Some trends are obvious enough and visible to all investors. Others are more subtle, but are just as potent, and these often slip "under the radar."
Case in point: The U.S. Treasury's $109 billion downward revision of its borrowing underscores why investors need to keep budget and economic projections in perspective. Investors should not view projections, particularly those 5, 7 and 10 years out and longer, as ironclad.
federal budget posts
FeedUnder the radar: U.S. budget picture quickly improves by $109 billion
Continue reading Under the radar: U.S. budget picture quickly improves by $109 billion
House Republicans take page out of Hoover's 1930s play book with spending freeze plan
Readers of this space know that the emphasis is placed on the economic, on commerce, and business trends, with a general avoidance of goings-on inside the beltway.
However, the financial crisis (which spawned federal bank bail-out legislation) and the nation's pronounced recession (which requires fiscal stimulus to end), has meant that things occurring in Washington once again have great relevance for investors.
And one current D.C. development must be evaluated: the House Republican leadership's decision to seek a federal spending freeze for the fiscal 2010 federal budget, The AP reported.
However, the financial crisis (which spawned federal bank bail-out legislation) and the nation's pronounced recession (which requires fiscal stimulus to end), has meant that things occurring in Washington once again have great relevance for investors.
And one current D.C. development must be evaluated: the House Republican leadership's decision to seek a federal spending freeze for the fiscal 2010 federal budget, The AP reported.
U.S. infrastructure building will require some pruning, too
New York Times (NYSE: NYT) columnist Thomas Friedman in his latest column and again Tuesday night on 'The Charlie Rose Show' returned to his theme of the U.S. effort at nation building. Nation building, that is, at home. Friedman, among others, has underscored the need for the nation to begin, in a comprehensive way, to rebuild its dilapidated and/or outmoded infrastructure that includes its electric grid, highways, roads, bridges, mass transit systems, schools and other public buildings.
Further, one doesn't have to be a civil engineer or a mechanical engineer to see that the nation's infrastructure has been neglected, and while at times Friedman's discourses on the gleaming magnificence of yet another high tech airport in Asia can begin to grate, his overall conclusion regarding a period of pronounced underinvestment in U.S. public assets is valid.
'Action' is a two-edge sword
Friedman wants 'radical' action, i.e. bold action by President Obama to make up for lost time, infrastructure-wise, and he believes 'Obi 44' has a rare opportunity to act in a big way, given the economic crisis facing our nation, his high public approval rating, and the general desire of public officials across the spectrum to see him succeed.
Continue reading U.S. infrastructure building will require some pruning, too
Is this the best time to commit new money to stocks?
What's one reason for not jumping back in the market at this juncture? Well, one could certainly cite end-of-the-year tax loss selling, which typically weighs on the market. Or the battle for Dow 8,000 between institutional bulls and bears. Or the fact that the Dow's path of least resistance, from a technical standpoint, remains down. (That's a major reason why the Dow drops so quickly: all that's required is a hedge fund manager to sneeze and the Dow drops 300 points, or so it seems.)
All of the above are valid reasons to remain on the sidelines.
Is Washington planning big changes?
But perhaps the best reason to not deploy new capital is the new era itself. The United States is preparing for a new presidential administration and one gets the sense that there could be a series of seismic shifts up ahead -- shifts that will affect money, markets, investing, and business trends.
It's true that after the U.S. government's allocation, via loans, loan guarantees, or investments, of about $8.2 trillion for the financial system, it's hard to picture shifts up ahead that could be as landscape-altering as those undertaken in the past year. But that could very well be the case nevertheless.
Those hoping for small change are likely to be disappointed. On January 20, President-elect Obama becomes President Obama and he is big change. U.S. Senator and now Secretary of State-designate Hillary Clinton, D-New York, was small change, and we saw how the electorate responded to her candidacy. Voters were so adamant for economic change (and other changes) after the United States' decade of descent that they not only blamed the Republican Party, they rejected anyone with even a hint of being a part of the economic policy mistakes, including Clinton.
