Recent Items

Archive for June, 2008

Links 7/1/08

Drunken Swede tries to row home – from Denmark BBC

Watermelon may have Viagra-effect PhysOrg. I am not making this up

Lehman up after Morgan Stanley’s overweight rating Reuters. I am not making this up either (hat tip reader Dwight)

U.S. Won’t Let Iran Shut Strait of Hormuz, Fleet Says Bloomberg. Am I missing something here? Oil tankers carry highly flammable cargo. All Iran has to do is represent a credible threat to the safety of tankers. Or does the US plan to run convoys? Given the great job we did in stabilizing Iraq, I would not be surprised if some of the assumptions are a tad optimistic.

Lloyds TSB gives Visa cards to 11-year-olds Telegraph (hat tip reader Michael)

Incredible India, indeed Asia Times

Betting on the possibility of breaking up the eurozone John Dizard, Financial Times

In Any Other “Profession….” Re: the Auditors. The post describes how auditor miscreants can and do practice again.

Speculation must be defined before it is blamed Michael Gordon, Financial Times

Some anecdotal evidence of risks in the banking system Michael Pettis. On the “informal’ banking sector and pesky derivatives trades in China.

Antidote du jour:

Lehman Down 11%, Closes Below $20 As Rumors Intensify

Lehman’s days are looking numbered as the crisis of confidence continues, measured both in its stock and credit default swaps prices. The reason is simple: Lehman, despite its protestations otherwise, needed either to shrink its balance sheet more or raise more equity. Despite its claims that its $28 dollar stock sale was oversubscribed, we heard stories that quite a lot of arm-twisting was needed to get funding done. The recent performance of the shares would seem to bear that out.

So why the downdraft today, in a market that was only somewhat unkind to other financial stocks? First was the rumor of a takeunder. From Bloomberg:

“We’re hearing that there may be a possibility of Lehman being taken over,” said Michael Nasto, the senior trader at U.S. Global Investors Inc., which manages $6 billion in San Antonio. “There hasn’t been any positive news on this firm for the last couple weeks and the value of the deal might not be in the best interest of Lehman shareholders.”

Forbes (hat tip reader Dwight) singled out Barclays as a possible suitor:

Another vote of no confidence came from the credit default swaps market, as noted by the Wall Street Journal’s Marketbeat, which also observed that end-of-quarter considerations may have player into the stock sales today (maybe, but why wait until the last day to act?):

Lehman has been one for the brave and nervous for months now, ever since Bear Stearns Cos. imploded in March. The company got through that month, but as credit concerns have come to the fore again, it’s been a popular target for short-sellers. Options activity leans to the side of put-buying as the stock sinks. Quarter-end issues could be coming into play, as some dump shares of a stock they don’t want listed among their holdings…

The company’s credit-default swaps, which measure the risk of default, cost more than on Friday. To protect $10 million in bonds for five years, it costs a bondholder $285,000, compared with $275,000 on Friday.

Commodities "Dramatic Secular Reversal" Coming? (And Qatar Says Oil Markets "Oversupplied")

The old saying is that the cure for high prices is high prices. In the case of commodities, high prices reduce demand and also lead to efforts to expand supply. That has happened with wheat, which witnessed a sharp price decline today as it was revealed that US farmers had increased their wheat acreage.

Experts see more of this sort of thing in the offing, From Bloomberg:

Commodities are heading for their best first half in 35 years. The next six months may not be as rewarding because record prices for oil, copper and a dozen other raw materials may crimp consumption and encourage growth in supply….

High costs are slowing the pace of demand for gasoline in the U.S., and gold purchases in India, the biggest buyer, plunged 50 percent from a year earlier. Producers are expanding supplies of wheat in the U.S. and steel in China.

“We’re near some kind of reckoning” in commodities, said Michael Aronstein, president of Marketfield Asset Management in New York, who returned 15 percent a year in the 1990s managing commodity investments. “I’ve probably been positive for seven years and this is the first time I think there could be really a dramatic secular reversal, that it’s not just a pullback.”

High energy costs will deter consumers and reduce second- half prices, after oil doubled in the past year to a record $143.67 a barrel today, said Chris Rupkey, chief financial economist at Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd….

Gold demand from jewelers, the biggest users, has stalled since September, London-based UBS AG analyst John Reade said May 29. After reaching a record $1,033.90 an ounce March 17, gold will average $850 this year and $750 next year, he said. The World Gold Council said May 20 that first-quarter demand fell to a five-year low….

Commodities advanced this year during a “buying orgy” by investors seeking better returns than stocks and bonds, Paul Touradji, founder of the $3.5 billion hedge fund Touradji Capital Management, said in March….

The prospect of increased regulation also may make investing in raw materials less attractive, said Dennis Gartman…

Investors also may shift away from commodities as an alternative to dollar assets. The U.S. currency will end a two- year slide and advance in the second half, according to forecasts compiled by Bloomberg.

And Qatar insists (hat tip reader Michael) oil markets are currently oversupplied:

Oil markets are oversupplied but it would not be wise for any OPEC exporter to tighten the taps given the risk of exacerbating prices, Qatari Oil Minister Abdullah Al-Attiyah said yesterday. Attiyah’s remarks came after Libya’s most senior oil official said on Thursday he was studying the possibility of reducing output in response to a US threat to sue OPEC members, although he said the North African country had no concrete plans to do so for now. “It is not wise today to cut supplies even though there is a surplus because we do not want to create a psychological problem,” Attiyah told Reuters. “I’m not in favor of it at all. We want to try to help to ease the psychological heat.

But the Qatari minister criticized a move by US politicians to sue the Organization of the Oil Exporting Countries if the oil club did not pump an amount of oil that Washington sees sufficient. “The Congress should look to increase exploration inside the United States,” Attiyah said. “It is strange to ask what I should produce. It’s an issue of sovereignty.”…

Attiyah said if enacted, the measure could create a problem for the US market as many producers would avoid US buyers. “You will see a lot of oil suppliers will avoid the American market and you will create another big problem.”

BIS Warns of Deepening Contraction (Not for the Fainthearted)

The newly-released annual report of the Bank of International Settlements sounds as if it is unusually lively reading. Most official documents strive for an anodyne tone, while this one appears to be unusually blunt. However, while some reporters have their hands on it, the report is not yet up on the BIS website, so those of us among the great unwashed will have to wait a day or two.

