Alex_G's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/123024/comments http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/37208?source=feed#comment-778607 778607 Thu, 26 Nov 2009 13:13:05 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/173321-u-s-financial-institutions-does-the-collective-balance-sheet-add-up?source=feed#comment-762946 762946 Mon, 16 Nov 2009 20:48:28 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/36603?source=feed#comment-762785 762785 Mon, 16 Nov 2009 18:27:29 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/173600-finding-the-new-normal-in-investment-returns?source=feed#comment-762318 762318
Very little of the stimulus is "investment", just keeping people afloat.]]> Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:26:06 -0500
Very little of the stimulus is "investment", just keeping people afloat.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/36152?source=feed#comment-753088 753088 Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:16:46 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/171513-4-possible-market-scenarios-updated?source=feed#comment-746659 746659
I would swap the probabilities of GD 2.0 and an amended Japanese disease. I think the govt will do anything (including severely debasing the currency) to avoid GD 2.0, which will result in the substantially higher taxes you talk about. What this will do is make our economy look a lot like the Euro Zone’s, much slower growth, with lower levels of private investment and a higher level of unemployment going forward. Full employment might have a bottom 6-7% unemployed.]]> Thu, 05 Nov 2009 14:03:13 -0500
I would swap the probabilities of GD 2.0 and an amended Japanese disease. I think the govt will do anything (including severely debasing the currency) to avoid GD 2.0, which will result in the substantially higher taxes you talk about. What this will do is make our economy look a lot like the Euro Zone’s, much slower growth, with lower levels of private investment and a higher level of unemployment going forward. Full employment might have a bottom 6-7% unemployed.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/169530-fixing-gmac-paging-jpm?source=feed#comment-735011 735011
The mortgage part of GMAC (ResCap) is already walled off and can be cut loose. This was ironically done when Cerberus bought 51% to protect ResCap from GMAC. If this is done, no capital needs to be raised, as almost all of the balance sheet risk is at ResCap.

My question is this:

Why won't the Govt let them do it? It's the most logical thing to do.]]> Thu, 29 Oct 2009 01:30:22 -0400
The mortgage part of GMAC (ResCap) is already walled off and can be cut loose. This was ironically done when Cerberus bought 51% to protect ResCap from GMAC. If this is done, no capital needs to be raised, as almost all of the balance sheet risk is at ResCap.

My question is this:

Why won't the Govt let them do it? It's the most logical thing to do.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/163644-prepaying-mortgages?source=feed#comment-693949 693949
As djackson above states, a direct payoff would not be workable on many different levels.

Alex]]> Mon, 28 Sep 2009 11:00:30 -0400
As djackson above states, a direct payoff would not be workable on many different levels.

Alex]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/160272-the-facts-about-gdp-and-a-u-s-recovery?source=feed#comment-665584 665584 1) infrastructure that will provide economic benefit and

2) energy initiatives that will REDUCE the out-flow of money to foreign energy companies (if you take out oil purchases, our trade deficit is nearly 0) and INCREASE payments to domestic energy companies. Jobs and revenue here instead of overseas.


]]> Mon, 07 Sep 2009 19:36:42 -0400 1) infrastructure that will provide economic benefit and

2) energy initiatives that will REDUCE the out-flow of money to foreign energy companies (if you take out oil purchases, our trade deficit is nearly 0) and INCREASE payments to domestic energy companies. Jobs and revenue here instead of overseas.


]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/158876-aig-is-dead-long-live-aig?source=feed#comment-652426 652426
FRE pfd Z on Bloomberg, FRE.Z on others


On Aug 28 08:47 PM Mark Alexander wrote:

> Alex_G, thanks for highlighting the situation with FRE. That's too
> funny. Can you provide a ticker for the preferred shares? There are
> lots of issues (it looks like most trade as if they were junior in
> the capital structure to common), but it would be interesting to
> know which one you are referring to.
>
> buygolly, your thinking is critically flawed in one area. With clients
> no longer trusting AIG and and price slashing by AIG underwriters,
> the value of AIG's operations is depreciating much more quickly than
> a Hummer. Benmosche is doesn't have the foggiest idea what he is
> doing or talking about, or else he is simply lying]]> Sat, 29 Aug 2009 12:23:38 -0400
FRE pfd Z on Bloomberg, FRE.Z on others


