Commentaries

from Rolfe Winkler:

Obama’s blowout budget

Now that the worst of the financial crisis is behind us, one would think the budget deficit might start to come down. Actually, no. Obama's proposed budget sets a new deficit record -- $1.6 trillion this year compared to $1.4 trillion last year.

The President thinks he can help the economy with more deficit spending. But debt is the reason we have a jobs problem in the first place. We've accumulated more debt than our incomes can support (see chart at bottom) so the economy is trying to pay it down, leading to less spending and higher unemployment. Adding to the debt pile only makes the employment picture uglier in the long-run.

In his blog entry introducing the budget, Office of Management and Budget Chief Peter Orszag tries to argue that the administration is working to close the deficit. Meanwhile the spin from the White House is that this budget marks the beginning of a "new era of responsibility." Of course that's not at all what we're getting. Orszag even trots out the line that we can grow our way out of debt:

Economic recovery – on its own – would take our deficits from 10 percent of GDP to 5 percent of GDP.

But GDP -- a measure of spending -- can't grow unless we're spending more. Seems to me the only way for aggregate spending to grow faster than government spending is for the private sector to spend more. But households are tapped out. They're saving more to repair already busted balance sheets.

We've published the following chart here at Reuters, which illustrates a key talking point for deficit doves:

from Rolfe Winkler:

Afternoon Links 1-20

Must Read -- Short sale fraud + follow-up (Olick, CNBC) Great sleuthing from Diana Olick. Sounds like outright fraud being committed by big banks. One follow up question: In many cases, the second-lien holder is also the first lien holder. How is that impacting short-sales?

Buffett opposes bank fee (CNBC) See 2/3rds down the page. Obfuscation worthy of a banker. This should come as no surprise as Buffett is Wells' top shareholder. He previously opposed the bank stress tests because it diluted his shareholdings. Nevermind that the stress test forced the bank to raise desperately needed capital. It's a shame, really. As his career winds down, he's sacrificed his reputation as a financial straight-shooter to protect his wealth.

In other Buffett news: He's opposed to Kraft's bid for Cadbury (he's a big Kraft shareholder) and he split his shares, something he never wanted to do. So not a great day for the Oracle.

FT as shameless Fed booster (NakedCapitalism) Yves takes down the FT piece that said the Fed has made a killing on its AIG holdings.

CRE prices up 1.0% in November, not expected to continue (CR) Moody's released its data for CRE prices for November today. They showed a month over month uptick for the first time in a while. That said, this is not a super reliable index due to the few number of data points available. And Moody's says to expect prices to head back down.

Scott Brown successfully capitalized on bank bailout blues (Bottari, CMD) Walker Todd sent a missive over this morning noting, too, that while the healthcare bill's unpopularity certainly played a role in Brown's surprise win, anger over Obama's kowtowing to banks may have pushed him over the edge. Unfortunately, Republicans are equally captured by the bank/homeowner lobby.

Foreclosure efforts failing b/c don't reduce principal (Nasiripour, HuffPo) Helpful confirmation of a fact that is well-known.

from Rolfe Winkler:

Lunchtime Links 1-14

Obama to unveil plan on bank taxes (WSJ) Surprisingly this doesn't look dead on arrival in Congress, maybe because banks know that the tax -- spread over 10 years -- isn't likely to hurt very much. It's a missed opportunity to shrink big bank balance sheets.

The advanced technology trade deficit (Mandel, ht NG)

Sheila Bair testimony before FCIC (FDIC.gov) Bair was the highlight of the morning's hearing and the headline from her testimony is that it's the Fed's fault. Had Alan Greenspan taken Edward Gramlich's advice to regulate subprime, perhaps many of the excesses of the bubble could have been avoided. In other news, the commission is unhappy with Attorney General Eric Holder b/c the Dept of Justice isn't sharing as much information as the commission would like.

The rise of the permanent temporary workforce (Coy/Conlin/Herbst, BW) More evidence we're becoming Japan.

T Boone Pickens cuts order for wind turbines by over 50% (Souder, Dallas News) He's still a big fan of natural gas...

Male chromosome may evolve fastest (Wade, NYT) Wives everywhere beg to differ.

Thirsty Koala (ht Danny W)

from Rolfe Winkler:

Lunchtime Links 12-8

(Reader note: still working on the bugs....please click "continue reading" to see all the links)

Banks, U.S. spar over TARP repayment (David Enrich) This is the kind of thing that gives me a better feeling about Tim Geithner and Ben Bernanke. They are hammering banks to raise equity capital to get out of TARP. They have leverage and are using it productively, forcing bank shareholders to eat losses via dilution so that balance sheets are more stable. Great! Stick to your guns guys!

Questioning the unemployment rate (Kaminska, Alphaville) Dennis Gartman doesn't buy the good news in the jobs report.

FASB wants accounting standards "decoupled" from bank capital rules (Norris, NYT) Can you blame 'em? Seems to me Bob Herz just wants to be left alone. If regulators want to give banks more slack, fine.

Consumer credit contracts again (Federal Reserve) Though the contraction seems to be moderating. Just the latest improvement in the second derivative. I'm a fan of this trend. As consumers get out of debt, they rebuild their savings.

NY Fed President Dudley says monetary policy can limit leverage (CalculatedRisk) CR hightlights some key sections of Bill Dudley's most recent speech. On the one hand it's good to see him talk about the Fed's ability to prevent credit bubbles by limiting leverage. On the other, he repeats that rates will stay low for an extended period. So the Fed is doing what it does best, inflating the next bubble. This time 'round they say they understand why that's a problem. Yet they seem unwilling to do anything about it.

