Home
About this Journal
Links:
International Blogs Aqoul: Middle East/North Africa Commentary A Fistful of Euros Alpha.Sources Eurozone Watch lounsbury at aqoul
Markets Kitco - Precious Metals Bloomberg Major World Indices
Basics and Research Summary of Jane Jacobs Economic History Nation Master - International Stats St Louis Fed FRED Database ECB Statistics Bank of England Statistics
Miscellaneous Good Stuff Bibliodyssey fafblog
Current Month
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
Feb. 25th, 2009 @ 10:31 pm Solving Our Personal Energy Crisis
So we live in a house that by now is 50 years old. It has a forced air heating system, which is a good thing, because the first thing we did after we bought it was to replace the old central heater with a new combo heater/central air. The company that installed that also tried to improve the pressure going through our ducts by installing a couple of dampers to help direct the flow, and by telling us to close one register downstairs off completely. I remember looking at the guy like he was nuts when he told us to do that, but when we did, the amount of air a couple of upstairs rooms at the end of the line were getting went from derisory to barely adequate. It was actually quite surprising the difference it made, but after having been here all this time and understood forced air, it now makes perfect sense. First of all, the register was very close to the thermostat, so allowing it to stay open would have meant that the thermostat would too quickly think the temp we set it for was reached. But that was the least of it. The worse part was that it was just a few feet away from the fan itself, with no bends, so that the amount of air it was getting was decreasing the pressure for the rest of the house. The duct going upstairs came after the duct for this register, so it was stealing the air from the upstairs part of the house, which accounts for why the upstairs improved as much as it did once it was closed.
Still, there was never enough pressure through that duct going upstairs, no matter how I set the dampers. So, last year sometime, I'm putting a bit of duct tape on a metal seam where some air was escaping very near to the fan for the system downstairs, when I look up and see, in a section of duct that was maybe a foot from the cement wall of the basement, and therefore very hard to see from anywhere else, a hole maybe three or four inches in diameter, through which a crazy amount of air was escaping, and hitting, and heating, the cement wall of the basement. I was shocked.
First, I put up a piece of cardboard with duct tape to close it up. That lasted maybe a month before the pressure of the air tore it off. Then I tried a more flexible piece of oaktag paper, reinforced a bit. That lasted until the fall of this year, and then gave up the ghost. I reapplied it and then tried to figure out what would plug it up permanently.
Then, my wife came home with a new pair of leather boots. Inside the boots were semi-flexible styrofoam kinda sorta forms to keep the boots in good shape for shipping and such. I took one look at them and knew I had my solution.
They had three layers. I had already figured out that I would have to "clamp" the next thing I stuck in that hole to the sides of the hole itself, so that those sides would grab and hold on to whatever I put there. I figured I could score that inner layer, and by making it fit the hole snugly, the scored inner layer would be grabbed by the metal outline of the hole, and that would give me my clamp.
Worked like a charm. I stuck it in the hole, and it just stayed there, with only a teeny amount of air escaping from the edges of the hole. The duct tape with which I secured it on and closed up the edges was almost a formality.
The difference to the pressure throughout the entire system has been amazing. Those last rooms are now getting real air, enough so that I won't have to worry about them anymore. I'm going to be curious as to how much I save on my heating and a/c bills now, since all that hot and cold air is now actually heating and cooling the house rather than the cement wall of my basement.
On another note, I last year replaced the lights in our living and family rooms and our outside lights with compact flourescents, now that their light is indistinguishable in quality from that given by incandescents. The lights replaced are those that either tend to stay on all day or tend to be left on by accident all night in the case of the outside lights. I whipped up a quick spreadsheet to see what the savings on our electric bill would be, and just these few lights cut our bill by a cool 10%. It's truly amazing how much electricity incandescent bulbs eat up. I read online somewhere that only 1% of the electricity is converted to light in incandescents. It's three to five percent for compact flourescents. Obviously, there's still a loong way to go in lighting to get it to where it uses some reasonable fraction of the electric input as light rather than heat.
About this Entry
Main
Feb. 20th, 2009 @ 11:01 pm Freakonomics, A Nation of Counterfeiters, and Other Goodies...
And now, for a little divertissement. (Actually not, there's a very serious purpose here...)
First off, any list of good reading in recent economics books would include Freakonomics. Great book and a great read.
Beyond that, there's another recent good book: A Nation of Counterfeiters, by Stephen Mihm, which goes into great detail about the pre-Civil War US, a time when any state-chartered bank could issue its own currency, believe it or not, due to a rather odd reading of the Constitution's prohibition against states issuing anything but gold and silver coin as currency. An interview with the author is here, at the Freakonomics blog, of course.
Finally, if you want some real insight into what's happening to us now, get Money of the Mind, by James Grant, only the best financial writer in the known Universe.
I haven't read his latest, which is actually on the bubble, Mr. Market Miscalculates, but the FT did run a good review of it a while back, so I'm sure it's up to his usual astronomical standards.
