Sunday, December 28, 2008

Issues Politicians Need to Know

Here is a link to the Heritage Foundation research page

For those looking to brush up on all of the issues...hint to Carolyn Kennedy (or any person running for national office), these are the many policy issues affecting our nation.

Is it any wonder that our Congressional leaders don't have a clue as to how we got into the economic mess we find ourselves?

$7 Trillion Government Bailout

I have heard many commentators talk about "$7 trillion" of government bailouts. This is much different that the $700 billion TARP bailout that was voted on in Congress.


You can see that our Federal Government has been busy guaranteeing debt in multiple industries. Many people think that we will get much of this "investment" back.

Tuesday, December 23, 2008

Government Role in Financial Crisis

Definitely watch this great video on the summary of the financial crisis by Peter Wallison of The American Enterprise Institute. Peter explains the regulations that directly led to an environment of excess money heading in the mortgage business. 

See it here.

If you want to know about the credibility of Peter, he predicted this problem in 1999. Read it here.

Monday, December 22, 2008

Cap and Trade

Al Gore is heavily investing in cap and trade carbon emission infrastructure. His movie, Earth in the Lurch, as Rush Limbaugh calls it, is a marketing effort for his business interests.

To see the real effects of cap and trade, see this video.

Fiscal and social conservative--article

This is a must read article about being a social and fiscal conservative. It is remarkable.

Saturday, December 20, 2008

Best News Articles on Economic Crisis

People have asked me where the best information is located on the entire economic and housing crisis.

Although the Wall Street Journal has done a fine job, the New York Times has created a series of articles called "The Reckoning" that sums up the situation the best.

Thursday, December 18, 2008

Lowering Lending Standards II

Further information on the lending standards side points to why and when did Wall Street investment banks get into the purchase of mortgages and creating their own mortgage backed securities. 

I have heard several reasons why Lehman Brothers, JP Morgan, etc. got into the mortgage buying business. First, it was easy money without perceived risk. Second, loans were purchased without the regulations that burdened banks such as Wells Fargo and Citibank, as they were heavily regulated by the OCC, Federal Reserve, SEC, FDIC and and a host of other regulators. Finally, there was huge competition with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac because the Government Sponsored Entities were able to borrow money directly from the Treasury at a much cheaper rate, making interest spreads much more desirable to Freddie and Fannie than investment banks.

In the end, there were two groups that set lending standards to create conforming loan products, Freddie and Fannie were one group, and investment banks were the other. Blame lies with each of these groups.

Another issue is lenders such as Countrywide Financial that were not regulated. I will look into this further.

Lowering Lending Standards

Who is responsible for lowering lending standards for home mortgages? The answer is here.

The key to understanding the bursting of the housing bubble is to understand that the bubble was created by lowered lending standards which included 100% financing, adjustable rate mortgages, stated income loans, interest only loans, teaser rates and loans targeted at those with poor or no credit. 

It was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that set the lending standards as they purchased or guaranteed nearly 50% of the mortgages issued in the United States. 

Wednesday, December 17, 2008

Democrat Politics -Move On.org

Campaign finance reform was a major catastrophe.

If you want to know what President Bush, John McCain and Republicans were up against in this last election, it is important to understand the third party political organizations called 527's. If you have heard of MoveOn.org, you have only heard of one of dozens of other political organizations out there that raise unlimited amounts of money from unknown donors and targeted Republicans.

This is just one example of a political campaign organization that uses $20 million from unnamed sources. 

Saturday, December 13, 2008

Ethanol Solutions

There are two issues that ethanol companies are pushing to become profitable in the near future, a blender pumps mandate, and an increase in the allowable ethanol blending standard from 10% to 15% ethanol blends.

Ethanol companies and corn lobbyists criticize large food producers such as Tyson Foods (corn is the largest input cost for chicken, pork and beef production) and oil companies such as Exxon for opposing any changes. The reasons for the opposition; ethanol creates higher food prices and lower oil profits.

In the crossfire between government subsidized industries, politicians must try to pick a winner between the three subsidized industries. Welcome to the future of government owned enterprises. For all intents and purposes, private investments in government subsidized industries are also subsidized by politicians.

This is the very scary place we find ourselves in. We need to set up ground rules for private investments in government subsidized businesses.

Here is the framework of legislation that should be considered.

First, any industry that is subsidized, through the use of mandate, tax credit, or government favoritism, must be recognized and submit to the following rules.

1. All industries must submit to unionization of the labor force. A mandatory 60 hour work week will be required with overtime pay beginning at 60 hours.
2. All health care expenses must be run through the same health care plan as the US Congress. The US Congress shall change their health care into a high deductible catastrophic policy with medical savings accounts as a required component of 3/5 of the deductible level. This shall be the policy experiment for a national health care plan experiment.
3. All industries must pay executives and lobbyists no more than 4 times the hourly earnings of the lowest paid employee in the industry.  Lobbyists must place 25% of their earnings into the energy savings bonds as described below.
4. All capital investments and investor income must be recognized on a 5 year running average of forward earnings. Basically I am tired of people making large amounts of money on government subsidies.
5. No company will be allowed to trade publicly for 5 years, and no return on investment shall be paid for 5 years after initial public offering.
6. All investments will be conducted in the form of debt or direct ownership. No equities will be allowed.

In return for investing in alternative energy technology, the government should allow investors to receive up to a 10% tax discount on other federal tax liabilities. Whatever incentive you have for encouraging investments in alternative energy, it should be run by an energy policy blue ribbon commission with the power to disperse money in a very transparent way. These investments should be raised by offering tax incentives for energy independent bonds with all investments made in a very transparent process. An idea would be to have an online auction of bonds of pre-approved companies with willing buyers able to select the technology they would like to invest in. All financial and personnel information on firms receiving money must be published with the amounts of salaries being paid to each person receiving that money. These financial statements must be publicly analyzed in order to receive additional funding. 


Why the Dow goes up with bad news

The US economy is headed into a serious recession. The Dow Jones, meanwhile, has rebounded 1500 points from a low of 7400. Doesn't this seem strange?

It won't after you read this article about the Fed Reserve and the Dept. of Treasury intervening in the markets to prevent a market collapse.

I have been curious about why the Dow Jones has shown remarkable resilience (even though we have been down 40%) with continual bad economic news.

I have also been curious why Golman Sachs seems like they are the fourth branch of government. Nearly every major player in the US Government from Treasury Secretary Paulson to former Treasury Secretary Rubin all worked at Goldman. Does that seem strange? 

No, because the Federal Reserve and the Department of Treasury, through the creation of the "Plunge Protection Team" intervenes in the market to prevent collapse of the economic system we have. In essence, there is no such thing of free and open markets. Instead, the government "allows" the market to exist by propping up stock prices at government created floors. When the government calls Goldman Sachs to start buying stocks, they have just created a floor. This is not free markets, rather, government controlled markets.

And that should cause you concern. Maybe we should let the system collapse and have everyone lose their 401k plans. What an amazing insurance policy Wall Street has created by encouraging Americans to invest their savings in the Stock Market. 

I call this the "political default swap."

Friday, December 12, 2008

The rich get what they deserve

Unfortunately, all the good feelings I get from reading stories about rich, intellectually elite people losing all of their money in Ponzi schemes are tempered by the damage done to our economy, our free market system and our struggling democracy.

Today, Bernard Madoff just admitted to swindling the super wealthy out of $50 billion. Read about it here

The same feelings I have toward Bernard Madoff are the feelings I have with owners of credit card companies receiving adulation for the philanthropic investments in Sioux Falls that were usuriously taken from people that shouldn't have been spending money in the first place. Watching people blindly suck up to the super rich that have earned money by taking advantage of people makes me ill.

Reading a story about elite rich people getting taken advantage of seems like blind justice.

The same feelings I have toward Madoff are the same ones I have with allowing people to vote who are unable to show proper identification; allowing people to endlessly cross our border, then shipping 5% of those that are caught back, only to watch them do it again; allowing businesses to write off health care expenses while self employed people like me pay 100% of our medical bills; allowing unions to force businesses to pay indefinitely for "workers" who are no longer working for auto companies; allowing politicians to get off the hook for responsibility of this economic crisis and getting away with blaming everybody else but them; allowing people to think it is against the law to destroy an eagle egg, but not an unborn child; allowing a politician to claim there is a lock box for Social Security, but not telling people it is simply filled with IOU's. I am further annoyed that people say we are the richest country in the world, when, in truth, we are $60 trillion in debt and are adding trillions every month.

I am particularly annoyed at people who will be mad at Madoff for running a Ponzi scheme, but are perfectly willing to allow government to run the greatest Ponzi scheme around. The only difference between Madoff and the government is that he took money from new investors and gave it to old investors while government just prints money and gives it to other people.

My fear about this story is that it will open up opportunity to turn this country even more socialist--meaning that money will no longer be the property of the people that make it, but rather owned by government.

The underlying principle of democracy is that with freedom comes responsibility. This is a principle I will address in the next post.

Thursday, December 11, 2008

Wednesday, December 10, 2008

Education Must Drastically Change

If learning by example is critical, what are children learning in our current education system?

1. Inefficiency is more important than learning.

The idea that thirty children learn at the same speed is an absolute disgrace and needs to be discredited immediately. Children are bored in school because the system is designed to waste time. A single teacher giving a lesson plan, and holding the attention of children for hours at a time is ludicrous. If the educational powers to be can't understand this principle, we need to destroy the educational system and start over.

I've heard that socialization is as important as learning. I can't tell you how ludicrous this is. First, who say you can't teach socialization and be efficient at learning? These people are protecting a system that is broken?

I've heard that we can't teach classes on personal finance because there aren't enough hours in the day. Home school children are able to learn curriculum in half days or even less. Public schools should be restructured to have children learning at their own pace, not in a group environment where the class moves on at the pace of the slowest child.

2. For as much as we brag about the quality of our teachers, I would like to take a random sample of the SAT or ACT scores of teachers. I would then like to compare them to the test scores of other professions. Teaching is a noble profession, but it is important to have a realistic dialogue who is going into the teaching profession.

3. Teachers are aligned with labor unions and socialist policies that destroy the economic vitality of America. Exactly how can our schools be successful if they see their teachers continually complain about being underpaid, and continually see the "injustice" of teachers wages? Backed up by the media, teachers and professors have created an indoctrination of children designed to make industry and business as bad, such as "Big Auto, Big Oil, Big Pharmaceutical, Big Tobacco, Big Agriculture." The only thing they like that is big is "Big Government." Additionally, the education system is pushing degrees in sociology, psychology, humanities. To teach a generation of black children and graduate them with a degree in "Black History" is doing what, exactly, for them economically? These degrees are doing nothing to compete in science and technology, the degrees we need in this country. And yes, it will be business that will employ them, so lay off the evil big business speeches.

4. Teachers better lay off the "not getting paid enough" tripe. Teachers have been underpaid in every generation, in every region of the country for as long as there has been teachers. You knew going into teaching that it was going to be like that, and it will always be like that. Get over it. I am tired of hearing about the "value of education." There is no value in education. There I said it. The value is in learning, and I don't think some teachers understand how to create a system where the greatest learning can take place. It is for this reason that I am such a huge supporter of home schooling. This is the greatest competition the educational system has seen. And frankly, home schooled children are embarrassing the public schools scholastically.

Don't miss this video by Newt Gingrich about education. It is spot on.

Monday, December 8, 2008

Let's list the USA on the NYSE

The United States of America should be added on the New York Stock Exchange soon. 

