• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

US Economy

Yes all this spending will cause inflation like we havent seen in a long while. Too much money and too few goods. If the US sold gold it would be snapped up in a heart beat without affecting prices in the least. The sad part of not being on the gold standard is that there isnt any limit on just printing money as we are doing now. The Chinese have begun buying foreclosed properties in California seems like a good bet to me.
 
At the moment the problem is still potential deflation.  People are not eagerly spending money, let alone borrowing to spend.  Before price inflation can kick in, economic activity will have to pick up.

Monetary inflation is a risk if money is printed, but as it turns out the authority to print money doesn't rest directly with the executives of government in either the US or Canada.
 
We are in the unhappy situation where Kirkhill, T6 and Brad are all right.

1. Blue States and various Dem rent seekers will indeed race to the bottom to pillage the American taxpayer, indeed this might be the actual game plan. By implementing and prolonging the crisis, a skilled Demagogue like President Obama (and like FDR before him) can keep a fearful public focused on what the "government" can do for them.

2. The economy may well be entering a deflationary phase, as literally trillions of dollars of wealth evaporate (mostly from the paper capital gains from the real estate bubble and the various toxic and non-toxic non-performing loans and "zombie" companies across the globe).

3. As the various central banks frantically try to re inflate the credit bubble, more and more money will be chasing fewer and fewer goods (as the deflationary cycle shuts down production and excessive inventories are consumed), which will at some point re-ignite inflation on a massive scale.

A cynical view is inflation is being deployed to save the bacon of the feckless looter class who borrowed to the hilt and now want to use inflation to reduce the value of their debts. Deflation would help the poor and middle class by increasing their purchasing power, but at the expense of the over-leveraged looters (generally politicians and political rent seekers).
 
Warren Buffet comments:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUKTRE51R1Q720090228

Buffett says U.S. Treasury bubble one for the ages
Sat Feb 28, 2009 9:31pm GMT

By Jonathan Stempel

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Warren Buffett, whose Berkshire Hathaway Inc (BRKa.N: Quote, Profile, Research) (BRKb.N: Quote, Profile, Research) sits on $25.54 billion (17.8 billion pounds) of cash, said worried investors are making a costly mistake by buying up U.S. Treasuries that yield almost nothing.

In his widely read annual letter to Berkshire shareholders, the man many consider the world's most revered investor said investors are engulfed by a "paralyzing fear" stemming from the credit crisis and falling housing and stock prices. Treasury prices have benefited as investors flocked to the perceived safety of the "triple-A" rated debt.

But Buffett said that with the U.S. Federal Reserve and Treasury Department going "all in" to jump-start an economy shrinking at the fastest pace since 1982, "once-unthinkable dosages" of stimulus will likely spur an "onslaught" of inflation, an enemy of fixed-income investors.

"The investment world has gone from underpricing risk to overpricing it," Buffett wrote. "Cash is earning close to nothing and will surely find its purchasing power eroded over time."

"When the financial history of this decade is written, it will surely speak of the Internet bubble of the late 1990s and the housing bubble of the early 2000s," he went on. "But the U.S. Treasury bond bubble of late 2008 may be regarded as almost equally extraordinary."

DISMAY OVER MORTGAGE PRACTICES

Investors' flight to quality followed years of excessive borrowing, especially in housing, and Buffett used his letter to make plain his dismay with a variety of mortgage lenders.

He said many ignored Lending 101 by not checking customers' ability to pay off home loans, or foisting "teaser" rates that reset to higher unaffordable levels.

In contrast, Buffett said, Berkshire's manufactured housing unit Clayton Homes had a 3.6 percent foreclosure rate at year end on loans it made, up from 2.9 percent in 2006, though more than one in three borrowers had "subprime" credit scores. The unit was profitable in 2008, earning $206 million before taxes, though earnings fell 61 percent, Berkshire said.

"The present housing debacle should teach home buyers, lenders, brokers and government some simple lessons that will ensure stability," Buffett wrote. "Home purchases should involve an honest-to-God down payment of at least 10 percent and monthly payments that can be comfortably handled by the borrower's income. That income should be carefully verified."

INVESTMENT YAWNS

Omaha, Nebraska-based Berkshire reduced its cash stake from $44.33 billion a year earlier largely by investing in preferred, convertible and fixed-income securities yielding 10 percent or more, and issued by familiar companies including General Electric Co (GE.N: Quote, Profile, Research) and Goldman Sachs Group Inc (GS.N: Quote, Profile, Research).

Still, Buffett has said he would be comfortable taking Berkshire's cash stake down to $10 billion.

"It is curious how dismissive he is about cash, and yet Berkshire has a large cash position," said Bill Bergman, a senior equity analyst at Morningstar Inc. "The Berkshire enterprise is attractive in part because of the large cash positions. So maybe Buffett's prescriptions for the rest of us don't apply as generally to Berkshire."

Indeed, Buffett said that to fund new investments, he sold parts of some equity holdings he wanted to keep -- among them, oil company ConocoPhillips (COP.N: Quote, Profile, Research), drug company Johnson & Johnson (JNJ.N: Quote, Profile, Research) and consumer products company Procter & Gamble Co (PG.N: Quote, Profile, Research).

Buffett said he "will not trade even a night's sleep for the chance of extra profits," and wanted Berkshire to have more than ample cash.

He also cautioned Treasury investors not to feel "smug" when they see commentators endorsing their investments.

"Beware the investment activity that produces applause," Buffett wrote, "the great moves are usually greeted by yawns."

(Editing by Mohammad Zargham)
 
Buffet has supported Obama every step of the way. I wonder if he is having second thoughts ?
 
Who is John Galt?:

http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=6975547

Upper-Income Taxpayers Look for Ways to Sidestep Obama Tax-Hike Plan
President Would Slap More Taxes on Those Who Make Over $250K to Fund Health Care
By EMILY FRIEDMAN

March 2, 2009 —

President Barack Obama's tax proposal which promises to increase taxes for those families with incomes of $250,000 or more -- has some Americans brainstorming ways to decrease their pay, even if it's just by a dollar.

A 63-year-old attorney based in Lafayette, La., who asked not to be named, told ABCNews.com that she plans to cut back on her business to get her annual income under the quarter million mark should the Obama tax plan be passed by Congress and become law.

So far, Obama's tax plan is being looked at skeptically by both Democrats and Republicans and therefore may not pass at all.

"We are going to try to figure out how to make our income $249,999.00," she said.

"We have to find a way out where we can make just what we need to just under the line so we can benefit from Obama's tax plan," she added. "Why kill yourself working if you're going to give it all away to people who aren't working as hard?"

The attorney says that in order to decrease her income she'll have to let go of clients, some of whom she's been counseling for more than a decade.

"This means I'll have to tell some of my clients we can't help them and being more selective in general about who we help," she said. "I hate to do it."

Obama's budget proposal calls for $989 billion in new taxes over the next 10 years, most of which will be earned from increased taxes on individuals who make more than $200,000 and from families who make more than $250,000.

The expiration of the Bush administration's tax cuts at the end of 2010 would garner an estimated $338 billion, $179 billion would come from the elimination of some itemized deductions for higher-income taxpayers and $118 billion would be brought in from a hike in the capital gains tax. The remaining $353 billion would come from taxes on businesses.