About this Entry
Main
Feb. 20th, 2009 @ 10:30 pm Santelli and Obama's Mortgage Plan
Having beaten up on him for his choices for Treasury and the SEC, it's time to give a little back, and engage in a little praise for his mortgage plan.
On CNBC, a former trader, Rick Santelli, a man who knows his way around the markets, decided to rant a bit on TV against the plan. Not surprising, as Santelli had problems with pretty much any action the government took to try to solve this crisis. He's of the Mellon Party, Andrew Mellon, that is, Hoover's Treasury Secretary, who famously advised him to do nothing to fight the depression, and just let it play out. This would have been decent advice in 1907, when the Federal Reserve didn't exist, gold still regulated the supply and price of money, and generally government was not proactively involved in the economy. After 1913, and especially after 1914 and the disaster that was World War I, it was and is beyond stupid.
People, most people, really don't understand how completely that war changed the way we live. We're still living in its shadow. But that's a rant for another day.
For today, let's get back to Santelli: given that the money supply and the price of money are both being determined, each and every day, by the Federal Reserve in the US, the ECB in Europe, the Bank of England and the Bank of Japan in those countries, and on and on and on, the idea that the government should just sit back and let a depression run rampant is just plain dumb. Not when a very good case can be made that the shape of the depression is determined by the actions that the government itself took, and by the word government I mean all of them, from DC to Brussels to Beijing. Each had their reasons, but taken together, they created a hugely imbalanced world that is now falling apart as a direct result of their actions. So to take the position that they should do nothing to stop the results of their own meddling is ignorant.
Shoot, they owe it to us to stop this mess.
Getting to the specifics of this rant: like a true demogogue in the midst of his folks, Santelli looked out upon the floor and said "Who wants to pay for the mortgage for his neighbor with the extra bathroom?" A general roar went up.
Of course, the Obama plan is nothing of the sort. We have people who did what the government encouraged them to do back in the days of the real estate bubble: buy a house because, after all, house prices never went down, and Bush was pushing his "ownership society", so everyone was supposed to buy, not rent, and of course you got the mortgage interest deduction and the property tax deduction and, if things went right, you'd get a home equity line of credit so that the interest on your credit card, backed by that same line of credit, would also be deductible against your taxes, and generally, that home would provide for you right through until the day you drew your last breath with a "reverse mortgage" whereby you could take out the built-up equity to pay for your retirement. Assuming, of course, you had any after that zero down adjustable mortgage and then the home equity line of credit and the multiple "cash-out" refis you did.
Whew!
Some of the "bag-holders", that is, the folks who got in last, are now sitting in houses whose mortgages exceed the value of the house, since house prices have now come down with a vengeance. In Orlando, some houses are going for 30 or 40 grand. I could quite literally put one of these on my credit card, since I have a nice line of credit and no outstanding balance.
For these folks, Obama is proposing that they be allowed to do a refi with Fannie or Freddie. That's it, nothing more. There's a few other details in there, but that pretty much is what it amounts to for most of the people who'd be eligible for its provisions, people who, by the way, have to be current or very close to it on their mortgage payments.
It's a way to minimize the number of foreclosures. It does it very cheaply in comparison to, say, Paulson's misbegotten monster, the TARP.
As for Santelli, Obama's press secretary said it all: we're past the days when we think what's good for a derivatives trader is good for Main Street. All those traders in Chicago may not like it, but who cares what the fuck they think about anything at all anymore.
They can go eat shit.
About this Entry
Main
Feb. 17th, 2009 @ 10:05 pm Another Brick in the Wall
Dizard gets into the act on Obama's weak-kneed Administration.
Balls, said Schapiro. If I had 'em, I'd be Markopoulos.
About this Entry
Main
Feb. 11th, 2009 @ 09:58 pm Stupid Partisanship
I suppose I should by now be used to the crap that passes for debate on the cable TV networks, but it's still a shock.
In essence, the right goes on about how banks shouldn't be nationalized, not understanding that if you take over the bad ones, clean them up, and then let them back on the market again, you have solved the banking problem. Then they go into other idiotic irrelevancies, like how gov't employees of zombies should still be allowed to take home bonuses because, after all, we've got to get the best people.
Makes my teeth grind.
Then we move on over to the left, where the story is that well, Wall Street just wanted DC to send trailer trucks full of money down to the corner of Wall & Broad, and their disappointment with that not happening is why they're so pissed.
The fact that the Treasury, which by the way, contains the IRS, is headed by a tax criminal, and a tax criminal who apparently has no fuckin' clue what to do, apparently has nothing to do with their disappointment. At least if he had a clue that would be one thing. The rest of us will pay our taxes for him in that case.
But he's useless on top of being a shameless criminal. Worse than useless: as Martin Wolf pointed out brilliantly this morning, he can't even ask the right question.
About this Entry
Main
Feb. 10th, 2009 @ 09:29 pm Credit Money
Something to read in the post-Geithner despondency:

