No One is Perfect

Obviously I am not talking about myself with this "no one is perfect" title. Rather, I am referring to Warren Buffet. He has had a tough year. For someone who once quipped something to the effect that he would be happy if all his stocks went down 50% (due to the buying opportunities it would create), he does not seem too happy when it actually happens. I am just basing this on some rather stressed out pictures I have seen of him lately - so don't read too much into it.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=alYGX7iqNnjM&refer=home

I posted this morning on unemployment numbers not being as rosy as the press is playing them out to be, well it is not just me saying this. Those that know how to read the numbers better than me know that this was not a good unemployment number.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2009/05/guest-post-april-unemployment-figures.html

Indeed, Mish is the best I know on reading these stats, so I highly recommend this link. All sorts of nice charts and an explanation on the always complex business birth/death adjustment. Let Mish tell you how unemployment is already, by at least one measure, over 15%.

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/05/jobs-contract-16th-straight-month.html

The Less Than Stress Test

I have reported here regularly on the nearly comical stress tests. Feel free to wander back to read old posts. You will find a good three or four discussions on the tests in the past two weeks. This morning I noted how this month's unemployment figures - even though better than most people forecast - were worse than the stress tests' worst case scenario. And as I explained this morning and here previously the "official" unemployment figures are a joke. So, to summarize, we have ridiculously under reported (probably cooked) numbers that are better than expected by most people's expectations yet worse than the more adverse stress test scenario.

Now if this does not have you worried yet, consider this; even with demonstrably ridiculous stress test findings based upon idiotic baselines, the government apparently allowed the failed institutions to negotiate their way out of raising the capital the government - on the government's bogus standards - wanted them to raise.

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/05/wsj-report-banks-negotiated-concessions.html

Let me summarize one more time slowly so you can let this sink in, as it is an important point. Let's consider the steps:

• The government stress tests, for one of the markers used in the tests, forecast unemployment at 8.3% last month, with 8.8% as the "more adverse," as in worst case, scenario assumption. The actual result, which according to most forecasters was better than expected at 8.9% was worse than the "more adverse" prediction;
• The 8.9% rate is in itself bogus, due in part to Census Bureau temporary hiring, and due in part to other tampering, so the government "more adverse" number is even further from reality;
• Despite the stress test results being based on bogus rosy assumptions on cooked stats, the companies so "tested" are still able to talk the government out of a significant part of the capital requirements that the government decided were needed. And apparently, the government agreed to require less capital.

And here, my friends, is the favorite part of the whole story, the financial stocks by-and-large soared today. Some up over 9%. Time to party up.

Think about what I have just summarized and tell me if I am crazy. I think it is time to party down, not up!

Did I Mention Consumers Spending Less

A regular part of my rant has been on how consumers - 70% or so of GDP - are not, should not and can not keep spending. Debt needs to be reduced (slowly) but it needs to be reduced. We have spent a very very long time building it to where it is and it will take a long time to reduce. Indeed, it should take a long time as deleveraging too fast can have dire impacts. Nonetheless, we must deleverage. And deleverage we are in fact doing. Now you should do the math on how well the economy will do with this taking place.

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/05/consumer-credit-plunges-record-111b.html

Disclosures: None.

Something To Chew On

Here is something to chew on. The top headline at Bloomberg this morning reads as follows:

Breaking News
•U.S. Loses 539,000 Jobs, Fewer Than Forecast, in Sign Economy Stabilizing

"Fewer than forecast" is a curious statement. Why, you ask. Because, as Calculated Risk points out, the "fewer than forecast" job loss put the unemployment rate at 5.9%, which is worse than the government's "more adverse" assumption in its recently completed stress tests. In other words, it would seem that the government's most negative forecast was somewhat rosier than most others were forecasting on average. Go figure.

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/05/employment-report-539k-jobs-lost-89.html

And by the way, before you start popping the cork on this "fewer than forecast" result, I recommend you read the fine print. The private sector lost 611,000 jobs. The government would have lost jobs too but for the Census Bureau hiring 140,000 "temporary" workers to prepare for the census this coming year and that still only netted around 72,000 new government jobs. In other words, but for the Census Bureau doing temporary hires, the actual job loss is not significantly better than the 699,000 loss in March. So you can go with the Bloomberg spin on this being a sign that the economy is stabilizing. Or you can look at the press release by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, where they characterized April as follows:

"In April, job losses were large and widespread across nearly all major private-sector industries."

