Archive for the ‘Sustainable Prosperity’ Category

Article On Asset Bubbles

Tuesday, March 9th, 2010

On January 25 Fortune had an article on asset bubbles titled “Beware the 4 new asset bubbles.”

The four purported bubbles mentioned in the article are Gold, oil, the stock market, and Treasuries.  I have discussed each of these markets, with the exception of oil, in previous posts.

I found the logic and discussion in the article interesting, although I did not agree with various aspects of the article.  I especially disagree with the logic about housing, for reasons I have recently written about.

It is very important for investors to understand whether the markets they are investing in are indeed experiencing bubbles.   My previously written posts are found under the “Bubbles” Category.

Of course, the existence and prevalence of bubbles also has massive ramifications for the economy, especially when viewed from the standpoint of Sustainable Prosperity.

back to <home>

SPX at 1137.15 as this post is written

  • Share/Bookmark

America’s Economic Future

Monday, February 15th, 2010

As a follow-up to yesterday’s post, here is a passage from Larry Summers’ March 13, 2009 speech that speaks of the importance of economic strength in achieving broader societal goals:

“Our single most important priority is bringing about economic recovery and ensuring that the next economic expansion, unlike it’s predecessors, is fundamentally sound and not driven by financial excess.
This is essential. Without robust and sustained economic expansion, we will not achieve any other national goal. We will not be able to project strength globally or reduce poverty locally. We will not be able to expand access to higher education or affordable health care. We will not be able to raise incomes for middle class families or create opportunities for new small businesses to thrive.”

_____

Our national goal to achieve a sustainable recovery (or what I frequently refer to as “Sustainable Prosperity”) has been and will continue to be a challenge, given various underlying fundamentals.

In order to achieve “Sustainable Prosperity” we will need to have a solid focus on planning our economic future and its dynamics.  Toward this end, I wrote an article in May of last year titled “America’s Economic Future – ‘Greenfield’ or ‘Brownfield’?” which can be found listed along the right-hand side of the home page.  That article, as well as others I have written, explores some of what I believe are pivotal issues that lack recognition with regard to our economic future.

All of my articles are also listed and summarized at this link:

http://www.economicgreenfield.com/prosperitybypencom-directory/

back to <home>

SPX at 1075.51 as this post is written

  • Share/Bookmark

The Global Economic Situation

Wednesday, January 20th, 2010

On this blog, I have maintained a focus on the U.S. economy.  I have done so for a variety of reasons, many of which are explained in this June 21 2009 post:

http://www.economicgreenfield.com/2009/06/21/the-global-economic-future/

Additionally, from a practical perspective, from a time standpoint it would be prohibitive to attempt to comment on all global economic affairs that I consider relevant.

Although I focus on the U.S. economic condition, this is not meant to imply that the U.S. is the only country that faces an array of difficult economic challenges.  Much to the contrary – many countries currently face economic issues that are exceedingly problematical. 

It is very troubling that so many countries, especially those with large economies, are concurrently experiencing such difficulties.  Such a common and unified adverse condition will not bode well assuming severe economic weakness reappears.

Attaining Sustainable Prosperity is a global challenge.

back to <home>

SPX at 1140.78 as this post is written

  • Share/Bookmark

Characteristics Of The Housing Bubble

Friday, January 8th, 2010

Given the incredibly outsized intervention efforts in the residential real estate market, I think it is important to examine some dynamics of the real estate bubble.

Here is a chart from the 12/15/09 Contrary Investor commentary that I believe is interesting, as it depicts some underlying residential real estate fundamentals.  It shows the equity and mortgage debt situation.  The underlying data is from the Federal Reserve Flow of Funds:

http://www.contraryinvestor.com/

As far as real estate prices are concerned, I would like to show two charts, both from the CalculatedRisk blog:

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/

The first chart was posted on 12/21/09 and is the LoanPerformance Price Index from 1976:

Next, a chart posted on 12/29/09 showing the LoanPerformance Index as well as Case-Shiller, from January 2000:

As others have commented, it appears as if the overall intervention efforts are aimed at reflating (or to re-inflate) the housing bubble.  Conventional (investment) wisdom has held that reflating a burst bubble is impossible.