Dr. Sharon Poczatek, who runs her own dental practice in Boulder, Colo., said that she too is trying to figure out ways to get out of paying the taxes proposed in Obama's plan.

"I've put thought into how to get under $250,000," said Poczatek. "It would mean working fewer days which means having fewer employees, seeing fewer patients and taking time off."

"Generally it means being less productive," she said.

"The motivation for a lot of people like me dentists, entrepreneurs, lawyers is that the more you work the more money you make," said Poczatek. "But if I'm going to be working just to give it back to the government -- it's de-motivating and demoralizing."

Can Obama's Tax Plan Be Gamed?

Gary Schatsky, a financial adviser and the president of N.Y.-based Objectiveadvice.com, said that it is possible to successfully remove yourself from the bracket Obama plans to target in his new plan.

"It's very possible that there are plenty of things you can do with general tax planning techniques attempting to recognizes loses, pushing gains to years when your income is lower and increasing retirement plan contributions to come below $250,000," said Schatsky.

"But Obama's proposal has yet to be hammered out and the devil is in the details," he added.

Because we have a marginal tax system, said Schatsky, what Obama's plan means is that the amount of tax you pay on each incremental dollar is higher only when your income is pushed into a higher tax bracket.

"But to focus keeping your income below a quarter million dollars is not going to have any spectacular magic for individual tax payers," said Schatsky. "The difference between $249,999 and $251,000 will probably have zero tax impact."

Schatsky said that the incentive to get under $250,000 may be more so if the tax plan outlines that an individual who goes over a prescribed limit would face a reduced value of their itemized deductions.

"If the value of all your itemized deductions goes from a 33 percent level to a 28 percent level than there would be a reason for people to do dramatic things to reduce their incomes," said Schatsky.

Peter Morici, a professor of business at The Robert H. Smith School of Business at the University of Maryland, agrees that while it may be possible to sneak around the taxes, it won't be as simple as some may think.

"You have to be pretty close to $250,000 in terms of your income to get underneath it," said Morici.

Does Obama Tax Plan Promote Class Warfare?

Morici says that he believes Obama's tax proposal could spark a kind of class war.

"What Obama is doing is pitting the poor against the upper middle class," said Morici. "He'll tax the rich for the health benefits everyone else wants."

Obama has said the new taxes on those making over $250,000 would go toward a fund that would support a gradual move to universal health care coverage.

Supporters of Obama's budget plans say that those who are at the top and complaining need to look at the bigger picture.

"Those who are going to be taxed more are obviously going to complain but I think they may miss the point," said Lisa Rotenstein, the chair of the Harvard Healthcare Policy Group at the Institute of Politics.

"This could have broader implications for the American economy as a whole improved health care means a healthier workforce that is more productive," said Rotenstein.

But Colorado dentist Poczatek says those who support the increase in taxes misunderstand what it means for those who will end up paying more.

"I'd like these people to know that we pay a lot of taxes, and have been paying a lot of taxes through the past administration," said Pcozatek.

"We make a lot of money, it's true, but we also already pay a lot of taxes," she said.

"So maybe we got a little bit successful but we worked very hard," she said. "It's taken us over 30 years and it didn't happen overnight. Every day is a lot of work.

"We're working for it and we're still overtaxed."

Copyright © 2009 ABC News Internet Ventures
 
The never ending recession:

http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSTRE52168Y20090302?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0

U.S. rescue efforts may risk double-dip recession
Mon Mar 2, 2009 4:47pm EST
By Emily Kaiser - Analysis

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. companies, consumers and communities may grow so addicted to government financial help that cutting them off could trigger another recession soon after the current one ends.

Between the U.S. Federal Reserve's trillions of dollars in lending programs, the $787 billion stimulus package and $700 billion -- and counting -- in bank bailout funds, no one can accuse officials of soft-pedaling their crisis response.

But there is increasing concern that when the flow of public money subsides -- beginning next year when much of that stimulus package is spent -- the economy still won't be strong enough to stand on its own.

"The stuttering attempts to repair the banking and lending mechanisms so far by the new administration suggests that by late 2010, the specter of a second dip into recession will be looming large," said Merrill Lynch economist Sheryl King.

The latest evidence of the government's ever-changing plans came on Monday when insurer American International Group Inc got its third bailout, each with different terms.

That did nothing to improve confidence on Wall Street, where investors dumped stocks amid fears that the financial crisis was worsening.

The longer it takes to stabilize the financial sector, the more the economy suffers, and that feeds back into bigger loan losses and the need for even more government intervention.

John Silvia, chief economist at Wachovia, said the government's success so far in shoring up markets and reviving the economy resembled the pattern of police patrols.

"At each corner where a policeman is stationed, we witness a decline in crime," he said. "In every market where the Fed focuses its liquidity facilities," credit conditions improve.

Unfortunately, where there is no direct government support, conditions are grim. Merrill expects unemployment to hit 10 percent by the end of 2009, with house prices losing 10 percent to 15 percent more and the stock market dropping another 20 percent.

That could erase $6.5 trillion off of household wealth, on top of the $12 trillion hit consumers have already taken, Merrill's King estimated.

SECURITY BLANKET

Those losses are a key reason why it is proving so difficult for the government to get much traction with its rescue plans because consumer spending accounts for more than two-thirds of economic activity.

Data released on Monday showed that Americans were rapidly rebuilding savings that they had run down in recent years when it seemed like rising home values and healthy stock markets would be enough to pay for retirement.

While that may be good for the global economy, which many economists say has been over-reliant on U.S. consumption, "recession has never been successfully arrested with austerity," Citigroup economist Steven Wieting said.

"While consumers in the U.S. will likely never really be the same as they were in the last decade, we can identify no source of growth for the global economy that doesn't involve a partial recovery in U.S. consumption," he said.

If spending isn't going back to the way it was, that may make it even harder for the government to ease up on aid.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke have warned repeatedly of the risk of pulling away the economic supports too soon. However, Bernanke and other Fed officials have also stressed the need for a clear exit strategy to ensure that their repair efforts don't spawn inflation.

EXIT STRATEGY

In essence, the Fed and Treasury have been forced to take the place of the securitization market, where countless loans were repackaged and sold off to investors all over the world. While that proved to be the transmission mechanism for the financial crisis, it was also a vital aspect of lending and its collapse contributed to the global economic slump.

The Fed's own lending data shows that efforts to get money flowing again were having limited effect on the broader economy. Confidence has fallen so sharply that even those who can get credit are reluctant to borrow and spend.

According to the Fed's January survey of senior loan officers, 60 percent of domestic banks reported reduced demand for commercial and industrial loans, up from 15 percent in the October survey.

Some of the Fed's lending programs should wind down with little disruption because once credit markets improve, borrowers will be able to find better terms elsewhere, and the central bank can once again be the lender of last resort instead of the only viable option.

Extricating the Fed and Treasury from other means of support won't be so easy.

"Major industries have become dependent on federal assistance, and they will be followed by cities and states bearing mind-boggling requests," investor Warren Buffett wrote in his annual letter to shareholders. "Weaning these entities from the public teat will be a political challenge. They won't leave willingly."

(Editing by Kenneth Barry)

Of course political rent seekers will never willingly get off the government teat.........
 