On Aug 28 08:47 PM Mark Alexander wrote:

> Alex_G, thanks for highlighting the situation with FRE. That's too
> funny. Can you provide a ticker for the preferred shares? There are
> lots of issues (it looks like most trade as if they were junior in
> the capital structure to common), but it would be interesting to
> know which one you are referring to.
>
> buygolly, your thinking is critically flawed in one area. With clients
> no longer trusting AIG and and price slashing by AIG underwriters,
> the value of AIG's operations is depreciating much more quickly than
> a Hummer. Benmosche is doesn't have the foggiest idea what he is
> doing or talking about, or else he is simply lying]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/158876-aig-is-dead-long-live-aig?source=feed#comment-650845 650845 Fri, 28 Aug 2009 10:45:57 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/158876-aig-is-dead-long-live-aig?source=feed#comment-650825 650825
Alex]]> Fri, 28 Aug 2009 10:36:54 -0400
Alex]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/158373-revenue-growth-the-market-s-next-catalyst?source=feed#comment-647717 647717
BTW, the high yield market is a better indicator of economic activity, and while it has come back from Armageddon levels, it is still telling us that we are in a recessionary environment and future growth of 0-1%.


On Aug 26 10:51 AM Terence Chan wrote:

> Alex,
>
> thanks for your comment. I do agree with your points. I'm not saying
> it's a v-shaped recovery for the US... there will be a lot of headwinds.
> the consumer won't recover that easily. but you're seeing a lot
> of data starting to bottom like auto sales and housing starts. yes
> it will be choppy recovery, but the stock markets are forward looking
> and by the time you get all the data confirming that consumer spending
> has recovered, etc, bull markets are usually close to a year old.
> who knows where it will come from, more stimulus or simply people
> just getting "tired" of this recession. remember, savings rates
> are up and there are a lot of cash in the sidelines. the exact number
> is 25% are still in money market funds. i still think it will be
> a wall of worry for the us markets, but for the emerging markets
> I believe it's a secular bull. maybe this external demand will fuel
> manufacturing activity in the States. the reason why a lot of money
> managers and investors have been left behind in this rally because
> they wait for the tangible data to come out... but the market never
> waits... :)]]> Wed, 26 Aug 2009 14:53:32 -0400
BTW, the high yield market is a better indicator of economic activity, and while it has come back from Armageddon levels, it is still telling us that we are in a recessionary environment and future growth of 0-1%.


On Aug 26 10:51 AM Terence Chan wrote:

> Alex,
>
> thanks for your comment. I do agree with your points. I'm not saying
> it's a v-shaped recovery for the US... there will be a lot of headwinds.
> the consumer won't recover that easily. but you're seeing a lot
> of data starting to bottom like auto sales and housing starts. yes
> it will be choppy recovery, but the stock markets are forward looking
> and by the time you get all the data confirming that consumer spending
> has recovered, etc, bull markets are usually close to a year old.
> who knows where it will come from, more stimulus or simply people
> just getting "tired" of this recession. remember, savings rates
> are up and there are a lot of cash in the sidelines. the exact number
> is 25% are still in money market funds. i still think it will be
> a wall of worry for the us markets, but for the emerging markets
> I believe it's a secular bull. maybe this external demand will fuel
> manufacturing activity in the States. the reason why a lot of money
> managers and investors have been left behind in this rally because
> they wait for the tangible data to come out... but the market never
> waits... :)]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/158373-revenue-growth-the-market-s-next-catalyst?source=feed#comment-647121 647121
The charts and statistics you use are all over the internet and not new. What you don't tell us is where, specifically you see the rise in demand (don't say pent up) coming from.

Current spending is fueled by Govt stimulus, and can't be maintained in perpetuity. It needs to be replaced by other sectors. Tell us which these are and were the spending power is going to come from.

I await your reply.]]> Wed, 26 Aug 2009 10:09:06 -0400
The charts and statistics you use are all over the internet and not new. What you don't tell us is where, specifically you see the rise in demand (don't say pent up) coming from.

Current spending is fueled by Govt stimulus, and can't be maintained in perpetuity. It needs to be replaced by other sectors. Tell us which these are and were the spending power is going to come from.