Continue reading Is this the best time to commit new money to stocks?
Warren Buffett: I should be paying more in federal taxes
Want to sum up the United States' fiscal situation in a word? Warren Buffett did, or did so in 16 words to be exact, in a chat with The New York Times: "I'm paying the lowest tax rate that I've ever paid in my life," Buffet said. "Now, that's crazy."
Further, Buffett, the world's richest person as ranked by Forbes Magazine with wealth totaling $62 billion, also said the U.S. Government should increase taxes on the wealthy to help pay for the recently-passed bank rescue, which is designed to end the financial crisis.
Buffett's stance demonstrates that there is at least one person of high income and/or wealth (and probably many more) who believe upper-income groups should be paying more in federal taxes each year.
2001 tax cut generated large U.S. budget deficits
Buffett's view is also in stark contrast to the Bush Administration's philosophy and policy, which has prevailed for the decade and which argues that lower tax rates on upper-income groups will not only generate higher GDP growth, but also result in revenues high enough to close the federal budget deficit. It hasn't happened, said economist David H. Wang.
Continue reading Warren Buffett: I should be paying more in federal taxes
Recession, housing seen increasing budget deficit for new president
Few would deny that the new U.S. president, Democrat or Republican, will face a plethora of concerns and problems after reciting the oath of office in January 2009.
One issue that sort of presents the 'problems panorama' in a snapshot has, curiously, received light news coverage lately -- is the U.S. budget deficit.
Time was, just a short decade ago, the federal budget was in surplus. However, in 2001 a federal tax cut occurred. That fact, combined with required spending for the war on terror / Iraq War, and the absence of a tax increase to pay for that increased spending, has primarily led to a projected $553 billion deficit for fiscal 2008, which ends September 30, 2008, and a $403 billion deficit for fiscal 2009, which begins October 1, 2008, according to Congressional Budget Office research (pdf).
Three factors that could balloon the deficit
In the view of many, the existing deficit is large -- but still manageable -- in the context of a $2.9-3.0 trillion federal budget. However, three factors could markedly increase the budget deficit in the immediate years ahead, and in doing so add to the new president's woes, economist Richard Felson told BloggingStocks.
First, there's the U.S. economy. If it falls into a recession (if it hasn't already), federal receipts (such as corporate and individual income taxes) will decline from current projected levels, and social program costs will increase, "adding $20-$50 billion to the deficit," Felson said.
One issue that sort of presents the 'problems panorama' in a snapshot has, curiously, received light news coverage lately -- is the U.S. budget deficit.
Time was, just a short decade ago, the federal budget was in surplus. However, in 2001 a federal tax cut occurred. That fact, combined with required spending for the war on terror / Iraq War, and the absence of a tax increase to pay for that increased spending, has primarily led to a projected $553 billion deficit for fiscal 2008, which ends September 30, 2008, and a $403 billion deficit for fiscal 2009, which begins October 1, 2008, according to Congressional Budget Office research (pdf).
Three factors that could balloon the deficit
In the view of many, the existing deficit is large -- but still manageable -- in the context of a $2.9-3.0 trillion federal budget. However, three factors could markedly increase the budget deficit in the immediate years ahead, and in doing so add to the new president's woes, economist Richard Felson told BloggingStocks.
First, there's the U.S. economy. If it falls into a recession (if it hasn't already), federal receipts (such as corporate and individual income taxes) will decline from current projected levels, and social program costs will increase, "adding $20-$50 billion to the deficit," Felson said.
Continue reading Recession, housing seen increasing budget deficit for new president
Fannie, Freddie bailout -- first step toward ending housing sector's slide
As Washington legislation goes, the housing bailout bill that the U.S. House and Senate passed last week and that President Bush is expected to sign this week, is omnibus in scope and, ultimately, in budget and economic impact.