Without comment:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123604419092515347.html#

The Obama Economy
As the Dow keeps dropping, the President is running out of people to blame.Article

 
As 2009 opened, three weeks before Barack Obama took office, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 9034 on January 2, its highest level since the autumn panic. Yesterday the Dow fell another 4.24% to 6763, for an overall decline of 25% in two months and to its lowest level since 1997. The dismaying message here is that President Obama's policies have become part of the economy's problem.

Americans have welcomed the Obama era in the same spirit of hope the President campaigned on. But after five weeks in office, it's become clear that Mr. Obama's policies are slowing, if not stopping, what would otherwise be the normal process of economic recovery. From punishing business to squandering scarce national public resources, Team Obama is creating more uncertainty and less confidence -- and thus a longer period of recession or subpar growth.

The Democrats who now run Washington don't want to hear this, because they benefit from blaming all bad economic news on President Bush. And Mr. Obama has inherited an unusual recession deepened by credit problems, both of which will take time to climb out of. But it's also true that the economy has fallen far enough, and long enough, that much of the excess that led to recession is being worked off. Already 15 months old, the current recession will soon match the average length -- and average job loss -- of the last three postwar downturns. What goes down will come up -- unless destructive policies interfere with the sources of potential recovery.

And those sources have been forming for some time. The price of oil and other commodities have fallen by two-thirds since their 2008 summer peak, which has the effect of a major tax cut. The world is awash in liquidity, thanks to monetary ease by the Federal Reserve and other central banks. Monetary policy operates with a lag, but last year's easing will eventually stir economic activity.

Housing prices have fallen 27% from their Case-Shiller peak, or some two-thirds of the way back to their historical trend. While still high, credit spreads are far from their peaks during the panic, and corporate borrowers are again able to tap the credit markets. As equities were signaling with their late 2008 rally and January top, growth should under normal circumstances begin to appear in the second half of this year.

So what has happened in the last two months? The economy has received no great new outside shock. Exchange rates and other prices have been stable, and there are no security crises of note. The reality of a sharp recession has been known and built into stock prices since last year's fourth quarter.

What is new is the unveiling of Mr. Obama's agenda and his approach to governance. Every new President has a finite stock of capital -- financial and political -- to deploy, and amid recession Mr. Obama has more than most. But one negative revelation has been the way he has chosen to spend his scarce resources on income transfers rather than growth promotion. Most of his "stimulus" spending was devoted to social programs, rather than public works, and nearly all of the tax cuts were devoted to income maintenance rather than to improving incentives to work or invest.

His Treasury has been making a similar mistake with its financial bailout plans. The banking system needs to work through its losses, and one necessary use of public capital is to assist in burning down those bad assets as fast as possible. Yet most of Team Obama's ministrations so far have gone toward triage and life support, rather than repair and recovery.

AIG yesterday received its fourth "rescue," including $70 billion in Troubled Asset Relief Program cash, without any clear business direction. (See here.) Citigroup's restructuring last week added not a dollar of new capital, and also no clear direction. Perhaps the imminent Treasury "stress tests" will clear the decks, but until they do the banks are all living in fear of becoming the next AIG. All of this squanders public money that could better go toward burning down bank debt.

The market has notably plunged since Mr. Obama introduced his budget last week, and that should be no surprise. The document was a declaration of hostility toward capitalists across the economy. Health-care stocks have dived on fears of new government mandates and price controls. Private lenders to students have been told they're no longer wanted. Anyone who uses carbon energy has been warned to expect a huge tax increase from cap and trade. And every risk-taker and investor now knows that another tax increase will slam the economy in 2011, unless Mr. Obama lets Speaker Nancy Pelosi impose one even earlier.

Meanwhile, Congress demands more bank lending even as it assails lenders and threatens to let judges rewrite mortgage contracts. The powers in Congress -- unrebuked by Mr. Obama -- are ridiculing and punishing the very capitalists who are essential to a sustainable recovery. The result has been a capital strike, and the return of the fear from last year that we could face a far deeper downturn. This is no way to nurture a wounded economy back to health.

Listening to Mr. Obama and his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, on the weekend, we couldn't help but wonder if they appreciate any of this. They seem preoccupied with going to the barricades against Republicans who wield little power, or picking a fight with Rush Limbaugh, as if this is the kind of economic leadership Americans want.

Perhaps they're reading the polls and figure they have two or three years before voters stop blaming Republicans and Mr. Bush for the economy. Even if that's right in the long run, in the meantime their assault on business and investors is delaying a recovery and ensuring that the expansion will be weaker than it should be when it finally does arrive.
 
Poppycock and you know it.


The media and the pundits want an economic calamity years in the making to resolve itself in the first 45 days of the new American administration. By that standard, should Franklin Roosevelt be considered one of the great American presidents, as he commonly is today? As to the issue of the vagueness of certain President Obama's pronouncements, it may reasonably be argued that the uniqueness of present circumstances precludes specificity in all things and at all times. Was FDR any more specific in his first 100 days?  Didn't think so.
 
KingKikapu said:
Poppycock and you know it.

President Reagan was very specific throughout his time in office, and the results were quite clear:

Tracing the pre-Reagan "stagflation" produced by Nixon's price controls, Ford's WIN campaign and Carter's "voluntary" price guidelines, the author tracks how 1980s tax cuts and deregulation, combined with Federal Reserve chief Paul Volcker's inflation-curbing money controls, unleashed American enterprise and boosted national production 30% with a 20% rise in per capita income.

The irony is the book "The Seven Fat Years" recapping of the 1970's (culminating in Stagflation under President Carter) could apply quite handily now, and the massive growth that President Obama seems to be counting on is achievable; he only has to ditch the stimulus package, his budget proposals and his entire stated program (such as it is) of increasing State intervention in health care, energy, the auto sector and other areas of the economy and embrace massive tax cuts, deregulation of the economy as opposed to the malregulation that ruined the financial sector, and eliminate huge amounts of government spending, particularly porkulus and earmarks for the benefit of political rent seekers.

Given the historical examples, the program for the new administration in 2012 (or the Congress starting in 2010) is quite clear.

As for FDR, his reputation is secure as America's wartime President. Modern historiography is increasingly critical of how he handled the Great Depression (and indeed suggests the "New Deal" made the depression much longer and deeper than it might have been. The depth of the Depression was 1937, a figure which should cause a pause for thought since the Crash was in October 1929). Once again, history shows how FDR manipulated the public with effective demagoguery to deflect blame from his policies and make the public believe the efforts of the government were the only means to end the depression.
 
Plan ahead:

http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2009/03/05/what-are-your-plans-for-the-new-depression/

What are your plans for the new Depression?

I don’t know about you, but I’m thinking about laying in provisions for the coming Depression. (Selling my stock has already become irrelevant and, unlike others, I’m not planning to go John Galt. I’m just too instinctively entrepreneurial… too many years in Hollywood… for that. ).

Anyway, time to get to it because “time’s a-wasting.” According to James Pethokoukis in US News, the odds of a depression are already 40%. I think they may be bigger than that, but it’s all definitional, isn’t it? So time to get ready. One of the things I’m doing is reading Amity Shlaes’ The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression on my iPhone. (Yes, you read that correctly. It was either that or buy more bookshelves. I chose to download the new iPhone Kindle app and bought Shlaes’ book for $9.95 - I know, I’m already overspending, but, as an author, some things are sacred: meaning royalties.) Anyway, the book is terrific and, even though it must have been written before the arrival of the current administration, it contains many eerie and disturbing parallels between the mistakes of Hoover and Roosevelt and, now, Obama. What’s the old expression? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. What about fool me ten times?