I await your reply.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/158146-we-needed-government-aid-sooner?source=feed#comment-645439 645439
I think you are forgetting what got us here in the first place. The largest housing bubble in our history, the use of inflated values to consume more than we make, and the extra debt taken on fuel the consumption.

Cash for Clunkers would not have saved the over-built auto industry.

$8,000 tax credit would not have made vastly overpriced houses affordable in the long run.

50% of economic growth from '02-'07 was fueled by the vapors of an asset bubble. It was time to pay the piper.]]> Tue, 25 Aug 2009 11:51:35 -0400
I think you are forgetting what got us here in the first place. The largest housing bubble in our history, the use of inflated values to consume more than we make, and the extra debt taken on fuel the consumption.

Cash for Clunkers would not have saved the over-built auto industry.

$8,000 tax credit would not have made vastly overpriced houses affordable in the long run.

50% of economic growth from '02-'07 was fueled by the vapors of an asset bubble. It was time to pay the piper.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/157097-grab-your-shorts-the-correction-has-begun?source=feed#comment-637383 637383
The consumer is dead for 3-10 years, depending on if we become Japan or Japan light. The people that think the consumer will spend as they have the last 10 years just don't understand the metrics.

Alex


On Aug 19 07:09 PM Rick Urban wrote:

> All I can do is to ask you bears out here: DID YOU MAKE MONEY THIS
> YEAR? The way you view the world, I doubt it. The growth will come
> where it always comes from. Consumer! It may take some time, but
> it'll come. I don't understand why it is so hard to comprehend.
>
> Yes, perhaps we pilots are all the same, however being a pilot or
> an investor requires among other things discipline, taking calculated
> risk, homework, planning and fear control.☺
> ]]> Wed, 19 Aug 2009 21:54:07 -0400
The consumer is dead for 3-10 years, depending on if we become Japan or Japan light. The people that think the consumer will spend as they have the last 10 years just don't understand the metrics.

Alex


On Aug 19 07:09 PM Rick Urban wrote:

> All I can do is to ask you bears out here: DID YOU MAKE MONEY THIS
> YEAR? The way you view the world, I doubt it. The growth will come
> where it always comes from. Consumer! It may take some time, but
> it'll come. I don't understand why it is so hard to comprehend.
>
> Yes, perhaps we pilots are all the same, however being a pilot or
> an investor requires among other things discipline, taking calculated
> risk, homework, planning and fear control.☺
> ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/157046-buffett-s-latest-nyt-op-ed-the-greenback-effect?source=feed#comment-636530 636530
M3, or bank credit, is still falling off a cliff. Wealth losses are well over $10 trillion. Banks are holding the cash for future commercial loan losses, and are only deploying capital for trading.

The "money being printed" so far is 1/5th of money, or wealth, lost. The world is just now realizing that non-stimulus growth hinges on the American consumer coming back to the trough. Good luck with that.

Inflation will not happen until the bank reserves are leveraged to provide consumer loans, and consumers begin to compete for goods with their "excess dollars".]]> Wed, 19 Aug 2009 11:33:30 -0400
M3, or bank credit, is still falling off a cliff. Wealth losses are well over $10 trillion. Banks are holding the cash for future commercial loan losses, and are only deploying capital for trading.

The "money being printed" so far is 1/5th of money, or wealth, lost. The world is just now realizing that non-stimulus growth hinges on the American consumer coming back to the trough. Good luck with that.

Inflation will not happen until the bank reserves are leveraged to provide consumer loans, and consumers begin to compete for goods with their "excess dollars".]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/156766-deflation-at-work?source=feed#comment-634665 634665
The "money being printed" so far is 1/5th of money, or wealth, lost. The world is just now realizing that non-stimulus growth hinges on the American consumer coming back to the trough. Good luck with that. ]]> Tue, 18 Aug 2009 10:14:52 -0400
The "money being printed" so far is 1/5th of money, or wealth, lost. The world is just now realizing that non-stimulus growth hinges on the American consumer coming back to the trough. Good luck with that. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/154951-popular-mechanics-gets-it-wrong-on-buick-hybrid?source=feed#comment-624221 624221
On the Kwh, you multiplied instead of divided...


