mickandpete
Active member
- Messages
- 176
- Likes
- 3
Joules Define the EXTENT in description of the asset that is risky.[/QUOTE said:
Last edited:
mickandpete
Active member
- Messages
- 176
- Likes
- 3
There is no simple answer for HISTORIC NORMJoules MM1 said:
Each asset has varying demands upon it
An example Housing
To determine if buying a house IS a risk a number of different criteria need to be applied
The historic price of a house inflation adjusted
The demand for houses .Population increases or decreases + trend to owneroccupancy
The supply.
Finance .Wether interest rates are high or low plus length of term of mortgage and type of mortgage (fixed or variable)
The relative cost of buying against alternative of renting
The ability to fund cost of mortgage through job prospects
All of these criteria can be applied to determine wether purchase would be HIGH risk or LOW risk only There is never a NO risk situation.
To confuse the picture more here in the UK throughout the 70s and 80s we had a LOW risk situation with high interest rates.Interest rates were running at about 15% however inflation was running at 20+%.This was a period when the greatest tool to the working man WAS inflation.If you had regular employment you could obtain a mortgage .Within a year inflation had paid you 5%+ for every pound borrowed in terms of the value of your asset.
Of course all these criteria must also take into account the low probability high impact historically proven risk of a religion based war or the loss of 50% of world population due to disease.
As you introduced the term "historic norm" I am interested to hear your definition.
Racer
Senior member
- Messages
- 2,666
- Likes
- 30
ABA:US Credit Card Delinquencies Hit Record High In 2Q 05
WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--The number of people in the U.S. past due on their credit-card bills in the rose to a record high in the second quarter of this year, the American Bankers Association said Wednesday.
"The last two quarters have not been pretty," said James Chessen, ABA's chief economist.
"Gas prices are taking huge chunks out of wallets, leaving some individuals with little left to meet their financial obligations. With gas prices still rising, the third quarter is not likely to be any better," Chessen said.
WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--The number of people in the U.S. past due on their credit-card bills in the rose to a record high in the second quarter of this year, the American Bankers Association said Wednesday.
"The last two quarters have not been pretty," said James Chessen, ABA's chief economist.
"Gas prices are taking huge chunks out of wallets, leaving some individuals with little left to meet their financial obligations. With gas prices still rising, the third quarter is not likely to be any better," Chessen said.
mickandpete
Active member
- Messages
- 176
- Likes
- 3
Not 100% on credit card reference but
I believe there has been a legal adjustment to minimum repayments whereby they have doubled
??????
I believe there has been a legal adjustment to minimum repayments whereby they have doubled
??????
Racer
Senior member
- Messages
- 2,666
- Likes
- 30
Bringing up the rear today is Fannie Mae (NYSE:FNM - News) , which has seen its fair share of problems over the past several months. Today, it hit newswires that investigators delving into FNM finances have discovered additional accounting violations, which point to puffed-out earnings reports from the past years. According to initial reports, the company may have overvalued its assets and underreported its losses more than was initially disclosed. The stock has spiraled lower today, giving back more than six percent and registering a new annual low on heavy volume. FNM shares are now trading in territory not explored since late 1997.
Racer
Senior member
- Messages
- 2,666
- Likes
- 30
The biggest component of GDP is
consumer spending, accounting for about
two-thirds of economic activity.
Second-quarter spending climbed 3.4%,
up from the previously estimated 3.0%
gain but below the first quarter's 3.8%
advance.
Personal consumption was somewhat
stronger due to higher spending on
utilities, like electricity.
Wednesday's data showed US exports
rose by 10.7%, instead of the earlier
reported 13.2% increase. Imports
slipped 0.3%, instead of rising 0.5% as
originally estimated. First-quarter
exports grew 7.5% and imports were up
7.4%.
consumer spending, accounting for about
two-thirds of economic activity.