In truth, I don’t have any plans. Like many of you, I assume, I had no real suspicion this would be coming - not in my lifetime anyway. Depressions were long gone, something that happened to my parents when they were young along with Prohibition and early Benny Goodman. And now to think my children may go through it in the prime of their lives. Well, it’s still nothing like fighting in World War II. I’m still a relative virgin.

But speaking of World War II, one of the most startling things I have read in the midst of all this madness is the story of a ninety-year old Madoff victim going back to work. This man has lived through the Great Depression and World War II. He, of all people, has a lot to tell us.
 
At the very least stockpile food,batteries,candles,ect. Seed companies are doing a booming business as people realize they cant eat flowers. There are $10 seed packs that will return over $600 in fresh food. I dont think there is a danger of a meltdown in Canada but in the US things could go pear shaped quickly. We lost over 700,000 jobs last month alone and that could snowball. Those of us on a fixed income are at risk as inflation or stagflation ignites. What is alarming to me is the evident lack of concern by the administration to the deteriorating economy its almost like they want to see a totsl meltdown to enact their socialist agenda at a rapid pace. Some democrats are starting to become concerned and may be able to put the brakes to Obama's plans. I wont hold my breath.
 
Perhaps Citi could learn from Brazil's Itaú?


Brazilians had something extra to celebrate at carnival this year — the relative health of the country’s financial system.

While investors have fled emerging markets, Brazilian banks have held up nicely compared with rivals in the United States and Europe. They might even be able to lend a hand, Breakingviews says.

Chief among the revelers is Banco Itaú. Fresh from its merger with Unibanco, the São Paulo-based bank has emerged as the biggest bank south of the Mexican border. The market value of its parent, at just around $28 billion, is nearly equal to the combined worth of Citigroup and Bank of America, the publication notes.

That doesn’t mean Itaú should buy a United States bank, Breakingviews says. But it puts it in pole position to fulfill its ambitions to become a regional powerhouse, it says. In recent years it acquired banks and opened branches in countries including Argentina, Uruguay and Chile. It also bought the Latin assets of Bank of Boston in a deal that gave that bank, later acquired by Bank of America, a stake in Itaú.


But its merger with a domestic rival, Unibanco, approved by regulators last month, has made it a more formidable force, rivaling not just regional players but also the Spanish banks, the publication says. These financial conquistadors, led by Santander, have tried to create pan-Latin franchises but struggled to make much headway in Brazil, Breakingviews says.

......

http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/05/citi-should-talk-to-brazils-itau/
 
Check out this post to see the sorry start of this entire

affair:http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2009/03/meltdown.html
 
The Chicago Tribune reported the median price of a home sold in Detroit in December was $7,500.
Regarding the homicide rate, Detroit mayoral candidate Stanley Christmas told the Detroit News recently, ""I don't mean to be sarcastic, but there just isn't anyone left to kill."
http://www.businessinsider.com/median-home-price-in-detroit-7500-2009-3

 
Fabius Maximus on the housing crisis. After reading one of the points in his analysis, it occured to me that a great and low cost way to resolve a lot of the interconnected problems would be to hire the unemployed to demolish foreclosed houses. The market would be cleared of a glut of houses, the banks would clear non performing assets from the balance sheet and there would be short term employment for people to ride out the recession. There must be enough empty housing units to keep people busy until 2010 or even 2012:

http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2009/03/09/housing-3/

The housing crisis allows America to look in the mirror. What do we see?
Filed under: Post-WWII era, end of — Tags: defaults, federal housing administration, financial crisis, housing crisis, mortgages, ooda loop, rent — Fabius Maximus @ 12:01 am

One of the most fascinating narrative threads on this site has been about the oversupply of homes (technically “housing units”).  This over-building of units is the key to the housing crisis, as has been evident for at least 2 or 3 years.  A surplus of anything leads to falling prices until the surplus disappears, one of the iron laws of economics.

Yet even now this is not understood by many Americans, hence the increasingly insane proposals to prop up home prices at levels Americans cannot afford.  But since we do not see the problem, we can neither treat it early nor effectively cope with it once it hits in full force.

This is yet another manifestation of what might be America’s core problem, as I said in Diagnosing the eagle, chapter I — the housing bust (6 November 2007):

Something is wrong with America, rendering our society incapable of connecting effectively to reality. The late USAF Colonel John Boyd described this as a process: Observe, Orient, Decide, and Act. (For a description of the OODA loop see this; for a discussion of Orientation see this post by Chet Richards.)

Who can tell what has caused this social illness, a form of cultural Alzheimer’s? The symptoms appear in many aspects of our national public policy — collective action in critical areas such as energy, geopolitics, and management of our economy.  We find it difficult to recognize large problems until they are upon us, and to discern causes and effects. Worse, often we cannot weigh the various short- and long-term factors to rationally decide how to respond, so we choose seemingly easy and fast solutions without bothering to perform the necessary research and analysis. And, perhaps as a result of this flawed process, we frequently find ourselves unable to competently implement whatever course of action we choose.

Rather than provide a theoretical analysis, I’ll show a few case studies. Here we look at the housing cycle. Just a normal business cycle, although driven to amazing heights by a combination of factors — all noted at the time, with these warnings ignored by both our ruling elites and the citizenry …

This post updates that analysis, unfortunately without changing the conclusions.

Contents

The problem is too many homes
Our foolish responses make the problem worse
The glut will disappear, one way or another
Another expression of the problem:  falling rents
Solutions
Afterword and where to go for more information

1.  The problem is too many homes

Approximately 15% of the housing units in the US were vacant in the 4th quarter (per the US Census).  That’s almost 18 million units.  In the 4th quarter of 1994 it was 10%; in the 4th quarter of 1998 it was 11%.

The factor that best predicts defaults is home equity.  Negative equity, usually from falling prices, means more defaults.  Many people will not make payments to the banks that do not build equity.  Payments as a too-large fraction of their income are a contributing but not primary factor (”too-large” either because the loan was too large or their income has dropped).  Overbuilding means falling prices, which means negative equity, which means more defaults.

The problem is spreading across America, but not evenly.  As always, some areas are far more affected.  Areas like California, Florida, Arizona, Nevada.  And Detroit:  “The median price of a home sold in Detroit in December was $7,500, according to Realcomp, a listing service.”  (from the Chicago Tribune)

Hard times make the problem worse as the number of households — and the number of units occupied — decreases.  As seen here:  “Job Losses, Credit Market Conditions Challenge The Apartment Sector“, National Multi Housing Council (NMHC), 15 January 2009 — Results of their January 2009 Quarterly Survey. Excerpt (bold emphasis added):

Once again, apartment firms are facing tough market conditions not of their making,” noted Mark Obrinsky, NMHC’s Chief Economist. “Earlier in the decade the bubble-induced rise in homeownership eroded apartment demand; now the economic and financial collapse caused by the bursting of that bubble is taking a toll.”

