Posts Tagged ‘credit’

Federal Reserve’s Scary Math

Thursday, December 10th, 2009

In the early 1980’s mortgage rates where above 14% and other debt carried an even higher rates of interest. During the early 1980’s, banks required most home buyers to put down 20% and have spotless credit. For example if a buyer purchased a home for $125,000 he or she would more than likely need to put $25,000 down (20%) and the monthly principle and interest payment at 14% would be $1184.87.

Over the past 25 plus years, rates on mortgages and most debt have fallen considerably. The cause of this decrease in rates is mostly attributed to the Federal Reserve’s action of lowering rates and raising rates to control inflation in the US economy. Clearly the Federal Reserve has viewed the past 2 plus decades as having relatively low inflation thereby lowing more than raising rates (Fed Funds Rate).

Lowering rates more than raising them creates cheaper costs of borrowing thereby making room for more. This cheap money also creates more of a demand for credit. This excessive credit demand led to fierce competition among banks. Competition is definitely a good thing until demand starts to wane. As soon as the credit demand let up this led to banks acting as their own Federal Reserves by creating products that artificially lowered the cost of lending thereby stimulating borrowing.

Most home buyers view a home purchase not by the sales price, but by the down payment and monthly obligation. Now let’s look at the buyer from the early 1980’s with he or she’s $25,000 to put down and the ability to afford $1184.87 monthly payment. This buyer today could afford a $225,000 home with $25,000 down with $1183.08 monthly principle and interest payment with an interest rate of 5.875% and relaxed down payment restrictions. Identical down payments and same monthly, but twice the debt, was the growth in value or debt?

This rather rapid reduction in the cost of money over the past two plus decades has led to an equal increase in the price of cars, education, utilities, etc. Inflation seems to have been masked in credit. The credit markets in the US and around the world nearly collapsed because they had “maxed out their credit”. With the rapid expansion of debt at the end of the road with the Fed Funds rate at 0 to .25% target and lending rates increasing because of diminishing credit quality (except for mortgages because the Federal Reserve is supporting the rates), what’s next? Deflation?

Wringing out the Credit

Monday, December 7th, 2009

Last year the world markets suffered a massive trauma that crippled most financial institutions. This trauma, led to; the US government to taking over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, form the ever popular TARP fund, the Federal Reserve to reduce the Fed Funds rate to 0 to .25%, President Obama to pass a near $800 billion stimulus and many more multi-billion (probably trillions) dollar actions.

This trauma was caused by a bubble in the credit markets. America and the world essentially took on too much debt. The US and most of the world have attempted to solve this crisis by filling the credit and demand gaps with stimulus and cheap money.

GDP in the 3rd quarter did showed its first positive growth (2.8%, revised down from the 3.5% first estimated) quarter of quarter since the 2nd quarter 2008. Most of the US consumption growth (in GDP) has been attributed to the Government’s cash for clunkers program and the first time homebuyer tax credit (along with the Federal Reserve supporting low mortgage rates). The “cheap money” has reduced the value of the US dollar thereby improving exports, which also has spurred some growth in the US GDP.

The question still remains whether government stimulus and cheap money can truly carry us over the hump. Most of this growth has come at the expense of more credit and reduced buying power. Matter of fact, most the Government’s programs seem to have targeted the only individuals left who had room to expand their credit. Who owns a car worth less than $4000 and typically is a first time home buyer? These programs look to have wrung out the credit from the last remaining source in the US economy, the youth, our future.

What happens when the credit towel is dry?

The Straw that Could Break the Camel’s Back

Thursday, November 26th, 2009

The US Government and Wall Street have declared an end to the worst of this financial crisis that has plagued the world for so long. Is it really over, have we crossed the worst of it?

I am reminded of a common movie scene where the characters are climbing up a mountain to get to safety only to find a seemingly endless set of mountain ranges. The risk with declaring an end may be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. Can we take the double dip? What happens to the US consumer if there is another bout of mass layoffs.

There is no short of predictions for the future equally positive and negative. The current momentum seems to rest much of the world recovery on emerging markets and a weak dollar. Stimulus in the US has failed to create a meaningful impact on unemployment and the credit market has shrunk even with the massive bailouts last year. The US housing market has been kept on life support with government supported interest rates and tax rebates. My real concern is that nothing that has been done really is sustainable. Over the past year the US government has thrown money at everyone but its tax payers. Maybe the real solution is to let us spend our own money and when I say “us” I mean everyone regardless of income.

Interesting that Washington DC over the past years seems to have become just as disconnected to Main Street as Wall Street. Has Wall Street moved into Washington? Over the past year I have had discussions with many people who have lost their jobs or had a pay cuts, not one of them ever mentioned healthcare as a major problem right now.