Second-quarter spending climbed 3.4%,
up from the previously estimated 3.0%
gain but below the first quarter's 3.8%
advance.
Personal consumption was somewhat
stronger due to higher spending on
utilities, like electricity.
Wednesday's data showed US exports
rose by 10.7%, instead of the earlier
reported 13.2% increase. Imports
slipped 0.3%, instead of rising 0.5% as
originally estimated. First-quarter
exports grew 7.5% and imports were up
7.4%.
Racer
Senior member
- Messages
- 2,666
- Likes
- 30
Racer
Senior member
- Messages
- 2,666
- Likes
- 30
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
The Debt To the Penny
Current Amount
09/28/2005 $7,921,799,829,672.03
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
The Debt To the Penny
Current Amount
09/28/2005 $7,921,799,829,672.03
roguetrader
Senior member
- Messages
- 2,062
- Likes
- 49
An article I recieved when I was away on holiday, have just got round to reading it, and thought I'd share.
What Will Cause the Next Recession?
by John Mauldin
August 19, 2005
It's a race to see what will be the cause, or maybe better put, what will be blamed for the next economic slowdown. Will it be oil and rising energy prices? What about a slowdown in the housing market? You can't count out the Fed raising interest rates as source of economic slowdown. If China slows down and thus has less money to invest in our bonds, will rates rise? There are so many potential culprits. We run through them and more as we try to peer into 2006.
One of my favorite cartoons is a picture of two scrawny vultures sitting on top of a cactus in the middle of the desert. One turns to the other and says, "Patience, hell. Let's go kill something." Patience is what we are going to need for the rest of this year.
$70 Tank of Gas
It happened to me for the first time this week. My gas tank topped out at over $60. Texans are not used to $2.65 a gallon. The local good old boys can now spend over $70 to fill their Ford F-150 pickups. Let's work the numbers on that. The truck gets 14 miles per gallon. In Texas, you can have a long commute to work. If you do 20,000 miles per year, you will need 1428 gallons. That is $3,785 or $72.80 a week. For a guy making $15 an hour or $600, less taxes, with say a take home pay of $500, that would be almost 15% of his paycheck! Tough to support a family on that! Can we say a second job?
The US trade deficit in June was $58.8 billion or 6.1% of GDP. A little more than a third of that deficit was due to oil, or $19.9 billion. Mind you, that was at an average price per barrel of $44. Today oil is well north of $60. Assuming an extra $15 dollars a barrel in August, that could mean another almost $6.5 billion in oil and energy imports. And that is if the average oil price in August drops to $60. It needs to drop pretty quick if it is going to do that.
If oil stays near today's level that would mean over $300 billion per year going outside the US. That is an extra $150 billion over where it would be at $30 oil. Even backing off to $50, that would take an extra 1% of GDP out of the country. That is 1% less that US citizens would spend on consumer goods, which is not a big number in the grand scheme of things, but is enough to slow things down at Wal-Mart, which is where the good old boys driving F-150's buy their food and other supplies.
The rule of thumb is that for every $10 rise in the price of oil, you will see a loss of about 0.4% of GDP. Thus the recent rise in energy is enough to slow down the economy but not enough to push it into recession. Yes, nine out of the last ten recessions have been associated with rising oil prices. But nearly all of those were supply driven. Today's rise in oil prices are demand driven. Prices are rising because demand in the US, China, India and everywhere else in the world is rising. Rising demand is because the world economy is relatively strong. And that is a good thing.
Except there are signs it may be starting to take its toll on US consumers. We see a new correlation with consumer sentiment not just with housing and market prices, but what looks like the pump price at the gas station. Wal-Mart announces softer forecasts as the price of gas rises.
And with natural gas rising, we are going to see much higher costs for heating homes this winter. Another way for consumers to get squeezed. Not a lot, but here and there.
Now, we need to realize that oil usage as a percentage of GDP is less than half of what it was 30 years ago. We are much more efficient. But it still has an effect. My take is that oil prices, even where they are today, are not high enough to push us into recession. It will just slow things down a bit.