However, I think given the tremendously outsized intervention efforts in housing, we are truly in a unique situation.  I don’t believe there has ever been such a large intervention effort in our country, at least in the last 150 years.  Depending upon how one would measure such intervention efforts, it might even be among the largest interventions in world economic history.

A casual observer might assume that such an outsized effort would be destined to be successful.  However, (economic) life is not that simple.

From an ”all things considered” standpoint, I don’t believe the residential real estate bubble has actually burst.  It appears to me that it has somewhat deflated.  I base this view on a variety of fundamental and technical factors. 

Assuming this view is correct – that the residential real estate hasn’t popped – the implications are immense.   I think it is likely that one of two possibilities will occur from here, and each could happen in a relatively rapid fashion.  The first possibility is a “successful” reflation of the residential real estate market, with accompanying economic activity.  The second possibility is a collapse of the residential real estate market with accompanying economic repercussions.  As to the path real estate will travel from here - my previous writings on interventions, bubbles and real estate indicate my thoughts on the subject.

If a “successful” relation occurs, one is led to wonder as to the characteristics of such a “successful” reflation of the real estate bubble.  Among other critical questions is how long would such a reflation last?

I think it very important to note the quality and durability of the economic activity that occurred in the first phase of the bubble, which peaked in 2006.  Can one hope for any better outcome during a subsequent reflation?

These issues are critical to the concept of Sustainable Prosperity, of which I have previously frequently commented.

back to <home>

SPX at 1137.37 as this post is written

  • Share/Bookmark

Sustainable Prosperity

Wednesday, December 30th, 2009

One of the terms that I frequently mention is “Sustainable Prosperity.”  I think the term and its meaning have tremendous significance to our economic future at this juncture.

Providing an exact definition for the term is difficult due to the complexity of the underlying concepts.

“Sustainable” can be defined in terms of time, as well as continuity.  If a posititive economic trend exists for a few years, can it be termed ’sustainable’?  Case in point was the housing bubble.  Most would say it lasted between 5 to 10 years.  The economy certainly benefitted from it.  However, the benefit was not sustainable.  In fact, in its wake, it has caused an immense amount of damage and poses a tremendous ongoing threat.

From a continuity standpoint, in order for growth to be sustainable it has to be resistant to severe economic setbacks.  Of course, history has shown that recessions, panics, and the occasional depressions are inherent in the economic cycle.  However, if economic growth is sustainable in nature it should over the course of time be able to recover “lost ground” and attain new highs.

The concept of “Prosperity” is somewhat difficult to define as well.  I like to think of it as being multifaceted and having deep “breadth.”  Of particular concern should be enrichment that is narrowly achieved, i.e. a large amount of the nation’s prosperity concentrated in the hands of a few.  This is a concern from both a societal and economic standpoint.  Strong, vibrant, and sustainable economies have widespread prosperity.

Other aspects of “Prosperity” is the amount and composition of such.  If median household income is growing at a rate greater than inflation, can that be termed prosperity?  Can prosperity be defined in GDP growth?  Or is prosperity a more general term that encompasses such concepts as standard of living, the ability for the masses to have affordable access to healthcare, higher education, etc.?