The United States is the largest hedge fund in the world. Let's quickly check the list of companies that USA owns or has agreed to bail out.

1. AIG--bailed out because of credit default swaps
2. JP Morgan--mortgage backed securities and CDS
3. Bear Sterns--mortgage backed securities and CDS
4. Citibank-mortgage loans, MBS and CDS
5. Freddie Mac--mortgage loans, MBS
6. Frannie Mae--mortgage loans, MBS
7. Indybank-
8. Wachovia
9. Washington Mutual
10. Chrysler
11. General Motors
12. Ford (not quite yet)
13. Lehman Brothers (just went bankrupt)
14. 64 banks have received TARP funds
15. 23 FDIC bank failures

Oh, and the Dow went up over 1,500 points in the last week. Hmmm. Wall Street must think these failures are a good thing. Wow...

Sunday, December 7, 2008

Questions for Ethanol Industry

Thank you for taking the time to meet with me discuss my endless questions regarding ethanol. 

I am a large supporter of making agriculture less dependent on government subsidies and am an even larger supporter of ridding our dependence on tyrannical Islamic extremists for our energy needs. 

My efforts to understand the energy issue is an effort to develop a working knowledge of a self sustainable, long term energy plan that our country can rally around. It is important to be disinterested in the outcome only in that the energy plan meets the two overriding goals stated above. A third goal is to develop the most environmental friendly energy solution available, with the understanding that all energy will have limitations.

Our country needs a comprehensive energy policy, not a patchwork of policies that are geared at directly subsidizing multiple technologies. It is in this vein that I am gathering information.

The Western world is held hostage by our reliance on an oil-based economy. Indirectly, we fund the very war being waged against us in the form of radical Muslim extremism. In order to break the cycle of energy dependence, it is vital to have an comprehensive energy policy which includes all sources of energy.

We have just experienced the cataclysmic change we need to focus on a comprehensive energy solution with $150 per barrel oil and $4 gasoline. If this were the only portion of our economic crises, we would be well-suited to invest in the multitudinous alternative energies available such as wind, solar, photovoltaics, battery technology, hydrogen as well as technological advances in natural gas, coal, nuclear, and geothermal.

Unfortunately, the next decade will find us in a difficult time to invest in any energy alternative. With the housing bubble of the last decade, we have witnessed a bubble that has effected the entire Western financial and economic system. Over $7.5 trillion of inflated housing prices ($2.5 trillion have been financed with over 12.5 million homeowners upside down on their mortgages) must be absorbed in the economy. Additionally, trillions of dollars of Wall Street unfunded insurance policies, called credit default swaps, are about to bring our economy to our knees. Finally, government spending on the federal, state and local level is at pre bubble values, meaning every form of government is going to be deficit spending for years to come. Unfortunately, state and local governments do not have the ability to run deficits, so it will be the Federal Government that will be responsible for picking up the tab. 

All told, our government is bankrupt. This year alone, the Federal Government deficit will exceed $1 trillion. Next year, it will even be worse as the economy slides into a recession, millions of people are laid off, and our tax base takes a serious hit, and we try to spend ourselves out of recession. Every investment the Federal Government takes must show good return on investment as other crisis will need to be addressed such as the impending health care (government pays for half of all medical bills which are rising at 8% per annum in this country in the form of Medicare and Medicaid) and Social Security (the system is bankrupt by 2017) materializes.

The future of ethanol needs more of a long term vision. Ethanol must prove it's ability to be self sustaining to justify additional mandates .

In order to do that, ethanol must overcome several major drawbacks. First, it needs to have a plan to be consumer driven, without requiring a top down approach.  Currently, the business model requires the Federal Government to create the demand. The need for central planning is your greatest liability. 

It is inherent in your business model that your support come from politicians who believe in central planning.  An industry beholden to politicians is not sustainable long term. One need to look no further than the Detroit automakers and the union bargaining to see what top down companies look like after they have run their course. Further, relying on politicians and not consumers, to determine the success of the industry, leads to long term failure. Simply look at the cotton, tobacco, corn, wheat, soybean and sugar subsidies that are so prevalent in the agriculture bill. The ability to reduce subsidies once central planning has gotten involved has addictive political qualities that do not go away. The very reliance on political events is the single largest risk of your industry. As easy as it is for politicians to invest in your industry, they can remove their support. 

Secondly, the other major drawback of ethanol is the extensive investment in infrastructure required to operate a national ethanol program without knowing the eventual economic viability of the industry. Diverse standards of each of the states, the cost to implement ethanol blending and distribution facilities, the cost to research next generation technologies, current commodity pricing structures of the major inputs such as natural gas, electricity, corn and water, as well as the current sales structure of relying on commodity pricing for ethanol are all variable costs and significant investments that affect the profitability of the industry. As we have seen with the failure of Vera Sun, misallocation of funds is ripe with fraud, waste or abuse. The government can not protect against bad judgement.

For an industry to be largely reliant on government mandate without knowing the long term viability of the industry, places government in a very difficult position. If a better technology comes along, too much investment will already have been made in ethanol infrastructure, and long term subsidization will occur, similar to subsidizing transportation, finance, insurance, health care and all other businesses our Federal Government most recently have been forced to support.

Finally, the idea of creating a 30 billion gallon demand, then creating an industry should make you very nervous. If your profitability requires exponential growth to survive, I would indicate your business is going to fail. The current growth levels need to be maintained. Businesses losing money is a part of a growth market. The goal of your company should be to invest over the long term, predicting that undercapitalized companies will fail. At this time, it is my belief this is the best way to avoid making larger and larger mistakes. A rush to invest more in technology should be avoided unless you are able to acquire additional investors in that new technology. Currently, there is a wealth of money idle in this economy. Any research in cellulosic ethanolk should tap into these investments as opposed to going after market share or market penetration. There is ample growth in ethanol. To accelerate ethanol growth would only create disastrous negative effects.

Your analysis of continually increasing corn yields is untenable. Regardless of the prognostications, there is no clear way to know what part of the growth curve we are on for additional yields. The increases in technology required to produce greater and greater yields assumes greater yields without very difficult drought years such as those experienced in the late 1970's, the ability of technology to outpace pestilence and resistance hybrid seed corn.

The idea that gas production is more energy dependent than ethanol production should be dropped. This is a ludicrous argument and should be dropped for one simple reason. Oil can exist in a closed loop. Ethanol can not exist in a closed loop--meaning carbon energy needs to be used to create ethanol. So it really doesn't matter how much oil it takes to produce gasoline.

In summary, massive amounts of infrastructure will need to be added in order to change our energy usage. If electricity is to be used to power automobiles in the next several years, trillions of dollars of investments will need to be made in the electricity generation and delivery mechanisms. Regardless of General Motors belief in ethanol, they are betting their company on the Chevrolet Volt-such a drastic change that it will have it's own revolutionary effects. First, their are no working parts such as transmission, drive train, etc. This will effect the way people look at servicing vehicles and will have an effect on gas stations, repair facilities, and parts suppliers. A massive shift of energy will be transferred to the grid, requiring trillions of dollars of additional infrastructure.

All in all, before we go too far down the road of any new technology, we need to be able to removed from the success of any one particular technology--including ethanol. The government has done enough, and maybe even too much, to encourage rapid growth in an unproven technology.

But I keep my eyes affixed to the great opportunity ethanol holds.



The collapse of the US economy and a prolonged depression will result in drastically higher spending from the Federal Government. Every industry receiving federal money and subsidies need to prove their worthiness. 

Alternative energy initiatives are going to run in the trillions of dollars over the next five years. Ethanol must, once again, prove it's worth. 

1. Can the ethanol industry survive economically without subsidies to corn farmers?

Direct payments of $.28 per bushel.
6.7 billion gallons of ethanol produced in 2007
2.5 billion bushels of corn
$750 million of direct subsidy per year

Marketing credits
Counter cyclical payments
Blending credits of $.51/gallon or $3.41 billion. 
Crop Insurance/Disaster payments

State tax incentives and producer incentives equivalent of $500 million/year.

What is the total value of subsidies for ethanal/corn production?

With the market volatility of corn prices, how can the industry be profitable for the long term?

How much does it cost to produce a gallon of ethanol?

Variable Costs?
Price of corn, transportation costs
Fixed Costs?
Operations, Marketing

2. Ethanol needs to produce more than a 1:1 ratio to be sustainable. If that would be the return, it would be better to not have an ethanol industry. What is the maximum energy return on ethanol?

What is the greatest energy return on energy input for row crops such as corn? Has any ethanol plant conducted any of these studies? How much energy return is attributable to DDG, WDGor other side product sales?

How much does an ethanol plant effect the cost of natural gas, electricity, water costs and food prices in the surrounding area it serves?

In the most effective plant..
1. How many bushels of corn used
2. How much ethanol is produced
3. How much energy is used?
Natural Gas
Diesel
Gasoline

What is the break even point on the number of bushels per acre?

Facts...
One bushel of corn generates 2.7 gallons of ethanol
One gallon of ethanol = .67 gallons of gasoline
One bushel of corn generates (2.7 *.67) = 1.8 gallons of gasoline (equiv)

If gas is $2.50 per gallon, one bushel of processed corn would produce $4.50 worth of gasoline (equiv).

My first question is what price does a bushel of corn need to cost in order to make ethanol cost effective on the open market without subsidies (ethanol is not taxed at the same rate as petroleum to the consumer and large corporations are paid to blend ethanol.)

It may be cost effective to produce ethanol in Iowa where they average 180 bushels per acre, but is it worthwhile to produce ethanol in South Dakota?

South Dakota averages 104 bushels per acre
One acre of corn in South Dakota can produce 280 gallons of ethanol
One acre of corn in South Dakota can produce 187 gallons of gas equivalent
One acre of corn can make $672 of ethanol (as of today ethanol trades for $2.44/gallon)
One acre of corn sells on the open market (as of today corn trades for $5.84/bushel--down from a high of $7.25) for $607/acre as an unprocessed commodity.

Iowa averages 160 bushels per acre
One acre of corn in Iowa can produce 427 gallons of ethanol
One acre of corn in Iowa can produce 286 gallons of gas equivalent
One acre of corn can make $640 of ethanol (as of today ethanol trades for $1.50/gallon)
One acre of corn sells on the market (as of today corn trades for $3.05 per bushel) for $488 for the unprocessed commodity.

How much does it cost to make 427 gallons of ethanol?

How are ethanol companies making money???

How much does it cost to transport, produce and ship ethanol??

Is it less than $65 for every acre of corn or 280 gallons of ethanol?

Friday, December 5, 2008

Economic Opportunity

People are telling me I am too negative because I believe the Dow will hit 6000. But I really believe there is huge opportunity in this transitional economy. Let me explain.

Before we get started, let me remind you why the Dow is going to hit 6000. The true value of stocks are reflective of how much money a company will make over the next 7 to 10 years--no more and no less. The price per share is reflected in the Price to Earnings ratio (P/E). 

The rational P/E ratio of a mature company (growth is relatively stable) is 7:1 because an investment of capital in this environment gives a sustainable return on investment over 7 years. Lower ratios would indicate the earnings were expected to decrease. Higher ratios would indicate earnings were expected to increase.