As an aside, and for something else to add to your worry closet, my friend and expert natural resource analyst and economist, Don Coxe recently wrote about a fascinating report by the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas, which refers to 1985 when OPEC members were "competing with each other to be allotted bigger OPEC quotas." Coxe writes "OPEC has always allotted quotas to members in proportion to their proven reserves. Kuwait's geologists must have had a pretty good year, because their reserves climbed from 64 bn bbls to 92 bn. But the Kuwaitis were pikers compared to their brethren in the Emirates, who said that, upon reflection, they needed to boost their reserves from 31 bn to 92 bn. Not to be outdone, Iran announced its real reserves were 93 bn, up just a tad from a previous 47 bn. The 1985 champ, though, was the savvy Saddam, who was not content with double digits: his reserves went to 100 bn, up slightly from the previous 47 bn." According to the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas, those reserve figures remain today.
There are serious reasons to doubt the truth of OPEC oil reserves, or there ability to increase production fast enough to keep up with projected world demand. Oil prices may not be dropping back into the 30's or low 40's again, without a sharp worldwide recession lowering demand big-time.
The Housing Market Starts to Show Signs of Weakness
Can you open a financial paper today without an article on the slowing housing market? Everyone is looking for signs of an impending fall in housing prices. From the Sacramento Bee we read:
"Jim Eggleston, owner of Sacramento's biggest residential 'For Sale' sign installer, predicts this will be his busiest week in 21 years in business. He's had to hire an extra worker and buy a new delivery truck since his crew planted a one-day record of 225 signs on Monday.
"'There are whole lot of houses going up for sale,' says Eggleston, who promises next-day installation when a real estate broker orders a new sign. 'The number of 'For Sale' signs we're removing keeps going down relative to the number we're putting up.'"
And from the Palm Springs Desert Sun we read (and note the last sentence!)
"Price rises come as local sales counts have recently been falling, and the inventory of unsold resale homes is up dramatically from a year ago. According to DataQuick, the total 1,259 new-construction and resale homes sold in July was down 12.1 percent from a year ago.
"And unsold resale inventory is currently at around 3,452 properties, according to Greg Berkemer, executive vice president of the California Desert Association of Realtors. That figure is up 63 percent from a year ago and is more than twice the 1,400 seen in April 2004." (Thanks to blogger CalculatedRisk)
"The number of listings of single-family houses in 17 towns in Greater Boston was up 25 percent or more last week compared with one year ago. And those houses are taking longer to sell. In four towns, listings increased 50 percent or more." (MSN.com)
As I noted last week, the Wall Street Journal did a cover article on rising home inventories all over the "hot markets" in the US. The median price in the past five years has risen at triple the level it did on the previous thirty, which included a powerful inflationary period. Trees don't grow to the sky, and the housing market is due for a breather, at the very least.
But if home building starts to slow down, you will see the economy soften. GDP in the second quarter was 3.4%, but the increase in residential investment was 11%. Dean Baker tells us "The jump in residential investment raised the share of housing construction in GDP to 6.0 percent, surpassing the peak hit in the late seventies, when the baby boomers were first forming their own households. If the housing bubble persists, this share will grow even higher in future quarters.
"...The immediate path forward looks very shaky as the economy is ever more dependent on the housing boom and debt. If wage growth does not begin to pick up, it will be difficult for this cycle to continue much further. However, if wage growth does pick up, then inflation will accelerate, pushing up interest rates, which will burst the housing bubble." (Center for Economic and Policy Research)
Residential construction typically accounts for about 20% of GDP growth in the US, although it can swing dramatically. It was in the 20% range in the first quarter. It dropped during the 1990-1 recession only to rise to 30% in the following year. And when residential fixed investment turns down it usually leads the economy into a recession.