Obama to announce new jobs program (Zeleny, NYT) Including a cash for caulkers program....

from Rolfe Winkler:

SNL on the U.S./China economic relationship

"Why are you trying to do sex to me like I was Mrs. Obama!?!"

Small quibble: SNL doesn't note that the Chinese are, uh, "doing sex" to themselves by manipulating the yuan.

Playing politics with Social Security

By John M. Berry

The White House’s knee-jerk reaction to the news that inflation was so low that Social Security beneficiaries won’t get a cost-of-living increase next year was a seriously bad omen for long-term control of federal spending.

The problem wasn’t the $13 billion cost of another one-time $250 payment to each retiree proposed by President Barack Obama. No, it was the utter disregard of the discipline inherent in indexing payments to changes in consumer prices.

Benefits were indexed in the 1970s precisely to stop politicians eager to curry political favor by providing large benefit increases on an ad hoc basis.

Shoveling out more checks to an important group of voters when the economy is as depressed as it is now would be a popular thing to do. Plenty of Democrats — as well as many of the Republicans who have been clamoring about soaring budget deficits — quickly endorsed the $250 payment even though prices weren’t just flat, they fell by 2 percent. (more…)

Why Russia needs America

In the wake of President Obama’s decision to scrap the U.S. missile defence shield in eastern Europe, many are pondering Russia’s response. The relationship will remain in the spotlight this week, when President Medvedev heads to the U.S. for the G20 summit. Although the precise nature of Russia’s reaction remains to be seen, it has a big incentive to improve relations. It badly needs American investment and co-operation to help solve serious economic problems at home.

Critics of Obama’s decision worry that it will “embolden” Russia, causing more aggressive behaviour abroad. Yet they forget that the Bush administration’s antagonistic policies failed to provide security to Russia’s neighbours. These policies didn’t prevent Russia’s war with Georgia, the repeated gas disputes with Ukraine, and a serious cooling of relations with countries such as Poland. Far from being restrained, Russia’s confrontational attitude had a lot to do with its perception that the U.S. was busy encircling the country with missile bases and alliances.

The critics also imply that Russia is preoccupied with external expansion, but that hardly seems appropriate today. Russia’s GDP is set to plummet by 8 percent this year. Russian analysts estimate that the country needs up to $2 trillion to renovate its dangerously clapped-out infrastructure. In major industrial cities, Russia’s dilapidated factories are mulling huge job losses. For the foreseeable future, Russia’s leaders are likely to be preoccupied with thorny domestic problems. (more…)

Volker cuts through it

Paul Volcker, the former Fed chairman whose nerves of steel broke the back of double-digit inflation 30 years ago, shows that he’s still one of the few in government that wants to call the tough shots.  Too bad he isn’t more influential. If he were, I doubt Wall Street would be talking about getting back to business as usual.

From the WSJ:

Mr. Volcker, who currently is chairman of the White House’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board, suggested banks should be restricted to trading on their client’s behalf instead of making bets with their own money through internal units that often act like hedge funds.

“Extensive participation in the impersonal, transaction-oriented capital market does not seem to me an intrinsic part of commercial banking,” he said in a speech to the Association for Corporate Growth in Los Angeles.

The article goes on to say that Volcker will speak before Congress to talk more about his proposals, but don’t imagine it will gain much traction.

A death panel for Citi

It’s way too soon for the federal government to contemplate reducing its considerable equity stake in Citigroup.

If anything, now’s the time for the feds to finally get tough with the troubled giant and establish a firm deadline for forcing Citi to shrink itself.

What better way to mark the anniversary of Lehman Brothers’ chaotic collapse and the birth of bailout nation than with a presidential directive giving Citi one year to reduce its $1.8 trillion balance sheet by half?

Harsh? Yes, but that’s the point. To restore the principle of moral hazard, the managers of giant banks need to know that there must be some consequences for their reckless actions.

Any “too big to fail” bank that gets bailed out shouldn’t be able to simply walk away to live another day as if nothing has happened.

Now don’t get me wrong. The bailout of the banking system was necessary to prevent a global financial meltdown. Propping up Citi with a $45 billion cash infusion and a federal guarantee on $300 billion in toxic assets prevented an out-of-control collapse of the mammoth bank that would have made Lehman’s bankruptcy look like a case in small-claims court.

But Wall Street historian Charles Geisst says Citi “hasn’t paid much of a price” for its many misdeeds — including SIVs, CDOs and subprime mortgages, not to mention reckless credit card and auto loans. And I suspect a lot of the populist anger over the bailout stems from the view that the banks have gotten away with murder.

Obama’s AIG timidity

I’ve been pretty amazed at how silent the Obama administration has been about Robert Benmosche’s antics since becoming the well-compensated CEO of American International Group–the defacto government owned insurer.

But after reading this story in The New York Times, I was shocked to learn that many in the Obama administration are warying of looking like they are injecting themselves into the company’s affairs. That’s the case, even though many on Team Obama are upset with Benmosche’s $9 million pay package and his desire to move slowly in selling AIG’s assets.

WTF? Intefere, please. The taxpayers didn’t bailout this company so its high-living CEO can do as he pleases. The Obama administration has never sought to put anyone on AIG’s board–maybe it should.

James Kwak at Baseline Scenario is equally puzzled and disturbed by the administration’s hands-off approach to AIG.