The Roving Cavaliers of Credit

A truly excellent theoretical excursion into the systemic roots of our current disaster.
I'll be using this in my eventual summary of Jacobs and gold, somewhere down the line. This is being delayed by the overwhelming embarrasment of observational riches the current crisis is throwing up.
In other news, the above was sent to The Boy after he announced he'd finally decided on a major: economics. Hopefully, he'll get to do a spell at the London School of Economics (I'm not optimistic about this, not unless they've got a special section reserved for hopeless slackers...), mostly so I can show London to my wife, who stayed at home this past summer when we went. Everyone should get to gape at drivers regularly going the wrong way down the street, and acting like it's perfectly normal, at least once in their lives.

Extra! Extra! Martin Wolf on Video Tearing Into the Obama Admin's Initial Timidity.
About this Entry
Main
Feb. 10th, 2009 @ 02:32 pm Yeesh
So far, it looks like I was right that Geithner was the wrong guy at Treasury (he acted, far as I'm concerned, like the insider criminal he looked like), and so far this plan, which does not kill any zombies, is looking very much like a disaster unfolding in very rapid motion.
Hoping to be wrong...
About this Entry
Main
Jan. 31st, 2009 @ 02:38 pm Bad Banks
I see a lot about putting up a bad bank to take the toxic waste and separate the gold from the sludge, as it were, but not a lot about closing the insolvent banks.
This has to be done. Absolutely has to.
Or, to quote, "They have to do a bad bank," Harvard Economics Professor Ken Rogoff said. But "if that's all they do then it's idiotic."
Quoted from All Big US Banks Must Go to Fix Crisis: Economist.
If these guys ignore history in their plan coming out on Thursay, we're all screwed.
About this Entry
Main
Jan. 31st, 2009 @ 10:23 am The Safe Havens Keep Falling Away
Gold hit a record in euros yesterday, and advanced over the 900 mark in USD again as well.
I think a lot of that was down to end of month window dressing, and there will be give-back next week. Nothing to base that on, just a gut feeling.
Longer term, though, things continue to unfold in a manner friendly to gold, but not so nice for the rest of the world. Part of the fallout from Lehman was a run on money market funds, which up until that point had been considered as safe as bank investing.
No more. From yesterday afternoon's commentary on Kitco by Jon Nadler:

"James “Jes” Staley, head of JPMorgan Chase & Co.’s investment unit, said the $4 trillion money-market fund industry is the “greatest systemic risk” to the financial system that hasn’t been adequately addressed.
“What keeps me up at night most of anything we do at JPMorgan Asset Management is the money-market fund space,” Staley said at a discussion hosted today by Credit Suisse Group AG in Davos, Switzerland. “One of the things that has to come out and get a lot more attention and discussion is how do we take the systemic risk posed by money funds out of the system?”