If we take the experience of the slowdown and flattening of both the UK and Australian housing markets, it would suggest that consumer spending would slow significantly if housing prices in the US were to stop their relentless rise. Forget about what would happen if housing prices actually started to fall.
My take? Housing will slow down over the next year. How much? Right now mortgage rates are roughly where they were one year ago, except for ARMs. The answer lies in how much rates rise or how much the economy slows down. Greenspan and the Fed are determined to slow the rise in housing prices down. As we will see in the next section, one of those two events (or both) are likely to happen. The Fed can engineer a slowdown in housing prices if they decide to do so.
When 20% of the growth in GDP is housing, that is significant. A modestly slowing housing market could tip the economy into recession, especially if consumer spending is also being impaired. And besides oil what else can hurt consumer spending?
Greenspan - Where's the Fire?
That question brings us to our final culprit - the Fed. Rising interest rates do hurt the consumer. It takes more money to pay credit card bills, adjustable rate mortgages go up, it costs more to borrow money and so on. And rising short term rate are not good for the profits of most corporations.
This Fed is determined to raise rates. There are three more Fed meetings this year: September 20, November 1, and December 13. Right now it looks as if they are going to raise rates at each meeting. The market certainly thinks so, and recent speeches and Fed releases suggest so as well, at least for two more hikes.
Three rate hikes would take the Fed funds rate above the current price of the ten year bond if longer term rates stay where they are today. What worries me is that if the bond market is convinced we are going to see three rate hikes to 4.25%, why would they take a mere 4.21% on a ten year bond, unless they thought that ten year rates were going to drop at some point?
Today, the economic data is fine. August is going to be another solid month in GDP growth. Jobs will be ok. Housing, while slowing, is still at a torrid pace. The Fed will meet this September and feel they have plenty of cover to raise rates.
I think they should hold off for at least one session and let's see some more data. Let's see if the rise in housing inventories is for real or just an end of summer slump. Let's see if energy prices are going to slow things down a little on their own without piling on with another rate hike. I don't see the need to be in a rush. They have taken over a year to raise rates slowly, at a very measured pace. If there was a need to curtail inflation, they should have acted faster. In fact, core inflation is well contained. Yes, energy costs are way up, and understated in CPI, but they are ultimately a drag on the economy.
If November comes around and the economy is still strong or inflation is rising or the housing market is still too strong, then go ahead and raise rates. Raise them 50 basis points if you feel the need to "catch up."
The trends (and forward data) suggest the economy could be getting soft late in the year or early next year. More than one economist, many of them normally quite bullish, thinks we see a slowdown to 2-2.5% GDP in the first quarter of next year. If that is the case, we do not need to slow the economy down any more by raising rates.
Add in concerns about a very flat growth in the money supply in both the US and Japan and you have even more reasons to pause for a meeting.
If the Fed keeps on this path, we are at risk for a recession in the second half of 2006. I cannot imagine the Fed raising rates until they invert the yield curve on their own. But if on November 1 we see a 4% Fed funds rate, or on December 13 a 4.25% rate, it would not take too much in the way of a slowdown for the bond market to push long rates down.
My take? The Fed is going to ignore everyone calling for a pause and go right on until at least a 4% rate. Friend Barry Ritholtz of Maxim said today on CNBC (Kudlow & Company) that he thinks Greenspan wants to give the next Fed chairman some room to cut rates in the next economic slowdown. Maybe, Barry, but I don't think so. It is a secondary benefit. The real reason Greenspan and company are raising rates is that they are worried about a housing bubble. They want to make sure it does not get much bigger.
I agree that is a very serious, even worrisome, concern. But if the data is showing the problem may be correcting itself, through gravity if nothing else, then we don't need to shove it faster down the hill. Patience. We don't need to kill anything yet. It may be dying of its own accord.