“The long-term prospects for the sector are strong,” explained Obrinsky. “The number of people between 20-34 years of age is rising rapidly, and as they enter the rental market, demand will rise correspondingly. For now, though, that demographic advantage is being trumped by the worsening job market, which is leading more people to move back in with family or take on roommates to save on housing costs.“

2.  Our foolish responses make the problem worse

First it was a subprime mortgage crisis. Then it was a crisis of exotic mortgages (subprime, Alt-A, option adjustable rate mortgages).  So the solution was to provide more and easier mortgage credit via the government-sponsored enterprises (FNMA, etc) and the Federal Housing Administration — and modify existing mortgages with easier terms (but not lower balances).  Both methods have failed utterly.

(a)  Modifications that reduce payments but not the balance do not work.  Here is one of a large body of reports about this:  “After three months, nearly 36 percent of the borrowers had re-defaulted by being more than 30 days past due. After six months, the rate was nearly 53 percent, and after eight months, 58 percent.”  (remarks by John C. Dugan, Comptroller of the Currency, 8 December 2008)

(b)  Easier credit (hair of the dog that bit us) does not help.  Again I’ll cite just one of a large body of evidence:  “The Next Hit: Quick Defaults“, Washington Post, 8 March 2009 — “More FHA-Backed Mortgages Go Bad Without a Single Payment”

But the subprime mortgage market has crashed and borrowers are flocking back to the FHA, which has become the only option for those who lack hefty down payments or stellar credit. The agency’s historic role in backing mortgages is more crucial now than at any time since its founding. With the surge in new loans, however, comes a new threat. Many borrowers are defaulting as quickly as they take out the loans. In the past year alone, the number of borrowers who failed to make more than a single payment before defaulting on FHA-backed mortgages has nearly tripled, far outpacing the agency’s overall growth in new loans, according to a Washington Post analysis of federal data.

… Once again, thousands of borrowers are getting loans they do not stand a chance of repaying. Only now, unlike in the subprime meltdown, Congress would have to bail out the lenders if the FHA cannot make good on guarantees from its existing reserves. And those once-robust reserves are showing signs of stress, raising the possibility that taxpayers may have to pick up the tab for the first time since the agency was established in 1934.

More than 9,200 of the loans insured by the FHA in the past two years have gone into default after no or only one payment, according to the Post analysis. The pace of these instant defaults has tripled in one year. By last fall, more than two dozen FHA home loans on average were defaulting this way every day, seven days a week.

The overall default rate on FHA loans is accelerating rapidly as well but not as dramatically as that of instant defaults.

The agency’s share of the mortgage market is up from 2% three years ago to nearly a third of the mortgages now made, its highest level in at least two decades, according to Inside Mortgage Finance, an industry trade publication. The FHA does not lend money directly. It provides mortgage insurance for borrowers working with FHA-approved lenders and uses the premiums to cover its losses. If the premiums are not enough, taxpayers could be on the hook.

At the same time, Congress has substantially increased the amount a homeowner can borrow on an FHA loan in pricey areas, thrusting the agency into markets it was previously shut out of, such as California, where plunging home prices have made people more vulnerable to foreclosure.

3.  The glut will disappear, one way or another

Economic problems are self-correcting in a system using free markets.  Oversupply of homes can only be absorbed in two ways, as I wrote in A vital but widely misunderstood aspect of our financial crisis (18 September 2008) I wrote about the core of the housing problem:

(1) Eventually our population will increase to fill these homes. But slowly.  Growth in the number of households occurs in two ways:

(a)  More children leaving home than households disappearing through combinations (children moving back, parents moving in with children) and death.  But in a recession the number of households shrinks as the latter exceeds the former.

(b)  Net migration into America.  Our slowing economy might already be slowing the rate of in-migration.  But a recession or political turmoil in Mexico might send floods of people north into America.

(2) Not so creative destruction:  housing units will be destroyed

Many vacant homes will be destroyed, the fast track to fixing this problem. Empty houses get vandalized, destroyed by the owners (spite or insurance fraud), occupied by squatters or meth labs, or wrecked by the forces of nature. In regions with net out-migration (e.g., Detroit) homes remain vacant for long periods, often abandoned by their owners (valueless but costly due to taxes and maintenance). As anyone familiar with the history of the South Bronx knows, empty homes act as an infectious blight that can devastate larger areas. After a decade or two, the result can look like Dresden after the bombing in 1945.

This was greeted in the comments with incredulous outrage, like telling a rural medieval priest that the Earth was not the center of the universe.  Sacrilege towards the true religion of America!  But even America has proven to be subject to the laws of economics.  Signs of a defective OODA loop in action, sounding like a car running with no oil.

Unfortunately this has all proved accurate, as seen in these two articles.  Hundreds more can be found on Google.

(a)  “As projects grind to a halt, home sites turn to wasteland“, Los Angeles Times, 4 March 2009 — Excerpt:

By day, it’s far too quiet at the site of a planned housing and retail development on a former Navy base in Oakland. At night, neighbors can hear the thieves come out. They rip out copper wire, haul away pipes and take anything else they can steal from dozens of buildings on the site, abandoned after Irvine developer SunCal Cos. fell victim to the economy.

It’s a scene not uncommon throughout California, as residential construction grinds to a halt under the dual weight of the credit crunch and the housing crisis: a rusty chain the only barrier between the community and a half-built structure in Hollywood; a bare dirt lot in Pasadena; old stoves amid the trash at the site in Oakland. “I hear hacking and see scary bonfires in the middle of the night,” said Don Johnson, a retired Coast Guard employee who lives near the defunct Oak Knoll Naval Medical Center in Oakland.

(b)  “Foreclosures mount, so do vacant Peoria homes“, Journal Star, 14 February 2009 — Excerpt:

Vacant, neglected houses were a city’s headache even before fear of foreclosure loomed over every block. They attract rodents, dumping, vandals, arson, theft of copper wiring and other problems expected to increase along with rising foreclosure rates. Beyond crime and demoralized neighbors, many cities are just beginning to realize how costly vacant properties can be - for homeowners and municipalities.

“It costs a lot, and not just in the obvious ways,” says Jennifer Leonard, director of the National Vacant Properties Campaign, a Washington, D.C.-based coalition charged with searching out the best new methods to prevent and/or reclaim and reuse vacant properties. Cities spend time and money on code inspections, yard clean-up, demolitions, and, in many cases, tracking down absentee owners. (Peoria charges homeowners for services. If officials don’t collect, they put a lien on the house.) But vacant houses can also drain resources from police, fire, health and legal departments.

In Peoria, include the animal welfare shelter on the list. Director Lauren Malmberg requires animal welfare workers to report vacant houses to the city’s code enforcement department. “We were tired of pulling animals out of them.” They become havens for raccoons, stolen dogs, stray dogs and worse. Malmberg encountered a vacant house on the south side, in the 1800 block of Widenham, that had become a center for dogfighting. “Graffiti of dogfighting was painted everywhere, inside and out. There were dog carcasses, blood and feces everywhere.”

Vacant properties can also contribute to higher insurance rates and lower property values of surrounding houses, which further depletes a city’s tax base. Though it’s commonly assumed that vacant properties equal unpaid property taxes, it’s difficult to know because many cities don’t do comprehensive inventories of vacant houses.

… The majority of Peoria’s 4,500 vacant housing units are concentrated in older neighborhoods … the 4,500-figure and subsequent vacancy rates are based on the U.S. Postal Service definition - houses that haven’t received mail in 90 days or more.