Chew on that!

Disclosures: None

Moral Hazard? - Assuming Morals Still Exist.

Let me first note that I told you so. The time for me to say this has not arrived yet, but it will so I wanted to get it out of the way. We are in a new period of irrational exuberance. I think irrational based upon the stuff I have been posting. At this point, any exuberance I believe is irrational.

Nothing Moral About It!

Here is an interesting bit I noticed today and I am sick. This shows that institutions issuing subprime loans did $370 million in lobbying over the past decade. That is an insane amount. But when you are doing about a trillion in idiotic loans and do not want your business regulated, you go to extremes. Most of the originators of these loans are now bankrupt but were owned or financed by several of the big players that just came out of the stress tests and that have gotten taxpayer dollars. You know, like Citigroup, JP Morgan, Goldman, Wells Fargo and Bank of America. So much for moral hazard.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ab5cf9aa-39b7-11de-b82d-00144feabdc0.html

And talking about moral hazard, it is receiving far too little attention in this crisis. Let's say I am a regional bank, say Good Bank, and I did not do subprime and maintained good underwriting policies. Despite my good business practices, I am suffering as the economy is going through a crisis that even good underwriting would have a hard time predicting. So I am suffering. Yet I am reading daily about uber-banks that created all these derivatives, that did all this subprime lending, that committed all these sins, and they are going to do fine with the government refusing to allow them to fail to the tune of trillions. And this false government support is unfairly benefiting those who got us here. So I am pissed off as Mr. Good Bank because I have played by the rules and this - even after the discovery of the problems - has put me at a competitive disadvantage. "Screw this, I am not playing by the rules going forward."

I have just portrayed one aspect of moral hazard - good banks going bad. Now assuming they have good management, this will not happen, but it is a risk. The more obvious risk is for those that got away with it. Sure their shareholders had a hunk of pain, but the execs that orchestrated this mess did quite well and the companies are allowed to rise from the dead and repeat - in time - their indiscretions. Sure they will play nice for a while, but then the next wave of financial innovation begins. And I for one have not seen a lot of new regulatory proposals coming out just yet to prevent this happening again. Perhaps those hundreds of millions in lobbying dollars are still achieving their desired effect.

It is difficult to talk in terms of moral hazard when no one has any morality. I hope people - and companies - learn from this mess, but the government is doing its best to teach the companies the wrong lesson.

The Stress Tests

I do not think the tests actually were assuming enough stress, but they are - unofficially - in. If you believe they are accurate and the banks need no more capital than what is being said, good luck with that. The dollars in the linked chart are based upon "leaked" data. Leaks? I am shocked!! If I had the Casa Blanca clip I would link it here.

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/05/stress-test-table-morgan-stanley-needs.html


Foreclosures at a Bottom - Me Thinks Not!

I noted yesterday that the somewhat distant - as in 2010 and 2011 - future has some nasty surprises in terms of option ARM resets. And here is a bit of a Catch 22 for you; right now interest rates are "as low as they go." Should the economy rebound, which is what everyone seems to be banking upon, then the expectations are that we will get to significant inflation, if not hyperinflation. Now I am refinancing for a new fixed rate mortgage, so I will be fine (not my bank) but all those ARMs that have reset this year and next at lower rates are going to start shooting through the roof on rates and defaults/foreclosures will again shoot through the roof. Seemingly, there is no way around all those subprimes. Any hoot, here is a link that notes our current problems are still there.

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/05/foreclosures-2nd-wave.html

Disclosures: I bought more put options today. Those I bought last month are all down significantly. I never put much money into these but I will be buying more this week if the market continues to climb. It's that "money where mouth is" thingy. This is not, by the way, investment advice. It is rather the opposite. I am making a very risky bet.

One More Time

I hate repeating myself, but I do not see the economy at bottom just yet, so in some respects I will keep repeating myself until either other people wake up to this reality or something changes to wake me up.