Money funds were a way to offer higher yields than bank deposits, because they didn't have to pay a premium for insurance from the FDIC, for one thing, or keep reserves aside against bad debt, for another. Both of these increase the cost of funds for banks, but they also decrease the risk for a depositor in a bank. So, once again, people will learn the simple lesson that you can get higher yields, but you get them if and only if you are willing to take on more risk.
About this Entry
Main
Jan. 29th, 2009 @ 05:38 pm I hate the Fed
I really do. Yesterday's market action post the Fed decision had me in a whirl. On my prototype model for trading - the one that I have designed for daytrading when I quit this place - I lost 170 or so on trading 200 shares of GDX back & forth afterwards. Given all the stoopid second-guessing of my own geniusical model (my own evaluation, entirely objective, natch) I actually, in real life, lost a thousand smackers. So, theoretical profits on my testing of this come to 1400 on a base of 6000 (enough to trade 200, because that's the minimum practical size you can test with, given commish, slippage, and spread costs) or so over the past month. In real life, actual realized profits are 400, entirely because of yesterday's stupidity.
Grrr....
About this Entry
Main
Jan. 27th, 2009 @ 10:30 pm Inching Closer
FDIC May Run ‘Bad Bank’ in U.S. Plan to Remove Toxic Assets

By Robert Schmidt and Alison Vekshin



Jan. 27 (Bloomberg) -- The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. may manage the so-called bad bank that the Obama administration is likely to set up as it tries to break the back of the credit crisis, two people familiar with the matter said.
FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair is pushing to run the operation, which would buy the toxic assets clogging banks’ balance sheets, one of the people said. Bair is arguing that her agency has expertise and could help finance the effort by issuing bonds guaranteed by the FDIC, a second person said. President Barack Obama’s team may announce the outlines of its financial-rescue plan as early as next week, an administration official said.
“It doesn’t make sense to give the authority to anybody else but the FDIC,” said John Douglas, a former general counsel at the agency who now is a partner at Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, a law firm in Atlanta. “That’s what the FDIC does, it takes bad assets out of banks and manages and sells them.”
The bad-bank initiative may allow the government to rewrite some of the mortgages that underpin banks’ bad debt, in the hopes of stemming a crisis that has stripped more than 1.3 million Americans of their homes. Some lenders may be taken over by regulators as the government seeks to provide a shield to taxpayers.
Bank seizures are “going to happen,” Senator Bob Corker, a Tennessee Republican, said in an interview after a meeting between Obama and Republican lawmakers in Washington today. “I know it. They know it. The banks know it.”

Well, well. We're getting to where they've felt their way to the same place as Morgan & FDR just before they took action, it looks like. There may be hope.
About this Entry
Main
Jan. 22nd, 2009 @ 10:19 pm What Hasn't Been Done, Yet Anyway
First of all. I watched the news for an hour and a half just now, just soaking in the feeling, which I'm sure is not isolated to myself, of seeing a revolution - a peaceful one, thankfully - unfold. Some are saying he should prosecute the old Admin for torture, but that would just get him into a deep legal morass, and the country into a fit of controversy and recrimination. Enough that the members of the old Admin will think twice before, say, taking a trip to Europe, where someone, somewhere, won't have the political considerations that this Admin has to take into account.
But I'm not here to praise our new Caesar, or bury him, but to criticize him. First off, Geithner should have been canned. What he did in regard to his taxes was a deliberately premeditated crime, he's a criminal, and a criminal shouldn't be heading the Treasury. As for the stupid BS about him being somehow indispensable: this is a republic. By definition, no one is indispensable in a republic. That's the point George Washington made twice: first, by returning to private life after the Revolution was won, and then by serving for two terms and not running for a third when he was President.
More substantively, nothing has been done as far as this financial crisis. Below is a chart of the XLF, an ETF of the financial stocks, since Sept 15, the day Lehman melted like the witch in the Wizard of Oz. As you can see, it's lost two-thirds of its value since then.