The code enforcement department’s figures on boarded-up houses give a clearer picture of the inherent flexibility of vacancy-related data. During 2008, a total of 217 properties were boarded up for various reasons. By year’s end, 74 had been brought into compliance by owners, 24 were demolished and 30 were going through the legal process for court-ordered demolition.

4.  Another expression of the problem:  falling rents

A surplus of housing units not only directly pushes down prices, but also pushes down rents — which depresses the value of housing to investors.  For more on this see:

“Housing downturn hits L.A.-area rents“, LA Times, 8 January 2008 — “Overbuilding and foreclosures add to supply of units as the recession limits what people can pay.”
“The Residential Rental Market“, Calculated Risk, 9 January 2009
“Stress Test House Price Scenarios“, Calculated Risk, 25 February 2009
“What If Rents Cliff Dive?“, Calculated Risk 26 February 2009
This also destroys more wealth in America, and adds to the banks’ woes:  “Apartment-Complex Developers Falling Behind On Loan Payments”, Dow Jones News, 12 January 2009 — Excerpt from Calculated Risk:

The rapid reversal of fortunes in commercial real estate is taking down yet another sector: multifamily housing.

… While sharp declines in retail and office sectors of commercial real estate have commanded attention in recent months, some analysts say deterioration in the multifamily sector is quickly catching up. … Much of the multifamily sector’s problems center around troubles in converting apartments to condominiums, as is the case in Miami, or the challenges in converting rent-controlled units to market-rate apartments, as in Manhattan.

In Florida, California, Arizona and Nevada, the flood of unsold condominiums is entering the apartment market and the excess supply is lowering rents in those areas, BarclaysCapital analysts say. That’s resulted in lower revenues for owners, which in some cases is making it more difficult to keep up with mortgage payments.

… In November, the delinquency rate on securitized loans to apartment and condominium properties rose to 1.9%, a dramatic jump from the 0.9% at the start of the year, according to Realpoint LLC …

5.  Solutions

The fire has spread, so that now the housing crisis is just one aspect of the global economic crisis.  Large-scale macroeconomic measures — probably international in nature — are all that can buffer the global depression.  That is, minimize the suffering during the downturn, and lay the foundation for a powerful enduring recovery afterwards.

6.  Afterword

Please share your comments by posting below.  Per the FM site’s Comment Policy, please make them brief (250 words max), civil, and relevant to this post.  Or email me at fabmaximus at hotmail dot com (note the spam-protected spelling).

For information about this site see the About page, at the top of the right-side menu bar.

7.  For more information from the FM site

To read other articles about these things, see the FM reference page on the right side menu bar.  Of esp interest are:

About Financial crisis - what’s happening? how will this end? (see section 7 for solutions)
About America - how can we reform it?
Posts about the housing crisis:

Diagnosing the eagle, chapter I — the housing bust, 6 December 2007
A vital but widely misunderstood aspect of our financial crisis, 18 September 2008 — Too many homes.
Destroying houses in order to boost home prices, 16 December 2008
Posts about America’s broken OODA loop:

News from the Front: America’s military has mastered 4GW!, 2 September 2007
The two tracks of discussion about the Iraq War, never intersecting, 10 November 2007
Another cycle down the Defense Death Spiral, 30 January 2008
Quote of the day: this is America’s geopolitical strategy in action, 26 February 2008
What do blogs do for America?, 26 February 2008
Everything written about the economic crisis overlooks its true nature, 24 February 2009
Posts about warnings of this crisis:

We have been warned. Death of the post-WWII geopolitical regime, 28 November 2007 — A long list of the warnings we have ignored, from individual experts and major financial institutions.
Making us dumber, chanting “Dude, where’s my recession?”, 3 June 2008 — Economic columnists do a disservice to their readers by ignoring the data showing a weakening economy.
Another warning from our leaders, which we will ignore, 4 June 2008 — An extraordinarily clear warning from a senior officer of the Federal Reserve.
When did “Dude” predict a recession? How severe?, 6 June 2008 — Why accurate economic forecasting is difficult, what we know about current conditions, and warnings from a top economist.
The most important news of the month. Perhaps the year., 29 September 2008 — Warnings from our foreign creditors.
 
tomahawk6 said:
Ya you could start by bulldozing Detroit's housing areas. :)

Or the entire US economy:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_hassett&sid=amhpOT5rlR1Y

‘Manchurian Candidate’ Starts War on Business:

Commentary by Kevin Hassett

March 9 (Bloomberg) -- Back in the 1960s, Lyndon Johnson gave us the War on Poverty. In the 1970s, Richard Nixon launched the War on Drugs. Now that we have seen President Barack Obama’s first-year legislative agenda, we know what kind of a war he intends to wage.

It is no wonder that markets are imploding around us. Obama is giving us the War on Business.

Imagine that some hypothetical enemy state spent years preparing a “Manchurian Candidate” to destroy the U.S. economy once elected. What policies might that leader pursue?

He might discourage private capital from entering the financial sector by instructing his Treasury secretary to repeatedly promise a brilliant rescue plan, but never actually have one. Private firms, spooked by the thought of what government might do, would shy away from transactions altogether. If the secretary were smooth and played rope-a-dope long enough, the whole financial sector would be gone before voters could demand action.

Another diabolical idea would be to significantly increase taxes on whatever firms are still standing. That would require subterfuge, since increasing tax rates would be too obvious. Our Manchurian Candidate would have plenty of sophisticated ideas on changing the rules to get more revenue without increasing rates, such as auctioning off “permits.”

These steps would create near-term distress. If our Manchurian Candidate leader really wanted to knock the country down for good, he would have to provide insurance against any long-run recovery.

There are two steps to accomplish that.

Discourage Innovation

First, one way the economy might finally take off is for some entrepreneur to invent an amazing new product that launches something on the scale of the dot-com boom. If you want to destroy an economy, you have to persuade those innovators not even to try.

Second, you need to initiate entitlement programs that are difficult to change once enacted. These programs should transfer assets away from productive areas of the economy as efficiently as possible. Ideally, the government will have no choice but to increase taxes sharply in the future to pay for new entitlements.

A leader who pulled off all that might be able to finish off the country.

Let’s see how Obama’s plan compares with our nightmare scenario.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has been so slow to act that even liberal economist and commentator Paul Krugman is criticizing the administration for “dithering.” It has gotten so bad that the Intrade prediction market now has a future on whether Geithner is gone by year’s end. It currently puts the chance of that at about 20 percent.

No More Deferral

On the tax hike, Obama’s proposed 2010 budget quite ominously signaled that he intends to end or significantly amend the U.S. practice of allowing U.S. multinationals to defer U.S. taxes on income that they earn abroad.

Currently, the U.S. has the second-highest corporate tax on Earth. U.S. firms can compete in Europe by opening a subsidiary in a low-tax country and locating the profits there. Since the high U.S. tax applies only when the money is mailed home, and firms can let the money sit abroad for as long as they want, the big disadvantage of the high rate is muted significantly.

End that deferral opportunity and U.S. firms will no longer be able to compete, given their huge tax disadvantage. With foreign tax rates so low now, it is even possible that the end of deferral could lead to the extinction of the U.S. corporation.

If any firms are to remain, they will be festooned with massive carbon-permit expenses because of Obama’s new cap-and- trade program.