In the meantime, we’ll turn to Ambrose Evans-Pritchard’s write-up at the Telegraph, and assuming his summary is faithful, the BIS author, Bil White, is a man after my own heart. There is a lot of meaty stuff in the BIS report: criticism of bubble-enabling central banks, a forecast of a burst of inflation followed by nasty deflation, and skepticism about the wisdom and viability of fiscal stimulus (explicit and implicit government obligations are already too high). The BIS also charges the regulators (the Fed appears particularly guilty) with having excessively low policy rates and being asleep at the switch as the shadow banking system grew in size and importance.

Not even goldbugs can take cheer from this survey. From the Telegraph:

A year ago, the Bank for International Settlements startled the financial world by warning that we might soon face challenges last seen during the onset of the Great Depression. This has proved frighteningly accurate.

The venerable body, the ultimate bank of central bankers, said years of loose monetary policy had fuelled a dangerous credit bubble that would entail “much higher costs than is commonly supposed”.

In a pointed attack on the US Federal Reserve, it said central banks would not find it easy to “clean up” once property bubbles have burst.

If only we had all listened to the BIS a long time ago. Ensconced in its Swiss lair, it has fired off anathemas for years, struggling to uphold orthodoxy against the follies of modern central banking.

Bill White, the departing chief economist, has now penned his swansong, the BIS’s 78th Annual Report, released today. It is a disconcerting read for those who want to hope the global crisis is over.

“The current market turmoil is without precedent in the postwar period. With a significant risk of recession in the US, compounded by sharply rising inflation in many countries, fears are building that the global economy might be at some kind of tipping point,” it said.

“These fears are not groundless. The magnitude of the problems yet to be faced could be much greater than many now perceive,” it said. “It is not impossible that the unwinding of the credit bubble could, after a temporary period of higher inflation, culminate in a deflation that might be hard to manage, all the more so given the high debt levels.”

Given the constraints under which the BIS must operate, this amounts to a warning that monetary overkill by the Fed, the Bank of England, and above all the European Central Bank could prove dangerous at this juncture.

European banks have suffered worse losses on US property than American banks. Their net dollar liabilities are $900bn, mostly short-term loans that have to be rolled over, a costly business with spreads still near panic levels. Mortgage and consumer credit has “demonstrably worsened”.

The BIS cautions the ECB to handle its lending data with great care. “The statistics may understate the contraction in the supply of credit,” it said.

The death of securitisation has forced banks to bring portfolios back on to their balance sheets, while firms in need are drawing down pre-arranged credit lines. This is a far cry from a lending recovery.

Warning signs are flashing across Eastern Europe (ex-Russia) where short-term foreign debt is 120pc of reserves, mostly in euros and Swiss francs. Current account deficits are 14.6pc of GDP.

“They could find it difficult to secure foreign funding if global financing conditions were to tighten more severely,” it said. Swedish, Austrian and Italian banks have drawn on wholesale markets to lend heavily to subsidiaries across the region. This could “dry up”.

China is not immune, although the BIS has dropped last year’s comment that growth is “unstable, unbalanced, unco-ordinated and unsustainable”.

The US accounts for 20pc of China’s exports, but that does not capture the inter-links across Asia that ultimately depend on US shopping malls. “There is a risk that China’s imports overall could slow down sharply should the US economy weaken further,” it said.

Global banks – with loans of $37 trillion in 2007, or 70pc of world GDP – are still in the eye of the storm.

“Inter-bank money markets have failed to recover. Of greatest concern at the moment is that still tighter credit conditions will be imposed on non-financial borrowers.

“In a number of countries, commercial property prices are beginning to soften, traditionally bad news for lenders. These real-financial interactions are potentially both complex and dangerous,” it said.

Do not count on a fiscal rescue. “Explicit and implicit debts of governments are already so high as to raise doubts about whether all non-contractual commitments will be fully honoured.”

Dr White says the US sub-prime crisis was the “trigger”, not the cause of the disaster. This is not to exonerate the debt-brokers. “It cannot be denied that the originate-to-distribute model (CDOs, CLOs, etc) has had calamitous side-effects. Loans of increasingly poor quality have been made and then sold to the gullible and the greedy,” he said.

Nor does it exonerate the watchdogs. “How could such a huge shadow banking system emerge without provoking clear statements of official concern?”

But there have always been excesses in booms. What has made this so bad is that governments set the price of money too low, enticing the banks into self-destruction.

“The fundamental cause of today’s emerging problems was excessive and imprudent credit growth over a long period. Policy interest rates in the advanced industrial countries have been unusually low,” he said.

The Fed and fellow central banks instinctively cut rates lower with each cycle to avoid facing the pain. The effect has been to put off the day of reckoning.

They could get away with this as long as cheap goods from Asia kept a cap on inflation. It seduced them into letting asset booms get out of hand. This is where the central banks made their colossal blunder.

“Policymakers interpreted the quiescence in inflation to mean that there was no good reason to raise rates when growth accelerated, and no impediment to lowering them when growth faltered,” said the report.

After almost two decades of this experiment – more or less the Greenspan years – the game is over. Debt has reached extreme levels, and now inflation has come back to life.

The easy trade-off has metamorphosed into a vicious trade-off. This was utterly predictable, and was indeed forecast by the BIS, which plaintively suggested in this report that central banks might like to think of an “exit strategy” next time they try such ploys.

In effect, this is an indictment of rigid inflation targets (such as Britain’s), which prevent central banks from launching a pre-emptive strike against asset bubbles. In the 1990s, they should have torn up the rule-book and let inflation turn negative in light of the Asia effect.

The BIS suggests that a mix of “systemic indicators” should be used. The crucial objective is to slow credit growth and make sure that the punchbowl is taken away before the drunks run riot. “We need policy measures to lean against credit-drive excess,” it said.

If there are going to be more bail-outs on both sides of the Atlantic – as there will be – the “socialised risks” should be taken on by political systems, and not dumped on the books of central banks.

“Should governments feel it necessary to take direct actions to alleviate debt burdens, it is crucial that they understand one thing beforehand. If asset prices are unrealistically high, they must fall. If savings rates are unrealistically low, they must rise. If debts cannot be serviced, they must be written off.

“To deny this through the use of gimmicks and palliatives will only make things worse in the end,” he said.

Let us all cheer Dr White off the stage.

Bush Administration Role in Iraq Oil Deals Confirmed

Last week, we had put up a perplexed post, wondering out loud as to why some prominent Democratic senators (Charles Schumer, John Kerry, and Claire McCaskill) were calling to block contracts being signed between oil companies and the Iraq government. Narrowly, these deals would help get the faltering country back on its feet economically, both via the jobs created to build oil infrastructure, and through increased oil revenues. And we sure need the oil.