As we have said before, and will repeat now, the solution to this is the same as what Morgan did in 1907 and FDR did in 1933: close the insolvent banks, and save the ones that can be saved. Once you have cleanly & definitively done that, confidence can return, and solving the rest of what ails us becomes much easier.
The FDIC, which FDR put in place to do, on a regular basis, what Morgan did in 1907 by way of his own native genius, and what the Fed should have done since that was the whole point of their existence - and that's true both in 1933 and today, but apparently the Fed is more interested in doing anything but what it was put in place to do, but I've already plowed that ground - is the vehicle through which this should happen. Unlike the worse than useless Fed, they have the experience, the mechanisms in place, the people with the knowhow. Tomorrow, Obama should tell them to get about the business of cleaning up the US financial system, even if it means declaring insolvent the big sacred cows. It's the only solution that will work. The depositors are already guaranteed. As for the rest, if they didn't know what was coming to them by now, they're too stupid to live.
Else, the financials will continue to sink, trillions will continue to disappear, and whatever stimulus the Obama Admin comes up with will just be a stopgap on the way to a lost decade. Or two or three.
Both the Geithner debacle and the fact that nothing has been done to get us any closer to the only solution that we know works show that folks continue to ignore the lessons of history. They're very simple lessons.
About this Entry
Main
Jan. 15th, 2009 @ 05:03 pm Polishing the handrails on the Titanic...
...and listening to the band play.
That's what it feels like to be at work these days.
About this Entry
Main
Dec. 21st, 2008 @ 10:15 pm Buy a Swamp Cooler. Solve Global Warming.
I remember when standing on line for the Eiffel Tower in Paris, there were a few big fans around blowing a mist of water over the lines, to cool everyone down while waiting. This is the principle behind swamp coolers which, as the article linked to says, won't work in an actual swamp like DC (we're talking about the weather, not the political climate, in this case) but do work well in dry places like the desert Southwest.
So, an inventor who is either a genius or a crackpot has decided that putting huge swamp coolers to work in strategic places might buy us some time to solve the global warming problem.
About this Entry
Main
Dec. 17th, 2008 @ 08:39 pm THE Gold Play Has Now Begun
There is no such thing as a sure thing when it comes to investing. That's the first thing that has to be said.
However (the correct way of saying "That said", by the way. If I hear one more pundit use that stupid phrase, I may be forced to, oh, I dunno, scourge myself with a wet noodle) right now, today, you are looking at the most certain thing you will ever see in the investing world, because the Fed is now at the zero bound.
I did a study a long time ago, which I will either have to dig up or reproduce, which showed me that the best time to invest in gold and gold stocks is right after the Fed has lowered for the last time, and before, and during, the first few raises. This makes sense, since such times would correspond with when interest rates were most likely to be either very close to or below the prevailing rate of inflation, thereby making gold, which it has to be remembered, is a sterile asset, meaning it throws off no dividends, a truly sensible investment, not just for paranoid gold bugs like me, but for regular everyday normal folks, like you. (Yes, I'm assuming. You are normal, right?)
Being as how the Fed is now at zero, we know to a dead certainty that they can't lower rates anymore, because it just plain ain't possible. So we know to a dead certainty that we are at the beginning of the period when gold has done best in the past.
So, with the usual caveat that the past may not be prologue this time, we can say that if you ever wanted to get your hands on a bit of the shiny stuff, now is as good a time as you will ever see in your investing lifetime. If it turns out not to be profitable, it won't be because you bought at the wrong time; it will be because something else is going on out there that will nullify the advantage of a judiciously timed investment. I can't think of what that could be, but that doesn't mean it ain't out there.
Today's update by Jon Nadler at Kitco is entitled "Fed Finale = Gold Overture". He's abandoned his usual caution, and I'm abandoning mine. That title says it all.
About this Entry
Main
Dec. 12th, 2008 @ 11:02 pm Jacobs and Gold - A Table of Contents
Tags:
I've spent a ton of time trying to figure out exactly how to approach this subject, and written different versions and then tossed them, and have finally decided that the best thing to do is to lay out up front how to approach this subject, and then actually do it, piece by piece. This could wind up taking a long time, but so what? I certainly don't have a deadline to meet.

