Five Things: Credit is the Lifeblood of the Economy?
These are heady times we are living in. Collectively, our national intoxication runs deep and fierce. From moment to moment no one really knows whether to laugh, cry, or do both at the same time, and so the air on the street is juiced with a mildly psychotic hum. I enjoy it, but not everyone is built to handle this kind of environment. This is, after all, the Age of Self Evidence. Don't even think about attempting to verify the facts behind that assertion. It's as right as rain and as true as a tree stump. It is... self evident.
For example, consider the assertion - made almost daily by politicians and monetary policy figures - that all we need to do to end this economic crisis is “kick start” lending and that credit is the “lifeblood of the economy.” These baseless assertions infect news article after news article and are repeated by the vast majority of economists and market pundits over and over again as “self-evident” truths. The Age of Self Evidence.
The reality, however, as noted on Minyanville recently in the article, “Deflation Redux,” is that these assertions are non-sequiturs. “Credit is the lifeblood of the economy.” This sounds reasonable, which is why it’s so easy to value it as self evident.”
But think about it for a moment. Lending is actually a function of productivity, and productivity is a function of price. Lending to create productive assets is done by savers who want a decent return. They stopped lending a long time ago, long before this “debt crisis” erupted, because the return for risk wasn’t there.
In place of these lenders, however, there was the Federal Reserve, which has the unique ability to make credit available (i.e. print money) whenever they like, and essentially out of thin air. Fed credit availability, unlike the lending normally made available by savers, is not backed by savings. And so this credit made available by the Fed went to create assets such as houses, strip malls and office buildings that aren't productive. The net result of this has been a massive debt buildup that is now being liquidated, or deflated. When will this debt deflation end? When savers, once again, see a reasonable return for the risk. Unfortunately, this requires prices to come down - a lot.
2) On the Agenda: Mark-to-Market
With the market down 25% year-to-date the air of desperation is growing thicker. What will policymakers think of next? Fast forward to March 12 when a meeting will be held in Washington to discuss the potential suspension of mark-to-market accounting practices.
What is mark-to-market accounting? In simple terms, mark-to-market accounting is when a certain value is assigned to a financial instrument (CDS, MBS, Futures contract, etc.) based on its current market price.
Why does it matter?
Well, according to Minyanville Professor Bill Feingold, “In a system built upon credit, the downward spiral mark-to-market accounting can cause may simply not be tolerable.” Feingold is careful to add, “that is not to say willful misstatement of market values should be
tolerated,” but when there's evidence that selling is begetting selling - and one guy's selling not because he thinks an asset is fully priced but because he knows another guy's about to sell - perhaps some greater thought is needed.
On March 12, we may get some “greater thought.” Then again, this meeting is being held in Washington.
3) Guns and Butter... and Guns. Also, Guns!
You packing heat? Well, let’s be careful out there because apparently everyone else is. According to data from the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), background checks on the sale of firearms jumped 23.3 percent in February compared to a year ago. That’s after January’s 28 percent increase, December’s 24 percent
increase and November’s whopping 42 percent jump.
Let’s not get into the “Why?” of this just yet. I mean, look around. Things aren’t exactly looking so good economically speaking. Instead, let’s take a look at “Who,”; namely, Smith & Wesson (SWHC).
Next week, Smith & Wesson will report earnings. Most traders and investors won’t be paying attention because, well, when is the last time you checked out SWHC stock? Regardless, whether you join the herd and buy a gun or not, this may be the one stock to help you ride out the ongoing bear market.
4) C out of DJIA
On Thursday Citigroup (C) traded under $1 a share, which means the stock will now only trade on the McDonalds value menu board. “I'll, take the Citi combo and supersize that with a share of General Motors (GM).”
Ok, enough of all that. Citi is a serious situation. But perhaps the most interesting thing about it is why is it still part of the Dow Jones Industrial Average? The Dow is a price-weighted index. That means that the actual dollar amount of the stock matters. For example,
a stock selling at $80 a share has a larger weighted on the Dow then a stock selling at $20.
Going back to McDonalds for a moment that stock sells at $50 a share while Citi sells at around a $1 and change. Citi has virtually no impact on the Dow. It will likely be removed, perhaps within the next few weeks. Minyanville Professor Ryan Krueger has suggested at least one potential candidate to replace either Citigroup or GM: Monsanto (MON).
5) We Should Be More Like China!
From Larry Kudlow's show via Rush Limbaugh - seriously - comes this nugget on taxation (naturally), which also happens to feature Minyanville's own Jeff Macke (sorry Jeff):
RUSH: I want to go to CNBC, audio from last night on the Kudlow Report. This is amazing, by the way. Larry Kudlow is talking with Donald Straszheim of Straszheim Global Advisors and Jeff Macke of Macke Asset Management. Kudlow says, "How is China treating capital?" How are the ChiComs, the Chinese communists treating capital, how are they treating money? "Because I would argue," says Kudlow, "the Obama budget is not treating capital very well. In fact, some people believe, and I'm one of them, that they are waging a war on investors. How is China treating capital gains and corporate taxation? And let's include infrastructure spending, because I think from an emerging country infrastructure spending is pro-capital and pro-growth," and here is what Straszheim and Macke said.