Economist Glen Langan told BloggingStocks Monday the bill's two key components are the assistance to Fannie Mae (NYSE: FNM) and Freddie Mac (NYSE: FRE), and a new Federal Housing Administration program. The former, Langan says, "represents an implied guarantee" of Fannie and Freddie by the U.S. Government, which should restore confidence in each, and in the secondary mortgage market. Banks and other mortgage lenders, he said, "will now be more willing to write conforming loans, knowing that Fannie and Freddie will have the funds available to purchase and back these loans."
The latter, a Federal Housing Administration program that enables banks to sell to the U.S. Government mortgages unlikely to be repaid, "will help stem the tide of foreclosures that's plaguing the housing sector," as well as "relieve banks/lenders of less-than-stellar to non-performing assets," Langan said.
Beginning of the end of the housing slump?
Some House and Senate Republicans, and a few Democrats, among others, have chaffed at the bailout bill's cost and ultimate impact on the U.S. taxpayer. House Republican leader U.S. Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, told Bloomberg News the bill did not reform Fannie and Freddie enough, and will leave taxpayers with a bill for "billions and billions of dollars." Langan said Rep. Boehner's concern is legitimate.
Economist Glen Langan told BloggingStocks Monday the bill's two key components are the assistance to Fannie Mae (NYSE: FNM) and Freddie Mac (NYSE: FRE), and a new Federal Housing Administration program. The former, Langan says, "represents an implied guarantee" of Fannie and Freddie by the U.S. Government, which should restore confidence in each, and in the secondary mortgage market. Banks and other mortgage lenders, he said, "will now be more willing to write conforming loans, knowing that Fannie and Freddie will have the funds available to purchase and back these loans."
The latter, a Federal Housing Administration program that enables banks to sell to the U.S. Government mortgages unlikely to be repaid, "will help stem the tide of foreclosures that's plaguing the housing sector," as well as "relieve banks/lenders of less-than-stellar to non-performing assets," Langan said.
Beginning of the end of the housing slump?
Some House and Senate Republicans, and a few Democrats, among others, have chaffed at the bailout bill's cost and ultimate impact on the U.S. taxpayer. House Republican leader U.S. Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, told Bloomberg News the bill did not reform Fannie and Freddie enough, and will leave taxpayers with a bill for "billions and billions of dollars." Langan said Rep. Boehner's concern is legitimate.
Continue reading Fannie, Freddie bailout -- first step toward ending housing sector's slide
What wrecked the global economy
If an enemy sworn to the destruction of the global economy was given free reign, it would follow the strategies of its current leaders.
One key to destroying an economy is to break its pricing mechanism. What does an effectively functioning pricing system do? It creates a market of buyers and sellers who can meet, agree on a price, conduct the transaction, and create an information trail that permits future market participants to judge what might be a fair price for their transactions.
Another key to destroying an economy is to put too low a price on risky behavior. Why is it important to price risk accurately? Because if decision-makers do not assess the risk at the time of their decision, the economy will end up paying for the under-priced risk long after those decision-makers have left office.
So how have current leaders broken the pricing mechanism and under-priced risk? Here are three ways:
How the Fed costs you more at the pump
The Fed's job is to control inflation. But is was established originally to keep financial panics from getting out of control. Since last August, it has reverted to its original role and failed miserably. Since it began cutting its Fed Funds rate 57% from 5.25% to 2.25% the price of a barrel of oil has risen 62% from $71 to $115. Simply put, the weaker the dollar, the higher the price of oil. Bloomberg News proves it -- noting that in the last year, there was a 0.96 correlation -- a correlation of 1.0 would be a completely safe bet -- between the Euro-dollar exchange rate and the price of oil.
If it bothers you to pay $3.66 for a gallon of gasoline you can thank the Fed along with cheerleader, Hank Paulson who brags that he's been talking about the U.S.'s strong dollar policy consistently. Of course saying and doing are two different things. Since January 2001, the dollar has lost 70% to the Euro. And since oil is traded in dollars, a drop in the dollar leads to a rise in price. And lower interest rates erode further the value of the dollar since it pays government bond holders a lower rate of return so they sell the U.S. currency and buy higher yielding ones.