On Aug 10 01:45 PM lostark98 wrote:

> OK, so I knew that it would be next to impossible to find any definitive
> data on how much electric vs gas fuels cost to produce. And I'm no
> one you want to trust with numbers so I was hoping someone could
> point me to it!
>
> It isn't easy to determine the real costs of energy production. None
> of the companies break out all the numbers the same and allocations
> for investments are handled differently, for example. My rough cut
> is based on data from the Energy Information Administration website
> (www.eia.doe.gov) as best I can without losing my day job
> (using U.S. numbers from 2007 and 2008!)
>
> It costs roughly $.198/gallon to get the crude to the surface and
> another $.64/gallon to get a refined gasoline product. (These are
> very, very gross numbers!) For a car that gets 30 mpg that's about
> $.0279/mi.
>
> To produce 1 kW*h in the U.S.A. is roughly $.0548. For an EV that
> gets 4 mi/kW*h that's $.2192/mi.
>
> It costs a lot in fossil fuels to produce electricity (51% of the
> U.S. electricity is from coal.) That's why I think the ICE will continue
> to be popular until we produce cheap electricity.
>
> On Aug 10 10:43 AM Alex_G wrote:]]> Mon, 10 Aug 2009 21:33:25 -0400
On the Kwh, you multiplied instead of divided...


On Aug 10 01:45 PM lostark98 wrote:

> OK, so I knew that it would be next to impossible to find any definitive
> data on how much electric vs gas fuels cost to produce. And I'm no
> one you want to trust with numbers so I was hoping someone could
> point me to it!
>
> It isn't easy to determine the real costs of energy production. None
> of the companies break out all the numbers the same and allocations
> for investments are handled differently, for example. My rough cut
> is based on data from the Energy Information Administration website
> (www.eia.doe.gov) as best I can without losing my day job
> (using U.S. numbers from 2007 and 2008!)
>
> It costs roughly $.198/gallon to get the crude to the surface and
> another $.64/gallon to get a refined gasoline product. (These are
> very, very gross numbers!) For a car that gets 30 mpg that's about
> $.0279/mi.
>
> To produce 1 kW*h in the U.S.A. is roughly $.0548. For an EV that
> gets 4 mi/kW*h that's $.2192/mi.
>
> It costs a lot in fossil fuels to produce electricity (51% of the
> U.S. electricity is from coal.) That's why I think the ICE will continue
> to be popular until we produce cheap electricity.
>
> On Aug 10 10:43 AM Alex_G wrote:]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/155168-are-investors-too-bullish?source=feed#comment-623749 623749
Temporary spending measures tend to become permanent, so my guess is that we gravitate toward the Govt option. 1-2% growth could be the norm unless we step up immigration.


On Aug 10 02:57 PM Mad Hedge Fund Trader wrote:

> By miles. Welcome to the square root shaped recovery. That is the
> likely shape of the recovery curve we can expect over the coming
> years. If you back out what I call the “2000’s fluff” of excess car
> production, liar loans, using the home ATM for serial, annual refinancings,
> excess consumption, unneeded home construction to account for the
> new frugality, US GDP growth drops by 1%. Chop off another 1% for
> deleveraging in all its forms, including lower leverage ratios, the
> end of the collaterized debt markets and credit default swaps, ultra
> high junk yields, bond ratings for sale, and the new conservatism
> of CFO’s and auditors. That leaves you with a 1% growth rate that
> Japan has seen for the last 20 years. That means falling standard
> of livings, an unemployment rate permanently stuck at German style
> double digits, endemic deflation, a collapsing dollar, a comatose
> real estate market and moribund stock markets. Where are the 37 million
> jobs going to come from that American needs over the next decade?
> If your kid is going to graduate from college soon, or cash out from
> the army, he better start learning Mandarin.
>
> 3% Average US GDP growth rate 2002-2007
> -1% Bank deleveraging
> -1% 2000’s fluff-liar loans, excess home construction, excess car
> production
> -1% real GDP growth 2010-2020]]> Mon, 10 Aug 2009 15:21:33 -0400
Temporary spending measures tend to become permanent, so my guess is that we gravitate toward the Govt option. 1-2% growth could be the norm unless we step up immigration.


