|
Sorting Through
The Rubble in Post-Bubble America
By Mike Whitney
07/03/08 "ICH"
- - - “Market conditions are the worst anyone in this
industry can ever remember. I don't think anyone has a
recollection of a total disappearance in liquidity...There are
billion of dollars worth of assets out there for which there is
just no market.” Alain Grisay, chief executive officer of
London-based F&C Asset Management Plc; Bloomberg News
The hurricane that began with
subprime mortgages, has swept through the credit markets
wreaking havoc on municipal bonds, hedge funds, complex
structured investments, and agency debt (Fannie Mae). Now the
first gusts from the Force-5 gale are touching down in the real
economy where the damage is expected to be widespread. The Labor
Department reported on Friday that US employers cut 63,000 jobs
in February, the biggest monthly decline in five years. The cut
in payrolls added to the 22,000 jobs that were lost in January.
52,000 jobs were cut in manufacturing, while 331,000 have been
lost in construction since September 2006.
The Labor Department also
reported on Wednesday that worker productivity slowed
significantly in the last quarter of 2007. When productivity is
off; labor costs go up which adds to inflationary pressures.
That makes it harder for the Fed to lower rates to stimulate the
economy without inviting the dreaded “stagflation”---slow growth
and rising prices.
The news on commercial
construction is equally bleak. The Wall Street Journal reports:
“For the second month in a row,
the Commerce Department reported a decline in spending on
nonresidential construction -- which includes everything from
hospitals to office parks to shopping malls....Signs of trouble
cropped up at the end of the year. As credit markets tightened,
office space sold in the fourth quarter dropped 42% from a year
earlier, and sales of large retail properties declined 31%, says
Real Capital Analytics, a New York real-estate research
group....If spending continues to slow, construction workers,
who are reeling from the housing slowdown, face more layoffs.”
(“Building Slowdown Goes Commercial”, Wall Street Journal)
Commercial real estate is the next
shoe to drop. There's a tremendous oversupply of retail space
nationwide and the bloodletting has just begun. Builders have
continued to put up shopping malls and office buildings even
though residential real estate has gone off a cliff. Now the
battered banks will have to repossess thousands of empty
buildings in strip malls with no chance of leasing them out in
the near future. It's a disaster . From December 2007 to January
2008 spending on commercial construction took its steepest drop
in 14 years. The sudden downturn is adding more and more people
to the unemployment lines.
So, what does it all mean?
Unemployment is up, productivity is down, inflation is
increasing, the dollar is underwater, commercial real estate is
in the tank and the country is sliding inexorably into
recession.
THE DEEPEST AND MOST RAPID
DOWNSWING SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION
As for the housing market:
“Housing is in its "deepest,
most rapid downswing since the Great Depression," the chief
economist for the National Association of Home Builders said
Tuesday, and the downward momentum on housing prices appears to
be accelerating.
"Housing is in a major contraction
mode and will be another major, heavy weight on the economy in
the first quarter," said David Seiders, the NAHB's chief
economist.” (“Rapid Deterioration”, MarketWatch)
Home sales are down 65% from their
peak in 2005. Inventory is stacked a mile-high. Vacant homes now
number about 2 million; an increase of 800,000 since 2005.
Demand is weak and prices are plummeting. It's all bad.
Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve and the Bush administration are
scrambling to devise a plan that will keep homeowners from
packing it in altogether and walking away from their mortgages.
But what can they do? Will they really write-down the principle
on the mortgages like Bernanke recommends and face years of
litigation from bond holders who bought mortgage-backed
securities under different terms? Or will they simply allow the
market to clear and send 2 million homeowners into foreclosure
in 2008 alone?
The deflating housing bubble is
finally being felt in the broader economy. Home equity is
vanishing which is putting downward pressure on consumer
spending and shrinking GDP. Also, the dollar is at historic
lows, and an intractable credit crunch has left the financial
markets in disarray. Experts are now predicting that consumer
spending won't rebound until housing prices stop falling which
could be late into 2009. When Japan experienced a similar
credit/real estate meltdown; it took more than a decade to
recover. There's no reason to believe that the present crisis
will unwind any faster.