As aforementioned, I believe that the concept of Sustainable Prosperity is more important now than ever before.  If one assumes, as per the current economic consensus, that we are experiencing economic recovery, I think it would behoove us to constantly assess whether we are experiencing true “Sustainable Prosperity” or something that might only resemble such.

back to <home>

SPX at 1123.89 as this post is written

  • Share/Bookmark

Larry Summers On Growth – March 13 2009 Speech

Tuesday, December 29th, 2009

Here is one more excerpt from Larry Summers’ speech of March 13.  I find this excerpt to be of particular significance with regard to the concept of Sustainable Prosperity:

http://www.brookings.edu/events/2009/0313_summers.aspx

“Of fundamental importance is ensuring that we do not exchange a painful recession for another unsustainable expansion. That would not only be irresponsible – it would be counterproductive. We have seen what happens when we pursue policies that produce short-term, instead of durable and sustainable growth.”

back to <home>

SPX at 1127.78 as this post is written

  • Share/Bookmark

Larry Summers On Bubbles – March 13 2009 Speech

Wednesday, December 23rd, 2009

As I, as well as others, have been frequently mentioning bubbles, I thought it would be interesting to post a few comments (excerpts) that Larry Summers made concerning their effects during his March 13, 2009 speech.  I found these comments to be very interesting, especially in light of our current economic condition and prospects for Sustainable Prosperity.

Here is a link to that speech, which was made to The Brookings Institution:

http://www.brookings.edu/events/2009/0313_summers.aspx

 

“Our single most important priority is bringing about economic recovery and ensuring that the next economic expansion, unlike it’s predecessors, is fundamentally sound and not driven by financial excess.
This is essential. Without robust and sustained economic expansion, we will not achieve any other national goal. We will not be able to project strength globally or reduce poverty locally. We will not be able to expand access to higher education or affordable health care. We will not be able to raise incomes for middle class families or create opportunities for new small businesses to thrive.”
later:
“We have seen housing prices reach unsustainably high levels and credit spreads reach unsustainably low levels in the middle of this decade. And we saw bubbles in technology in the late 1990s.
Bubble driven economic growth is problematic because of disruption and dislocation – affecting those who took part in the bubble’s excesses and those who did not. And, it is not entirely healthy even while it lasts.” 
later:
“If growth in the coming years is not to be driven by asset price inflation-induced consumption, other engines of growth must be identified. These forms of growth should be sustainable and shared by the majority of American households.” 
back to <home>
SPX at 1117.83 as this post is written
  • Share/Bookmark

New Article: “America’s Trojan Horse”

Friday, August 14th, 2009

I just posted a new article titled “America’s Trojan Horse.”  The subtitle is “A Different Look At The National Debt.”  It can be found under the “Pages” section along the right-hand side, as well as at this link:

http://www.economicgreenfield.com/americas-trojan-horse/

The article goes well with many of the themes presented on this blog, including Sustainable Prosperity, America’s Economic Future, and the overall quality of decision making in policy.

Please let me know of any comments.

SPX at 1002.26 as this post is written

  • Share/Bookmark

Bank Bonuses and Broader Implications

Monday, August 3rd, 2009

I’d like to make a brief comment about the “bank bonus” story that came out a few days ago.  Here is one article on it, titled “Bank Bonus Tab: $33 Billion” from The Wall Street Journal on 7-31-09:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124896891815094085.html#articleTabs%3Darticle

Needless to say, it seems outrageous that such bonuses, in said amounts, were paid out so broadly in 2008 given the overall situation – especially for those banks that would have otherwise collapsed absent tremendous levels of government intervention.  Of course, there may be some mitigating factors or legitimate reasons for at least some of these bonuses, but I have yet to read or hear of any.

It seems as if this bonus issue should have been adequately addressed before any intervention funds were allotted to the various banks.

Overall, I think the two major issues concerning these bonuses are Fairness, as well as the impact on Moral Hazard.

As I have alluded to previously (on a 6/21/09 post) the Moral Hazard environment that has been created and perpetuated over the last few years is truly epic and mind-boggling.  It appears as if this Moral Hazard situation has only been exacerbated with the Bank Bailouts that have occurred during The Financial Crisis.