On Aug 10 02:57 PM Mad Hedge Fund Trader wrote:

> By miles. Welcome to the square root shaped recovery. That is the
> likely shape of the recovery curve we can expect over the coming
> years. If you back out what I call the “2000’s fluff” of excess car
> production, liar loans, using the home ATM for serial, annual refinancings,
> excess consumption, unneeded home construction to account for the
> new frugality, US GDP growth drops by 1%. Chop off another 1% for
> deleveraging in all its forms, including lower leverage ratios, the
> end of the collaterized debt markets and credit default swaps, ultra
> high junk yields, bond ratings for sale, and the new conservatism
> of CFO’s and auditors. That leaves you with a 1% growth rate that
> Japan has seen for the last 20 years. That means falling standard
> of livings, an unemployment rate permanently stuck at German style
> double digits, endemic deflation, a collapsing dollar, a comatose
> real estate market and moribund stock markets. Where are the 37 million
> jobs going to come from that American needs over the next decade?
> If your kid is going to graduate from college soon, or cash out from
> the army, he better start learning Mandarin.
>
> 3% Average US GDP growth rate 2002-2007
> -1% Bank deleveraging
> -1% 2000’s fluff-liar loans, excess home construction, excess car
> production
> -1% real GDP growth 2010-2020]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/154951-popular-mechanics-gets-it-wrong-on-buick-hybrid?source=feed#comment-623169 623169

On Aug 10 09:19 AM lostark98 wrote:

> Has anyone done the math to see if electricity is really a cheaper
> (or more environmentally friendly) way than gasoline to power an
> automobile? What's the real total cost of producing the electricity
> needed to drive 100 miles vs the cost to produce the gasoline to
> drive the same distance? Just curious! If there is a link somewhere,
> please post.]]> Mon, 10 Aug 2009 10:43:07 -0400

On Aug 10 09:19 AM lostark98 wrote:

> Has anyone done the math to see if electricity is really a cheaper
> (or more environmentally friendly) way than gasoline to power an
> automobile? What's the real total cost of producing the electricity
> needed to drive 100 miles vs the cost to produce the gasoline to
> drive the same distance? Just curious! If there is a link somewhere,
> please post.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/153871-gmac-guess-who-s-back-for-more-federal-assistance?source=feed#comment-616303 616303
You still don't understand the structure and end game of GMAC, do you? Maybe you're upset that you haven't enjoyed the 100-200% gains many of us have in their bonds the last few months. It also appears you didn't listen to the earnings call yesterday. If you did, you would have discovered that:

1. It was a "kitchen sink" quarter, with almost all of the losses coming from a tax bite caused by the conversion to corporation status and cleanup on ResCap, getting ready to put the walled off entity to sleep by the end of the year.

2. ResCap is where all of the problems are held. See point number 1 above.

3. The auto finance division (which will be the surviving entity) made money and will continue to do so.

The Feds will get every penny back when a well capitalized Ally bank sells shares to the public, and any losses will be borne by the current equity holders, which is Cerberus and the Trust that holds the rest.

All of the extra equity they need to raise is a result of the ResCap liability. My best guess is their bondholders will end up with some cash and equity in GMAC.]]> Wed, 05 Aug 2009 11:31:25 -0400
You still don't understand the structure and end game of GMAC, do you? Maybe you're upset that you haven't enjoyed the 100-200% gains many of us have in their bonds the last few months. It also appears you didn't listen to the earnings call yesterday. If you did, you would have discovered that:

1. It was a "kitchen sink" quarter, with almost all of the losses coming from a tax bite caused by the conversion to corporation status and cleanup on ResCap, getting ready to put the walled off entity to sleep by the end of the year.

2. ResCap is where all of the problems are held. See point number 1 above.

3. The auto finance division (which will be the surviving entity) made money and will continue to do so.

The Feds will get every penny back when a well capitalized Ally bank sells shares to the public, and any losses will be borne by the current equity holders, which is Cerberus and the Trust that holds the rest.

All of the extra equity they need to raise is a result of the ResCap liability. My best guess is their bondholders will end up with some cash and equity in GMAC.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/152150-foreclosure-chart-of-the-day?source=feed#comment-607534 607534
A higher savings rate only needs to be higher than income gains to affect spending. Q2 numbers were skewed by extra checks to SS recipients, which was a one time thing. Take that out, and PI was down. And will stay down. The most prolific spenders (boomers) lost a significant portion of their retirement savings/wealth, and will have to make it up. The manufactured numbers of Q2 were the eye of the consumer spending hurricane, and will continue down (as a % of GDP) for many years to come.