The markets were down a bit today and, according to Bloomberg, they we down due to fears of the stress test results. I don't fear them; I fear what they hide. I fear that a reported 10 out of 19 banks failed when the tests were not at all stringent enough. I fear that the government will soft-pedal the results to make them bad enough to have a tad of credibility but not so bad that people run for the exits. Don't buy my word for it, others are saying the same, including Nouriel Roubini. Nouriel has been complaining for weeks on how the worst case scenario in the stress tests is already rosier than reality. Go figure?

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2009/05/richardson-and-roubini-call-for-bank.html

I noted yesterday that I do not see a recovery of our economy any time soon as 70% of our GDP is consumer spending and that is going to suck wind for years to come. One point I made was that wages were stagnating at best and likely decreasing - not to mention unemployment, capital destruction and the like. Michael Shedlock provides us with a good bit of detail on this point. As he points out, wages are contracting in the U.S., U.K. and Japan - three major economies. This cannot be good for these countries' economies or the multiple countries that supply them products.

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/05/wages-contract-in-us-uk-japan.html

I do recommend that you go to the linked site as there are a couple of other significant points covered there, with nice charts. For example, Mish notes it is presently taking a significant percentage of disposable income (19%) to service household financial obligations, meaning less is left over for consumer spending - especially with people starting to save. Here is one very telling chart from the post showing that we are drowning in more debt now than ever before. Gee, I see a recovery around the corner. Yep, there it is.

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiyEj8RHEoNCto_2i6Lz38ojBXxzsLEYl3bbTPo15gHS644PFKOr_NkGmreApGqz0V5oCVGPgCbMgaBq9iRQzNq195lB2nwiO08Ivf49Eswk3v-Qe3yw_k3VB3GZLxmqk55W3dY9aEsSJFj/s1600-h/Total+Consumer+Credit.png

In case you are wondering whether the individual strain on spending in the U.S. is having any significant impact on GDP growth, the answer is a definite yes! Nominal GDP growth has turned negative YOY for the first time in 50 years. And the markets have gone up significantly since the March 9 bottom. Go figure?

http://suddendebt.blogspot.com/2009/05/one-chart-plus-one-word.html

So what do we do to deal with the most significant debt crisis ever to face our country? You got it, we incur more debt. Now this debt is on the government level and it is getting seriously over the top.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/04/business/economy/04debt.html?_r=1

Now if the government were taking on this debt to give the money to taxpayers so they can pay off debt and deleverage, that would be one thing. But precious little is going to individuals to deleverage. Rather it is going to the bastards that got us here so that they can promote more lending and individual debt. Think about that long and hard. I have and I simply cannot convince myself of the sense of it. If instead we gave money to individuals so they could deleverage then they would not need to spend their own increasingly sparse dollars to deleverage. This is not perfect, but at least new debt on the government level is removing debt from individual balance sheets. At least those paying for it (taxpayers) get the benefit.

I have said here often that Americans hunkering down is a good thing. I just said yesterday that Americans saving is tough on the economy in the short term but good in the long term. I stand by these comments, but let me add a caveat. If we all start selling what we have to make money and start saving too much all at once and all start spending significantly less, it does run the risk of creating a dangerous spiral. Deflation starts in as prices drop to try to lure an ever more frugal consumer. Yet deflation makes the debt more onerous. The cycle is one that is difficult to break when it starts.

Thus the occasional statements by the Administration that Americans should not stop spending and its desire to get credit flowing again. They should explain this a bit better and realize Americans need to deleverage, not build debt, though we probably need to do it slowly to avoid potentially dangerous spirals. The attached link, while a bit long, explains this in much better detail. This is something important to understand, so I recommend the full read of the linked article. It goes through a number of other interesting points but it ends with a discussion of the possible spiral. We are my friends in very delicate times. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Yet the markets are up significantly since March 9. Go figure?

http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/2009/05/04/debtwatch-no-34-the-confidence-trick/

Still, given the danger of a spiral forming if Americans seek to save too much and deleverage too much during a time of reduced jobs and wages, you would think the Administration would be doing everything it could to help the average "Joe the plumber" to deleverage (and pay his taxes), so that Joe could perhaps spend a bit more of his income - as small as it might be. If the government incurs debt for individuals to reduce debt, that is not perfect but it is better than the government incurring massive debt to support more lending. Moreover it is significantly much better than taxpayer dollars going to big bank dividends, executive bonuses and the like. Even if all the government largess to banks led to more credit availability, we do not need lending, we need the reverse. I am truly praying that common sense sets in for the Administration soon.

