Last March, it forced the sale of Bear Stearns to JPMorgan Chase to avert a bankruptcy of that venerable investment house. (Maybe the banks could consider private savings plans instead of relying on the government? - Jesse)

Officials have also been concerned that the difficulties of the two companies, if not fixed, could damage economies worldwide. The securities of Fannie and Freddie are held by numerous overseas financial institutions, central banks and investors.

Under a 1992 law, Fannie or Freddie could be put into conservatorship if their top regulator found that either one is “critically undercapitalized.” A conservator would have sweeping powers to overhaul them, but would not have the authority to close them.

The markets showed fresh signs on Thursday of being nervous about the future of the companies. Their stock prices continued a weeklong slide, hitting their lowest level in 17 years. The debt markets, meanwhile, pushed up the two companies’ cost of borrowing — their lifeblood for buying mortgages.

The companies are by far the biggest providers of financing for domestic home loans. If they are unable to borrow, they will not be able to buy mortgages from commercial lenders. In turn, that would make it more expensive and difficult, if not impossible, for home buyers to obtain credit, freezing the United States housing market. Even healthy banks are reluctant to tie up scarce capital by offering mortgages to low-risk home buyers without Fannie and Freddie taking the loans off their books.

Together the two companies touch more than half of the nation’s $12 trillion in mortgages by either owning them or backing them. They hold more than $1.5 trillion of the mortgages as securities. Others are sold to investors in the form of mortgage-backed bonds.

In recent weeks, the companies have spiraled downward, undermined by declining confidence in their future and shaken by sharp declines in their assets as the housing markets have continued to slide and foreclosures have risen.

In the last week alone, Freddie has lost 45 percent of its value, and Fannie is off 30 percent. Expectations of default at the companies have also risen; it costs three times as much today to buy insurance on a two-year Fannie bond as it did three years ago.

Analysts expect the companies to announce a new round of write-downs and possibly be forced to raise capital by issuing additional shares, which would dilute their value for current shareholders.

Despite repeated assurances from regulators about the financial soundness of the two institutions, financial markets have concluded that by some measures they are deeply troubled.

Freddie, for instance, is technically insolvent under fair value accounting rules, in which the company puts a market value on assets as if it had to sell them now.

Although Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. and Ben S. Bernanke, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, passed up invitations by lawmakers on Thursday to seek legislation to deal with the crisis, officials said that the administration had been privately considering a government takeover should the markets continue to turn against the companies.

At a hearing of the House Financial Services Committee on Thursday, both Mr. Paulson and Mr. Bernanke were guarded, carefully trying not to say anything that could further erode confidence in Fannie and Freddie. They both said that the regulator of Fannie and Freddie had found that they were, in the words of Mr. Paulson, “adequately capitalized,” meaning that they had sufficient cash and other assets to withstand the turbulence in the markets.

“Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are also working through this challenging period,” Mr. Paulson said.

Neither official would address a question posed by Representative Dennis Moore, Democrat of Kansas, who asked whether the failure of either institution would pose a risk to the financial system.

“In today’s world I don’t think it is helpful to speculate about any financial institution and systemic risk,” Mr. Paulson said. “I’m dealing with the here and now, and the important role that they’re playing and other financial institutions are playing.”

Mr. Bernanke said that Fannie and Freddie “are well-capitalized in the regulatory sense” but added that they, and other major financial institutions, needed to raise their capital levels further.

Despite repeated denials by officials in the Bush and prior administrations, financial markets have long assumed the government would stand behind Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in times of difficulty, both because they are integral to the housing and financial markets and because the companies have a line of credit to the Treasury.

But Congress set that credit more than 38 years ago, long before the companies rose to such size and prominence, and its limit, $2.25 billion for each, has become a tiny fraction of the companies’ overall debt.

Some analysts have begun to propose that the Fed also permit the two companies to borrow from it, as Wall Street investment banks began doing after the rescue of Bear Stearns. But there is no indication that the Fed is contemplating such a move....

Charles Duhigg and Jenny Anderson contributed reporting from New York; Michael Cooper from Livonia, Mich.; and David M. Herszenhorn from Washington.