Over the last 30 years, P/E ratios became inflated (from 30-100:1) for several reasons. First, the "potential" of these companies was great indicating high levels of growth was expected. Second, with more money in the stock market, supply and demand issues affected stock prices. Some people call this the speculative component of the market. Finally, more people looked at stocks as an investment in their portfolios versus investments in a company. In other words, shareholders were no longer owners of a company, just holders of a piece of paper. As long as there were people willing to buy the piece of paper, it didn't matter how much income the underlying company was actually generating.

Today, this has all changed. If you look at P/E ratios, companies are trading for 7-10 times earnings. This is a positive thing. But why would stocks head for 6000?

Conservative share price valuations are based on earnings and future earnings. 
Earnings forecasts have a hard time placing a P/E ratio on companies that are losing money and are structurally incapable of making money in the future. Today, the many industries in crisis, from banks and autos, to airlines and housing, are all in a structural free fall. The amount of debt and obligations they incurred over the last several years eliminate the ability to make a profit in the future. Until the tens of trillions of dollars of losses filter through the economy, we are going to be saddled with bad news. 

The economic crisis we are in shows no way to get out for many years to come.

1. Unemployment is expected to rise to 8%. Consumer debt and bankruptcies will skyrocket.
2. The Federal Government deficit is expected to reach $1 trillion per year and rising.
3. State and City Government deficits are expected to reach $300 - $1 trillion.
4. Entire industries are bracing for structural failure. These include: Automobile, Airline, Financial, Housing, (Anything related to consumer credit such as credit cards, consumer electronics such as big screen tv's, home improvements such as hot tubs).
5. Government spending on corporate, state and municipal bailouts will continue to rise.
6. Government spending on individuals affected by the economy will skyrocket
7. Manufacturers will continue to fail because American labor costs 10 to 100 times foreign labor.
8. Democrats control Congress and the Presidency, increasing the likelihood of increased government payments to individuals.
9. The value of the dollar will be affected on what it can buy (inflation).

These 9 problems are simply dealing with the bad economy. We have a structural problem with government, without the increased deficit spending...

1. Half of the health care dollars is spent by the Federal and State Governments on Medicare and Medicaid. Health Care costs are increasing at 9% or more per year.
2. Social Security will be insolvent in 2017, regardless of the Al Gore Lock Box filled with IOU's from the Federal Government.
3. The Clinton welfare reform bill has never been tested by a recession. The chances of that being repealed will be nearly 100%, costing billions.
4. The war on terror is one attack away from shutting down the entire Western world. Meanwhile, we are spending nearly $1 trillion per year in national defense and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
5. Iran with a nuclear capacity may well entice Israel into a war of attrition.

The stock market will be able shrug off some bad news right now, but prolonged bad news, like a prolonged war, will destroy the confidence in the market for many years to come. It is for this reason I predict a Dow 6000.

I was, however, writing about the amazing economic opportunity ahead for our country, so here it goes. 

We have a remarkable opportunity to get back to investing that makes sense. Gone are the days of making 30% return on your investment, at least for a while. This leaves billions of dollars of investment money looking for larger returns on their investment. They will look at "growth markets" overseas in third world countries, but this comes with great risk. Cheap consumer goods fueled the growth of the last 30 years. The new economy will be growth associated with energy independence.

The better investment for people with money is to invest in industries that are structurally broken. These industries are energy, health care and transportation. Reliance on foreign sources of oil has turned the world into a powder keg, and has turned our economy into a firestorm. Money-rich Islamic Terrorists and a Western Governments reliance on foreign oil will encourage investment in the following areas.

1. Coal
2. Nuclear
3. Geothermal 
4. Electric Smart Grids
5. Wind
6. Solar
7. Battery Technology

These technologies will alter the direction of the transportation industry, such as public transit, personal transportation and airline industries.

Further investment in these areas will allow America to lead the world in these technologies, creating markets world wide.

The next bubble will be companies that are investing in these technologies. Be careful, because with any bubble, billions of dollars will be made, and billions of dollars will be lost, as business models fail.

Welcome to the turbulent times of free market capitalism. Businesses must be allowed to fail before new businesses will be created.

So even though I see the glass fully empty, I do think that the glass still has the potential of holding water...I just don't know how billions of dollars of investment will be able to returned. But that is why we get up in the morning...

We will see...

Thursday, December 4, 2008

Fiscal and social conservative--defined

By Rev. William J. H. Boetcker, who lectured around the United States about industrial relations at the turn of the twentieth century. 

You cannot bring prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
You cannot further brotherhood of men by inciting class hatred.
You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence.
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.

Wednesday, December 3, 2008

Unions destroy Competitiveness: Part 1

With the Big Three Automakers losing billions of dollars, people are finally seeing why unions are anti-business.

Can you imagine if you decided to lay off an employee and you were required to pay 95% of their salary indefinitely?

That is exactly what the United Auto Workers forced upon the Big Three Automakers in defense of their union members with the threats of strike. Now we know why it costs $1500 more per vehicle than their non-union competitors. 

Read about this atrocity here.

Do we bail these unions out with a $28 billion "loan?" 

Not a chance...

Sunday, November 30, 2008

How to Never Repeat the Mortgage Mess

The mortgage industry needs to be overhauled. Here is how to do it.

Currently, mortgages are written by banks or mortgage brokers who often sell the mortgages immediately on the secondary market to other banks or to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. These companies then bundle the loans into a bond called a mortgage backed security.

This system needs to change for one reason. The people that write the mortgages do not have skin in the game. In other words, they assume none of the risk. 

There are three possible solutions to get skin in the game for those that write these mortgages.

1. Banks should have to hold the mortgage for a minimum of one year. And, or...

2. Banks should be required to have a "foreclosure interest" in the loan, which would be 20% of the loan amount. This would discourage banks to write risky loans and would make mortgage backed securities safer investments. And, or...

3. All mortgages should be written in two parts. The first should be written to 80% of the appraised value and should be eligible for selling into a mortgage backed security. The second portion should be written and kept by the bank writing the mortgage.


Friday, November 28, 2008

The New World Odor

There are telling signs of a new alliance that is a greater threat to Western Civilization than we have seen since the buildup of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan in the 1930's.

The players in this new alliance are oil rich and nuclear powered Russia, a nuclear powered China and Pakistan, third world countries with oil money procured over the last 5 years, and Muslim extremists who specialize in guerrilla warfare. 

The difference between this war and others is this will be the first world war without uniforms, and the first war in a politically correct Western world. The battle is financed by traditional nation states opposed to Western Civilization, but waged by Muslim extremists using terrorist, suicide style civilian attacks on vulnerable Western targets.

Someday, we will be ready to fight this war, but as of today, we are only prepared to strengthen our enemies and invite them into our open society. They will use our strength against us. They will use our universities, our financial system, and Hollywood to push an ideology of tolerance in order to destroy our resolve. And they will almost succeed.

But just as we are about to lose, we will learn how to fight. How bad it gets will be determined by how soon we take this threat seriously. Every day we wait to confront Muslim extremism, we empower the alliance and make it more difficult to defeat.

Here is Newt Gingrich talking about the threats we face. This is a must watch..

Monday, November 24, 2008

Free Market Capitalism is not High Finance Capitalism

My new term, reality free market economic capitalism, is a term to explain my belief in a system that is getting pummeled by all of these socialist bailouts. Make no mistake about it, the banking system has turned into a Las Vegas style craps table, no more pegged to free market capitalism than a baseball game is pegged to competition when one pitcher has been paid to serve up meatballs.

The world of high finance is failing. Today, Citibank was bailed out by the United States Treasury because a large portion of banking is no longer about receiving deposits and making loans. Banking today is more about betting with other companies that still other companies are going to fail. Since when is that banking?

The bets are derivatives such as credit default swaps which are simply side bets that another company is going to fail. In the name of insurance, these bets are unfunded, unregulated and untenable. In today's shaky financial environment, these derivatives are now being subsidized by our federal government by bailing our companies exposed to them. The first major player was AIG. Today, it is Citibank. In between, these derivatives unravelled nearly every investment bank in the country.

The basis for reality free market economic capitalism is that common sense can not be tranched out of the system. Risk can not be leveraged and eliminated out of the system. But this is exactly what investment banks and derivatives traders tried to do. By packaging risk products and selling risk broadly throughout the market, high finance capitalists have tried to make loads of money by eliminating risk. This flies in the face of reality. Now the Federal Treasury is asked to bail out these risk-eliminating derivatives. 

Instead of bailing out companies that practiced such stupidity, what should happen is that these banks should be forced to sell off their assets to the highest bidder and whole companies should be broken down and restructured. Banks and investment companies should not be allowed to write bets on other companies' failure, whether you called them credit default swaps or what they should be called, unregulated gambling liability instruments yielding stupidly high investment toxicity, or UGLYSHIT, for short.

UGLYSHIT is not a free market product. They are products created to circumvent free markets. Free markets are risky as a necessary part of them is there are winners and losers. UGLYSHIT was a way to eliminate risk. In the end, they have become the most risky products ever invented by man.

The most amazing thing about UGLYSHIT is that they were created by incredibly arrogant, highly educated Wall Street Bankers who went to schools like Wharton Business School and Harvard Business School, and worked at places like JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs. 

Incredibly smart people, right? Maybe we should teach them about reality free market economic capitalism.

Sunday, November 23, 2008

Reality Economics vs. Entitlement Economics

Every exchange of a good or service must include a necessary, and some say an evil component called profit.

In every market, there are two players, the buyer and seller of a good or service. Open competition between multiple buyers and multiple sellers create a reality economy. Government interference to help the buyer or help the seller in a market creates an entitlement economy. 

An active competition between buyers and sellers determines the fair market price. When there isn't competition between sellers, the price of the good and service will be too high. Likewise, if there isn't competition between buyers, the price will be too low.

When competition between buyers is low, prices will be low and the market doesn't provide an incentive to improve the product or service. Sellers will choose to leave the market and slowly the prices will rise to a point where there is an equal number of sellers and buyers.  This is called a market equilibrium. 

When competition between buyers is high, meaning buyers outnumber sellers, prices go up. As prices rise, more sellers will be attracted to the market. If the competition between sellers is high, there is an incentive to improve the product or service.

When a person goes to work, they exchange their labor for a common currency. The purchaser of that labor, in turn, sells that labor in the open market. If they sell that labor for the same, or less than the amount as they paid for it, they lose money. They price their labor on the open market by only one qualification, the amount the market is willing to pay for it.

Why is this important?

Every economic bubble, such as the housing bubble we are experiencing today, was created by non market economics. The market of buyers was artificially stimulated by forces other than a reality market economy. By creating more buyers than sellers, prices rose to meet the increased demand.

How can demand be created by other than market forces?

One way is for speculation to enter the market. Speculation is a market driven phenomenon which takes away market economics. For example, the dot com bubble was created by speculators in an economic system where market economics temporarily didn't exist. Speculative markets will self correct when businesses do not make money.

Government artificially creates demand by subsidizing the buyer or seller or mandating a marketplace where one didn't previously exist. In the housing bubble, government made it easier for buyers to get access to money. They did this buy creating government programs to guarantee mortgages written in the free market. Government agreed to take out the risk of lending using government sponsored entities such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They owned or guaranteed half of the home loans in the United States. 

Further demand was created by creating competition between government entities and the private sector companies. When the private mortgage industry competed with a government industry, an entitlement economy was created and the law of unintended consequences took over. Sub prime mortgages were made to people who could not meet market economic realities. Loans were given to people who could not afford homes because government encouraged businesses to make loans to them. In an effort to get more people to qualify, loans were created that didn't meet reality market conditions. Adjustible rate mortgages, 100% financing, and interest only loans were encouraged.