But it's unfair to give the Fed all the blame. After all, we have been running the Federal budget at a deficit -- expected to hit $413 billion this year. Since the Fed has started cutting rates, other factors such as speculation by leveraged traders -- relying on the 0.96 correlation -- and political instability seem to have remained at the same level -- although the degree of speculation seems difficult to measure. And U.S. demand has declined due to the economic slowdown. So it looks like those dollar-weakening rate cuts are the one factor powerful enough to offset the demand slowdown to drive prices up.
U.S. fiscal condition for 2009 president will hardly be ideal
What's the new president - - Republican or Democrat -- likely to face after taking the oath of office in 2009?Daunting fiscal problems -- and right at a time when Congress may have to consider more fiscal stimulus to jump-start the U.S. economy, one economist observed.
The biggest problem, economist Glen Langan said, will be the federal government's budget deficit. The United States is on-track to record a $200 billion deficit in Fiscal 2009 and a $241 billion in Fiscal 2010 -- and that's if the U.S. economy doesn't fall into a recession, Langan said, citing Congressional Budget Office data.
"The baseline CBO projections present a large budgetary task for the new president, but by itself it's not an impossible one, absent a major recession. The problem is there's no money available to tackle any other problems, including ones a Democratic president would address -- health care, energy policy, education and infrastructure. And don't forget the Iraq War, anti-terrorism efforts, and potential mortgage assistance programs," Langan said. "If there aren't changes to the tax code, given the current revenue structure and tax rates,to say the next president's hands are tied regarding new programs, would be an understatement."
Continue reading U.S. fiscal condition for 2009 president will hardly be ideal
File under irony: Bush looks to cut spending by printing fewer copies of budget
Here's an item that's so laced with irony it defies comment -- I can't come up with a metaphor that does it justice. It's sort of like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, but it's much, much, much more pathetic.President Bush's 2009 budget is expected to lead to a deficit of more than $400 billion. But not to worry, our fearless leader has a plan to cut back on spending.
According (subscription required) to the Wall Street Journal, "In years past, the White House's Office of Management and Budget distributed about 3,000 copies of the budget free to media outlets, congressional offices and elsewhere in the capital. This year, those folks must buy a printed copy or access one free online."
Members of Congress can get a copy for $67.50. Ordinary taxpayers hoping to get the details on how their elected officials plan to waste their money and then some will have to pay $213 -- or read it online.
The plan will save taxpayers an estimated $1 million over 5 years.
So $400 billion divided by $200,000... The President has found a way to shave off 1/2,000,000th of the projected deficit for 2009 that will be passed on to future generations.
Keep up the good work!
Bush announces new $3.1 trillion budget plan
American President George Bush announced his new budget spending plan today, and the package came out to a total of $3.1 trillion.Today's federal budget proposal marks the first time in America's history that a budget plan has been in excess of $3 trillion. Bush claims that his budget is "good" and "solid" and that the passing of this budget will help keep the troubled American economy growing.
All in all, this budget looks to lift government spending by 6% during the fiscal year 2009, and it will probably come to no one's surprise that defense gets a nice little boost from today's budget. Bush is looking to allocate 8.2% of his spending on security, and the budget is looking to stake a $70 billion "placeholder" for war costs during 2009. The Pentagon should be pleased with its figures, as Bush is looking to allocate $515.4 billion its way... the highest allocation since WWII (and represents a 7.5% jump).
Continue reading Bush announces new $3.1 trillion budget plan
Ray of light: U.S. temp worker hiring increased by 34k in October
Closing Bell: Bulls gutting bears (ATVI, EWBC, GE, JASO, ENZN, MCD)
Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein pulls a Jeff Skilling in an interview