Happy Thanksgiving! The Emerging Market of Dubai’s possible credit problems may give a new meaning to Black Friday or just another straw on the camel’s back.

Was it Real Growth or just Credit? The Last 30 Years

Sunday, March 29th, 2009

The following two charts are disturbingly similar side by side:


First is the Dow Industrial Average over the last from 1928 till 2006:

Dow Industrial Average 1928 till 2006

Dow Industrial Average 1928 till 2006

The second chart is total US debt as a percentage of GDP from 1923 till 2006:

Percentage of Total US debt to GDP

Percentage of Total US debt to GDP 1923 till 2006

In 1930 the total percentage of US debt to GDP was 270%. What this means that for every dollar of GDP there was $2.70 of debt. Notice the percentage soared as debt was accelerated and GDP was slowed in the early 30’s. This over expansion of credit was primarily responsible for the financial crisis of the 1930’s. It took many years for the population to forget about the dangers of too much credit.

In 2006 the total percentage of debt to US debt to GDP was 331%. So again this means that for every dollar of GDP there was $3.31 of debt. The overall consensus feels that we are again in process of deleveraging. The questions remains is where we stop.

The real question is what came first the credit or the growth? Was the United Sates at a standstill from the 1940’s till the mid to late 1970’s? If the country was not willing to assume more debt than about 150% (plus or minus say 10%) of GDP for some 30+ years and now we are assuming over 300%, was it that extra assumed risk what launched the economy over the past 30 years ?

I understand that over the past 30 years there has been great innovation, but let us not forget that in the previous 30+ years we went to the moon. It seems to me also that much of the technology over that past 30 years can greatly be attributed to the 30 years prior to that. Was the growth over that past 30 years attributed to Engineers and Scientists or some funny math created by financial institutions spurred by an increased appetite for risk?

What Does a Market “Bottom” Look Like?

Friday, March 20th, 2009

If you watch any of the popular business networks on cable you will hear one word more than most, “bottom”. The term is used so frequently you could play a drinking game where every time says “bottom” you drink, I would imagine you would collapse after about an hour of playing the game.
So what does a bottom look like and why is everyone so anxious to make the call. Here are a couple of bubble market bottoms. One major distinction with these bottoms is that they encompass a full index.

nasdaq-bubble
The above is the NASDAQ from the late 1990’s to the early 2000’s. We all remember (well most of us) the hype that engulfed the technology sector that launched the NASDAQ to nearly 5000. The reason the NASDAQ reflects the bubble so well is because most technology stocks that were pumped up to extraordinary heights reside on the NASDAQ exchange. Notice that after the bottom was attained that the index did not rebound in weeks, it was slow and steady. If you had tried to buy as the knife was falling you may still be underwater today. Remember the NASDAQ only recovered to about half of its glory before the latest debacle.

dow-bubble-1930

The above is a chart of the Dow Industrial Average from the late 1920’s to early 1930’s. The bubble that burst in the late 1920’s is commonly agreed to be caused by a credit collapse (the world’s economies where in a similar dire straits as the US at that time, sound familiar). Since the US economy is based on expansion and contraction of credit, the Dow Industrial average is a good reflection of the pain felt by the US Industries. Again after the bottom is attained the rebound is slow and steady. Also if you attempted to catch this falling knife it could have been costly. Remember the Dow Industrial average did not return to its lofty heights of 1929 till the mid 1950’s.

My opinion is that the bottom will not feel like an opportunity, it will be a hard decision. You will be a minority among your peers and family when buying in.

Killing the World Economies with Money

Thursday, March 19th, 2009
Ben Bernanke US Federal Reserve Chairman

Ben Bernanke US Federal Reserve Chairman

Okay so our beloved fed reserve chairman has come up with a brilliant way of killing the rest of the world economies, at least until they catch up. So what happens when you are the largest consumer in the world and you try your hardest to kill the value of your currency? Well you manage to make the life of countries that live off you harder. I call this protectionism, devaluing your currency in the face of a world recession is a real low blow to those countries that depend on you for your consumption. Now the other side of the coin is that large USA companies will benefit in the short term (a little protectionism), but what happens when those foreign economies you’ve damaged find their recession deepening because of currency exchange. Well large US companies, who receive a significant source of their revenue from overseas, will start to suffer on softening foreign sales.

The actions the Federal Reserve took yesterday are intentioned to expand credit in the United States, but isn’t that what started the problem in the first place. To me it seems like our Government can’t give up the past to move onto the future where we you don’t need a new car every 2 years and 5 LCD televisions per household. We need to focus on letting the market go through the difficult process of price discovery and start saving real money instead of looking at credit as a safety net (i.e. credit cards). The US government should stop trying to fix it and maintain the laws instead of inventing new ones.

Just my opinion.