In short, I am worried about the Fed doing what they have done so many times in the past. They raise rates too much and for too long and we slide into recession. There is no need for us to go into a recession next year. Recessions are a bitch. Just a mid-cycle slowdown like 1994-95 would be fine with me. We will of course see what happens in the fullness of time, and my guess is that we will have some warning. We won't just roll over and find ourselves in recession one month. It will creep up on us just like the last few times.
We will watch the yield curve, watch the housing and the bond markets, consumer spending, energy and all the rest. The clues will be there.
And if we have a slowdown, we can blame energy and housing. If we have a recession with short rates at 4.25% or higher, we can blame a too aggressive Fed.
In any event, slowdown or recession, you do not want to be long the stock market, except for certain select stocks and sectors (like energy). This is the time to be cautious. There is another major bull market in our future. Save your powder. It is hard, I know. But you will be happier than trying to make something happen.
What Will Cause the Next Recession?
by John Mauldin
August 19, 2005
It's a race to see what will be the cause, or maybe better put, what will be blamed for the next economic slowdown. Will it be oil and rising energy prices? What about a slowdown in the housing market? You can't count out the Fed raising interest rates as source of economic slowdown. If China slows down and thus has less money to invest in our bonds, will rates rise? There are so many potential culprits. We run through them and more as we try to peer into 2006.
One of my favorite cartoons is a picture of two scrawny vultures sitting on top of a cactus in the middle of the desert. One turns to the other and says, "Patience, hell. Let's go kill something." Patience is what we are going to need for the rest of this year.
$70 Tank of Gas
It happened to me for the first time this week. My gas tank topped out at over $60. Texans are not used to $2.65 a gallon. The local good old boys can now spend over $70 to fill their Ford F-150 pickups. Let's work the numbers on that. The truck gets 14 miles per gallon. In Texas, you can have a long commute to work. If you do 20,000 miles per year, you will need 1428 gallons. That is $3,785 or $72.80 a week. For a guy making $15 an hour or $600, less taxes, with say a take home pay of $500, that would be almost 15% of his paycheck! Tough to support a family on that! Can we say a second job?
The US trade deficit in June was $58.8 billion or 6.1% of GDP. A little more than a third of that deficit was due to oil, or $19.9 billion. Mind you, that was at an average price per barrel of $44. Today oil is well north of $60. Assuming an extra $15 dollars a barrel in August, that could mean another almost $6.5 billion in oil and energy imports. And that is if the average oil price in August drops to $60. It needs to drop pretty quick if it is going to do that.
If oil stays near today's level that would mean over $300 billion per year going outside the US. That is an extra $150 billion over where it would be at $30 oil. Even backing off to $50, that would take an extra 1% of GDP out of the country. That is 1% less that US citizens would spend on consumer goods, which is not a big number in the grand scheme of things, but is enough to slow things down at Wal-Mart, which is where the good old boys driving F-150's buy their food and other supplies.
The rule of thumb is that for every $10 rise in the price of oil, you will see a loss of about 0.4% of GDP. Thus the recent rise in energy is enough to slow down the economy but not enough to push it into recession. Yes, nine out of the last ten recessions have been associated with rising oil prices. But nearly all of those were supply driven. Today's rise in oil prices are demand driven. Prices are rising because demand in the US, China, India and everywhere else in the world is rising. Rising demand is because the world economy is relatively strong. And that is a good thing.
Except there are signs it may be starting to take its toll on US consumers. We see a new correlation with consumer sentiment not just with housing and market prices, but what looks like the pump price at the gas station. Wal-Mart announces softer forecasts as the price of gas rises.
And with natural gas rising, we are going to see much higher costs for heating homes this winter. Another way for consumers to get squeezed. Not a lot, but here and there.
Now, we need to realize that oil usage as a percentage of GDP is less than half of what it was 30 years ago. We are much more efficient. But it still has an effect. My take is that oil prices, even where they are today, are not high enough to push us into recession. It will just slow things down a bit.