Moral Hazard implications are very important, even if (seemingly) few people really want to think about them.  Moral Hazard has many types of direct and indirect effects ranging from our potential National Debt to issues regarding Sustainable Prosperity to issues concerning Fiduciary Responsibility.  Part of the challenge, and importance, of crafting appropriate national policy is to consider, in totality, how the economic environment will be impacted by various government actions.  To ignore, or downplay, Moral Hazard implications is a serious mistake.

SPX at 1002.63 as this post is written

  • Share/Bookmark

“Why Aren’t Companies Hiring?” Part V

Thursday, July 30th, 2009

Businesses have reacted to the tumultuous economic conditions in many ways.  A logical action has been to reduce cash outlays to a level appropriate to what the new economic conditions seemingly warrant. 

Along these lines, expenses have undergone scrutiny and in many cases have been cut, in order to preserve cash as well as improve profitability (or limit losses).  Labor costs are notable expenses because of their size.

Many firms have incurred double-digit (percentage) revenue losses over the last few quarters.  This can create a rather alarming atmosphere, especially in light of the tremendous overall uncertainty going forward, as discussed in the last post.  In this type of fast-moving, uncertain environment where revenues, and losses, can accrue quickly, many businesses have felt they have had to move fast in order to contain potential damage.   

Large-scale layoffs have occurred for a number of reasons.   Under such uncertain, and unpleasant economic conditions, layoffs represent a quick means by which to bring down total costs and preserve cash.  Layoffs have, over the years, become a type of ”standard operating procedure” in business, i.e. they are viewed as a rational decision during tough times and are not stigmatized like they may have been a few decades ago.  While there are of course many arguments that can be made with regard to the worth of an employee, as well as viewing employees as assets as opposed to expenses, in reality it is very difficult to quantify how one, or a number of, employees’ dismissals will negatively impact a firm in the future.  In other words, quantifying an employee’s value is very difficult.  However, determining each employee’s total cost is rather straightforward.

Furthermore, there are other factors at play.  Employee “turnover” costs are difficult to measure.  This refers to how expensive it is for a firm to have high employee turnover, as opposed to low turnover.  It is easy to neglect this, and other issues, in difficult economic times.

Another factor that comes into play is executive compensation issues as well as stock market pressures.  How are the major executives getting paid and influenced, and how does this directly and indirectly impact hiring and employee costs?  Since the highest executives are (likely) getting paid and otherwise motivated to produce profitability, this may well serve as a major influence when viewing employee expense levels.   The executive compensation agreements and stock market pressures can create a relatively “short-term” outlook with regard to profitability and a resultant bias against “expenses.”

One also has to wonder as to whether employees are at least partially “bearing the brunt of”  poor operating practices that have exacerbated adversity at firms during this period of economic weakness.    There are many potential areas within any firm that may be better managed even given the complicated and unpredictable nature of this economic weakness.  This “inefficiency” may be compounded should greater economic weakness develop.  If a firm is unaware of these “inefficiencies”, it may neglect them, thereby causing greater losses, which in turn produces greater pressure to reduce expenses and therefore employees.  These “inefficiencies” may be large, given the complicated nature of our current economic environment.  Also, the previously mentioned issue that most firms don’t have operating experience in pronounced economic downturns also plays a role in exacerbating this issue.  

As seen by these past five posts, the question ”Why Aren’t Companies Hiring?” has a complex answer that encompasses many different factors.  Given the severity of the problem, as well as its adverse impact on the economy, the natural question becomes what can be done to encourage, or cause hiring to happen?  This question, again, has a very complex answer, especially in light of issues regarding Sustainable Prosperity.

As I started this series of posts with a quote, I will end it with one as well.  This quote underscores the severity of the unemployment situation, and is from Mortimer Zuckerman discussing the unemployment levels. It can be found in his recent Wall Street Journal editorial found here:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124753066246235811.html

“The job losses are also now equal to the net job gains over the previous nine years, making this the only recession since the Great Depression to wipe out all job growth from the previous expansion.”

SPX at 975.15 as this post is written

  • Share/Bookmark