This paper discusses and explains this new attempt to create a “financial conditions index” that will accurately predict economic activity.

From the abstract: “As of the end of 2009, our FCI showed financial
conditions at somewhat worse-than-normal levels. The main reason is that quantitative credit measures (e.g. asset-backed securities issuance) remain very weak, especially once we control for past economic growth. Thus, our analysis is consistent with an ongoing modest drag from financial conditions on economic growth in 2010.”

Here is a chart of the “New FCI” from page 43 of the report:

I will reserve comment on this “New FCI” as I have yet to thoroughly review the paper and the “New FCI” methodology.

However, I find it interesting and hope to include it with the other financial and economic indicators I periodically (the last being the January 11 post) review.

back to <home>

SPX at 1143.84 as this post is written

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

This March 5 article from CNBC.com summarizes some of the opinions regarding the double-dip reasoning and possibilities.

I find these worries about a “double-dip” recession interesting for many reasons.  Perhaps chief among these reasons is that even among those who think a “double-dip” recession is likely, these people don’t seem to believe that any further economic weakness will be worse than that which we experienced during the trough set in late ‘08-early ‘09.

I’m not sure for the reasoning behind this belief; and I have seen none offered.  However, per my previous posts I don’t believe this is a logical conclusion.

back to <home>

SPX at 1138.70 as this post is written

Here is yet another alleged Ponzi scheme as seen in Thursday’s Wall Street Journal article titled “SEC Charges Couple in Florida Ponzi Scheme.”

As seen in the article, this alleged scheme is stated at $135 million.

It is difficult to say how widespread investment frauds are and how much investment fraud is yet to be uncovered.

However, based upon a variety of factors I would say that there is much investment fraud still “out there” (i.e. yet to be uncovered) and the true figure will likely prove to be eye-popping.

back to <home>

SPX at 1138.70 as this post is written

This is no doubt the case in many areas of the country, especially those that have experienced large declines in residential real estate prices.

Is this condition, where one can own cheaper than renting, a valid justification for buying a home?

I would argue that it is not, for many reasons.  Here are three of the many reasons:

First, “I can own cheaper than I can rent” usually refers to the condition that the monthly mortgage payment is cheaper than the monthly rent payment.  Is this the main criteria that one should use when evaluating what is likely the largest financial commitment one will ever make, that of buying a house?  Of course not -  there should be many factors that weigh into such a decision.

Second, as indicated in the real estate valuation story in my last post, historically when house prices fell to or below the equivalent rent levels, a “bottom in (home) prices” had either been realized or was close.   However, as I have written in previous posts, our national real estate situation is far dissimilar to that of prior years.  As such, comparisons need to be adjusted accordingly.

Third, one should be very mindful of one’s ability to sell real estate in today’s real estate market, should one need to.  Normally, the ability to sell real estate in a timely fashion, and at a “decent price,” is not a major issue.  However, for many people currently looking to sell a house, it has become a very significant factor.  While I could post some statistics with regard to unsold home inventories and the like, I will not do so as I feel these statistics are significantly skewed (and as such unrepresentative) due to a variety of factors.

For these three reasons, as well as many others, I feel that on an “all things considered” basis, the fact that one “can own cheaper than renting” in many areas is to be considered more of a “red flag” than a “green light” as far as buying a house is concerned.

SPX at 1118.79 as this post is written

Of course, given my previous posts on residential real estate I don’t agree with many aspects of the story, especially the statement “Given that analysis, it’s likely that prices will fall another 5% or so nationwide.”

However, I do find the story interesting as it portrays a case for the commonly-held belief that the residential real estate market decline is nearly over.

SPX at 1121.91 as this post is written

What I find interesting is that the chart (pdf, at this link) plotting the current probability of recession indicates an imperceptibly small .04% chance of recession as of January 2010.  As seen in the chart (as well as accompanying data file) the recent peak was in the 40%-50% range in the latter part of 2007 and into 2008.

Of course, I strongly disagree that there is currently a .04% of recession.

On the NY Fed link above, they have posted numerous studies that support the theory that the yield curve is a leading indicator.   My objections with using it as a leading indicator, especially now, are various.  These objections include: I don’t think such a narrow measure is one that can be relied upon;  both the yields at the short and long-end of the curve have been overtly and officially manipulated, thus distorting the curve; and, although the yield curve may have been an accurate leading indicator in the past, this period of economic weakness is inherently dissimilar in nature from past recessions and depressions in a multitude of ways – thus, historical yardsticks and metrics probably won’t (and have not) proven appropriate.

SPX at 1110.87 as this post is written

I found the article interesting for a variety of reasons. As the article mentions, rarely has Greenspan addressed his purported culpability in creating the housing bubble and its accompanying impact on the economy.

Greenspan’s tenure at The Federal Reserve is most fascinating.  One aspect of this is how his performance was perceived over time.  Throughout most of his tenure he was effusively lauded (i.e. “The Maestro”) – but this widespread acclaim has been (severely) tarnished over the last decade.

As the Fortune article says, “Four years after leaving the Fed as the Greatest Central Banker Ever, the longest-serving chairman, the Maestro, Alan Greenspan is the designated goat.”

As the article indicates, Greenspan is preparing a 12,000-word article in his defense.  I look forward to seeing this article and analyzing his argument.

As far as Greenspan’s performance and actions are concerned, I do not believe there has been an accurate assessment yet provided.

SPX at 1102.41 as this post is written

I’ve been meaning to write a blog post about this and other related topics.  I still intend to write a fuller post.  However, what prompted me to write about this now is a very interesting article I ran across in Fortune Magazine.  It is a February 5 interview with Allan Meltzer and can be found at this link.

As Meltzer indicates in the interview, Keynesian Theory is not aligned with the stimulus actions we, as a nation, have undertaken.

SPX at 1105.24 as this post is written

Steve Forbes, Forbes Magazine, March 1 2010 p. 11 (link found here)

______

I have written extensively about interventions, which includes stimulus spending.   Stimulus spending and interventions are widely (and wildly) misunderstood.

I think it is very important to have a full understanding of how the ARRA, a  very large stimulus, is performing.   As I wrote in a July 9 2009 blog post in which I discussed the ARRA, “Even if one were unabashedly pro-stimulus, one would find some serious faults with the $787 Billion stimulus plan, as enacted.”  As such, it should be of little surprise that the ARRA has been, at best, such a poor performer when analyzed in a variety of manners.

Here is a recent article from Alan Reynolds concerning the effectiveness of the ARRA.   Although I don’t necessarily agree with some of his conclusions, he does present some interesting statistics and views with regard to how the ARRA has performed.

back to <home>

SPX at 1102.34 as this post is written