Readers offered helpful information, including the fact that even though Iraq was displaying independence on some fronts, notably in forging links with Iran, this wasn’t one of them. But note that the Bush Administration had asserted its lack of any role in these deals:

“We welcome Iraq’s decision to negotiate with companies on these contracts, as we believe that commercial partnerships with private companies will accelerate Iraq’s ability to develop its oil and gas resources,” said State Department Iraq Press Officer John Fleming…

“The Ministry of Oil has been developing relations with about 40 international oil companies since 2004,” he said, adding the U.S. government “is not playing any role in the Ministry of Oil’s commercial negotiations.”

Scott McClellan has told us how much trust we should place in the declarations of Bush Administration press officer. Today the New York Times reports that the US government was involved in the Iraq oil contracts.

The new story is, “Yes, we helped them, but only in providing them with contract language.” Given how insistent Team Bush was initially that they played no role, I’m waiting for other details of US government involvement to develop.

And the idea that the State Department provided legal advice on contract language is just plain peculiar. Pray, when did they develop this expertise? Who are the bread and butter clients of Tatweer, the consulting firm? Note the “lawyers” were “American government lawyers.” Is the US regularly negotiating with the majors?

The article is not exactly clear on where the contract that Tatweer and the US attorneys commented on came from, that is, whether the Iraqis generated it (yikes!) or whether the oil companies had provided it (double yikes!). One of the basic rules of negotiation is “He who controls the document controls the deal.” You always want to be the one preparing a contract. The other side will find it hard to claw back from your language.

Having been party to more than a few negotiations in my day, there is a great deal of artwork in legal agreements, and they are often negotiated line by line, even when working from broadly accepted templates, like merger agreements. I have a sneaking suspicion that that did not happen here.

Put it another way: the right way to do this would have been for the Iraq Oil Ministry to interview at least a half-dozen law firms to represent them in the negotiations and to have chosen one. Since only a short list of oil companies are up for these deals, there should be some law firms that work for other majors and hence would not be conflicted out of this exercise.

The idea that Iraquis could take a standard document, even if it had (miraculously) been written so as to favor their interests, and have them negotiate it with no understanding of norms and nuances is a prescription for them to get taken. Which was presumably the point of this exercise.

From the New York Times:

A group of American advisers led by a small State Department team played an integral part in drawing up contracts between the Iraqi government and five major Western oil companies to develop some of the largest fields in Iraq, American officials say.

The disclosure, coming on the eve of the contracts’ announcement, is the first confirmation of direct involvement by the Bush administration in deals to open Iraq’s oil to commercial development and is likely to stoke criticism.

In their role as advisers to the Iraqi Oil Ministry, American government lawyers and private-sector consultants provided template contracts and detailed suggestions on drafting the contracts, advisers and a senior State Department official said….

The advisers — who, along with the diplomatic official, spoke on condition of anonymity — say that their involvement was only to help an understaffed Iraqi ministry with technical and legal details of the contracts and that they in no way helped choose which companies got the deals…

The deals have been criticized by opponents of the Iraq war, who accuse the Bush administration of working behind the scenes to ensure Western access to Iraqi oil fields even as most other oil-exporting countries have been sharply limiting the roles of international oil companies in development.

For its part, the administration has repeatedly denied steering the Iraqis toward decisions…..

But any perception of American meddling in Iraq’s oil policies threatens to inflame opinion against the United States, particularly in Arab nations…

“We pretend it is not a centerpiece of our motivation, yet we keep confirming that it is,” Frederick D. Barton, senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said in a telephone interview. “And we undermine our own veracity by citing issues like sovereignty, when we have our hands right in the middle of it.”…

The State Department advisers on the Western contracts say they purposely avoid trying to shape Iraqi policy.

“They have not negotiated with the international oil companies since the 1970s,” said the senior State Department official, who was speaking about Iraqi oil officials and who is directly involved in shaping United States energy policy in Iraq.

Yves here. This is a patently ridiculous excuse. Most people with any sophistication do not negotiate on their own behalf (the exceptions come in industries where negotiations are a frequent and integral part of the business, as in the media). You hire someone to do it for you. This is one of the highest and best uses of lawyers.

The advice on the drafting of the contracts was not binding, he said, and sometimes the ministry chose to ignore it. “The ministry did not have to take our advice,” he said, adding that the Iraqis had also turned to the Norwegian government for counsel. “It has been their sole decision.”

The advisers say they were not involved in advancing the oil companies’ interests, but rather treated the Oil Ministry as a client, the State Department official said. “I do not see this as a conflict of interest,” he said. A potential area of criticism, however, is that only Western companies got the bigger oil contracts. In particular, Russian companies that have experience in Iraq and had sought development contracts are still waiting….

The new oil contracts have also become a significant political issue in the United States.

Three Democratic senators, led by Charles E. Schumer of New York, sent a letter to the State Department last week asking that the deals be delayed until after the Iraqi Parliament passes a hydrocarbons law outlining the distribution of oil revenues and regulatory matters. They contend the contracts could deepen political tensions in Iraq and endanger American soldiers…

Advisers from the State, Commerce, Energy and Interior Departments are assigned to work with the Iraqi Oil Ministry, according to the senior diplomat. In addition, the United States Agency for International Development has a contract for Management Systems International, a Washington consulting firm, to advise the oil and other ministries. The agency’s program is called Tatweer, the Arabic word for development.

“The legal department of the Ministry of Oil passed us a draft of the contract,” Samir Abid, a Canadian of Iraqi origin who is an employee of the Tatweer program, said in a telephone interview. “They passed it to us and asked for our comments because we were mentoring them.”

He added: “It was an exercise in deciding how best to do these contracts. I don’t know if they used our comments or not.”

In a statement, the agency said its advisers had reviewed the oil company contracts, known as technical support agreements: “At the request of the Ministry of Oil, the Tatweer Energy Team has done a review of the format, structure and clarity of language of blank draft contracts.”

The statement said the team did not have access to confidential information from the oil companies.

Consultants said the advice was necessary because the Oil Ministry, like other sectors of the Iraqi government, has experienced an exodus of qualified employees and lacks lawyers schooled in drawing up contracts.

A supervisor with the Tatweer program, who was not authorized to speak publicly and declined to be quoted by name, said that ministry officials, many of them near retirement, needed help.

The American government lawyers provided specific advice, the State Department official said, like: “These are the clauses you may want. You will need a clause on arbitration. You will need this clause to make this work.”