On Friday, banking giant USB
estimated that credit woes would end up costing financial
institutions $600 billion, three times more than their original
estimate of $200 billion. But USB's forecast does not take into
account the $6 trillion of lost home equity if housing prices
fall 30% in the next two years. (which is very likely) Nor does
it account for the potential losses in the structured finance
market where $7.8 trillion of loans (which are presently in
“pooled securities”) have gone into a deep-freeze. There's no
way of knowing how much capital will be drained from the system
by the time all of this plays out, but if $7 trillion was lost
in the dot.com bust, then it should greatly exceed that figure.
The housing bubble was entirely
avoidable. It was the policies of the Federal Reserve which made
it inevitable. By fixing interest rates below the rate of
inflation for almost 3 years, Greenspan ignited speculation in
housing and created a false perception of prosperity. In truth,
it was nothing more than asset-inflation through the expansion
of debt. The Fed's actions were complimented by repeal of
regulatory legislation which prevented the commercial banks from
dabbling in securities trading. Once the laws were changed, the
banks were free to peddle their mortgage-backed securities to
investors around the world. (A-rated mortgage-backed bonds are
currently fetching just 13% of their face value!) Now, those
sketchy bonds are blowing up everywhere leaving large parts of
the financial system dysfunctional.
As investors continue to run away
from anything remotely connected to mortgages; the price of
risk, as measured by the spread on corporate bonds, has
skyrocketed. In fact, investors are even shunning overextended GSEs
like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. As the number of foreclosures
continues to soar, the aversion to risk will intensify
triggering a savage unwinding of leveraged bets in the hedge
funds as well as a wider paralysis in the financial markets.
There's absolutely no doubt now that the storm that is currently
ripping through the financials will soon bring Wall Street to
its knees. It may be a good time to remember that on March 24,
2000, the NASDAQ peaked at 5048. On October 9, 2002 it
bottomed-out at 1114; a loss of nearly 80%. Could it happen
again?
You bet. Expect to see the Dow hugging 7,000 by year end.
The Wall Street Journal ran an article on Tuesday which outlined
how the banks changed standards at the Basel meetings in
Switzerland to give them greater autonomy in deciding issues
that should have been governed by strict regulations:
“Some of the world's top bankers spent nearly a decade designing
new rules to help global financial institutions stay out of
trouble...Their primary tenet: Banks should be given more
freedom to decide for themselves how much risk they should take
on, since they are in a better position than regulators to make
that call.” (“Mortgage Fallout Exposes Holes in New Bank-risk
Rules”, Wall Street Journal)
It is
a classic case of the foxes deciding they should oversee the
hen-house.
The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision is an industry-led
group comprised of the central bank governors from the G-10
countries; Belgium, Canada, France, Italy, Japan, the
Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, Britain and the US. Basel is
supposed to establish the rules for maintaining sufficient
capitalization for banks so that depositors are protected. But
it's a sham. It appears to be more focused on maintaining US and
European dominance over the developing world and making sure the
levers of financial power stay in the manicured paws of western
banking mandarins.
Now that the financial system is in terminal distress; many
people are questioning the wisdom of handing over so much power
to organizations that don't operate in the publics interest.
Thomas Jefferson anticipated this scenario and issued a warning
about the perils of abdicating sovereignty to unelected,
profit-oriented bankers. He said:
“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the
issue of our currency, first by inflation, then by deflation,
the banks and the corporations that will grow up will deprive
the people of all property until their children wake up homeless
on the continent their fathers conquered.”
Even though the nation is stumbling towards an economic
hard-landing; the banks are still only interested in finding a
way to save themselves. Last week, the New York Times revealed a
“confidential proposal” from Bank of America to members of
Congress asking the US government to guarantee $739 billion in
mortgages that are at “moderate to high risk” of defaulting to
save the banks from potential losses. Yesterday, Rep. Barney
Frank--operating in the interests of his banking
constituents--made an appeal in the House of Representatives on
this very issue, saying that congress should consider buying up
some of these sinking mortgages to help struggling homeowners.
But why should the taxpayer pay for the mistakes of
privately-owned banks; especially when those banks have been
bilking the public out of billions of dollars through the sale
of worthless subprime securities?