So, this is how I plan to attack this:

Mythbusting:

1 - What gold isn't, or the myths attached to the gold standard by both its adherents and its opponents. A necessary primer, given the fog of myth that surrounds the idea of using gold as a part of the monetary system.

Currency Pragmatics:

2 - What really backs a currency? Or, the unique nature of currencies: valued by the market, but issued by governments.
3 - Currencies as products: the problem of weak currencies and their legitimacy, and of speculative attacks on currencies in general. This carries with it the problems introduced by hedging, which leads directly into the carry trade and its dynamics, which finally gets us to the nut of the problem of how to create an optimal currency area. This is pretty much the heart of the problem to be described and solved.
4 - The mechanisms of the old gold standard.
5 - ...as contrasted with the mechanisms and problems of the dollar standard, or the costs to a nation of issuing the world's standard currency, and
6 - ...the problems, as well as the advantages (I had to force myself to write this clause, but objectively speaking, the euro does have formidable advantages), of the euro.

The Currency Ideal:

7 - A world currency, but expressed as a local unit, or, how to get back to the mechanisms of the old gold standard in a world where gold itself has mostly lost its cultural connection to money, and where hedging and speculation can screw up the best-laid plans of governments.

So, the idea is to first clear up the stupid stuff, then introduce the essential problem of what a currency is and what backs up a currency's value, then move on to how currencies are valued as a practical matter under floating exchange rates and fiat currencies, and, related to this, the problems currencies face from modern-day speculative attacks, which will then lead us to just what is an optimal currency area and how to create one, and then on to the old gold standard and how it worked, which will finally bring us to a solution to the problem of how to have a viable local currency within an optimal currency area that will be more or less resilient to the inevitable bouts of speculative stupidity it will face in the real world.
About this Entry
Main
Dec. 11th, 2008 @ 10:51 pm ...and then there's outright fraud
Madoff Charged in $50 Billion Fraud at Advisory Firm

Dec. 11 (Bloomberg) -- Bernard Madoff, founder and president of a New York firm that invested funds for wealthy individuals, hedge funds and other institutions, was charged with operating what he told employees was a long-running $50 billion Ponzi scheme in what may be one of the largest frauds in history.

This will hit the market tomorrow like a ton of bricks. It'll be ugly.
And, it seems someone knew something three years ago:

ET Post from THREE YEARS AGO: SEC investigating Madoff Financial?

It's getting to the point where you couldn't make this stuff up even if you spun the wildest conspiracy theory you could ever possibly imagine. Ye gods...
About this Entry
Main
Dec. 11th, 2008 @ 05:29 pm Financial Bystanders
So, thinking about what went wrong and why, which I and a lot of other folks are doing a lot of these days, I have wondered if the folks receiving all those risk management reports didn't understand them or just ignored them.
Of course, there's a third option I never thought about. Maybe the reports were wrong, not because of bad software or bad data, but because the assumptions underlying them were wrong to begin with?

Bystanders to this financial crime were many


Well, if so, by now I have a different excuse: the dirty deed's already done.
Right now, I'm putting all my energy into becoming an independent trader. It'll take a few years, but I don't want to do what I'm doing anymore, even without the disturbing implications of this article.


About this Entry
god and country
Nov. 28th, 2008 @ 01:55 pm So, just how crazy is Alan Keyes?
This crazy:

The Constitution requires that, to be president, one must be a natural born citizen of the United States. Conservative Alan Keyes-who ran against President-elect Barack Obama in the 2004 race for the Illinois Senate, and in the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign (Keyes ran on the American Independent Party ticket)-is challenging whether that is the case for our new president. In November, Keyes filed a lawsuit against Obama, the California secretary of state, and others, to stop California from giving its electoral votes to Obama until a birth certificate is produced proving that he is indeed a natural born citizen. ESSENCE.com talked to Keyes about where he thinks Obama was born, why he questions the birth records already provided, and if this whole lawsuit is just an overblown case of sour grapes.
...
ESSENCE.COM: State officials from the health department of Hawaii have verified that they have Obama's birth records, and that he was indeed born in Hawaii. Do you think they're lying?
KEYES:
I don't think anything. (Ed note: Is this guy a perfect straight man, or what?) Just let it be verified. This is not something that should be taken on hearsay. This is the most important office. Everything should be done without controversy, in such a way that the Constitutional requirements are met. If something is contrary to the Constitutional requirement, then you have to do away with that. It's not on Obama to do this. The folks with whom this burden presently rests are the officials who are now responsible for the process, who sit on the Supreme Court and other areas. They have to abide by their oaths to preserve and defend the Constitution, and not have him entering into office with a question they refuse to resolve.