What should we learn about this housing bubble?

If it sounds too good to be true, it generally is. A free market reality economy exists when a buyer assumes the risk of taking out the loan, and a seller assumes the risk of making the loan. A buyer must have something to lose, which means they need to put up a down payment. A seller must have something to gain, a profit. Anything else is simply a state controlled economy and it will never work long term.

Can we apply these lessons to other markets?

Absolutely. Take the ethanol industry. The government guaranteed the demand for ethanol by creating a 5 billion gallon mandate. This is an entitlement economy, not a free market economy. This was done first to "create another market" for corn. Second, the market was created to "eliminate pollution," Finally, it was sold as a way of "lessening our dependance on foreign oil."

It needs to be stressed that there has never been buyers of ethanol because it was cheaper or better than the alternatives. The entire market was created by an artificial government demand. Incredible amounts of money must be spent by private companies in order to invest in infrastructure to accommodate this mandate. Oil companies must expend resources to mix gasoline with ethanol. Transportation companies must ship this gasoline with extra equipment, mainly separate rail cars and tanker trucks. Gas stations must install extra holding tanks and pumps to distribute this product. Auto manufactures must invest money in research and design of engines and technology to utilize ethanol and the myriad of products. State governments give up tax dollars from gas production. Millions of dollars must be spent on government lobbyists and trade associations dedicated at proving the necessity of the subsidy. Increased amounts of demand corn increases production acres for corn, which either adds more acres in production, or a transfer from other crops. An increased acreage for crops increases the demand for fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, seed corn and a myriad of other services, as well as the cost of land, driving up prices for production. 

One simple mandate creates a bunch of unintended consequences that are difficult to quantify. How much has the increased demand for corn increased the price of corn? How much more does the cost of corn affect the cost of beef, poultry and pork? If you listen to the corn lobbyists, the cost of food has not gone up because of ethanol. If you listen to the animal producers, you will hear a different story.

One thing is certain. The first reason ethanol producers wanted to produce ethanol, was to create more demand for the product. They wanted to increase demand in order to increase prices for corn. For them to now say ethanol doesn't increase prices of food goes against the reason they wanted ethanol in the first place-that it would increase demand for corn.

Any time entitlement economics is employed, the long term unintended consequences will cause an improper investment of resources and the costs will be greater than the initial benefits. Whether I am for or against ethanol is immaterial. What is important is that people understand that the same economic problems will be created by ethanol as the housing bubble.




Tuesday, November 18, 2008

Free Market Capitalism: RIP

It might be time to bury the cold, dead corpse of free market capitalism and finally embrace the comforting love of state sponsored socialism. 

It will be so much more efficient to deliver services without having the extra expenses of competition spending billions on advertising, marketing, profit, speculation, duplicitous administrations and budgets.

Imagine our new economy and how efficient it will be.

With only one bank, the Bank of the United States Treasury-Goldman Sachs, all people in the country will be required to open up a single checking account. All savings will be fully insured (no more $100,000 limit) with the full faith and credit of the United States Treasury, ensuring that deposits from around the world will end up here. Without greedy capitalist bankers, hard working, honest, unionized government bankers will be able to make loans to businesses that focus on social consciousness, not solely on profit.

With only one insurance company, the United States Treasury--AIG, our politicians will finally offer universal insurance. With the cost savings, we no longer will have to worry about multi line discounts--home, auto, life, flood, tornado, crop, etc. Regardless of the tragedy, everything will be covered because the pool will be so large it will be able to absorb the costs. In the unfortunate event your boyfriend breaks up with you, with an insurance pool this big, there should be plenty of room to pay for a week of shopping and ice cream to help you feel better.

And what an efficient system it will be, as we will be able to direct deposit payments from the checking account directly to the insurance premiums. More importantly, we will be able to provide the same level of service to all citizens, regardless of income. No longer will we have to hate large insurance companies, because they will no longer exist. No more pre-existing condition riders. And we should be finally allowed to introduce preventative medicine measures, too. I do believe there should be enough room in the budget to make water taste like cream and granola taste like fat.

Having one large bank has its advantages, too. We will make it illegal to open any other banking accounts oversees thereby eliminating tax cheats and illegal money laundering. The rich will finally pay their fair share of taxes. Another advantage is to provide loans to people in inner cities and minorities who have been left out of the capitalist system. 

When the government needs money, it will be easier to find out who has most of the money and devise a more efficient system to transfer it. Instead of an income tax, we can just levy a savings tax. This seems to be a more fair system while creating a fair society. For this to work, we will need to close down the stock market, as it involves too much risk and it would be easier to levy the wealth tax if everyone had their wealth in one location.

And it would be important to have the government own other industries as well, namely the automobile and energy industry. If the government owns the auto industry, we could finally be able to build energy efficient, non-polluting cars. One simple piece of legislation should guarantee profit for the new United States Treasury--GM auto company. Simply creating a mandate that half of all cars bought in America must be purchased from the state owned auto company will ensure success. 

If the government owned all the oil companies, we could eliminate the obscene profits and return that money back to the people. Congress could outlaw oil in 15 years transitioning from oil, coal and even nuclear to solar panels, compressed swamp gas. With such a timeframe, it is important to create new technological research.  We should plan on studying such energetic possibilities as inorganic matter energy farms using the heat from desert silica sand and to harness wind in with my new invention, the sailcar. With a well-written application to the Bank of the US Treasury-Sachs, I plan on securing a grant based on the idea of getting everyone going in the same direction (unless the wind isn't blowing that day).

It is time to completely take over the agriculture industry with the new Department of Agriculture-ADM, Tyson Food Company. No more need for subsidies. Our country is too reliant on protein. All of this corn production which goes to feed livestock such as cattle, pork and chicken is a very inefficient way to feed a population. It simply takes too much energy. When we nationalize the agriculture industry, we could move to a more healthy diet of fruit and vegetables, saving money and lowering the average weight of the population by 15%, thereby reducing the medical costs of the population by 25%, an amazing savings.

We know this will work, because we have seen the government perform very well in the past. Just look at the Social Security System, the VA Hospital System, and the education system. 

It may be true that not a single state owned economy in the world has really worked that well, but we can learn from their mistakes. Anyone who disagrees with this must die, you capitalist pig!




Thursday, November 13, 2008

Free Enterprise-part one

"I love people with soft hearts. But the problem with those people is their condition extends to their heads."--Milton Friedman, defending free markets and capitalism to a socialist.

The rebuilding of the Republican Party must begin with the rebuilding of the meaning of free markets and capitalism.

Nobody articulates free market capitalism better than Milton Friedman, economist and advisor to Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. We have much to learn from Friedman, including the way he defends his methods using the Socratic method

Watching the following video of Milton Friedman defending the free market system is a critical first step to understanding the debate between free markets and socialism--between the liberal policies of Barrack Obama and that of a free market capitalist. Unfortunately, very few Republicans really understand the core of capitalism.

Today, we are faced with a financial and free market crisis unseen by most Americans alive today. This crisis is an opportunity. Watch the first 50 seconds of this video and you will see the opportunity we have today.

Republicans today have an amazing opportunity to help educate another generation of the values of free markets. Although Milton Friedman has passed away, the ideas he espoused, and the effectiveness by which he espoused his ideas, can live on. The next two years will be an amazing educational opportunity.  

Let's all be a part of it.


Wednesday, November 12, 2008

A Lesson in Free Enterprise

The next several posts are to educate people on the value of free enterprise. In this time of government bailouts, many people are finding it easy to blame the free enterprise system for our current global financial crisis. Others call for more government involvement in private business while still others blame Republicans for lax regulation.

But we need to understand what free trade and free enterprise does for each of us. Milton Friedman sums up the power of free enterprise by this simple illustration of the economy of a pencil.

Hundreds if not thousands of people worked together to produce a simple lead pencil, a pencil than not a single one of us would be able to produce by ourselves. Amazing.

Friday, October 24, 2008

The Foreboding Crisis--Government Debt

If there is a silver lining to the ongoing financial crisis it is the much needed wake up call and financial education being thrust upon the American people.

The lesson we must learn from this crisis is that you can not manipulate reality, whether you are an 'intentions are good' liberal or a 'greed is good' Wall Street executive. The reality is not everyone can afford a home and and you can't make 100% profits on mortgages that pays 6%, no matter how many traunches you slice them in. 

In the long run,  there is no free money. For the last 50 years, Americans have been told they can have everything they want, without the sacrifice required to achieve it. We are told we can have lower taxes and more government spending programs.

But those days are over. And that is the silver lining. 

Unfortunately, the silver lining is surrounded by extraordinary toxic doomsday scenarios. It is called the federal debt, federal deficits and the burgeoning cost of the promises our politicians have made for the last half century. Our falsely held belief in the American Dream, defined as the ability to remove fiscal sanity and long term responsibility in exchange for short term rewards and Federal Government largesse, is about to end.

It is not something I want to go into in much detail, as I can not do justice to the severity of the problem. The only thing I can do is link to The Financial Report of the United States Government. I propose that every politician that runs for office, must have read this document, been tested on their knowledge of this paper, and the results of those tests should be published in every newspaper and broadcast on every television and radio station in America. Further, I believe that before any person should be allowed to vote, they should read this document, in English just for spite, and be tested on their knowledge of this document, and proven a general understanding of the financial condition of America.

And before any group dare ask for money from the government, I would challenge them how we are planning on paying for the $59 trillion of unfunded liabilities our government is facing.

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Deregulation by President Clinton?

Democrats are blaming Republicans for our current crisis because of their cry for deregulation. Deregulation is part of the problem, but new financial derivative products were actually deregulated by President Clinton, at the recommendation of The Presidents Working Group of Financial Markets. You can bore yourself for an hour here.

Government is unable to regulate markets, they are only able to assign blame after a crisis. Never has this been so evident in the emergence of complex financial derivatives created in the last 20 years.

The financial derivatives market consists of hundreds of trillions of dollars. Credit default swaps, a portion of the derivatives markets, consist of over $60 trillion dollars. They are underfunded, unregulated bets between two entities regarding the failure of a third business entity. They are not a security such as a stock or a bond, nor are they an insurance policy. This is important to know since regulations apply to the trading of securities, and the selling of insurance.

Why isn't there regulation of these out of control derivatives. Simply because of a law passed in 1999, on the recommendation of the Clinton Administration, to clear up the concern members of the Department of Treasury, the Federal Reserve, and members of the Clinton Administration had regarding the gray area of regulation of these derivatives. They argued and created into statute, through the passage of the Commodity Exchange Act, CEA, new rules to prevent oversight from either the Securities Exchange Commission, or State Insurance Regulators in order to encourage continual growth of these derivative securities.

I am not suggesting the CEA is the entire cause of the current financial crisis. However, it is clear that this is not a deregulation issue of the Bush economic package. When Democrats suggest the crisis is caused by Republicans deregulation measures and that we shouldn't want "more of the same 8 more years of Bush economic programs," they are clearly deflecting blame on Democratic proposals.


Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Health Care is Not a Right!

How far has political rhetoric sunk, when intelligent human beings believe that the best of medical care can delivered to all citizens, in what they refer to as a "right" of every American to quality health care, as Barrack Obama has said.

Just where, exactly, does this right come from?