And BTW, the quant easing (or printing of money, as you call it) has not even replaced 1/5th of the money lost in this asset meltdown, and most of that has been hoarded by financial institutions to cover future writedowns.

There is a long and painful road ahead of us, and if you think that the OECD consumer will behave as they have in the last 15 yrs or so, you are sadly mistaken.


On Jul 29 03:50 PM Tack wrote:

> You are correct, of course, provided that one expects personal income
> to spiral downward continuously. I doubt that this will continue
> much longer, as the economy firms, as various statistics are beginning
> to demonstrate. The effect of the huge cache of dollars, printed
> by the government, saved by individuals, and reserved by banks cannot
> be underestimated, as to its potential impact on nominal growth,
> if not real (inflation-adjusted) growth.
>
> Regarding the "handouts," I don't recall getting any checks in the
> mail this year, like last year's one-time tax rebate, so I'm not
> sure who is receiving these "handouts" and what impact it has on
> the overall economy and consumer habits.
>
> It reminds me of the constant focus on the marginal rate of employment,
> as the key factor in an economy, supposedly. That theory posits
> that the "delta" 2-4% of unemployed controls our destiny, whereas,
> I'd profer that it is the consumer behavior of the 90+% of employed
> people that are the horses pulling the wagon. If those people get
> renewed confidence to spend, rather than hunker down, then, the economy
> will recover, regardless of the marginal rate of unemployment. The
> improvement in actual employment statistics is an extremely lagging
> number, which, when it reaches "full employment" again, is quite
> possibly a signal to consider playing defense once again in one's
> investments.]]> Thu, 30 Jul 2009 01:43:53 -0400
A higher savings rate only needs to be higher than income gains to affect spending. Q2 numbers were skewed by extra checks to SS recipients, which was a one time thing. Take that out, and PI was down. And will stay down. The most prolific spenders (boomers) lost a significant portion of their retirement savings/wealth, and will have to make it up. The manufactured numbers of Q2 were the eye of the consumer spending hurricane, and will continue down (as a % of GDP) for many years to come.

And BTW, the quant easing (or printing of money, as you call it) has not even replaced 1/5th of the money lost in this asset meltdown, and most of that has been hoarded by financial institutions to cover future writedowns.

There is a long and painful road ahead of us, and if you think that the OECD consumer will behave as they have in the last 15 yrs or so, you are sadly mistaken.


On Jul 29 03:50 PM Tack wrote:

> You are correct, of course, provided that one expects personal income
> to spiral downward continuously. I doubt that this will continue
> much longer, as the economy firms, as various statistics are beginning
> to demonstrate. The effect of the huge cache of dollars, printed
> by the government, saved by individuals, and reserved by banks cannot
> be underestimated, as to its potential impact on nominal growth,
> if not real (inflation-adjusted) growth.
>
> Regarding the "handouts," I don't recall getting any checks in the
> mail this year, like last year's one-time tax rebate, so I'm not
> sure who is receiving these "handouts" and what impact it has on
> the overall economy and consumer habits.
>
> It reminds me of the constant focus on the marginal rate of employment,
> as the key factor in an economy, supposedly. That theory posits
> that the "delta" 2-4% of unemployed controls our destiny, whereas,
> I'd profer that it is the consumer behavior of the 90+% of employed
> people that are the horses pulling the wagon. If those people get
> renewed confidence to spend, rather than hunker down, then, the economy
> will recover, regardless of the marginal rate of unemployment. The
> improvement in actual employment statistics is an extremely lagging
> number, which, when it reaches "full employment" again, is quite
> possibly a signal to consider playing defense once again in one's
> investments.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/152150-foreclosure-chart-of-the-day?source=feed#comment-607057 607057
This is, of course, unsustainable, unless DC borrows more money to do this. You simply can't increase both in a flat or declining personal income environment.