Links 6/30/08

Florida biologist saves drowning bear Telegraph

Preparing the Battlefield Seymour Hersh, The New Yorker. This is a MUST read (hat tip reader Vijay).

Inflation, oil help bears get firmer grip LiveMint. An update on the Indian stock market (hat tip reader Saboor)

Hoarding Nations Drive Food Costs Ever Higher New York Times

Currency Volatility Falls Most Since 1999 as Dollar Slump Slows Bloomberg

The NYT Magazine Section Is Worried About the European Shortage Dean Baker

It is good to be the king (of oil) Brad Setser

Antidote du jour:

UK: Consumer Fears Worst in 26 Years

Consumer sentiment in the UK is pretty much on the same low footing as in the US. Our consumer sentiment hit the lowest level since May 1980. But the UK housing recession started after ours. Does that mean the Brits face up to reality faster than we do, or could their economy be on a steeper downslope than ours?

From the Times:

Families are more fearful about their financial future than during the depths of the last recession, as they struggle with soaring food and fuel costs.

The drop in confidence, highlighted in new monthly figures, threatens to exacerbate Britain’s economic woes as hard-pressed consumers curb their spending, further undermining economic growth. Last week’s revised figures found that the pace of growth halved to 0.3 per cent, the lowest level for three years….

A new survey from Lloyds TSB also shows that people are more worried about losing their job than at any point in the past three years, as employers feel the effects of the downturn and may have to lay off staff.

The monthly poll of consumer sentiment found that householders’ confidence about future economic prospects had sunk to its lowest level since 1982. Confidence in existing economic conditions dropped during June to levels not seen since late 1992, at the end of the last recession…

The GfK NOP poll — based on people’s views on their own finances as well as wider economic conditions — found that the overall confidence index sank by five points this month to a reading of minus 34, on a par with the lowest level since the poll began in 1974. The record low of minus 35 was reached in March 1990, immediately before the start of the last recession….

Willingness to make “big ticket” purchases has also fallen to a record low. Figures published last week showed that families suffered the steepest decline in disposable incomes for nearly a decade during the first three months of the year.

The proportion of income being saved has fallen to the lowest level since 1959.

Larry Summers Sounds Alarm, Urges Aggressive Federal Intervention to Rescue Economy

Larry Summer’s latest comment at the Financial Times, “What we can do in this dangerous moment.” is troubling both for its analysis of our economic mess and its remedies.

Start with his first paragraph:

It is quite possible that we are now at the most dangerous moment since the American financial crisis began last August. Staggering increases in the prices of oil and other commodities have brought American consumer confidence to new lows and raised serious concerns about inflation, thereby limiting the capacity of monetary policy to respond to a financial sector which – judging by equity values – is at its weakest point since the crisis began. With housing values still falling and growing evidence that problems are spreading to the construction and consumer credit sectors, there is a possibility that a faltering economy damages the financial system, which weakens the economy further.

There is not a shred of acknowledgment in this entire piece that the crisis we are now in is the product of many years of misguided policies. If you believe Thomas Palley, the genesis goes back to the 1980s, when we made a devil’s pact of eliminating labor’s bargaining power as a method of containing inflation and relying on growth increasingly fueled by debt and financial innovation rather than rising worker incomes. Palley has argued that that program is inherently self limiting and we have run its course.

Even if you don’t agree with Palley, the inattention as consumer savings went from low to zero was irresponsible, nay, reckless, as was cutting taxes in the face of a war, watching debt to GDP rise to a level never witnessed before, save prior to the Great Depression, and seeing the focus of investment be consumer housing, which does nothing for American competitiveness. And that’s before we get to the Fed sponsoring overly lax monetary policy by not factoring in the inflation-suppressing impact of cheap imports on inflation.

Thus as I read the article (and readers are welcome to differ), the subtext is that if we can find a way to steer through this juncture, we will, after a difficult period, be back to clear sailing.

Perhaps I am lacking in imagination, but I see lower living standards for Americans an an unavoidable outcome. We’re seeing it now, via rising food and energy costs with stagnant wages. If you were to describe what ails this economy in its most fundamental terms, we have gone on a borrowing binge to support an unsustainable level of consumption. Merely having consumption fall to a healthier level would precipitate a slowdown. And that’s before we get to the problem of “and what do we do with the debt hangover?”

The other noteworthy lapse in Summer’s analysis is that he depicts our situation and our remedies as strictly domestic. But the commodity inflation that Summers mentions in passing is due not to US or advanced economy demand, but emerging economies. Some of them, China in particular, are overheating due to the fact that they effectively have no independent monetary policy. Their dollar pegs and not-fully-successful efforts to sterilize their dollar purchases gives them an overly expansive monetary policy.

Instead of using the bully pulpit of an FT op-ed to address the real problem and possible (although admittedly unlikely) remedies, such as coordinated action, Summers falls back on leading edge conventional wisdom: pass the housing bill, engage in more aggressive fiscal stimulus (increased unemployment benefits, infrastructure spending), end ethanol subsidies, and make it easier for banks to raise new capital.

There are some good observations in the piece, but too often they come as asides. For instance, Summers notes that changes in bankruptcy laws would have been beneficial, and calls for legislative changes to make it easier for the powers that be to manage the failure of a major financial institution. Yet these points are juxtaposed with wishful thinking. For instance, Summers urges regulators to encourage banks to cut dividends, yet seems to believe that like making it easier for private equity funds to invest in them will have a meaningful impact.

From the Financial Times:

After a period of intense activity at the beginning of the year with the passage of fiscal stimulus legislation, strong action by the Federal Reserve to cut rates and provide liquidity and the introduction of anti-foreclosure legislation, policy has again fallen behind the curve. The only important policy actions of the past several months have been those forced on the Fed by the Bear Stearns crisis. It would be a mistake to overstate the extent to which policy can forestall the gathering storm. But the prospects for a more favourable outcome would be enhanced if four actions were taken promptly.

First, the much debated housing bill should be passed immediately by Congress and signed into law. It provides some support for mortgage debt reduction and strengthens the government’s hand in its troubled relationship with the government-sponsored enterprises – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. While it is an imperfect vehicle – too limited in the scope it provides for debt reduction, insufficiently aggressive in strengthening GSE regulation and failing to increase the leverage of homeowners in their negotiations with creditors through bankruptcy reform – it would contribute to the repair of the nation’s housing finance system. Failure to pass even this minimal measure would undermine confidence.