Certainly not the same place as the "unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," as those, we believe, come from God. So does God give us the "right to free health care?" No, because if you believe that, then you must believe that people in Bangladesh are entitled to the same quality health care as Americans have come to expect. Further, to believe Bengladeshians have a right to health care, you must believe, that the wealthy countries must provide money to pay for it. It may be hard to believe, but many in this world actually think America should provide health care and other services to poor countries.

But isn't it, or at least shouldn't it, be a right for all Americans to have access to the best health care? 

To answer that question, we need to define what it means to have a right. "Rights" were first laid out in the Declaration of Independence, which disavowed the notion that the King has dominion over their subjects, but rather, God gives each of us intrinsic value, "certain unalienable rights," that can not be denied by any other man (or woman) on earth. 

Rights were further enumerated in the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to our Constitution. Basically, the Bill of Rights are a contract between the people and government and they outline the power people are willing to give to a government. It is important to know, that none of these rights, cost any citizen any money. They are free of charge. Why? Because these rights are based on human freedom as outlined in the Preamble of the Bill of Rights about the concern for potential "abuse of powers."

So does health care constitute a right? It is not "given from God", nor does it apply to human freedom and the relationship between all the people and their government. In fact, the opposite is true, a right to health care for one takes away the right of freedom to another. Therefore, health care is not a right, but rather a "proposed entitlement." Politicians are pushing health care for every American because we live in the richest country in the world, they argue, and the least we can do is provide health care for every American.

Before we begin the debate of taking money from one group of "wealthy" citizens and giving it to another group of  "poor" citizens, it is important to begin the debate with accurate terminology. 

Health care for all is not a right, it is a welfare program. Once we pass a law to provide quality health care for every citizen (or non-citizen), we create an entitlement. Entitlements cost an ever increasing amount of money, and as with all entitlements, the cost estimates are always less than the actual costs.

Quality health care for all is a very costly endeavor, and it is never a good idea to begin a costly conversation with the lie that "health care is a right."

Friday, October 17, 2008

Hedge Funds-Another Bailout for the Super Wealthy

Hedge Funds, consisting of $1.2 trillion of investments, are being forced to liquidate their assets as losses mount and investors begin to pull out their money, injecting fear at a time of severe market volatility. The next round of market instability will come as these funds dump their highly leveraged portfolios. Massive losses (and some say another round of bailouts) will occur.

Read this short story here.

Is Wall Street Worth Saving?

I have always wondered how great civilizations simply disappear, only to be excavated thousands of years later by archaeologists revealing impressive mathematical and engineering marvels and elaborate and advanced construction projects.

As I begin to understand how Wall Street and the world of high finance works, I have begun to understand how civilizations must all eventually collapse. Civilizations crumble under the pressure from the sheer size and complexity of the organism it creates--itself.

I beg anyone to try to read and understand this article by the the International Monetary Fund regarding hedge funds. Pay special attention to how hedge funds make their 50-300% returns on their investments. They leverage their complicated derivative investments through the utilization of margin accounts at investment banks to the tune of 30-50%. Let me put that into understandable language.

Hedge funds often invest in derivative securities. They don't buy a stock for $100. They buy an option to buy a stock at $10. This way, they could invest $100, but control $1000. This would be a 10:1 leverage position. But their leverage doesn't end there. Instead of buying their options for $10, they borrow $9 from investment banks, (who borrow it from the Federal Reserve) and invest $1 of their own. Now the leverage position is 100:1.

This is sheer insanity. I can't believe this is the underpinning of capitalism. By a 100:1 ratio, the Federal Reserve is financing gambling with incredible stakes-the future of western civilization.

I am scared to say this, but the world of high finance is going to bring America to her knees. I wouldn't even know where to begin regulating this fiasco. Do you eliminate leverage accounts? If so, where do you stop? Leverage is the key to the capital markets. It is the key to our banking system. Once you begin to regulate, the financial capital of the world will cease to be New York City, but Tokyo, Shanghai, Dubai, or somewhere that has less regulation and less taxation.

In summary, I think civilizations begin to crumble the moment investment moves from an advanced civilization that is focused on stability to a civilization interested in growth. 

Today, America is more interested in stability than growth. American politicians are more interested in the security of its citizens (Social Security, Medicare, Universal Health Care, etc.) than in exploiting its natural resources for job growth. Capital flows to the area with the lowest regulation, lowest taxation, and the highest safety. Unfortunately, America is failing on all three fronts. 

I wonder who will discover America in 1000 years and say, now there was a great civilization.

Thursday, October 16, 2008

Sen. Dodd Calls Hearings? Seriously?

Chris Dodd, the Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee is holding hearings to get to the bottom of the financial crisis. He begins his hearing by defending, that is right, defending Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He claims that it was Wall Street, not Fannie and Freddie, that created the sub prime crisis. 

View the You Tube video here.

Set aside the fact that Sen. Dodd is culpable in the collapse of our financial system, as he received more money ($125,000) from Fannie and Freddie, and hundreds of thousands more from executives of these firms. Set aside the fact that, Sen. Dodd, received special treatment from Countrywide Financial in a sweetheart mortgage. Set aside the fact Sen. Dodd only mentions a two year period from 2004 to 2006. Nobody disagrees that Wall Street greed is part of the problem. 

Sen. Dodd should not be holding hearings, he should be under investigation. He should be interrogated by a panel looking into how this happened. He should be sitting right next the the executives of Fannie, Freddie, Wall Street banks, hedge funds and government oversight committees. He is just as culpable. 

A hearing into a problem by one of the players who helped create the problem is laughable, except it has left the whole world in financial turmoil. And it is not funny. It is criminal. 

I didn't think the approval ratings of Congress could go lower than 9%, but even "relatives and paid staffers" (as Sen. McCain explains Congressional approval ratings), are going to turn against Congress with hypocritical arrogance like this.

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

And the Pendulum Swings Left

The Democrat Party will win big for two simple reasons, the war and the economy.

What are their strategies? Interestingly, their solution to the former is their solution to the latter. The billions we are spending on the war will be spent in our economy.

America is spending nearly $700 billion per year on the defense of our country. During the Clinton Administration, the military budget was cut by $70 billion dollars to just $300 billion. The budget was balanced by Clinton, in large part, by slashing the defense budget and retroactively implementing a huge tax increase, spending some of those additional defense cuts and tax increases on social programs targeted at inner city spending measures.

I believe this will be the model of the Obama, Pelosi, and Ried Administration. How much will be cut out of the defense budget is a real question. As of today, we are spending $140 billion per year in Iraq and an additional $40 billion in Afghanistan. Obama has promised to spend more money in Afghanistan, and less money in Iraq. Just how much can be saved and how quickly will Obama pull out out of Iraq?

On the economy, Pelosi has proposed spending $300 billion on another economic stimulus package in the form of tax cuts for 95% of Americans, money we don't have, directed at people who don't pay taxes in the first place.

The Democrats are going to buy votes of those that don't have money by taking it from people who have it. 

I guess America is ready for this social engineering. This has been tried so many times before in many different countries such as all of Europe, Russia and all communist countries, but I guess we need to try it here again to discover this simple truth...

If you take from one individual and give it to another, you create a system that discourages individual productivity and prohibits change-the very thing Americans wanted.

Monday, October 13, 2008

How to win against Sen. Johnson

Vigorously call on Senator Johnson to call for...

1) a criminal investigation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and all executives including Jim Johnson, and Franklin Raines.
2) a criminal investigation of ACORN and all other community organizations that were involved in blackmail and enforcement of the Community Reinvestment Act
3) a criminal investigation of the political activities of these organizations
4) a thorough investigation into the lobbying activities of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and ACORN and related organizations.
5) a criminal investigation of Democrat Senators Christopher Dodd, Barrack Obama and Kent Conrad for the ties to lobbyist money received from these organizations.
6) demanding their removal from any oversight of investigations due to conflict of interest in hearings to the causes of the economic crisis

We need to hear an explanation of how we got into this situation directly from Senator Johnson. We need to understand if he still believes in the social engineering required of banks by the Community Reinvestment Act.

The press needs to understand this economic crisis was caused by a housing bubble through the creation of loan products to people who would otherwise not qualify for mortgages because of a law aimed at forcing banks to make bad loans that were guaranteed by government sponsored entities in bed with Democratic politicians looking to buy votes and gaining access to "get out the vote" activists as mortgage recipients were often required to perform political activities to assist Democrat politicians. 

Further, Fannie and Freddie used extensive lobbyist activities to prevent much needed oversight and regulation of their business, even after being forced to restate earnings and proven illegal activities to financially benefit the executives at these firms. Corporations such as Countrywide Mortgage gave sweetheart loans to elected officials including Barrack Obama, Kent Conrad and Chris Dodd. Barney Frank needs to have a special cell in Prison Block A just for the arrogance to blame the failed Bush Policies of Deregulation when he knows it was Democrat Social engineering that got us into this problem in the first place.


McCain Plan on Housing is Wrong

Imagine you bought a $400,000 house 2 years ago and today it is worth $250,000. Let's say you put down 20%  so you owe $320,000. You pay $3000/month for your mortgage.

At the same time, your neighbor bought a similar house next door and financed 100% of his home. He owes $400,000. He pays $4000/month. 

He gets behind and defaults on his mortgage because he can't afford the payments. 

You make your payments on time.

The government writes down his mortgage to $250,000 and lowers his payment to $2500/month.

The government doesn't lower your payment, or write down your mortgage.

This is actually the proposal by Senator John McCain and Rep. Maxine Waters


Who do you shoot first? 

The neighbor, who has lived beyond his means and was just rewarded for it?

The bank, for making the loan to your neighbor and who was just taken over by FDIC?

Fannie Mae, because they encouraged the bank to lend your neighbor money because they guaranteed he would pay it back?

The executives that ran this Ponzi scheme, because they made millions knowing that if the economy crashed it would bring down the world as we know it?

Wall Street, because they bought his mortgage and traded it around the world making 30-100% returns on a mortgage backed securities where the underlying mortgage paid 7%?

Politicians, for being so arrogant and quick to call racism, they actually think they have the power to alter the laws of the marketplace through social engineering?

The McCain Plan to bail out mortgages is simply wrong and is a vote buying gimmick. It should be shot down. Fast.

The answer to this crisis is to foreclose on the homeowners who don't pay their bills. Put the house up for sale and let buyers buy homes at the present value. Banks need to loan money based on sound principles. No more social engineering. A message to Democrats: we are not the richest county in the world and we can't continue to pour money into social programs so you can get more votes.

Thursday, October 9, 2008

Dow 6000?

Many people have asked me what facts I base my Dow 6000 prediction and a prolonged 10 year recession.

The economy is heading into a recession. With dour economic news arriving on a weekly basis, every bad jobs report, housing report, missed earnings expectations report, bank failure, state government budget shortfall, terror attack will create instability in the stock market. Until people have a clear understanding of the problem, the stock market will continue to fall.

When will we understand the problem? Until the average investor understands the exposure every large company has with derivatives such as credit default swaps, we will have a shaky economy. I don't know how long it will take, but these are so complex that it could take years.

Government has failed. The long term obligations federal, state and local governments have made during the good years are going to crush the taxpayers to death. When an unemployed, single female Somali refugee with 5 kids can qualify for $36,000 per year for Section 8 housing allowance, $12,000 for medical expenses, $10,000 unemployment insurance, $5,000 free school lunches, $5,000 automobile and insurance credit, and many other programs, the system is broken beyond belief. We can not have a system that pays $68,000 just for living in this country. When we have refugees who lived on $300 per year in their own country, come to our country and cost American taxpayers the equivalent of 20 taxpayers IRS payments, something is wrong.