On Jul 29 02:00 PM Tack wrote:

> Consumer spending has actually been increasing, lately, even as savings
> rate has escalated. This is an impressive feat, but the pessimists
> always seem to focus on savings, as if it were a negative. In fact,
> it's the opposite, like water behind a hydroelectric dam, that can
> be released at anytime the consumers decided to get back in the water.
> This is, in fact, very positive.
>
> Coupled with the bank's excessive levels of cash reserves, presently,
> we have a situation where lending and spending can meet in a fortuitous
> way. My guess is that it will happen faster and more robustly than
> the pundits expect.]]> Wed, 29 Jul 2009 15:28:27 -0400
This is, of course, unsustainable, unless DC borrows more money to do this. You simply can't increase both in a flat or declining personal income environment.


On Jul 29 02:00 PM Tack wrote:

> Consumer spending has actually been increasing, lately, even as savings
> rate has escalated. This is an impressive feat, but the pessimists
> always seem to focus on savings, as if it were a negative. In fact,
> it's the opposite, like water behind a hydroelectric dam, that can
> be released at anytime the consumers decided to get back in the water.
> This is, in fact, very positive.
>
> Coupled with the bank's excessive levels of cash reserves, presently,
> we have a situation where lending and spending can meet in a fortuitous
> way. My guess is that it will happen faster and more robustly than
> the pundits expect.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/152150-foreclosure-chart-of-the-day?source=feed#comment-606599 606599 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 10:58:00 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/29142?source=feed#comment-606588 606588 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 10:52:08 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/149213-ongoing-134-5-billion-bearer-bond-mystery-possible-link-to-upcoming-bank-holiday?source=feed#comment-590488 590488

On Jul 16 10:30 AM Tom E. wrote:

> Could be part of a Chinese plot to drive down the dollar for RMB
> trade advantage.]]> Thu, 16 Jul 2009 11:04:48 -0400

On Jul 16 10:30 AM Tom E. wrote:

> Could be part of a Chinese plot to drive down the dollar for RMB
> trade advantage.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/147938-an-unpleasant-comparison-demographics-and-deflation?source=feed#comment-581661 581661
Imagine an entire new generation (ok, part of one) that cost nothing to raise or educate, ready from day one to contribute to the economy (and pay taxes).


On Jul 09 05:56 PM GeminiAtlas wrote:

> Adding more uneducated, unskilled, poor people won't help the economy.
> In the 19th century the skills matched the jobs (repetitive, no need
> to read, etc.), so it helped the economy. Just adding more unskilled
> folks to the melting pot will make things worse. More skilled people
> are needed for this economy in certain sectors.
> ]]> Thu, 09 Jul 2009 23:29:39 -0400
Imagine an entire new generation (ok, part of one) that cost nothing to raise or educate, ready from day one to contribute to the economy (and pay taxes).


On Jul 09 05:56 PM GeminiAtlas wrote:

> Adding more uneducated, unskilled, poor people won't help the economy.
> In the 19th century the skills matched the jobs (repetitive, no need
> to read, etc.), so it helped the economy. Just adding more unskilled
> folks to the melting pot will make things worse. More skilled people
> are needed for this economy in certain sectors.
> ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/147938-an-unpleasant-comparison-demographics-and-deflation?source=feed#comment-581486 581486
Europe's numbers will look just as bad as ours, with worse demographics. Capacity utilization is at all-time lows, developed world credit will continue to contract, pointing to very slow growth for an extended period of time.

Owning debt, not assets, seems to be the investment choice for the foreseeable future.

Alex]]> Thu, 09 Jul 2009 19:35:01 -0400
Europe's numbers will look just as bad as ours, with worse demographics. Capacity utilization is at all-time lows, developed world credit will continue to contract, pointing to very slow growth for an extended period of time.

Owning debt, not assets, seems to be the investment choice for the foreseeable future.

Alex]]> http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/27612?source=feed#comment-581176 581176
Japan's sovereign debt is 100% of GDP, and will be more at the end of the year. Also, i believe that their entitlement programs are pay as you go.

Europe's numbers will look just as bad as ours, with worse demographics.

Unless the emerging markets develop internal demand for goods and services, there will be less pricing power for commodity producers. ]]> Thu, 09 Jul 2009 16:12:26 -0400
Japan's sovereign debt is 100% of GDP, and will be more at the end of the year. Also, i believe that their entitlement programs are pay as you go.

Europe's numbers will look just as bad as ours, with worse demographics.

Unless the emerging markets develop internal demand for goods and services, there will be less pricing power for commodity producers. ]]>