Just in case you were wondering if he really was batshit.

About this Entry
Main
Nov. 19th, 2008 @ 06:00 pm Paulson Self-Serves
Here.

What he should have said:

We were muddling through, although with heavy losses, until September. What changed?
Prior to then, we asked the banks to buy preferred shares in Fannie and Freddie. These qualify as Tier 1 capital. So, the banks tucked this stuff away, and carried on.
Then, in September, one weekend in, we finally had to bail these government entities out, and make explicit the implicit government guarantee these enablers of (Editor's note: formerly all white, now mostly white) suburban and exurban paradise.
Parenthetically, you know, I'm a Republican, and these guys were created by Democrats and mostly staffed by them. Just so's you know.*
We decided, because we didn't want to hand those same Democrats a soundbite during the campaign, not to save the preferred shareholders, even though we'd pushed them down the throats of all those banks. We did tell these banks that if their purchase of these preferreds caused solvency problems, that they should call their regulator. Really. I thought that was considerate of us, eh?
The next Monday, the preferred share market suffered a fearful fall, on Tuesday Fitch downgraded a bunch of Lehman stuff, because they said they might have problems raising capital, and by the next weekend, we were trying to figure out whether or not to save them.
Yes, the fearful fall in the preferred share market did make capital raising a lot more expensive. But their balance sheet was already screwed, in my opinion. And, importantly, in the opinions of the CEOs of BoFA and Merrill, too. 'Cause, you know, they decided that Lehman should go and Merrill get saved.
Yes, those CEOs had a bit of self-interest involved in saying that, I suppose. Why do you ask?
The week after, the money markets panicked as some Lehman-sponsored funds broke the buck. On top of that, we saved AIG, and some folks said they didn't know what our policy was anymore, given that we had decided to let Lehman go one week and then save AIG the next week.
I don't know why they were confused. AIG was systemically important**, Lehman wasn't.
Yes, the money markets did panic when Lehman went tits up. What's your point?
Yes, they were competitors of ours. Had nothing to do with it. How could you even suggest such a thing? I mean, we saved Merrill, didn't we?
Next, we pressured the Congress into passing the TARP, which was my, ahem, carefully considered response to the crash caused by the Lehman and AIG failures. I spent a considerable amount of time producing three pages of carefully reasoned arguments, which I sent to Congress and told them to pass, immediately if not sooner.
Congress being Congress, they took more time than I considered reasonable, so by the time they passed it, I had to use it to directly buy bank shares rather than do what I wanted, which was to buy the troubled assets and take them off the banks' books. C'est la guerre.
Meantime, the September panic caused car sales to crater, to a level more or less equal with WWII sales, which caused the carmakers to panic and come running to DC for money.
Yes, all these things happened immediately after Lehman, which happened immediately after the Fannie and Freddie bailout. You think I can't see your point?
Yes, Merrill is cratering now, and is below 10. Yes, Morgan Stanley is close. Goldman is below 60, a level that, yes, I admit, was once considered unthinkable, and is mere dollars above its IPO price of 53. Citi is below 10, maybe headed to zero. All those other guys, Bear, Wachovia, Fannie, Freddie, Lehman, Merrill even, since BoFA is buying them, are history. The carmakers, all three of them, are close to being history, too.
Yes, all of this happened on my watch. But who could predict** this kind of turmoil?**

*Of course, Newt Gingrich, when asked once, shortly after he set out his Contract With America in 1994, whether he would consider rescinding the mortgage interest deduction, engaged in what I remember as a masterpiece of evasion, mealy-mouthedness, and general illogic. Just so's you know.
**New links!! Really! Yes, I know I put most of the links out earlier, when I saved them all up in a single post. Kind of the outline for this one. So now, you know how great minds put this stuff together. Whether you wanted to know or not. Oh well.
About this Entry
Main