The Fed has already lowered the Fed Funds rate by 2.25 basis
points to 3% (more than a full-point below the current rate of
inflation) to help the banks recoup some of their losses from
their bad bets. Bernanke has also opened a Temporary Auction
Facility (TAF), which allows the banks to use mortgage-backed
securities (MBS) and other structured investments as collateral
at 85% their face-value.(even though the bonds are only worth
pennies on the dollar on the open market) So far, the TAF has
secretly loaned out $75 billion to capital-depleted banks, which
Bernanke thinks is a positive development. By why is the Fed
chief encouraged by the fact that the country's largest
investment banks need to borrow billions of dollars at bargain
rates just to stay solvent? The truth is that many of the
banks are just padding their flagging balance sheets so they can
scour the planet looking for investors to buy parts of their
franchises.
On Tuesday, Bernanke addressed the Independent Community of
Bankers of America exhorting them to take whatever steps are
required to keep homeowners with negative equity from walking
away from their mortgages. Along with the proposed “rate freeze”
on adjustable rate mortgages (ARMs); the Fed chief also
suggested that the lenders lower the principle on the mortgages
to entice homeowners to keep making nominal payments on their
loans. But, clearly, foreclosure is the wisest choice for many
homeowners who may otherwise be chained to an asset of steadily
declining value for the rest of their lives. Homeowners should
base their decisions on what is in their best long-term
financial interests, just as the bankers would do. If that means
walking-away, then that is what they should do. The homeowner is
in no way responsible for the problems deriving from the
subprime/securitization scam. That was entirely the work of the
bankers.
The FDIC has begun to increase staff at many of its regional
offices to deal with the anticipated rash of bank failures in
states hardest hit by the housing bust. California, Florida and
parts of the southwest will definitely need the most attention.
These states are undergoing a housing depression and many of the
smaller banks which issued the mortgages and commercial real
estate loans are bound to get hammered. They simply do not have
the capital cushion to withstand the tsunami of defaults and
foreclosures that are coming. Depositors should make sure that
all their savings are covered under FDIC rules; no more than
$100,000 per account. Money markets are not insured.
Also, the G-7 nations announced last week that if “irrational”
price movements persist, they would “collectively take suitable
measures to calm the financial markets”. The group added that
they would conduct their activities secretively for maximum
effect. Consider how desperate the situation must really be for
G-7 finance ministers to issue a public warning that they are
planning to intervene in the market to prevent a calamity. This
is stunning. The group did not specify whether they were talking
about propping up the stumbling greenback or buying up futures
in the equities markets like a global Plunge Protection Team.
Nevertheless, their comments add to the growing perception that
things are out of control and deteriorating quickly.
INFLATION vs. DEFLATION
With oil, gold and food prices soaring, the Fed has been roundly
criticized for cutting rates and risking further erosion to the
value of the dollar. (This morning the dollar fell to $1.53 on
the euro!) But Bernanke is right; the real danger is deflation.
We are at the beginning of a consumer-led recession;
characterized by weakening demand, lack of personal savings,
declining asset-values (particularly homes) and
over-indebtedness. The Fed's increases to the money supply via
low interest rates will not effect the dramatic economic
slowdown that will be evident within the year. Trillions of
dollars of derivatives, over-leveraged subprime assets and
otherwise bad bets are all unwinding at the same time draining
an ocean of virtual capital from the economy. If credit keeps
getting destroyed at the present pace, the country will be in
the grips of a depression-like slump by 2009. The Wall Street
Journal's Greg Ip puts it like this in his article “For the Fed,
a Recession—Not Inflation—Poses Greater Threat”:
“So why is the Fed more worried about growth than inflation?
First, it thinks run-ups in commodity prices explain the
increases, not only in overall inflation but also in core
inflation: higher energy costs have "passed through" to other
goods and services. Core inflation rose and fell with energy
inflation between early 2006 and mid-2007, and the Fed thinks
the same thing is probably happening now. If energy and food
prices stop rising -- they don't have to actually fall -- both
overall and core inflation should recede.
Ip continues: “Fed officials don't think the latest jump (in
food and energy) can be justified by fundamental supply and
demand....A more likely explanation, investors perhaps alarmed
by the Fed's dovish stance, are pouring money into commodity
funds and foreign currencies as a hedge against inflation.
...But speculative price gains can't be sustained if the
fundamentals don't support them. If the Fed and the futures
markets are right, prices will be lower, not higher, a year from
now.”