Second, Congress should move promptly to pass further fiscal measures to respond to our economic difficulties. The economy would be in a far worse state if fiscal stimulus had not come on line two months ago. The forecasting community is having increasing doubts about the fourth quarter of this year and beginning of the next as the impact of the current round of stimulus fades. With long-term unemployment at recession levels, there is a clear case for extending the duration of unemployment insurance benefits. There is now also a case for carefully designed support for infrastructure investment, as financial strains have distorted the municipal credit markets to the point where even the highest-quality municipal borrowers are, despite their tax advantage, paying more than the federal government to borrow. There are legitimate questions about how rapidly the impact of infrastructure spending will be felt. But with construction employment in free fall, there will be a need for stimulus tied to the needs of less educated male workers for quite some time. Fiscal stimulus measures must be coupled to budget process reform that provides reassurance that, once the crisis passes, the fiscal policy discipline of the 1990s will be re-established.

Third, policymakers need to make a clear commitment to addressing the non-monetary factors causing inflation concerns. Though this could change rapidly and vigilance is necessary, it does not now appear that there are embedded expectations of a continuing wage price spiral. Rather, the primary source of inflation concern is increases in the price of oil, food and other commodities. Even if structural measures to address these issues do not have an immediate impact on commodity prices, they may serve to address medium-term inflation expectations. Appropriate steps include reform of misguided ethanol subsidies that distort grain markets to minimal environmental benefit, allowing farm land now being conserved to be planted; measures to promote the use of natural gas; and reform of Strategic Petroleum Reserve Policy to encourage swaps at times when the market is indicating short supply. Major importance should be attached to encouraging the reduction or elimination of energy subsidies in the developing world.

Fourth, it needs to be recognised that in the months ahead there is the real possibility that significant financial institutions will encounter not just liquidity but solvency problems as the economy deteriorates and further writedowns prove necessary. Markets are anticipating further cuts in financial institution dividends; regulators should encourage this to happen sooner rather than later and more broadly to reduce stigma. They should also recognise that no one can afford to be too picky about the timing or source of capital infusions and rapidly complete the review of regulations that limit the ability of private equity capital to come into the banking system. Most important, regulators should do what is necessary, including possibly seeking new legislative authority, to assure that in the event of an institution becoming insolvent they can manage the resolution in a way that protects the system while also protecting taxpayers. It was fortunate that a natural merger partner was available when Bear Stearns failed – we may not be so lucky next time.

Unfortunately we are in an economic environment where we have more to fear than fear itself. But this is no excuse for fatalism. The policy choices made in the next few months will matter to the lives of millions of Americans, to America’s economic strength and to the global economy.

Thomas Friedman: Economy to be Number One Election Issue

Although it’s probably obvious to readers of this blog that the economy is going to become a bigger and bigger issue as the election approaches, campaign strategies often are not as responsive to changes on the ground as one might imagine. Perhaps the most stunning example was a comment in the Financial Times on Friday by Grover Norquist, “How America’s right will be roused into action“:

The election is Tuesday, November 4, still four months away, and the case for a Republican resurgence is strong, if unseen by the establishment media….

Taxpayers want lower taxes. Businesses want low taxes and less regulation. Investors and owners of 401ks want low taxes on their retirement portfolios. Second Amendment voters – the 4m members of the National Rifle Association and 20m hunters – want their guns left alone. Home-schoolers wish to be left alone to educate their children. Social conservatives – the so-called religious right – are a parents’ rights movement that wishes to be left alone with their faith and families. They organised in the late 1970s when the government threatened Christian radio stations and Christian schools with new regulations.

Norquist thus thinks that the formula that worked in 1994 will succeed today. But somehow, I don’t think Republicans plan to shrink government, since that means shrinking the military, nor do I have any faith that they’d leave us alone by dismantling the post 9/11 security and surveillance apparatus. Indeed, the Christian right is abandoning the GOP precisely because they’ve learned they don’t walk their talk. While Norquist may not represent the Republican mainstream, his article struck me as wildly out of touch.

Thomas Friedman’s reading in his New York Times op-ed, “Anxious in America,” seems much closer to the mark. But it is still an open question as to whether and how the candidates will respond to deteriorating economic conditions.

From the New York Times;

Just a few months ago, the consensus view was that Barack Obama would need to choose a hard-core national-security type as his vice presidential running mate to compensate for his lack of foreign policy experience and that John McCain would need a running mate who was young and sprightly to compensate for his age. Come August, though, I predict both men will be looking for a financial wizard as their running mates…

I do not believe nation-building in Iraq is going to be the issue come November — whether things get better there or worse. If they get better, we’ll ignore Iraq more; if they get worse, the next president will be under pressure to get out quicker. I think nation-building in America is going to be the issue.

It’s the state of America now that is the most gripping source of anxiety for Americans, not Al Qaeda or Iraq. Anyone who thinks they are going to win this election playing the Iraq or the terrorism card — one way or another — is, in my view, seriously deluded. Things have changed.

Up to now, the economic crisis we’ve been in has been largely a credit crisis in the capital markets, while consumer spending has kept reasonably steady, as have manufacturing and exports. But with banks still reluctant to lend even to healthy businesses, fuel and food prices soaring and home prices declining, this is starting to affect consumers, shrinking their wallets and crimping spending. Unemployment is already creeping up and manufacturing creeping down.

The straws in the wind are hard to ignore: If you visit any car dealership in America today you will see row after row of unsold S.U.V.’s. And if you own a gas guzzler already, good luck. On Thursday, The Palm Beach Post ran an article on your S.U.V. options: “Continue to spend upward of $100 for a fill-up. Sell or trade in the vehicle for a fraction of the original cost. Or hold out and park the truck in the driveway for occasional use in hopes the market will turn around.” Just be glad you don’t own a bus. Montgomery County, Md., where I live, just announced that more children were going to have to walk to school next year to save money on bus fuel.

On top of it all, our bank crisis is not over. Two weeks ago, Goldman Sachs analysts said that U.S. banks may need another $65 billion to cover more write-downs of bad mortgage-related instruments and potential new losses if consumer loans start to buckle. Since President Bush came to office, our national savings have gone from 6 percent of gross domestic product to 1 percent, and consumer debt has climbed from $8 trillion to $14 trillion.

My fellow Americans: We are a country in debt and in decline — not terminal, not irreversible, but in decline. Our political system seems incapable of producing long-range answers to big problems or big opportunities. We are the ones who need a better-functioning democracy — more than the Iraqis and Afghans. We are the ones in need of nation-building. It is our political system that is not working.