Until politicians stop calling America the richest country in the world, we will have a recession.

I predict it will take 10 years for us to figure that out.

I will add links to stories of impending collapse of the economy...

Wednesday, October 8, 2008

Housing Crisis-Good Solution vs. Bad Solution


John McCain proposes a mortgage bailout solution which would have the Federal Government buy bad mortgages from banks, then refinance the homes at the current market value and reduced interest rates. 

Of the 75 million single family, owner occupied homes in the United States, 12.5 million homeowners owe more than what the home is worth. Homeowners in a negative equity position are upside down by between $350 billion and $1 trillion. Up to 10% of these homes are in a default or foreclosure situation. The costs of foreclosure and sales commissions to sell these homes would be an additional $41 billion.

In many metropolitan areas, home prices rose by 100% in the last 5 years. Homes that were selling for $300,000 in 2002 sold for $600,000 in 2007. Now homes are selling for $450,000. These home values are still falling. Many people bought the homes at $600,000. Many others refinanced their homes, or took out a second mortgage up to their new appraised value of $600,000.

With all of these homes upside down, how does the government think it would be appropriate to simply reward the homeowners who are defaulting on their mortgages? Is this really what we want to reward? How would it be fair for the US government to bail out certain homeowners, without bailing out all of them?

When the government allows a person defaulting on their $600,000 mortgage to rewrite the loan at the current value of $450,000, the government rewards the irresponsible. The poor schlep next door, who is in the exact same position, but is making his payments on time, is being told they should live with their current situation. This is so immoral. The government should never, ever, punish the law abider. The rule of law is being thrown out the window. When a person signs a contract, that contract must be enforced. 

So what can be done to fix the housing crisis? First, politicians must understand the problem. Demand was artificially propped up by wrong headed Democrat programs that encouraged home ownership and low interest rates from the Federal Government. Increased demand artificially increased prices.  As foreclosures increased, demand began to fall and now supply is larger than demand. Until supply equals demand, prices will continue to drop. 

Prices must come back to pre bubble prices. The following chart illustrates the average home price has fallen dramatically, from $275,000 to $215,000. In order to fit into the historical, inflation adjusted average of $165,000, home prices have to fall an additional $50,000.


How can we increase demand? First, housing prices must stabilize. Prices have to reach a point where buying is a better alternative to renting. Second, the people have to have a firm understanding of the short term outlook on the economy. Third,  banks have a difficult time making loans in a falling market. Requiring a 20% down payment will once again be standard banking procedure. 


To understand how long this problem will continue, you must understand the housing bubble.

1. This plan punishes those that pay their bills by allowing their neighbors who got themselves into a position of losing their homes. 

2. The Federal Government can't be in the business of bailing out private industry. Banks lent the money, they need to stomach the losses, or else they need to fail.

3. Politicians are incapable of doing the right thing. Imagine the Internal Revenue Service forgiving the debts of the people that owe the money. It would never happen. But when it comes to forgiving the debts of private citizens, politicians are more than willing to forgive the debts of people who could potentially vote for them. This has to be against the law. We can not allow politicians to buy votes.

AMERICAN HOMEOWNERSHIP RESURGENCE PLAN

John McCain will direct his Treasury Secretary to implement an American Homeownership Resurgence Plan (McCain Resurgence Plan) to keep families in their homes, avoid foreclosures, save failing neighborhoods, stabilize the housing market and attack the roots of our financial crisis. 

America’s families are bearing a heavy burden from falling housing prices, mortgage delinquencies, foreclosures, and a weak economy. It is important that those families who have worked hard enough to finance homeownership not have that dream crushed under the weight of the wrong mortgage. The existing debts are too large compared to the value of housing. For those that cannot make payments, mortgages must be re-structured to put losses on the books and put homeowners in manageable mortgages. Lenders in these cases must recognize the loss that they’ve already suffered.

The McCain Resurgence Plan would purchase mortgages directly from homeowners and mortgage servicers, and replace them with manageable, fixed-rate mortgages that will keep families in their homes. By purchasing the existing, failing mortgages the McCain resurgence plan will eliminate uncertainty over defaults, support the value of mortgage-backed derivatives and alleviate risks that are freezing financial markets.

The McCain resurgence plan would be available to mortgage holders that:

· Live in the home (primary residence only)
· Can prove their creditworthiness at the time of the original loan (no falsifications and provided a down payment).

The new mortgage would be an FHA-guaranteed fixed-rate mortgage at terms manageable for the homeowner. The direct cost of this plan would be roughly $300 billion because the purchase of mortgages would relieve homeowners of “negative equity” in some homes. Funds provided by Congress in recent financial market stabilization bill can be used for this purpose; indeed by stabilizing mortgages it will likely be possible to avoid some purposes previously assumed needed in that bill.

The plan could be implemented quickly as a result of the authorities provided in the stabilization bill, the recent housing bill, and the U.S. government's conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It may be necessary for Congress to raise the overall borrowing limit.

Friday, October 3, 2008

Let the Blame Game Begin

Nothing bothers me more about Washington politics than the atmosphere that nobody is ever responsible. 

I am continually amazed how Congress has a 9% approval rating and has a 98% reelection rate. It is because nobody is able to hold people accountable for their actions. We need to begin a new dialogue. Not only should we hold elected officials accountable, but we should hold our elected officials accountable if they don't go after the politicians that are part of the problem.

Here is a case in point. Stephanie Herseth had nothing to do with the current financial crisis. She has only been in Washington for 2 years. But she should be held responsible if she doesn't hold Barney Frank, (D, MA) accountable.

Barney Frank, more than any other elected official in the US House, is to blame for the current financial crisis. If you think I am being partisan, read this article by Jeff Jacoby, a Boston Globe journalist from Frank's home state of Massachusetts. Jacoby outlines Frank's pushing of lowered credit standards for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In 1995, Jacoby predicts two things. First, this was going to end up in a systemic crisis. Second, he predicts that Congressman Frank would never take the blame for the problem. He was right.

This is Barney Frank's assessment of the financial problem this month, "the private sector got us into this mess, the government has to get us out of it."

The reason Congress has a low approval rating is that it is difficult to pin the blame on anyone. Look at this article by a journalist who called out Frank. Now look at Frank's rebuttal here. Frank makes it look like he was the one that wanted reform! How preposterous.

Everyone knows Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were Democrat Corporations as is witnessed by who worked for the organization, who they gave political contributions, and how they funded political activities of the Democrat party to the tune of billions of dollars. You can read more of this corruption in my previous post here. Here is the actual story of corruption.

Make no mistake, Barney Frank is inextricably tied to Fannie, (pun intended) as you will see in this article.

If ever you should be outraged, this is the time. Barney Frank has to go. Stephanie Herseth better speak up against this buffoon or she needs to go too.

Thursday, October 2, 2008

Working Paper-Financial Crisis

Understanding the Financial Crisis Facing America 

(In Layman’s Terms) 

By Neal Tapio

September 26, 2008

Forward 

This paper is written for those justifiably outraged by the $800 billion taxpayer bailout of Wall Street financial institutions in order to understand at whom to direct our anger, to prevent it from happening again and to hold those responsible accountable.

The American taxpayer was backed into a corner by a government that failed to properly oversee it’s own government sponsored corporations (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) that practiced social engineering; and a prevailing greed on Wall Street caught up in a Ponzi-like scheme in order to inflate their quarterly and year end financial statements, thereby pocketing billions.

Unfortunately, a bailout (in some form, not necessarily the current form) is necessary because the financial system of the world has become so interconnected. In forms of retirement accounts, pension funds, and insurance funds, the value of our stock market affects nearly every American and millions around the globe. If this crisis didn’t affect so many average Americans, I would say “hang the bastards.”

At the core of the crisis are falling home prices, defaulting home mortgages, and investments in securities related to the home mortgage and housing crisis in the form of bonds called mortgage backed securities. Home mortgages have been financed and secured through these bonds and the ability to sell these securities (liquidity) is crucial to our entire financial system. As home prices began to collapse, it became difficult, and almost impossible, to issue new mortgage backed securities and sell those previously purchased.

It is necessary to 1) prevent the collapse of financial markets and the stock market, 2) protect the liquidity of the mortgage markets by protecting the secondary market, and 3) infuse liquidity in financial institutions such as banks, investment companies and insurance companies invested in these failing mortgage related securities.

The American taxpayer has been asked to prevent a collapse of confidence in the financial system. But should we have confidence in the system? The answer is clearly “no.” Underlying the financial industry of the western world is a complex web of high finance which has become nothing but a Las Vegas style craps table as unregulated hedge funds, pension funds, investment banks and insurance companies have used credit default swaps, a complex version of dice, to create a complicated web of “insurance.” The American taxpayer should be and is outraged by having to bail out entire industries that gambled the confidence in the American financial system, and lost.

This paper is intended to help understand how we have gotten to the point of collapse and to understand the upcoming challenges we face as a nation. Before we pass a trillion dollar bailout, it is important to understand the underlying issues surrounding our economic crisis.

The precipitating event that led to this financial crisis is the bursting of the housing bubble in late 2006 and early 2007 as home prices peaked after appreciating in value for the previous 30 years. It is important to understand how this housing bubble was created and why the bubble burst. As of today, housing prices have fallen 35% in many metropolitan areas and it is unlikely to bottom out any time soon.

Understanding the mortgage business.

It is important to understand the complex business of mortgage lending and how it has changed over time. Local banks and savings and loans historically wrote mortgages and held those loans for the duration of the contract. The bank determined the ability of the borrower to pay, and assumed all risk associated with the loan.

Money deposited in the bank was used to fund the loan. These mortgages were “conventional loans” meaning that the borrower came up with a down payment of 20% of the home value. If the bank had to foreclose on the mortgage, the bank was able to use the borrower’s portion of the equity to recover their investment to sell the home.

Today, the mortgage business is dramatically different. Mortgages are still written by local banks or mortgage brokers, but the mortgage is often sold on a secondary market to servicing banks that send out the statements and collect the payments, of which there are large players such as Wells Fargo, Citibank, and Countrywide Financial. Servicing banks, in turn, sell the “rights” to the mortgages to government sponsored entities (GSE) such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac or other financial institutions. The purpose of the secondary market is to move investment money from investors all over the world, back to a local commercial bank, which allows them to make additional mortgages.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are at the heart of the mortgage meltdown. Half of the mortgages in the United States are either owned or guaranteed by these two government sponsored entities. Their entire purpose is to create liquidity in the mortgage market. Fannie and Freddie, as they are known, purchases the “rights” to mortgages, then pool them together to create a large bond fund called mortgage backed securities (MBS) which are rated based on their risk and sold, all, or in part, to investors such as commercial banks, investment banks, hedge funds, private equity funds, insurance companies and pension funds in America and around the world. The principle and interest from the underlying mortgages, less servicing and guaranty fees, are passed directly to the bondholder.

Mortgage backed securities written by Fannie and Freddie are guaranteed, implying they were very safe investments. If the mortgage payment was not made, Fannie and Freddie would make the payments. Since these were government sponsored entities, many people believed the MBS was backed up by the full faith and credit of the United States Government. Since homes, the underlying security, had not decreased in value for over thirty years, they were considered very safe investments, were bought and sold with regularity and were a safe alternative to Treasury Bills, which didn’t pay as high of interest rates. Many pension funds, insurance companies, commercial and investment banks, hedge funds and international sovereign funds invested their available cash in Fannie and Freddie MBS.