Importing Drugs

Obama’s attack on intellectual property is evident in his aggressive stance against U.S. pharmaceutical companies in the budget. He would force drug companies to pay higher “rebate” fees to Medicaid, and he included wording that suggests Americans will soon be able to import drugs from foreign countries. The stock prices of drug companies, predictably, tanked when his budget plan was released.

Obama will allow cheap and potentially counterfeit substitutes into the country and will set the U.S. price for drugs equal to the lowest price that any foreign government is able to coerce from our drugmakers.

Given this, why would anyone invest money in a risky new cancer trial, or bother inventing some other new thing that the government could expropriate as soon as it decides to?

Finally, Obama has set aside $634 billion to establish a health-reform reserve fund, a major first step in creating a universal health-care system. If you want to have health care for everyone, you have to give it to many people for free. Once we start doing that, we will never stop, at least until the government runs out of money.

It’s clear that President Obama wants the best for our country. That makes it all the more puzzling that he would legislate like a Manchurian Candidate.

(Kevin Hassett, director of economic-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, is a Bloomberg News columnist. He was an adviser to Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona in the 2008 presidential election. The opinions expressed are his own.)

To contact the writer of this column: Kevin Hassett at khassett@aei.org
Last Updated: March 9, 2009 00:01 EDT
 
Manchurian candidate ? Say it aint so.  ;D

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-detroit-housingjan29,0,5435392.story

DETROIT — It may be tough to get financing for a new car these days, but in Detroit you can buy a house with a credit card.

The median price of a home sold in Detroit in December was $7,500, according to Realcomp, a listing service.

Not $75,000. Remove a zero—it's seven thousand five hundred dollars, substantially less than the lowest-price car on the new-car market.

Among the many dispiriting numbers that bleakly depict the decrepitude of this onetime industrial behemoth, the steep slide of housing values helps define the daunting challenge to anyone who wants to lead this shrinking, poverty-pocked city of about 800,000 people.



"We're always fighting ourselves out of a hole," said Wayne County Sheriff Warren Evans.

Despite the depth of the hole, Evans is running for mayor. In fact, he is one of 15 people who have raised their hands to be mayor of Detroit and fill the remaining months in office of the former mayor who now wears a green jumpsuit and resides in Evans' spartan house of justice, the Wayne County Jail.

Detroit has long been the snide remark and punch line to derogatory urban humor, and the conviction last fall of two-term Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick for lying about an extramarital affair with his chief of staff reinforced suspicions that Detroit is beyond help, let alone self-governance. But as the domestic auto industry, the city's principal private-sector employer and founding corporate father, seeks a financial bailout from Washington, formerly whispered remarks about the prospect of the nation's 11th-largest city being the first major American city to go bankrupt are now publicly discussed.

If the Obama administration is looking for a city to test new ideas for chronic urban problems, it can look to Detroit, a northern New Orleans without the French Quarter. While bedrock poverty in the Crescent City was violently laid bare by Hurricane Katrina in 2005, Detroit has been quietly slipping into social and economic crisis for 40 years. One-third of the population lives in poverty, and almost 50 percent of children are in poverty, according to data from the Detroit-Area Community Indicators System. Median household income has dropped 24 percent since 2000, according to the Census Bureau.

New York bond-rating houses this month lowered the city's bond rating to junk status, a lowly assessment shared by New Orleans and few others.

On a positive note, Detroit's homicide rate dropped 14 percent last year. That prompted mayoral candidate Stanley Christmas to tell the Detroit News recently, "I don't mean to be sarcastic, but there just isn't anyone left to kill."

Detroit voters will choose two candidates in a Feb. 24 primary who will face off in May. In the meantime, the city faces a projected budget deficit of at least $300 million, with no clear view on how to erase it. "If we don't get it right, we could be headed for a state takeover or receivership," warned Dave Bing, a mayoral candidate best known for draining jump shots for the Detroit Pistons back in the 1960s and '70s. At 64, Bing, a successful businessman, is running as the candidate of integrity in a city that, under Kilpatrick, had little.

Mayor Ken Cockrel Jr., who assumed the mayor's office by virtue of his being president of the City Council, promised he is "not going to let [receivership] happen."

Detroit, which has lost half its population in the past 50 years, is deceptively large, covering 139 square miles. Manhattan, San Francisco and Boston could, as a group, fit inside the city's boundaries. There is no major grocery chain in the city, and only two movie theaters. Much of the neighborhood economy revolves around rib joints, hot dog stands and liquor stores. The candidates travel around this sprawling city, some invoking the nostalgic era of Big Three dominance and vowing that Detroit can be great again.

Groups of them attend nearly unworkable faux debate forums about how they will solve the city's troubles, with responses to last no more than 60 seconds. Given the complexity of problems that defy sound-bite answers, their proposed solutions range from the predictable to the wacky:

More cops on the street.

Make high school graduation mandatory.

Grow your own food.

Bulldoze large stretches of the city and turn them into wind farms.

Procreate like there's no tomorrow.

Kilpatrick's election in 2001 lured Henry Hassan back to Detroit from Minnesota. Hassan, who opened a restaurant on the city's northwest side, said he was quickly disillusioned.

"You remember the riots in '67?" Hassan said, referring to the cataclysmic five days that left 43 dead and more than 2,000 buildings burned down. "It's a little worse than that right now. ... We need somebody to come in and care for the city more than they care for themselves."

The problem is more than a $300 million budget shortfall, said John Mogk, a professor at Wayne State University Law School.

"A thousand people are leaving the city every month," Mogk said, "and the city does not have the financial resources and the economic base to solve its own problems."

To be sure, progress has been made downtown: two new sports stadiums, a reinvigorated neighborhood around Wayne State and new lofts and casinos. But unlike Pittsburgh, which successfully reinvented itself after the decline of Big Steel, Detroit displays only islands of prosperity amid a dismal landscape. Neighborhoods have suffered, and foreclosures have aggravated the long-festering ill of abandoned homes.

"A lack of vision has held us back," said Nicholas Hood III, another mayoral candidate. "The auto industry was so dominant—too dominant—and we never prodded ourselves and the business community to a more expansive vision."

To the surprise of many in this overwhelmingly black city (82 percent), only 53 percent of registered voters turned out for November's presidential election, which featured the first African-American nominee. It wasn't long ago that a Democrat couldn't carry Michigan without a big turnout in Detroit. As it turned out, Detroit's votes didn't matter in the election.

"Detroit will never be the great industrial center again," said Kevin Boyle, a Detroit native and author of "Arc of Justice: A Saga of Race, Civil Rights and Murder in the Jazz Age."

"What will it look like?" Boyle said. "I don't know."

tmjones@tribune.com



E

 
More on the pension time bomb. Look at the financial planning skills of these fund managers. The prediction of massive inflation to diminish the value of the pensions looks spot on, only a legislature with steel will would refund the pensioner's contributions from the existing assets and reform as defined contribution plans:

http://www.chrismartenson.com/blog/looming-pension-disaster/14565

The Looming Pension Disaster
Saturday, March 7, 2009, 11:35 am, by cmartenson

As I’ve been writing about in the Martenson Reports over time, including the last one, one of the next shoes to drop is going to be a pension disaster. This too will be more easily measured in trillions than billions.

I am expecting a public pension wreck based on “management” so flawed as to cross over into gross negligence or worse.