Real Estate - At a Bottom?

On occasion I have noted I see no true bottom until housing bottoms. With job losses, significant individual debt to deleverage and a variety of other ills, a housing bottom is just the beginning of what we need. Nonetheless, it does not look like we are there just yet even on housing. My favorite site on housing, and some other issues, Calculated Risk, notes some recent reports confirming same.

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/05/homebuilders-on-housing-market.html

Part of the problem is that just when we feel like we have reached a housing bottom, which I anticipate toward the end of this year, we will enter into the peak years for option ARM resets (adjustable rate mortgages that let the lenders pay less than interest), which will lead to more foreclosures and more downward pressure. This is a major issue for Wells Fargo and the likely reason it will be one of the 10 banks needing more capital.

And last but not least, I leave you with a very much worth while link to Zero Hedge. They go through in very nice detail some of my concerns. I agree with them on pretty much all their points. It is a long post by them but well worth the read. Well balanced, informative and educational - just what I like.

http://zerohedge.blogspot.com/2009/05/shooting-shoots.html

And so I feel I am repeating myself. At least as you can see from the linked materials above I am not alone in my thoughts. Still, I think people are tired of the negative news and would prefer to hear media lies to make them feel better. At least that is one comical take on the matter:

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/nation_ready_to_be_lied_to_about

Disclosures: None.

Inflating a Bubble

Let me do a brief post here as no one will read me anyway because I think we are in a false, prolonged bear bounce due to a variety of factors. My bigger fear for those that may listen is I have no idea how long it might last. It could be days, months or perhaps even years, though I suspect reality makes the latter unlikely. Still, I am not willing to discount the possibility that all this massive stimulus around the world will either kick the can substantially down the road or, perhaps, build a new bubble and bubbles typically take a few years to build and pop.

So let's assume we are in the process of building a new bubble to burst. So what? Well, our current economic demise is in part due to Greenspan (sorry Alan) inflating our current debt bubble to deal with the dotcom bubble bursting. So U.S. citizens have for most of the past five years been spending massively with debt - debt due to easy credit, debt tied to inflated home values, debt that exceeded their ability to pay - in a word, massive debt (okay, that's two words). America needs to deleverage massively on an individual level.

On the corporate side (banks and certain financial institutions aside) we came into this recession pretty well capitalized. Nonetheless, most corporations do need credit on a regular basis to operate, simply to keep things operating properly. So a credit thawing is needed for basic corporate America to operate properly. To me, however, this should be through smaller regional banks that did not cause the mess, not the evil players we are subsidizing.

For individuals, however, we did not come into this well capitalized. We were spending well over our means using the house piggy-bank. That piggy bank is getting very thin right now and will not support more lending. Add to us having way too much individual debt the concept that job losses are increasing, incomes are decreasing, collateral - like homes - is decreasing in value and people with jobs are working less hours and worried about keeping them, then you know individual deleveraging will continue. And let me add to this that this deleveraging is an extremely good thing for our country and for the people doing it. Painful in the short to medium term, but good overall.

Perhaps, also, painful in the long run. What do I mean by this? We are even after paying off debt returning to a place where we save 5% or more and do not build debt. If incomes do not take off - and they won't - then the future means a significantly lower level of spending money. We need to pay off debt and increase savings all on reduced income. This truly sucks but in the end we will achieve new balance.

So think about it. Less pay, reducing debt, increasing savings - what does all this mean to the economy? In my book it means an economy that sucks wind for a while. You are free to figure out your own take on it.

Let me add another point to the equation. Personal incomes in the U.S. have been overall rather stagnate this millennium. They are going down now but even in the good times on average were not going up.

So let me stop by simply noting Geithner cannot wave his magic wand and solve our problems. I have gone on at length on how I think he is doing the wrong thing, as in more debt does not solve - for the long term - a debt-based crisis. I do hope we wake up soon and start making some smarter moves. Unfortunately politicians need to focus on "fixes" that will work in two to four years, the election cycle. The economy is not tied to the same cycle.

One request to Obama, as I conclude. Please give Paul Volcker more say in what is happening. He is less beholden to Wall Street and more concerned about what happens to main street. If you are truly concerned about "change," you have no choice.

Disclosures: None.