As an aside, and for something else to add to your worry closet, my friend and expert natural resource analyst and economist, Don Coxe recently wrote about a fascinating report by the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas, which refers to 1985 when OPEC members were "competing with each other to be allotted bigger OPEC quotas." Coxe writes "OPEC has always allotted quotas to members in proportion to their proven reserves. Kuwait's geologists must have had a pretty good year, because their reserves climbed from 64 bn bbls to 92 bn. But the Kuwaitis were pikers compared to their brethren in the Emirates, who said that, upon reflection, they needed to boost their reserves from 31 bn to 92 bn. Not to be outdone, Iran announced its real reserves were 93 bn, up just a tad from a previous 47 bn. The 1985 champ, though, was the savvy Saddam, who was not content with double digits: his reserves went to 100 bn, up slightly from the previous 47 bn." According to the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas, those reserve figures remain today.
There are serious reasons to doubt the truth of OPEC oil reserves, or there ability to increase production fast enough to keep up with projected world demand. Oil prices may not be dropping back into the 30's or low 40's again, without a sharp worldwide recession lowering demand big-time.
The Housing Market Starts to Show Signs of Weakness
Can you open a financial paper today without an article on the slowing housing market? Everyone is looking for signs of an impending fall in housing prices. From the Sacramento Bee we read:
"Jim Eggleston, owner of Sacramento's biggest residential 'For Sale' sign installer, predicts this will be his busiest week in 21 years in business. He's had to hire an extra worker and buy a new delivery truck since his crew planted a one-day record of 225 signs on Monday.
"'There are whole lot of houses going up for sale,' says Eggleston, who promises next-day installation when a real estate broker orders a new sign. 'The number of 'For Sale' signs we're removing keeps going down relative to the number we're putting up.'"
And from the Palm Springs Desert Sun we read (and note the last sentence!)
"Price rises come as local sales counts have recently been falling, and the inventory of unsold resale homes is up dramatically from a year ago. According to DataQuick, the total 1,259 new-construction and resale homes sold in July was down 12.1 percent from a year ago.
"And unsold resale inventory is currently at around 3,452 properties, according to Greg Berkemer, executive vice president of the California Desert Association of Realtors. That figure is up 63 percent from a year ago and is more than twice the 1,400 seen in April 2004." (Thanks to blogger CalculatedRisk)
"The number of listings of single-family houses in 17 towns in Greater Boston was up 25 percent or more last week compared with one year ago. And those houses are taking longer to sell. In four towns, listings increased 50 percent or more." (MSN.com)
As I noted last week, the Wall Street Journal did a cover article on rising home inventories all over the "hot markets" in the US. The median price in the past five years has risen at triple the level it did on the previous thirty, which included a powerful inflationary period. Trees don't grow to the sky, and the housing market is due for a breather, at the very least.
But if home building starts to slow down, you will see the economy soften. GDP in the second quarter was 3.4%, but the increase in residential investment was 11%. Dean Baker tells us "The jump in residential investment raised the share of housing construction in GDP to 6.0 percent, surpassing the peak hit in the late seventies, when the baby boomers were first forming their own households. If the housing bubble persists, this share will grow even higher in future quarters.
"...The immediate path forward looks very shaky as the economy is ever more dependent on the housing boom and debt. If wage growth does not begin to pick up, it will be difficult for this cycle to continue much further. However, if wage growth does pick up, then inflation will accelerate, pushing up interest rates, which will burst the housing bubble." (Center for Economic and Policy Research)
Residential construction typically accounts for about 20% of GDP growth in the US, although it can swing dramatically. It was in the 20% range in the first quarter. It dropped during the 1990-1 recession only to rise to 30% in the following year. And when residential fixed investment turns down it usually leads the economy into a recession.
If we take the experience of the slowdown and flattening of both the UK and Australian housing markets, it would suggest that consumer spending would slow significantly if housing prices in the US were to stop their relentless rise. Forget about what would happen if housing prices actually started to fall.