Bernanke is right on this point. Temporary price increases are
not the result of shortages, increased production costs, or
fundamentals, but speculation. In fact, demand for petroleum
products has been down by 3.4% over the last four weeks compared
to the same time last year, which means that prices will
probably drop steeply once the commodities frenzy runs out of
steam. Investors are simply looking for somewhere to put their
money rather than in shaky corporate bonds or overpriced
equities. Commodities are the logical alternative. But as soon
as consumer spending stalls; all asset-classes will fall
accordingly, including gold and oil. (And, yes, the dollar
should recover some lost-ground, however temporary)
Many analysts believe oil's rally will be short-lived. Falling
demand for overall petroleum products, which was down 3.4
percent over the last four weeks compared to the same time last
year, suggest prices could drop steeply once the dollar-driven
oil investment frenzy runs out of steam, analysts said.
THE RECESSION AHEAD: Cyclical downturn or post-bubble recession?
An article in the New York Times by Morgan Stanley's Asia
chairman, Stephen Roach, states that the country is not in a
cyclical downturn, but post-bubble recession. There is a big
difference. The Fed's interest rate cuts and Bush's “Stimulus
Plan” are unlikely to stop housing prices from continuing to
fall nor will they miraculously fix the problems in the credit
markets. The massive expansion of credit in the last 6 years has
created a $45 trillion derivatives balloon that could implode or
just partially unwind. No one really knows. And no one really
knows how much damage it will cause to the global financial
system. Stay tuned.
Roach notes that the recession of 2000 to 2001 was a collapse of
business spending which only represented a 13% of GDP. Compare
that to the current recession which “has been set off by the
simultaneous bursting of property and credit bubbles.... Those
two economic sectors collectively peaked at 78 percent of gross
domestic product, or fully six times the share of the sector
that pushed the country into recession seven years ago.”
Not
only will the impending recession be six times more severe; it
will also be the death-knell for America's consumer-based
society. Attitudes towards spending have already changed
dramatically since prices on food and fuel have increased. That
trend will only grow as hard times set in.
Roach adds: “For asset-dependent, bubble-prone economies, a
cyclical recovery — even when assisted by aggressive monetary
and fiscal accommodation — isn’t a given....Washington
policymakers may not be able to arrest this post-bubble
downturn. Interest rate cuts are unlikely to halt the decline in
nationwide home prices...Aggressive interest rate cuts have not
done much to contain the lethal contagion spreading in credit
and capital markets.
A
more effective strategy would be to try to tilt the economy away
from consumption and toward exports and long-needed investments
in infrastructure...Fiscal initiatives should be directed at
laying the groundwork for future growth, especially by upgrading
the nation’s antiquated highways, bridges and ports.” (“Double,
Bubble Trouble” Stephen Roach, New York Times)
The Federal Reserve and Washington policymakers are still stuck
in the past trying to revive consumer spending by creating
another equity bubble with low interest rates and their $600 per
person “stimulus” giveaways. This is the wrong approach and its
bound to fail. The Greenspan era is over. Let's put it to rest
once and for all. No more bubbles. No more phony debt-generated
prosperity. No more over-leveraged, complex Ponzi-scams that end
in tragedy. Roach points the way forward; invest in
infrastructure and environmentally-friendly technologies,
rebuild the economy from the ground up, reestablish fiscal
sanity and minimize deficit spending, put America back to work
making things that people use and that improve society, and (as
Roach says) “help the innocent victims of the bubble’s aftermath
— especially lower- and middle-income families”. And, most
importantly, abolish the Federal Reserve and give the control of
our money back to our elected representatives in Congress. That
is the only way to put America's economic future back in the
hands of the people.
That's a plan we can all get behind. It's time to split the new
wood and start fresh.
Bravo, Stephen
Click on "comments" below to read or post comments
Comment Guidelines
Be succinct, constructive and
relevant to the story.
We encourage engaging, diverse
and meaningful commentary. Do not include
personal information such as names, addresses,
phone numbers and emails. Comments falling
outside our guidelines – those including
personal attacks and profanity – are not
permitted.
See our complete
Comment Policy
and
use this link to notify us if you have concerns
about a comment.
We’ll promptly review and remove any
inappropriate postings.
Send Page To a Friend
In accordance
with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational
purposes. Information Clearing House has no
affiliation whatsoever with the originator of
this article nor is Information ClearingHouse
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
|