Mortgage backed securities were also created by commercial banks and investment banks that purchased mortgages from the originating banks or brokers. These mortgages were pooled together and a bond fund was created and individual securities were sold to their customers. These bonds were given a rating, either by an independent ratings company like Moody’s or Standard and Poor’s, or by their own underwriters. These banks then bought “insurance” on these bond funds called credit default swaps (CDS).

The Housing Bubble

Although the ingredients of a housing bubble were already in place, for all practical purposes, the housing bubble started September 11, 2001. Desperate to stabilize the economy after the largest attack in our history, the Federal Government encouraged Americans to spend ourselves into prosperity and take us through a very difficult time as we went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well on the broader war on terrorism.

The quickest way for the Federal Government to infuse money in the economy was to encourage home ownership and home improvement by lowering interest rates charged to banks, who in turn, passed on lower interest rates to customers.  Millions of Americans took out loans as a result and the Federal Reserve effectively pumped trillions of dollars into the economy.

As the Federal Government increased the pool of money available, they also attempted to increase the pool of buyers by allowing those with poor credit and little money to purchase a home.

The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) was signed into law in 1977 by President Carter to create affordable housing. By forcing banking institutions to finance investments that otherwise wouldn’t be made, a socialist policy of taking from the rich and giving to the poor was written into law.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are government entities created by Franklin Roosevelt in 1938 to purchase mortgages from land banks in order to provide cash to local banks struggling from high delinquency rates in the Great Depression, particularly farm mortgages. In 1968, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac became a quasi private corporation called a government sponsored entity.

In 1993, President Clinton altered the course of mortgage lending by adding teeth to the CRA and altered the direction of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac forever. He ordered new regulations that went into effect in 1995 demanding banks meet quotas for the amount of loans made to inner city neighborhoods and distressed rural communities. President Clinton’s policy enabled community organizers such as ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) to become quasi government bank watchdogs and used strong-arm political pressure and blackmail to force banks to comply with making risky loans. Because of this law, home ownership by minorities increased greatly during the late 90’s and early 00’s, but, as we shall see, at a very heavy price.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were commissioned to purchase and guarantee mortgage loans to poor credit risk applicants in order to meet pre-established quotas for neighborhoods along racial boundaries. Further, banks were encouraged to lend to people with poor credit and little money by utilizing risky mortgage lending tools such as adjustable rate mortgages (ARM’s), interest only loans, stated income loans, reverse amortization, stated income loans and 100% financing loans.

As mortgage standards were relaxed, more buyers entered the market than any time in our nations history. These buyers purchased entry level homes, which set off an unprecedented chain of events. People moved from their smaller homes into much larger homes. This increased demand, caused by enticingly low interest rates encouraged builders to build a record number of homes. As more new homes were built, land prices doubled, tripled and even quadrupled in many areas. Vacant lots in metropolitan areas that used to sell for $50,000 were being sold for $300,000. More than anything else, land appreciation pushed the home appreciation rate to 20-30% per year in some areas.

Once the demand increased, home prices began to skyrocket.  As homes became more unaffordable to buyers, banks relied on even riskier loans called a reverse amortization loan, which allowed buyers to pay only a portion of the interest, and place the additional interest on the back end of the loan, the most insane idea of all.  For every month someone lived in a home, they owed more than when they moved into the home.

On a dual track, as home prices soared, homeowners were encouraged to take out 2nd mortgages to take out equity from their home up the new "appraised value.” Trillions of dollars of equity was removed--and spent in our economy.

As home prices continued to rise, builders continued to build homes as fast as they could.  A speculative component sent home prices even higher.  Speculators--people who bought homes and just sat on them became 15% of the home buyers market.  Their goal was to hold homes for a year and sell it for the home appreciation profit.  These "flippers" had the effect of artificially increasing the price of homes.

All of this is bad, but it gets worse. Mortgage companies specializing in sub prime mortgages such as Countrywide Financial aggressively marketed Fannie Mae backed loans adding to the demand for homes and further increased prices.  Sub prime is a polite way of describing higher interest loans to people with a history of bad credit or who otherwise would not qualify for mortgages.  

Finally, the worst mistake of all.  Home prices began rising at such a fast rate, banks began to believe that homes were going to appreciate forever--and 100% financing was born.  Buyers were stretching into homes they couldn't afford and were not required to come up with any money for a down payment.  This is as far as banks could go to stretch to help people get into homes.  Or so we thought. Banks began to refinance loans up to 110% of their value.

And then people began to default on their mortgages and things began to unravel in the fall of 2006 as home prices leveled and began to fall. As of today, home prices have fallen drastically, in some regions up to 35%

The Housing Bubble Burst

In early 2007, the first shock to the banking system hit when sub prime loans began to see higher default rates. The defaults were, in part, due to large increases in the borrowers monthly payments as adjustable rate mortgages they were sold in 2o02 through 2005 readjusted to market prices.  Without the ability to refinance these homes at similar interest rates, their payments rose dramatically.  As borrowers began to turn in their keys, banks holding these loans began to get homes back through foreclosure.  

The matter got worse. Banks specializing in sub prime loans began to be watched by regulators, which began to demand stricter lending standards.  When these banks couldn't write more loans to outgrow the debt in their portfolio, they collapsed in the fall of 2007 and became the first domino to fall.

As a result of the sub prime mortgage business collapsing, a large portion of the buying public was taken out of the market.  As the bank regulators tightened up lending standards, specialty mortgages such as adjustable rate mortgages and 100% financing went out of fashion, more of the buying public was taken out of the market.  

Once the prices started to fall, another large segment of the buyers fell out of the market. Speculators no longer could make money in a level or falling market. Fifteen percent of the buyers of new homes withdrew from the market.  By the fall of 2007, new home values started to plummet adding to downward pressure on the price of homes.  Since builders were building spec homes at record levels, there was an oversupply of homes.  In order to keep their sales strong, special incentives and huge discounts were being offered.  By the spring of 2008, home values shrunk 35%.

The loss of home values placed the owners of 12.5 million homes in a negative equity position in their mortgage.  Buyers who purchased a home a year ago for $600,000, found builders selling the same home for $400,000.  Home appraisals became a large focus of bank regulators. With many people upside down in their mortgages, and in houses with payments they can't afford, homes no longer became a liquid asset like the previous 30 years.  Banks began to tighten up their lending standards further, effectively drying up the mortgage market. It got to such a point that banks stopped writing jumbo loans over $400,000 for over a two months.

With home values plummeting and foreclosures increasing, Wall Street and the world high finance became unraveled.  Fannie Mae, you remember, creates liquidity in the mortgage market. As defaults increased, Fannie was on the hook for guaranteeing half of the mortgages held in the United States.  This caused a run on Fannie, and they were not able to keep up with their loan guarantees. Fannie paid more than $12 billion to pay mortgages that were in default.

This sent a shockwave throughout the mortgage industry and the secondary market for mortgages began to dry up.  Fannie Mae was not able to purchase as many loans with their tighter lending standards, but more importantly, they were not able to bundle the loans and sell them as mortgage backed securities.

From the spring of 2006 to the fall of 2007, we saw a tightening of credit, less home buyers, higher default rates and a liquidity problem in the secondary derivatives market.  Add to that rising gas prices, an endless drumbeat of bad economic news, an expensive war in Iraq and Afghanistan, American consumer confidence hit an all time low, and we entered a perfect storm that further reduces the confidence in the home buying public.

Today, we have too many homes available for sale, less qualified buyers, and a frozen secondary market for home mortgages in the form of mortgage backed securities. Additionally, nearly $60 trillion dollars of exceptionally risky corporate bond insurance policies, in the form of credit default swaps, are under funded and many are unable to be traded. Millions of Americans are in homes they owe more than what it is worth. Hundreds of thousands of homes are going through foreclosure and millions more will be on the market because of foreclosure, and banks are going to be on the hook for all of those losses.

Let me be very clear. Although the housing crisis mostly affects larger metropolitan areas where land values skyrocketed, the housing crisis is going to take several years to fix as millions of cash strapped homeowners live in homes they can no longer afford, owe more than the home is worth, and can not find buyers qualified to buy. The double edged sword of real estate is that as a person buys a home, often they need to sell their home first.

To fix the housing and mortgage crisis, you first have to fix the financial industry in order to free up credit for credit worthy buyers. 

Understanding The World of High Finance

The creation of a secondary mortgage market brought national (and international) investors into local real estate markets. The benefit was so obvious. Since banks traditionally were only able to make loans using their local deposits they raised, allowing banks access to investment money from around the world allowed local communities to grow much faster than would have otherwise been possible, providing auto loans and home loans to millions that otherwise would not have had loans.

The secondary market has one big problem. It encourages risky loans.

When local banks and brokers were able to sell loans to others, they also sold the risk associated with the loan. Large amounts of money were made originating loans without an incentive to ensure repayment. Competition between these local banks and brokers encouraged unsound lending policies and fraud. If one bank wouldn’t write a bad loan, there were dozens of others that would find a way, legally or illegally. Local mortgage writers had incentive to write loans destined for failure.

As local banks sold their mortgages, the buyers of mortgages were more interested in profit goals than making good loans. In the short term, financial greed of Fannie and Freddie, and other buyers of mortgages, became all too common as executives were paid on stock options and bonus structures based on their quarterly and year end earnings. Quantity became more important than quality.

In the worst form of Washington logic, Fannie and Freddie were tasked to make more loans to people that couldn’t afford it. This sounds like a joke, but Democrats in Washington tasked these “for profit corporations” to make more loans to those that had previously proven they were bad credit risks. On top of that, Fannie failed to set aside the proper amount of revenue to pay for foreseeable bad debt. Instead of putting larger portions of revenue into reserves, they continued to take exceptionally high amounts of revenue in profit, thereby making billions for the company-and for the executives that ran these companies.

Cooking the books became common place. Just two years before the Federal Government took over Fannie and Freddie, the top executives were paid $30 million in bonuses for meeting their income target. Freddie and Fannie overstated earnings by over $1 billion and were forced to restate their earnings. You would think this would be against the law, and executives would go to prison, but in Washington, the executives were given golden parachutes. In a six year period, the head of Fannie was paid $90 million.

Private Corporations faired no better in the greed department as they, too, considered mortgages a cash revenue cow. Every month, they generated large amounts of money, and banks and financial institutions were able purchase large amounts of revenue generating assets, which showed growth to their investors, thus raising their share prices. But they forgot there was risk associated with these investments.

The world of high finance was making 10-50% returns on their investment from mortgages paying 4% interest. How did they do this? The concept is leverage. If a bank invested in a $1,000,000 mortgages that paid 4% interest, they would invest $100,000 of their own capital (through deposits), borrow $900,000 at 3% from the Federal Reserve, and make 1% on the 1,000,000, which would be $12,000 per year. On their initial investment of $100,000, they made $12,000 per year, so on a mortgage that paid only 4% interest, they would be able to make a 12% return on investment. Not bad.

You have just learned the world of high finance. Leverage is how people with lots of money make even larger amounts of money. If we borrowed money to invest in the stock market, we would be crucified, but that is the world of high finance, high stakes gambling subsidized by our Federal Government.

I don’t have a problem with leverage. It is how all banks operate, and it is how I, as a business owner, borrow money from a bank in order to run my business. What I don’t agree with is the taxpayer subsidizing this system with a bailout. Their investment model comes with risk, and in regards to the mortgage market, they should have assumed the risk of defaults and falling home values as part of the 12% return on their investments.