My take? Housing will slow down over the next year. How much? Right now mortgage rates are roughly where they were one year ago, except for ARMs. The answer lies in how much rates rise or how much the economy slows down. Greenspan and the Fed are determined to slow the rise in housing prices down. As we will see in the next section, one of those two events (or both) are likely to happen. The Fed can engineer a slowdown in housing prices if they decide to do so.
When 20% of the growth in GDP is housing, that is significant. A modestly slowing housing market could tip the economy into recession, especially if consumer spending is also being impaired. And besides oil what else can hurt consumer spending?
Greenspan - Where's the Fire?
That question brings us to our final culprit - the Fed. Rising interest rates do hurt the consumer. It takes more money to pay credit card bills, adjustable rate mortgages go up, it costs more to borrow money and so on. And rising short term rate are not good for the profits of most corporations.
This Fed is determined to raise rates. There are three more Fed meetings this year: September 20, November 1, and December 13. Right now it looks as if they are going to raise rates at each meeting. The market certainly thinks so, and recent speeches and Fed releases suggest so as well, at least for two more hikes.
Three rate hikes would take the Fed funds rate above the current price of the ten year bond if longer term rates stay where they are today. What worries me is that if the bond market is convinced we are going to see three rate hikes to 4.25%, why would they take a mere 4.21% on a ten year bond, unless they thought that ten year rates were going to drop at some point?
Today, the economic data is fine. August is going to be another solid month in GDP growth. Jobs will be ok. Housing, while slowing, is still at a torrid pace. The Fed will meet this September and feel they have plenty of cover to raise rates.
I think they should hold off for at least one session and let's see some more data. Let's see if the rise in housing inventories is for real or just an end of summer slump. Let's see if energy prices are going to slow things down a little on their own without piling on with another rate hike. I don't see the need to be in a rush. They have taken over a year to raise rates slowly, at a very measured pace. If there was a need to curtail inflation, they should have acted faster. In fact, core inflation is well contained. Yes, energy costs are way up, and understated in CPI, but they are ultimately a drag on the economy.
If November comes around and the economy is still strong or inflation is rising or the housing market is still too strong, then go ahead and raise rates. Raise them 50 basis points if you feel the need to "catch up."
The trends (and forward data) suggest the economy could be getting soft late in the year or early next year. More than one economist, many of them normally quite bullish, thinks we see a slowdown to 2-2.5% GDP in the first quarter of next year. If that is the case, we do not need to slow the economy down any more by raising rates.
Add in concerns about a very flat growth in the money supply in both the US and Japan and you have even more reasons to pause for a meeting.
If the Fed keeps on this path, we are at risk for a recession in the second half of 2006. I cannot imagine the Fed raising rates until they invert the yield curve on their own. But if on November 1 we see a 4% Fed funds rate, or on December 13 a 4.25% rate, it would not take too much in the way of a slowdown for the bond market to push long rates down.
My take? The Fed is going to ignore everyone calling for a pause and go right on until at least a 4% rate. Friend Barry Ritholtz of Maxim said today on CNBC (Kudlow & Company) that he thinks Greenspan wants to give the next Fed chairman some room to cut rates in the next economic slowdown. Maybe, Barry, but I don't think so. It is a secondary benefit. The real reason Greenspan and company are raising rates is that they are worried about a housing bubble. They want to make sure it does not get much bigger.
I agree that is a very serious, even worrisome, concern. But if the data is showing the problem may be correcting itself, through gravity if nothing else, then we don't need to shove it faster down the hill. Patience. We don't need to kill anything yet. It may be dying of its own accord.
In short, I am worried about the Fed doing what they have done so many times in the past. They raise rates too much and for too long and we slide into recession. There is no need for us to go into a recession next year. Recessions are a bitch. Just a mid-cycle slowdown like 1994-95 would be fine with me. We will of course see what happens in the fullness of time, and my guess is that we will have some warning. We won't just roll over and find ourselves in recession one month. It will creep up on us just like the last few times.