March 3 (Bloomberg) -- The Chicago Transit Authority retirement plan had a $1.5 billion hole in its stash of assets in 2007. At the height of a four-year bull market, it didn’t have enough cash on hand to pay its retirees through 2013, meaning it was underfunded to the tune of 62 percent.

The CTA, which manages the second-largest public transit system in the U.S., had to hope for a huge contribution from the Illinois state legislature. That wasn’t going to happen.

Then the authority found an answer.

“We’ve identified the problem and a solution,” said CTA Chairman Carole Brown on April 16, 2007. The agency decided to raise money from a bond sale.

So far so good, eh? I mean especially if you don’t think about it too hard. After all, the only way a scheme to borrow money to plug a fiscal hole can work is if you are earning more from investing that cash that you are paying out in interest. Makes sense right?

Your investment gains have to exceed your interest costs or the scheme becomes a sure-fire money loser.

Well, here’s the punch line:

In the CTA deal, the fund borrowed $1.9 billion by promising to pay bondholders a 6.8 percent return. The proceeds of the bond sale, held in a money market fund, earned 2 percent -- 70 percent less than what the fund was paying for the loan.

Wow. I am speechless. That was the "plan"?

Borrow at 6.5% and earn 2%?

This is an unfortunately accurate illustration of the type of “talent” with which many state pensions have been saddled.

New Jersey did the same thing under Governor Whitman except they borrowed money in 1997 and plowed that borrowed money into stocks with a uniquely horrible sense of timing. New Jersey residents will be paying for that fiscal nightmare for a long, long time.  From the same article as above:

New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine, a former co-chief executive officer of Goldman Sachs, has proposed allowing government pension funds to put off half their pension contributions because of the state’s growing deficit during the recession.

Corzine’s suggestion follows a recent New Jersey pension track record of mistakes. When the state’s pensions were healthy in the 1990s, the state legislature eliminated nearly all of its annual pension contributions for almost a decade, while adding $4.6 billion of benefits.

New Jersey sold $2.75 billion of pension bonds in July 1997. Then-Governor Christine Todd Whitman said at the time that the bonds would save taxpayers $47 billion and make the system fully funded. “You’d be crazy not to have done this,” Whitman said in a Bloomberg News interview in June 1997. “It’s not a gimmick. This is an ongoing benefit to taxpayers.”

Whitman’s prediction hasn’t held up. While the state pays pension bondholders a fixed 7.64 percent interest rate, the fund has earned 4.8 percent annualized since the bond sale, according to Tom Bell, spokesman for the New Jersey Treasury Department.

Now here’s the way that the pension issue gets away from the planners mighty quick. A pension takes money in and then invests it and uses actuarial assumptions (about life expectancy, etc) to estimate how much the fund needs to be “fully funded”.

What the other pensions do is they assume a “rate of return” on the funds. This means that a fund that is earning a 10% return needs a lot less cash to be put in over time than a fund that is earning 5%. As students of the exponential function you now know that even a small percentage gap over time can quickly morph into an untreatable monster.

Meet the monster

Typically, pension funds put 60 percent of their assets in stocks, 30 percent in bonds, 5 percent in real estate and the rest in riskier investments.

Yesterday, we found out that over the past 30 years, the long bond has beaten stocks

Buying 30-year Treasuries is returning more than stocks for the first time since Jimmy Carter was president.

For three decades, owning equities in developed countries earned more than “on-the-run” 30-year government bonds. The advantage reversed after $36 trillion was erased from equity markets since October 2007 amid the first simultaneous recessions in the U.S., Europe and Japan since World War II.

The Ryan Labs Total Return Indices, which track bonds by continually adding the most recently sold security and removing the old one, returned 1,479 percent in 30 years. It beat MSCI’s Gross World index of buying developed market stocks and reinvesting dividends, which added 1,265 percent. “Over the last 30 years there’s been no risk premium,” said Douglas Cliggott, manager of the $81 million Dover Long/Short Sector Fund, which has beaten 92 percent of its peers this year. “It’s potentially earth shattering because the equity market hasn’t delivered the goods.”

This is actually a fairly important bit of information that deserves to be contemplated by investors everywhere separately from the issue of pensions, but it makes an important point here as well.

Namely, it means that the assumed rates of return for all pensions, public and private, have largely been flawed over the past 30 years.

This is really a staggering insight.

So what are the assumed rates of return for public pensions?

Actuaries consistently permit public pension funds to report artificially high expected rates of return -- most often 8 percent and as much as 8.75 percent. That’s more than the 6.9 percent billionaire investor Warren Buffett sets for his Omaha, Nebraska-based Berkshire Hathaway Inc.’s pension fund. “Public pension promises are huge and, in many cases, funding is woefully inadequate,” Buffett wrote in his 2008 letter to shareholders. “Because the fuse on this time bomb is long, politicians flinch from inflicting tax pain, given that the problems will only become apparent long after these officials have departed.”

Determining how much expected rates of return should be isn’t complicated, says Rowe, who oversees Texas pension funds.

“Why do they choose high expected rates of return?” he says. “The only reason is to sneak through promising a lot to pensioners -- which means worrying about it later. It’s madness.”

As long as the “perpetual growth machine” is chugging along, all of the collective assumptions about pensions more or less work out according to plan. But what happens when a model predicated on exponential expansion not only expands, but retreats?

Well, this is pretty much of an actuarial and financial disaster of biblical proportions. Here’s an example:

The nation’s largest public pension fund, California Public Employees’ Retirement System, has been reporting an expected rate of return of 7.75 percent for the past eight years, and 8 percent before that, according to Calpers spokesman Clark McKinley.

Its annual return during the decade from Dec. 31, 1998, to Dec. 31, 2008, has been 3.32 percent, and last year, when markets tanked, it lost 27 percent.

At its height in October 2007, CalPERS had $260 billion in assets and at the end of 2008 it had $186 billion. Based on the stock market performance this year, we might estimate that CalPERs is now worth somewhere in the vicinity of $140 to $150 billion.

How long would it take CalPERS to “get even”? Well, ignoring inflation, even if we use their extremely generous and woefully unmet assumed rate of return of 7.75% it would take between 8 and 9 years, and that’s assuming that cash in meets cash out the entire time.

If we use their actual 10 year performance as a rate of return, then it’s a 20 year haul to climb back to even, again ignoring inflation.

The monster is the power of compounding working in reverse instead of forward gear.

What does this mean?

Among the many wrenching adjustments that we are just now beginning to face, state legislators must now include a trillion dollar pension shortfall to the list of things that must be negotiated. A government retirement plan can’t go bankrupt, even if it’s insolvent; state treasuries must put up the money if a fund runs dry.

So we are now facing the first actual set of hard choices in several generations. Choices that increasing look like they can no longer be passed to the future. The future is here, it has arrived. Will states decide to pay their retirement obligations, pave roads, educate children, or feed the hungry? These are the choices that now sit before us and I remain skeptical that we will successfully borrow our way out of the predicament this time.

It would seem that decades of intellectually weak and fiscally negligent political leadership has finally caught up with us.

The pain of this adjustment is going to send up a mighty hue and cry from the populace and politicians alike and the response, I fear, will be the same as it always is; print more money.

That is the weak and easy road to take, and so, with history as our guide, we can be nearly 100% sure that our leadership will follow that route as certainly as water will seek a drain. 

 
Back
Top