STRASZHEIM: China has treated capital better than we have for a decade. There is no tax on gains held short term or long term --
KUDLOW: Wow.STRASZHEIM: -- in the Chinese market.
KUDLOW: Wow!
STRASZHEIM: Zero, the tax rate is zero.
KUDLOW: These are communists! These are communists! No capital gains tax from communists!
MACKE: And they like rich guys more than Obama does. It's incredible!
Bottom line: We should become more like China! After all, rich people in China have it so much better than rich people here. Except, of course, we're not rich, which means... oh, wait.
America: Still the best country in the world to be poor in!
The information on this website solely reflects the analysis of or opinion about the performance of securities and financial markets by the writers whose articles appear on the site. The views expressed by the writers are not necessarily the views of Minyanville Media, Inc. or members of its management. Nothing contained on the website is intended to constitute a recommendation or advice addressed to an individual investor or category of investors to purchase, sell or hold any security, or to take any action with respect to the prospective movement of the securities markets or to solicit the purchase or sale of any security. Any investment decisions must be made by the reader either individually or in consultation with his or her investment professional. Minyanville writers and staff may trade or hold positions in securities that are discussed in articles appearing on the website. Writers of articles are required to disclose whether they have a position in any stock or fund discussed in an article, but are not permitted to disclose the size or direction of the position. Nothing on this website is intended to solicit business of any kind for a writer's business or fund. Minyanville management and staff as well as contributing writers will not respond to emails or other communications requesting investment advice.
Copyright 2009 Minyanville Media, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
The best line all year !
the whole thing about "credit" being the lifeblood; like, for "who?"
and mark-to-marketing; the other minyan article, from minyan joe in malibu (it's like treating loans like equity) - never'd thought of it like that
guns? well, i live in texas ;-)
C still in the dow - how? monsanto would be a pointer to the future maybe? food, "things", etc
then kudlow and the rush job; but gotta admit, no taxes on capital gains!
i still vote for a flat or fair (consumption) tax
and still have as my main reason (economic benefits being second) the psychological repurcussions (leveling) of each person being able to look at another fellow citizen, knowing neither they nor you is paying more or less of income (any, period; no exceptions, no exemptions) than the other
i truly believe this would have profound democratic-opportunity-incenticizing effects that'd be galzanizing in ways the constitution only imagined ;-)
nice article kevin, thanks!
Debt is credit gone bad. Everyone, including the government, expected everyone else to be responsible with the use of credit. Everyone expected the government to be responsible in the use of credit and issuance of debt. Everyone is finding out now that the self evident credit responsibility action was clearly a mistaken concept to enable the people and government to live the dream of a flourishing economy.
loved the citigroup dollar menu line haha
If everyone in the media was forced to define the terms they use it would quikly become apparent how much nonsense is being spewed.
The use of the word 'everyone' is perhaps my favorite undefined term. I actually heard this quote on Meet The Presss by Erin Burnett this past Sunday: "Half of Americans own stocks, so it's painful for everyone.". They weren't trying to be ironic or sarcastic. This is what passes for journalism.
These days everyone has an agenda and they're not about to let the truth get in their way so they use catch phraes like 'our way of life', 'our national secuity interests' or 'terrorists'. These terms aren't meant to convey information but to conceal it.
How about the assertion that if we don't bailout people who bought houses they couldn't afford it will effect us all. I own a house for which I paid cash. I have no intention of selling it. How does not bailing out my neighbor effect me? The 'value' of my house won't change for ME. It will continue to provide shelter from the elements and warmth and security for me and my belongings. A decline in housing values only effects people who see their home as an investment versus a resource for survival.
When you hear pundits speak listen for common catch phrases that will give away their agenda. Things like 'eye' rac versus 'ear' rac or Democrat party versus Democratic Party or pro-choice versus pro-abortion. Most of all watch to see if they are smiling while they discuss some serious, or even horrendous, event. Politicians and the mainstream media aren't trying to keep you informed...they are trying to convince you of something.
If you don't know what their agenda is then you are being duped.
False accounting was possible when it was hidden from the masses. Excess leverage and derivatives with 50:1 leverage were cooked up, and main street did not know about it.
However, everyone knows most of our major banks are in the ICU, and only bailout after bail out will keep them alive (but Zombified). The point here is that to regain trust, the banks need the big operation, to cut out all the cancer, and now dead tissue. People are not going to trust a zombie, with suspended accounting rules.
The only way to restore trust in the system is complete "receivership" (really nationalization, but that is not a politically correct term).
The longer Washington tries to save the bank shareholders, the more money we will all lose. And the funny thing, is that probably includes the shareholders, who will lose more money in their other endeavors.
Time for the radical surgery on the banks and the economy. I think a fillet knife will be needed, as a scalpel is just too small
Reminds me of that old saying "If you sit down at a poker table and after a few hands you haven't figured out who the dupe is, odds are it's you."