I continue to be appalled at the gap between what is clearly going to be the next great global industry — renewable energy and clean power — and the inability of Congress and the administration to put in place the bold policies we need to ensure that America leads that industry.

“America and its political leaders, after two decades of failing to come together to solve big problems, seem to have lost faith in their ability to do so,” Wall Street Journal columnist Gerald Seib noted last week. “A political system that expects failure doesn’t try very hard to produce anything else.”

We used to try harder and do better. After Sputnik, we came together as a nation and responded with a technology, infrastructure and education surge, notes Robert Hormats, vice chairman of Goldman Sachs International. After the 1973 oil crisis, we came together and made dramatic improvements in energy efficiency. After Social Security became imperiled in the early 1980s, we came together and fixed it for that moment. “But today,” added Hormats, “the political system seems incapable of producing a critical mass to support any kind of serious long-term reform.”

If the old saying — that “as General Motors goes, so goes America” — is true, then folks, we’re in a lot of trouble. General Motors’s stock-market value now stands at just $6.47 billion, compared with Toyota’s $162.6 billion. On top of it, G.M. shares sank to a 34-year low last week.

That’s us. We’re at a 34-year low. And digging out of this hole is what the next election has to be about and is going to be about — even if it is interrupted by a terrorist attack or an outbreak of war or peace in Iraq. We need nation-building at home, and we cannot wait another year to get started. Vote for the candidate who you think will do that best. Nothing else matters.

Personally, I find the “nation-building at home” slogan to be a bit much, but Friedman is correct to highlight how disfunctional our political system has become.

"Back to the Great Depression?"

A story in the UK’s Times give a recap of the gloomy forecasts for the US and world economy, including a particularly cheery prediction by a SocGen strategies that foresees that the Dow will drop to 4500 and the S&P 500 to 500. Not included in this forecast is a grim warning from Barclays and a forecast of a US financial meltdown in the next few weeks from Fortis.

Now readers probably know that I am of a bearish, or perhaps more accurately, contrarian temperament. I am firmly of the view that the economy and the markets will get considerably worse before they get better.

Normally, I’d take so many downbeat sightings as a perversely good sign. Remember than the 1987 crash, the Great Depression, and the dotcom bust were not widely anticipated. This outbreak of gloom might indicate that the trajectory downward will be a grinding down of the remaining optimists rather than a rush for the exits. Indeed, if we were to have an unexpected bout of good news we might even see a little rally

The countervailing factor is that signs of stress in the credit markets are rising. The TED spread and credit default swap spreads have risen, evoking concerns that we may be on the verge of another liquidity crunch, which will send equity prices downward. The ugly realization is sinking in that banks big and small have a lot more writedowns in their future.

So as much as such a pronounced outbreak of downer sentiment might portend an intermediate upturn, it would seem to require some particularly good news, such as a break in oil prices.

Update: In a rich bit of synchronicity, the next post I saw, at Some Assembly Required, quoted Albert Edwards, the same SocGen analyst, saying “Investing on the basis of forecasts is a waste of time.” So you have all officially been given permission to ignore him and everything that follows.

From the Times:

When Wall Street slumped on Thursday, in response to the oil price surging above $140 a barrel and renewed fears about the banking system, the alarm bells rang more loudly than usual.

Barring a miraculous recovery tomorrow, the Dow Jones industrial average is heading for its worst June since 1930, when it plunged by almost 18%.

That month is ingrained in the Wall Street psyche. After the crash of October 1929, the stock market continued to slide through the winter. By the spring the worst seemed to be over. Then shares lurched low in June 1930, signalling deep problems for the economy and the stock market.

America entered depression and the stock market went into a deep freeze that lasted a quarter of a century, taking until 1954 to get back to its precrash high. Are there any parallels with today?

Although it is eight months since the Dow peaked at 14,164, its performance since then has defied gloomy predictions. Despite most economists declaring the economy to be in recession, the index was above 13,000 as recently as last month.

This month, however, reality has hit home. “Some of it is clearly to do with the oil price but essentially what we are seeing is a slow-motion car crash,” said George Magnus, senior economic adviser at UBS.

“The first act was the housing market, the second act was the credit crunch, and what we are now seeing in this third act is the bigger picture of a downturn that has a long way to run.”

Few are gloomier about that prospect than Albert Edwards, strategist at Société Générale in London. “America is leading the way, diving into deep recession as a collapse in consumer confidence induces the great unwind,” he said. Edwards compares the economy with a pyramid scheme that is poised to crash to earth and interest-rate changes can do nothing to avert it.

He thinks Wall Street and the other main markets have a lot further to drop, and will end up 70% below the peaks of last year. That would imply a level of just 500 for the S&P 500, which was at 1,280 on Friday, and 4,500 for the Dow, compared with Friday’s closing level of 11,346.

The FTSE 100, which closed at 5,530 on Friday, will plunge to 3,000, he predicts. The good news is that he expects the oil price, which was above $142 on Friday, to slump to $60 a barrel. The bad news is that he sees this occurring as a result of “deep” recession in the advanced economies and a sharp slowdown in emerging markets.

The gloom on Wall Street, where the stock market dropped again on Friday, is almost all-pervading. Veteran banking analyst Richard Bove of Ladenburg Thalmann said there was “an absolute unwillingness among clients to talk about anything other than how bad things are”. Investors wanted to know which bank would be the next to blow up or be forced to raise capital. Even though there were hopeful signs of recovery in the sector, albeit from a low base, many in the market had “lost perspective”, he said.

“The last time loan losses were at these levels was 1934,” he added. “I don’t believe we are going back to a 1930s environment with people living in tents.” Bove predicts bank losses will at least stabilise in the coming months.

However, Scott Anderson, senior economist at Wells Fargo, summed up why the markets are so gloomy. The economy is caught between the twin problems of near-recession and sharply rising inflation. “Consumer confidence levels are at their worst since the early 1980s, we have record oil prices and the Fed will have to react to that and start raising rates by the end of the year if they don’t recapitulate soon,” he said. “That would certainly drag out the housing correction and be a further drag on consumers.”

He has scaled back his forecasts for the end of this year and into 2009. “One half [of Wall Street] is worried about growth, and they are scared,” he said. “The other half are worried about inflation, and they are scared too. Sell in May and go away may have been the best strategy this year.”

A drop in the oil price would be the best remedy for jittery markets and a shaky economy, though it could also cause problems. One fear is that a sharp fall in oil and other commodity prices would bring a new wave of troubles for investment banks and hedge funds. As it is, most have been revising up their forecasts for the oil price.