Wall Street greed grew out of control when banks and other investment groups such as hedge funds selling “insurance” policies called credit default swaps.

Many banks compete with Fannie and Freddie and they issued or bought their own mortgages and created their own mortgage backed securities. Many of them even rated their bonds themselves, giving them a triple A rating, ensuring a market for their bonds. Another department in their bank would buy “insurance” on these bonds, called credit default swaps, by betting with another company that the underlying mortgage portfolio would pay their mortgages.

These credit default swaps are scandalous and here is how they worked. An investment bank would buy 1,000 mortgages worth $100,000 each that paid 5% interest, creating a bond fund of $1,000,000. To spread out the default risk of individual mortgages, which they assumed averaged 1%, they would create 100 bonds rated triple A and would sell $10,000 bonds yielding 3% to other banks or investors. Another part of their bank would buy a credit default swap to guarantee payment of the mortgages. They would pay 2% or $20,000 per year for five years for this insurance. The other company was often times a hedge fund that would bet that the mortgages would pay on time. For no investment, the hedge fund would be able to pad their income sheets with an additional 2% of earnings with “no risk.”

Credit default swaps are a very new product. Today, there are between $50 to $60 trillion worth of credit default swaps written in the financial system. In 1990, there were close to zero. They are unregulated, often under funded, and are ripe with fraud. Many are used simply as a way to boost sagging income and earnings statements. Because of this, trillions of dollars worth of credit default swaps began circulating amongst large financial institutions. Companies would buy swaps for short periods of time as they had excess capital. A very strong market was created to trade these derivative securities. Very little, if any, money was set aside in the event these “insurance” policies were ever required to pay.

This is the world of high finance. Nothing is created. Nothing of value is gained, except more money. This is really high stakes gambling, and it is completely legal.

Mortgage backed securities were also bought and sold with regularity. When the default rates on mortgages were low, financial institutions bought and sold these investments with regularity, as they needed to invest short term cash holdings. They either bought Treasury notes, which paid small returns of 1-2%, or they could invest in Fannie backed mortgage backed securities, which paid up to 3%. These were bought and sold based on the remaining amount of the original bond.

When mortgages started to default, and home prices started to fall, the mortgage backed securities market began to unravel. Banks never factored in a falling home market into the price of the mortgage backed securities. The longer a bond was held, good mortgages paid off, lowering the number of mortgages in the bond fund. An ever increasing amount of bad loans were left remaining in the bond fund. There really wasn’t a good way to find out how good the underlying mortgages in the bond fund were and how much the mortgage backed security was worth. Were 30% of the home loans delinquent? How many of the homes were in foreclosure? And the biggie, how much were the homes worth in a market that has fallen 35%?

Suddenly, the market of mortgage backed securities stopped. Nobody wanted to buy them. More importantly, nobody could sell them. So they sat on the books of banks, tying up credit lines used to make loans. Initial offerings of mortgage backed securities could not be sold, because nobody wanted to take the risk of mortgages in a falling market with defaults and foreclosures increasing.

With troubled assets tying up their ability to loan money, banks were further hampered by a federal regulation designed to prevent inflating assets in the aftermath of the Enron scandals. Enron overvalued futures energy contracts, and were found guilty of misleading shareholders over faulty accounting practices. The Federal Government responded by passing a regulatory law called Sarbanes Oxley. These new regulations required companies to mark their assets to accurately report the value of their assets using current market prices, not what they had paid for them, or the future value. This policy is called ‘mark to market.’

With the value of mortgage backed securities (and credit default swaps) plummeting because they lacked a market, financial institutions were forced to mark these to the market, meaning that they were marked down 40- 80%. The assets were written down, which lowered the amount of capital in a bank, which lowered the amount of money the bank could borrow. Banks suddenly had to raise billions of dollars of capital to cover their leverage requirements with bank regulators (as you remember, banks work on leverage-they have 10% capital requirements for all loans outstanding).

Banks couldn’t raise capital. They couldn’t meet obligations. They couldn’t borrow more money from the Federal Reserve. Banks were bankrupt.

When banks can’t lend money on mainstream, the whole economy shuts down. And that is why we have to bail out banks. Capital is the main ingredient of the capitalist marketplace. Without it, small business, big business, and government can’t conduct business. It is for this reason, we need to work on a way to use taxpayer money to bail out somebody.  We just don’t know who to bail out.

This crisis affects all of us. Everyone invested in the stock market, through our investment plans and pension plans, are all involved in the world of high finance. The homes we buy are financed by large investors on Wall Street. The businesses we operate are financed by lenders on Walls Street. No matter who we are or what we do, we rely on Wall Street. When we want to cut out the heart of greed in Wall Street, we end off cutting off our own legs in the mean time. There is no getting around it. It is for this reason, that I reluctantly think we need to bail out our tattered financial system.

Why are banks and businesses failing?

This summer of 2008, commercial banks, those that collect deposits and make loans, as well as investment banks, those that sell investments and securities, have fallen on hard times. To understand the problems with the banking and finance industry, we must understand the changes in the banking industry in the last 20 years.

In the 1990’s, banks became bigger and bigger as they merged with each other and grew at exceptional rates. This was a direct result of legislation designed to help banks become more competitive as their business was previously restricted to the state they were incorporated. A new law allowed banks to conduct interstate commerce and add products to their offering. Banks now are allowed to offer insurance, investments as well as the traditional banking services such as deposits, and loans.

As banks became diversified and streamlined, and as the government was leaning on them to do social engineering, tradeoffs occurred. In exchange for allowing banks to get larger, government demanded they make loans to people that ordinarily would not be able access credit.

Banks held extremely large amounts of excess cash, as well as customers created investment accounts in cash. Banks began to offer money market certificates to customers and these money market certificates offered higher interest rates than traditional CD’s. Money market savings accounts became the rage.

With so much cash on hand, banks looked to get the best return possible. They not only invested their cash in Treasury Bills but also in “safe” Fannie bonds called mortgage backed securities. Banks held billions of dollars of Fannie issued MBS. These were bought and sold often to other banks and were considered nearly the same as money.

When foreclosures and mortgage defaults rose, nobody wanted to buy these Fannie bonds because nobody knew exactly how much they were worth. How much are they worth if the underlying mortgage was in default. Also, how do you value a bond that you can’t actually see what mortgages you have? These securities were not your typical municipal bond, where a city takes out $20 million in bonds and they make their payments in a timely fashion. Instead, these bonds were a collection of thousands of mortgages. Some mortgages paid on time, others did not. Some mortgages were paid off after a couple years. After owning these securities for 5 years, nobody knew if the mortgages left were good mortgages or bad mortgages. These MBS became toxic paper, and nobody wanted them.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ran out of money as they paid billions in defaulted mortgage payments and owned tons of mortgages that were in default. The Federal Government stepped in to become the owner of the GSE’s, only now, we can call them GOE’s, government owned entities.

So if the Government owns Fannie and Freddie, and are currently guaranteeing the payments of the mortgages they owned, why do we need a $700 billion bailout? Good question, I assume that we are buying back all of the mortgage backed securities that were issued in order to get these bad bonds out of the hands of the banking industry, thus cleaning up their balance sheets.

You may have heard about commercial paper issued by banks and large corporations, and that the market in commercial paper has frozen. Commercial paper is a short term promissory note, similar to a line of credit, that allows banks and large corporations to raise money for short term capital needs. They are considered very liquid assets. They are comparable to a CD you would buy from your local bank, only on a much larger scale.

The commercial paper market dried up as banks and businesses exposed to the mortgage crisis began failing. Buyers of commercial paper were not interested in purchasing commercial paper if the business would file bankruptcy next week or next month since the

 have seen the collapse of Indy Bank, the nations 8th largest bank, Washington Mutual, the 10th largest bank, and several smaller banks. These banks are heavily exposed to the mortgage crisis as they hold actual mortgages, land development loans as well as the mortgage backed securities. Hundreds of banks are at risk of failure. The most secure job in America right now is a job with FDIC.

Investment banks have been hit hard. Lehman Brothers was allowed to file bankruptcy, JP Morgan was allowed to be purchased, Bear Stearns collapsed. Each of these fell because of severe liquidity problems. They did not have the cash to fund future obligations. From their exposure to MBS and CDS, to another problem, the inability to raise capital through the use of commercial paper.

All these problems, what are the answers?

Everyone should know we are in a serious crisis. Unfortunately, people in Washington and Wall Street have pushed our economic system to the brink of bankruptcy. No matter what we do, we are going to see a recession as the underlying housing crisis is years from correcting itself.  There are just too many homes on the market, and too many people owe more than what their home is worth. The economic model of consumerism, and spending beyond our means, has proven, once again, to be unsustainable. The stock market is about to collapse and it is going to hurt nearly every American invested in the stock market, regardless of whether we pass a bail out or not.

The Bail Out Parameters

1. Delay the decision as long as possible in order to buy time and to make the most educated decision possible.

I have always lived my life with one principle in mind. Never spend a trillion dollars under duress. Whenever I spend a trillion dollars, I want to consider all options, understand all issues and make a very educated decision to reduce my risk, and prevent having to spend another trillion dollars to fix a bad decision.  

2. Never reward bad behavior.

People are creatures of habit. We all understand this principle because we took psychology in college. Ivan Pavlov proved through the use of his famous dogs that repetitive behavior creates a conditioned response. In human applications, if a person is rewarded for work well done, she is likely to duplicate well done work. Inversely, if a person is rewarded for work done poorly, he will look to duplicate shoddy work. Allowing banks to “sell” their bad decisions to the American Taxpayer is rewarding bad behavior

3. Keep it simple.

Politicians do not understand the world of high finance. If they did, we wouldn't be in this mess. Doing the same thing and expecting a different result would point to stupidity, so it is hard to expect our government to do this right. So the solution must be simple enough for Maxine Waters to even understand.

4. Accountability.

The first billion dollars should go to building a prison for all the people that got us into this mess. If Martha Stewart went to jail for 6 months for insider trading over $40,000 when she was worth $1 billion, a proportional relationship of jail time should be reserved for those who swindled the taxpayer out of $1 trillion.

Summary

 The economic outlook of the United States is bleak. The Big Three automakers have not made a profit in the last 6 years. General Motors lost $15 billion last quarter. The major airlines are not profitable. The Federal Government is spending $1 trillion more than it takes in every year. The dollar is falling on the lack of confidence in our economy. Health care costs are skyrocketing. Energy costs are at all time highs. The Social Security system is bankrupt. Unemployment is expected to hit 7%. The banking system is in collapse. The housing industry has yet to hit the bottom. The Federal Government is bankrupt.

 The growth of government is staggering. Our Federal Government is now in the security business (US Military and TSA), mortgage business (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), the banking business (FDIC and Indy Bank), the insurance business (AIG), the retirement business (Social Security), the health insurance business (Medicare and Medicaid), the energy business (ethanol, wind, solar, coal and oil), the education business (Public Schools), the road building business (Highway transportation fuel taxes), the pension business (Railroad pension fund), the farming business ($300 billion in subsidies) and many others.

 What began as a way to keep our economy going in the aftermath of September 11, the mortgage mess we are in highlights the problem we really have--all things go through Washington.  And we are headed for a centralized power based in a very powerful Federal Government.   

If you think we have looked to the Federal Government to take care of us before, you ain't seen nothing yet.