Let's be serious here for a second. We can talk until we're blue in the face but it has become obvious to anyone who wishes to look the level of corruption and incompentence in DC. As long as they don't fear "we the people" they won't serve in the best interest of "we the people."
Of course they can choose not to use mark-to-market AS LONG AS THEY PUT UP SUBSTANTIAL LOAN LOSS RESERVES to fund the inevitable.
OW accountants are going to CTA with a going concern disclaimer
pick your poison and quit complaining
this global gap in standard of living may in fact close, are we left with the comfort that lots more citizens newest financial adviser will be Mr Wesson?
I remember just last fall how QUICKLY we had to have TARP because banks weren't lending so companies couldn't meet payrolls. "What???" said I and many another. "Established companies pay their employees, bills or invoices with credit lines, not from earnings? I thought only my neighbor and my government did that."
Gadzooks, the realization dawned, the Fed and Treasury really DO mean it. That means credit really IS the embalming flu*# oops, "lifeblood" of... er, um, of... oh dear.
"Credit is the embalming fluid of our economy"
I am compiling a list of quotes about this crisis for posterity. This is my new favorite!
Thanks.
LOL!!!
Yeah, that one cracks me up everytime.
In my head I re-phrase it and say "Credit is the lifeblood of my household budget." Huh? Who would that work for other than Investment Banks and the Government?
Really now.
Credit is Debt, and Debt is "the lifeblood of our economy"?
Debt is the lifeblood of the Vampires only, not the poor bill paying citizens of Transylvania.
Mr. Depew, your bitingly true sarcastic pillorying of the fools once again much appreciated!
Regards,
Eric
Question: If a communist owns equity is he still a communist?
Remember when Bush came to China and afterward released a statement about China allowing religious freedom? I was standing outside a Catholic church in Kunming at the time. There are mosques all over China. Sometimes I just have to laugh. Makes me wonder who's being feed a fairytale and why.
I'm enjoying a glass of milk right now. å¹²æ¯ï¼
The "global" economy will enlarge the number of the poor masses here (by forcing people to compete with the impoverished), and eliminate competition (who controls commerce?) for the powerful, moneyed interests. I imagine international corporations made up of stockholders from U.K,, China, Japan, U.S., and to a lesser extent, some other countries are the ultimate goal. After all, power corrupts, and absolute power is the goal.
And I would be a little hesitant to start getting all warm and fuzzy about Chinese banking; that's going to come apart very soon. Forget the savings rate, it has nothing to do with the way they issue money; that is a completely political process with no relation to savings. It's largely a state-owned system. But if you like it, we could nationalize our banks.
Banks create money; it is a public power given to a private group. We did this because it was believed that a politicized money system would create havoc (and we will see if this is true in China). The banks, being private, were thereby endowed with supernatural powers to judge candidates with absolute accuracy, something no mere bureaucrat could ever do, and would never issue money for purely speculative purposes, while ignoring the real productive economy. Surely they would be smarter than that.
The Fed, by the way, is not part of the federal government; it is a hybrid of regional, privately owned banks governed at the national by a board with a majority appointed by the President. But the Pres can't fire them. We have perhaps the worst of both worlds: a gov't stamp on private money.
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 6:09 PM on 27th November 2008
* Comments (2)
* Add to My Stories
China has executed a businessman convicted of bilking thousands of investors out of £285million in a bogus ant-breeding scheme.
The official Xinhua News Agency said Wang Zhendong, who was found guilty of fraud and sentenced to death in February last year, was executed in north China's Liaoning province on Wednesday.
The death penalty is used broadly in China. Though usually reserved for violent crimes, it is also applied for non-violent offences that involve large sums of money or if they are seen to threaten social order.
Yes, if the area in which I live collapses it would have an effect on me. However, as you stated, in all liklihood most of these houses would be resold once the prices came down.
In a larger sense though, I have to wonder what kind of nighborhood I live in if that many of my neighbors had bought houses they couldn't afford. The houses and yards may be well-maintained but what about the social rot going on inside these houses that the scenario you envision implies?
Would you rather live in a slum or in a nation where there is no sense of financial responsibility...where the gamblers, crooks and and bankrupt (morally and otherwise) people are rewarded at the expense of the rest of us?
This moral rot is far more insidious than the rats, termites or crack dealers that you imply might move into my neighborhood. We have exterminators for the rats and termites and law enforcement for the crack dealers. However, the 'I'm going to get mine mentality' is destroying this country and if we don't address it now, then when?
I don't think that police can eliminate a drug problem (that would mean changing human nature) anymore than I think exterminators can eliminate rats, termites and cockroaches.
My point was three-fold:
First, if your house is your home versus an investment (or worse an ATM) then the assessed value is only impiortant for tax purposes.
Second, the price we will pay for bailing our people who tried living beyond their means is more than just monetary.
and Third, in "The Age of Self Evidence" the assertion that bailing out people who made bad choices is good for ALL of us is worthy of debate.
Thanks for the debate.
