A survey by Reuters shows that analysts expect the price of American crude to average $113 a barrel this year, remaining around that level next year, before increasing to $115 in 2010. Last year the average was $72.

Some analysts, though, are much more aggressive in their forecasts. Fortis, the Belgian-Dutch financial group, sees crude averaging $125.70 this year, $171.50 next year and $224.90 in 2010. In contrast, Royal Bank of Scotland sees a price average of $86 next year.

It matters a lot who is right. Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Economy.com in West Chester, Pennsylvania, said the stock market should begin to recover before the end of the year, as long as the oil shock starts to fade. “It’s all predicated on the assumption that oil prices are at least peaking,” he said. “If fundamentals mean anything then it’s hard to argue they can go higher.”

The descent into gloom on Wall Street has come even as the latest news about the American economy has offered a few glimmers of light. Growth for the first quarter was revised up to an annualised 1%, meaning the economy has yet to meet the strict technical definition of recession.

Figures on Friday showed a 1.9% jump in personal incomes and a 0.8% rise in spending last month as consumers received their tax rebates. There was even a modest rise in home sales, breaking a long downturn…

We are not in for a rerun of the Great Depression of the 1930s, but we will be having a pretty rough ride.

Links 6/29/08

Passports for penguins PhysOrg

Saudi Nukes Skeptical CPA

Ben Stein Goes Wild at the NYT!!!!!!!!!!! Dean Baker

Amerikaanse ’meltdown’ reden geldinjectie Fortis De Financiele Telegraaaf or a brief summary in English, Fortis predicts US financial meltdown within weeks (hat tip reader Saboor). Update: full translation courtesy an anonymous reader.

Manners matter – especially for powerful individuals and institutions Willem Buiter

Wine retailers fear bitter year ahead as sales tumble Telegraph

Antidote du jour:

The Death of Securitized Mortgages

In yet another example of synchronicity, Jim Hamilton provides a chart from Peter Hooper that illustrates why the housing market is in the doldrums: securitized credit has all but vanished. This topic came up in the previous post as a explanation of why the real estate market is coming to look like a war zone.

The collapse of private sector mortgage securitization hasn’t gotten the attention it deserves. To put it in crude terms, securitization became central to how we finance housing in America. Banks held only a small portion of the loans they originated; the rest were sold. As we have discussed elsewhere, securitization depends on credit enhancement. Paul Jackson reported early this year that the revival of securitization depended on having support of some form:

While the monoline business may or may not be less important in the municipal bond markets due to the unbelievably low incidence of defaults, the guaranty business is actually far more important to the MBS business than most have given attention to thus far — precisely because defaults can and do happen.

For secondary mortgage market participants, resolving this crisis isn’t just a piece of the puzzle; it might be the puzzle. At the American Securitization Conference in Las Vegas last week, many investment bankers suggested on panels and in hallways that the bond insurer mess is the single largest issue keeping the private-party market from having a chance at establishing any modicum of recovery going forward.

In fact, regulators do not expect securitization to return to anything like its former level. They expect far more bank originated assets to stay within the banking system, on their balance sheets. That in turn will require them to carry vastly more equity than they do now. It will take financial institutions some time and doing simply to secure enough equity to make up for losses and increase their capital levels to the new more conservative standards that are being implemented.

The impairment of lending capacity suggests that housing prices could overshoot their “fair” value in relationship to incomes. Expect more efforts to socialize the housing market to prevent this outcome

Grim Update on Real Estate Market

Tom Lindmark sent me a link to a post on his blog, a write-up of the main things he learned at the IMN Distressed Real Estate Conference in Las Vegas. Remember, this event is for those in the industry who LIKE messy, ugly situations. But it gives the impression that the industry is close to free fall.

Tom intends to write a more extensive version of what he heard at the conference, so those who are interested should check back at his site early next week

You should read his post, but let me give some excerpts to highlight how bad things are:

Aside from say multi-family and really solid income producing properties (producing solid verifiable income now, not projected income) there is no debt available. There is lots of equity looking for 20% and up returns. Since these will have to be largely unleveraged, the asset price required to deliver the return is abysmally low. Further driving down implied valuations is the fact that the equity is Wall Street money with 3 to 5 year time horizons. No one thought that was achievable (with the exception of the Wall Street boys in the audience, of course)….

Appraisals are good for no more than a month as values are deteriorating so rapidly…

The Indy Mac performing loan sale that was reported to have been done at about 60% of asking price has fallen apart. Most of the bids at the 60% level were withdrawn after further due diligence. The actual prices the stuff went for is between 20% and 45%. By the way Indy Mac had current appraisals supporting their asking price.

In his note to me, Tom asked what my take was.

I don’t have any reason to doubt the information presented at the conference, as grim as it is. My reaction is this is the result of building a credit system that was so dependent on securitization. But giving investors the exposure profile they wanted required credit enhancement. The three ways to achieve credit enhancement were monoline guarantees (which were sometimes in the form of credit default swaps, although monoline CDS has some differences from typical CDS), credit default swaps from banks and hedge funds, and overcollateralization. Monoline guarantees have gone the way of the dodo bird, and CDS are now too pricey for them to work.

Now a reader may object and say that the sort of deals under discussion often would be done by a local bank and not securitized. Yes, but that local bank is up to its eyeballs in real estate already (this is from memory, but I believe Nouriel Roubini has said that 29% of the regional and community have construction loan books that exceed their equity) and for the most part much cannot on-sell any mortgages (a core product) unless they are government guaranteed.

That is a long-winded way of saying that a big chunk of the real estate industry which benefitted from securitization has suddenly gone back to the old model of depending on bank balance sheets at the time when banks are badly impaired. And limited access to debt means very depressed values.

Since the regulators expect on-balance sheet intermedation to be far more important going forward, the revival of real estate may depend on bank recapitalization. Not a pretty thought.

Nouriel Roubini Warns of Another Broker-Dealer Run

Perhaps it’s merely the result of drafting in a bit more haste than usual, but the latest offering by Nouriel Roubini, “The delusional complacency that the “worst is behind us” is rapidly melting away…and the risk of another run against systemically important broker dealers,” is unusually heated in tone, to the point where it distracts from his good observations.

The first part of the post inveighs against the so-called delusion of the last few months that the credit crunch is on the mend. We’ve been firmly in that camp, and true to form in the credit contraction, events have proven Roubini correct. But then he oversells his case with items like this:

In February this forum argued that credit losses would be at least $1 trillion. At that time that figure was derided as excessive but by now the IMF says losses will be $945 billion, Goldman Sachs estimates them at $1.1 trillion, George Magnus of UBS estimates them at $1 trillion and the hedge fund manager John Paulson (who made a fortune last year betting against subprime) is estimating them at $1.3 trilliion. Thus, it is now clear that $1 trillion is not a ceiling but rather a floor estimate for what those financial losses will be.