We will watch the yield curve, watch the housing and the bond markets, consumer spending, energy and all the rest. The clues will be there.
And if we have a slowdown, we can blame energy and housing. If we have a recession with short rates at 4.25% or higher, we can blame a too aggressive Fed.
In any event, slowdown or recession, you do not want to be long the stock market, except for certain select stocks and sectors (like energy). This is the time to be cautious. There is another major bull market in our future. Save your powder. It is hard, I know. But you will be happier than trying to make something happen.
Racer
Senior member
- Messages
- 2,666
- Likes
- 30
The Institute for Supply Management said Monday its index of manufacturing activity climbed to 59.4 in September from a reading of 53.6 in August and 56.6 in July.
"This is astonishing," said Ian Shepherdson, chief U.S. economist at High Frequency Economics in Valhalla, N.Y. "Other surveys had suggested companies were dealing with the shock of Katrina and its attendant surge in energy prices better than consumers, but we still fully expected the ISM to dip."
"This may in part reflect problems getting responses from the companies in the Gulf Coast region that were hurt by the hurricane," A.G. Edwards & Sons economist Patrick Fearon said. "But regardless, the breadth of strength is an indication the manufacturing sector may be weathering things fairly well."
"The ISM index of manufacturing activity in September posted a strong reading in normal times, but the numbers were surprisingly good in light of the hurricane disruptions in the Gulf Coast states," said Daniel J. Meckstroth, chief economist for the trade group Manufacturers Alliance/MAPI. "The across-the-board improvement in orders, production, employment, and exports confirm that manufacturing outside the Gulf Coast region was not hurt by the hurricane disruptions. More time is needed, however, to judge whether the September survey fully reflects the impact of production stoppages that occurred in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi as part of a national picture."
"This is astonishing," said Ian Shepherdson, chief U.S. economist at High Frequency Economics in Valhalla, N.Y. "Other surveys had suggested companies were dealing with the shock of Katrina and its attendant surge in energy prices better than consumers, but we still fully expected the ISM to dip."
"This may in part reflect problems getting responses from the companies in the Gulf Coast region that were hurt by the hurricane," A.G. Edwards & Sons economist Patrick Fearon said. "But regardless, the breadth of strength is an indication the manufacturing sector may be weathering things fairly well."
"The ISM index of manufacturing activity in September posted a strong reading in normal times, but the numbers were surprisingly good in light of the hurricane disruptions in the Gulf Coast states," said Daniel J. Meckstroth, chief economist for the trade group Manufacturers Alliance/MAPI. "The across-the-board improvement in orders, production, employment, and exports confirm that manufacturing outside the Gulf Coast region was not hurt by the hurricane disruptions. More time is needed, however, to judge whether the September survey fully reflects the impact of production stoppages that occurred in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi as part of a national picture."
roguetrader
Senior member
- Messages
- 2,062
- Likes
- 49
Racer
Senior member
- Messages
- 2,666
- Likes
- 30
Xerox details $114M, or 12c a share, in quarterly charges
LONDON (AFX) -- Xerox Inc. said in a filing to the Securities and Exchange Commission that its third quarter will be affected by $114 million, or 12 cents a share, in charges. Xerox (NYSE: XRX - news) said $79 million comes from a previously disclosed arbitration decision and other potential legal losses, $9 million comes from damages sustained due to Hurricane Katrina that won't be covered by insurance and $26 million from accounting changes.
LONDON (AFX) -- Xerox Inc. said in a filing to the Securities and Exchange Commission that its third quarter will be affected by $114 million, or 12 cents a share, in charges. Xerox (NYSE: XRX - news) said $79 million comes from a previously disclosed arbitration decision and other potential legal losses, $9 million comes from damages sustained due to Hurricane Katrina that won't be covered by insurance and $26 million from accounting changes.
Similar threads