I may be being a tad pedantic, $1 trillion probably is the floor for the dollar amount of total credit-related losses. But the use of the term “floor estimate” suggests that there is collective agreement on this figure. That’s inconsistent with the discussion that preceded about the Pollyannaish thinking about the health of the debt markets. While analysts and industry participants are coming around to the view that things are worse than they had hoped, optimism dies hard.

Let us turn to the forward-looking sections of Roubini’s latest piece. The most interesting part is where he disputes the notion that the new Fed facilities will prevent another run on a broker-dealer:

The deleveraging process for the financial system has barely started as most of the writedowns have been for subprime mortgages; the writedowns and/or provisioning for the additional losses have barely started. Thus, hundreds of banks in the U.S. are at risk of collapse. The typical small U.S. Bank (with assets less of $4 billion has 67% of its assets related to real estate; for large banks the figure is 48%. Thus, hundreds of small banks will go belly up as the typical local bank financed the housing, the commercial real estate, the retail boom, the office building of communities where housing is now going bust. Even large regional banks massively exposed to real estate in California, Arizona, Nevada, Florida and other states with a housing boom and now bust will go belly up.

And even large banks and broker dealers are now at risk. After the bailout of Bear Stearns’ creditors and the extension of lender of last resort liquidity support, the tail risk of an immediate financial meltdown was reduced … Indeed in March we were an epsilon away from such meltdown as – without the Fed actions – you would have had a run not only on Bear but also on Lehman, JP Morgan, Merrill and most of the shadow banking system. This system of non-banks looked in most ways like banks (borrow short/liquid, leverage a lot and lend longer term and illiquid). So the risk of a bank-like run on non-bank (whose base of uninsured wholesale short term creditors/lenders is much more fickle and run trigger-happy – as the Bear episode showed – than the stable base of insured depositors of banks) became massive. Thus, the Fed made its most radical change of monetary policy since the Great Depression extending both lender of last resort support to non-bank systemically important broker dealers (via the PDCF) and becoming a market maker of last resort to banks and non-banks (via the TAF and the TSLF) to avoid a full scale sudden run on the shadow banking system and a sure meltdown of the financial system.

While the tail risk of such a meltdown has now been reduced the view that systemically important broker dealers – that have now access to the TSLF and the PDCF – now don’t risk a panic-triggered run on their liabilities is false; several of them can still collapse and not be rescued. The reasons are as follows: liquidity support by the Fed is warranted for illiquid but solvent institutions but not for insolvent ones; and the risks that some of the major broker dealers may face is not just of illiquidity but also insolvency (Lehman had as much exposure to toxic MBS, CDOs and other risky assets as Bear did). The Fed already tested the limits of legality (as argued by Volcker) in its bailout of Bear’s creditors.

Suppose that a run – triggered by concerns about illiquidity and solvency – occurs against a major broker dealer (say Lehman) would the Fed come to the rescue again? The answer is not sure: such broker dealer has access to the PDCF but sharply borrowing from this facility would signal that the institution may be bleeding liquidity and be in trouble; thus large access to the Fed facility may cause the run on the liabilities of such financial institutions to accelerate rather than ebb. The reason is as follows: if creditors of the broker dealers knew with certainty that the Fed liquidity tab is open and unlimited the existence of the facility would stop the run. But if there is any meaningful probability that the amount that the Fed would be willing to lend to an institutions using that facility is not unlimited and is not unconditional then use of the facility may accelerate the run – as those first in line would have access to the liquidity provided by the Fed lending to the broker dealer in trouble while those waiting may be stuck once the lending stops. This is akin to a currency crisis in a pegged exchange rate regime triggered by a run on the forex reserves of a central bank. Once the reserves are running down and investors expect that the central bank will run out of reserves the run accelerated and the collapse of the peg occurs faster.

So why the Fed would not provide unconditional and unlimited liquidity to a broker dealer in trouble and thus allow the run to occur? Several reasons: the Bear Stearns actions were borderline illegal; the Fed cannot keep on bailing out any major broker dealer in trouble; the Fed may be running out of Treasuries to swap for illiquid/toxic securities; the Fed is starting to face credit risks from swapping and holding toxic assets (the $29 billion given to Bear, the hundreds of billions swapped via the TAF and TSLF); the authorization for the PDCF expires in the fall; the Fed should not bail out – with risks to its own balance sheet institutions that may be insolvent on top of being illiquid.

Thus, the delusion that TSLF and PDCF implies that the risk of a run against systemically important broker dealers is now close to zero is just a delusion. If a run against Lehman or another broker dealer starts again and this broker dealer borrows $5 billion from the Fed and then $10 billion investors and creditors of this institutions – who need to decide whether to pull out or keep their credit lines – will ask themselves whether the Fed would allow this broker dealer to borrow $10 and then $15 and then $20 and then $25 and then $30 billion and then even more. Unless the Fed credibly commits to unconditional and unlimited lending the use of the facility by a broker dealer in trouble may accelerate rather than stop the run on its short term liabilities. Thus, the argument that – in a world where the Fed has extended its lender of last resort support to non-bank financial institutions – the risk of a run against these institutions is now close to zero is flawed.

Certainly the rising financial tsunami ahead as the economic contraction gets worse, the financial/credit losses mount, the credit and liquidity crunch gets worse will test both the ability and the political willingness of the Fed to further bail out major financial institutions that are in serious trouble. So the worst is well ahead of us – not behind us – for the real economy and financial markets.

Links 6/28/08

Treasury chief on ‘wombat leave’ BBC

North Pole May Be Ice Free for First Time This Summer National Geographic. I’m going on a family trip to Alaska in August, and expect to be thoroughly depressed by the signs of global warming.

Iran: The Threat Thomas Powers, New York Review of Books. A must read.

Rogers Tells Investors Not to `Give Up’ on China Bloomberg

Wine economics and economical wine Richard Baldwin, VoxEU

Everyone Wants More Hedge Fund Control of Banks Dean Baker

Have Swaps Overdone the Gloom? Wall Street Journal. This article is a bit lightweight, in that it mentions that the ABX index has been criticized, yet does not discuss its shortcomings.

An anti-stagflation strategy: move back home Tim Harford, Financial Times. Funny

Antidote du jour: