« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Wall Street Hits A Rough Patch- Updated

Darkness


In my judgment we’re now at a point where fear and uncertainty are worse than they were during the depths of the Bear Stearns scare last March.

The combination of investment bank failures, the nationalization of America’s largest insurer, and most especially the disruption of money markets have brought us to a very delicate moment.

Which shoe will drop next? There are at least two possibilities. That’s one question. Another question is: how many bullets does the Fed have left in its gun?

Read this through to the end, because that’s where the good news is.

Update: I started writing this piece around 3AM. At just about that moment, the Federal Reserve announced the coordinated liquidity actions I mention at the bottom of this piece. As of 7:45AM EDT, these actions have added a certain amount of calm to credit markets, with overnight dollar LIBOR falling from 5% yesterday to below 4%. We’re expecting a stock market rally in New York of perhaps 200 points on the open.

I’ve often mentioned that to me, the most important signals of financial distress are to be found in the money and overnight-repo markets. These markets rarely break through to the headlines, but they’re the groundwater of the financial system.

You yourself are a participant, if you own shares in a so-called money market fund. These funds take your extra cash and invest them in a range of vehicles ranging from short-term Treasury securities to high-grade commercial paper and many things in between. They’re supposed to give you a little bit more interest than you can get from a passbook savings account. They’re also nearly as liquid, meaning you can redeem your shares and get your money out quickly.

Most importantly, money market investments are supposed to be 100% safe. Yesterday, however, a large money market fund announced that it was writing down to zero its investment in almost $800 million in debt issued by the now-bankrupt Lehman Brothers.

As a result, the fund’s share price dropped below the magic one-dollar level. That means that you would receive less money than you put into the fund, were you to redeem your shares yesterday. Except that you wouldn’t have been able to do that, because the fund froze redemptions for seven calendar days.

This threw every market into a very dark place yesterday. Why? Because the money markets are huge. About $3.5 trillion huge. As I said, they’re part of the groundwater of the financial system.

The great fear is that you, the public, will become so spooked at the thought that your supposedly 100%-safe money-market funds will actually lose money, that you’ll bail out and park your cash in your friendly, neighborhood, FDIC-insured bank account.

If that were to happen, there’s no sugarcoating the immediate effects. Commerce would be severely impacted across the whole economy. We’re not talking anymore about the failure of a few Wall St. firms that no one really understands anyway, or about a huge insurance company that is making money hand over fist in its core businesses but still managed to go bankrupt.

This could affect everything. And I really don’t know how the regulatory authorities could respond to it. I’ll try to make my next point calmly.

The last time the government had to respond to a system-wide loss of confidence in key financial institutions, it did so by closing every bank in America for ten days. That was in March 1933.

I’m not sure which regulatory body would have the authority, but it may be necessary to freeze redemptions from money market funds for some period of time. That’s one of the most extreme things I’ve ever said in this space, and I have no idea if the likelihood of our needing to do that is zero, one percent, somewhere in between, or something higher.

Yesterday, the Treasury auctioned off $40 billion in new three-month bills. In late June, the interest rate on these bills was usually just under 2%. Yesterday, they were sold to yield 30 basis points, or 0.3% That’s the lowest rate since shortly after World War II. The median bid in the auction was five basis points, and there were many zero bids. Interest rates on Treasury debt have fallen sharply across the yield curve in recent days.

When everyone wants to own discount Treasury paper so badly that they’re willing to receive no interest at all for doing so, that tells you that nothing is safe. This is a moment of extreme fear.

The last time we came to this point was a couple of weeks after the demise of Bear Stearns. At that time, ironically enough, the big question on everyone’s mind: was when would Lehman Brothers collapse? The exceptionally disordered conditions lasted about two days, and then the fear abated.

Now, as utterly unthinkable as it was mere days ago, there is talk surrounding Morgan Stanley, Wall Street’s second-largest investment bank. (I’m not talking about JP Morgan Chase, the commercial bank. This is a different Morgan.) Credit-default swaps (a measure of the possibility that an institution will default on its debt) are now trading at a higher price for Morgan Stanley than they were for Lehman Brothers last Friday.

And rumor has it that Morgan is informally talking merger with the Wachovia bank. If anything like that happened, it would leave Goldman Sachs standing alone, with vultures circling overhead. Remember, we started this year with five major Wall Street sell-side firms.

What can be done to address this immediate crisis?

Well, that’s what we have the Federal Reserve for. It’s there to be a lender of last resort when no one wants to own anything with even the slightest amount of risk in it. Not even things that millions of people normally consider rock-solid safe, like a money-market fund.

About an hour ago, at 3am EDT, the Fed announced that it had made arrangements with other major central banks, including the ECB and the Swiss National Bank, to greatly expand the availability of dollar liquidity through January 2009. The world’s central banks will act in a coordinated way to relieve the pressure for short-term funding in markets around the world.

The Fed had no need to inject additional reserves yesterday, finding that reserve levels were adequate. The Fed Funds rate for the previous night centered around 1.98%, about normal. We’ll see what happens this morning.

When you’re this far out there, you keep taking deep breaths and waiting for things to calm down. The mood in many markets now is waiting for a break, or as one trader told me, “calm before the storm.” Ben Bernanke’s helicopters are flying.

We have to hope that the creation of large amounts of temporary liquidity over the next few days are enough to relieve the pressure in the system. The fact that we’ve been through so many crises in the past thirteen months and got through every one without a major disaster is reason for hope in the Fed’s aggressive and creative approach.

Another extremely important point I need to make is this: the distress is confined largely to Wall Street. America’s industrial businesses are in exceptionally good financial health. They’ve been building their balance sheets for at least two years now, and they’re well-positioned to come roaring back as soon as the financial system and the economy stabilize. And there is an enormous amount of capital lying fallow right now, in hedge funds and private-equity firms. That money will come flooding out to revive the financial system, as soon as Wall Street finishes dying.

I have two recommendations for you, ladies and gentlemen:

First, don’t panic. The true state of the economy is weak but not terrible. The true state of the financial system is extremely weak but not fatal. What we all need is enough time to breathe deeply and assign logical valuations to our portfolios. This is the normal work that markets do every minute of every day, except when people get crazy and irrational. As long as the Fed provides enough temporary liquidity to remove the threat of imminent failures, we should get the time we all need to calm down.

Second, do NOT take your money out of the bank or out of your money market funds. Unless you’re a senior guy at a Wall Street firm, your money is not at risk. SO DON’T WORRY ABOUT IT.

Finally, keep repeating this to yourself: this is a Wall Street problem, not an economic problem. We’re in a storm now, but it won’t last forever. And when it ends, the resources will be there to rebuild quickly.

-Francis Cianfrocca

COMMENTS

  • kowalski

    Frank, do you see any evidence that there are some people out there precipitating this crisis and instead of working to tamp it down and restore some calm are actively working to make it worse? In other words, every market has its doomsayers and shortsellers and panic-mongers but is that list getting longer or shorter?

    • blackhedd

      The answer to that question is no.

      But just because I don’t see any evidence doesn’t mean it’s not happening. If it is, that’s all the more reason for the Fed to act aggressively to allow everyone to get a grip.

      And when that happens, the shorts will get squeezed.

      Do me a favor, call me Francis instead of Frank. My aunt called me Frank when I was a puppy. :-)

      • kowalski

        Sorry, I never asked which you preferred. I have a close friend who shares your first name and he prefers it the other way. I suppose I could have called you “Mr. C” but then I would sound like Fonzie, and I don’t know whether you really want to become too closely indentified with Tom Bosley. :O

        In the meantime, I hereby grant you (and only you) permission to refer to me affectionately by the nickname my best friend from grade school picked for me: “Screamlix.” Don’t ask. It’s a Jersey thing.

        I can tell you that your columns in the past few days have been of inestimable assistance as I have tried to promote a sense of understanding, if not precisely calm, among the people I’ve been talking with here in my small town. They’ve really been a big help. We all thank you sincerely.

  • MrMosis

    invaluable insight

  • timothymoriarty

    [Spam]

    • kowalski

      It should be truncated.

  • Marcus_Traianus

    Having not had much sleep, I will only say the current situation is both unprecedented and somewhat unexplainable at this point.

    What I do know is that recent guidance on naked short selling means the regulators are sniffing something out. Perhaps you can elucidate on that aspect bh; I am too weary to even consider it.

    Earlier this year we had TIPS producing negative yields. That is somewhat explainable. However, last night in the seondary market I saw something for the first time in my career; negative yields on regular treasury issues with fairly sizable spreads; truly shocking.

    I am hoping today is a better day, but see no reason to panic; we have been here before.

    What I find both specious and disquieting is the characterization that Wall Street is both greedy and guilty of some crime. Nothing could be further from the truth. Otherwise you would find a long line of the guilty waiting to be tried and convicted; where are they?

    Perhaps there was some foolishness from the overtly optimistic and somewhere, somehow there is a person guilty of some crime. But the answer to that is better control, not some overbearing legislative mandate that cripples out ability to bring this economy back. Do you really think the surviving firms want to experience this again?

    What I don’t understand is that Fannie/Freddie, the GSE, started much of this ball rolling and is the biggest bailout so far. Obama is the second largest receiver of campaign contributions from those entities and his two top economic advisors are former employees (one making $90 million dollars in 6 years). Where is that outrage? Where are the investigations and 60 Minutes pieces exploring potential quid pro quo? How come virtually no one is talking about that? It almost defies reality that people can not get beyond the emotional and parochial, to factual.

  • c17wife

    Marcus, I agree, where is the outrage???
    Is there anything we, as tax-paying citizens of this great republic, can do to force our media to ask these hard questions?

    I’m trying hard not to panic. My basic business background is telling me not to panic. But dmmt! We have an election in 47 days and this country seems hell-bent on electing the guy and returning to power the party that largely gave us this mess.

    WTF??????

    • blackhedd

      Are you sure this was on straight debt, not T-bill repo? I expected negative rates on T-bill and specials repo but not on straight paper.

      What maturities, were they on-the-run, and how big were the spreads? Send me an email if you prefer.

      • blackhedd

        …that his responses to the financial sector’s problems are likely to make them worse.

        The basic impulse to a liberal socialist is this:

        Just let the government do that job! After all it will be cheaper because they don’t have to make a profit, and they’ll do it better because they care about us, not about themselves.

        But this is definitionally wrong. There are some things the government should do, but running ordinary business activity isn’t among them. And we may be about to prove that yet again, with AIG and with Fannie/Freddie.

        If a Democratic administration chooses to run these businesses instead of fully privatizing them (not the phony privatization of F/F), then they will automatically become monopolists, because no business can compete against someone that prints his own money.

        And businesses compete against each other by being efficient, and by doing what’s right for their customers. Government entities simply have no incentive to do either of those things.

        But it’s darnedest thing: voters still think what they’re told to think, usually by the MSM, which is generally the best-looking and (to the naked eye) the most authoritative source of information.

        As Republicans, it’s basically impossible for us to escape “Well, Bush and Cheney caused this whole mess.” Some people do remember that the Bush Administration has produced no significant changes in financial regulation whatsoever. And that the ones they did push for (stronger controls on Fannie and Freddie back in 2004 and 05) were vetoed by Congressional Democrats.

        So you can make a strong case the Democrats are to blame for the mess, and that their policies will make it worse.

        But the optics suggest otherwise to the average voter.

  • wolfgang

    During the long interim period between FDR’s election in 1932 and his actual inauguration as president in March 1933, lame duck president Herbert Hoover was acutely aware of a great number of the country’s banks liquidity problems.
    Hoover implored president elect Roosevelt to join with him in actions designed to prevent these troubled banks imminent collapse.

    Roosevelt chose to have nothing to do with these bank’s problems prior to his inauguration, preferring to let the Hoover Administration reap the political fallout for their subsequent failure. In so doing Roosevelt turned his nose up at and his back to the looming prospect of the loss of a tremendous amount of American financial wealth.
    They printed scrip after the inauguration in Salt Lake City because THERE WAS NO MONEY! By necessity, barter became an enormous force in what was left of the US economy.

    • kyle8

      unless, people are so freightened they turn to a father figure rather than a guy who seems to inexperienced.

      People usually vote their pocketbook and Republicans will take all the blame. (and the truth is they deserve most of the blame)

      We have to face the truth, we spent too much, we allowed companies to get too big through leveraged acquisitions. Everyone could see we were in a housing bubble and nothing at all was done about it. Democrats did block legislation, but the Administration hardly made a case for it.

      Between the war, and the social programs, and every other thing the government tries to do, Obama will not be able to get any of his social programs off the ground, he will be too busy trying to keep his head above water.

      • PaRep

        try to kill yourself everyday???

        My GOD I have immense amount of pity for people like you

        • mikefisk

          Between the war, and the social programs, and every other thing the government tries to do, Obama will not be able to get any of his social programs off the ground, he will be too busy trying to keep his head above water.

          Since when has silly things like fiscal responsibility mattered to Democrats? (Or, for that matter, the current crop of Republican leaders, but I digress.) If Obama gets elected and has a 60-seat Senate majority, he’ll be able to ram through anything he pleases.

  • noblesavage

    Thanks for your well-reasoned and reassuring article, Frank. We need more of this kind of thing.

    I spent a number of years at Shearson-Lehman-Hutton (remember that unhappy love triangle?) and will always regret my hesitancy to invest right after the 1987 “crash”. So, take heart, all… there may now be and will surely be in the future great values in equities.

    • janis

      besides the Dems and the MSM? The housing/bad mortgage deals started back in the Clinton years and any attempts to reform or regulate have been stomped on by the Dems. Dem politicians have been the biggest recipients of the donations from many of the actors involved here.

      So how are Republicans to blame here exactly?

      • Rod_Patrick

        Don’t lose hope. We still have time to fight back!

        Com’n bro, we can still win this one!

        Pray!

        • blackhedd

          “There surely will be in the future great values in equities.”

          I agree with that completely.

          But I won’t start buying unless you go first.

  • GaryCook

    ….but only if the fear doesn’t manifest itself into a full-blown panic.

    The media is helping incite fear by suggesting money markets are not safe. I’ve heard talk that U.S. Treasuries may be downgraded. Many big-money market players are moving out of money markets into T-bills priced at a premium; they are in effect taking a loss on those T-bills to get into the traditional “safe haven.”

    Obama has been on the stump comparing this crisis to the Great Depression and scaring the hell out of people. It’s completly irresponsibe for any national “leader” to fan the flames of fear at a time when they should be calming those fears.

    This is no time for politics. Paulson and Bernanke will get us through this, but there will be more blood to shed before it’s all over.

    The DOW futures are pointing to a 100 point pop 15 minutes before the open.

    • olderthangandalf

      There was a time when you could safely assume Democrats would screw up the economy and Republicans would fix it.

      These days, I’m not so sure. I’m not promoting Democrats as the solution (and certainly not promoting socialism as the goal) but if you acknowledge recent history things aren’t so clear.

      Under Clinton, Rubin and gang were pretty savvy about business. They didn’t do everything right, by any stretch of the imagination, but they were responsible players with a keen understanding of how the markets worked and a strong desire to have them work. More to the point, the Treasury Secretary, as had generally been true since Alexander Hamilton’s days, was one of the premier players in the cabinet.

      Under Bush, that wasn’t so much so. His focus was not on the fine workings of the economy, but on foreign affairs (somewhat understandable, for a while, given events, but in the end national security depends totally on a strong economy). The Treasury secretary was not treated like a top dog, but more like someone in the second tier of cabinet ministries. If you read the memoirs, the Treasury secretary’s access to the President and inclusion in important policy loops was way below historical norms. (Not so much under Paulson, who told them he wouldn’t take the job on those terms.) The term benign neglect comes to mind.

      So I think we are beyond a point in time when party brand tells you all you want to know. You’ve really got to look at how engaged the next President will be in the economy, who they will staff key positions with, and who they will turn to for guidance.

      Right now, neither candidate looks so great to me. Obama says he’s pragmatic, which would work for me, but that’s not his actual record. He is way smart and curious, but he has zippo experience in the financial markets so far as I can see, and they are too complex to learn overnight. McCain doesn’t seem to focus on the economy as his issue of first choice, but he has been around long enough and on appropriate committees to have an understanding of how the regulation in place now works and how the markets work. If he doesn’t understand exactly what hedge funds do and how the full range of derivatives might affect the larger market, well, he’s just like everyone else. All the same, I would want to know who he would put in place at Treasury and how much power he would give that person (if the answer is Carly Fiorina, which it well could be, I’m not a happy guy).

      In the event something happens to McCain and we are looking at Palin to sort all this out – well, let’s just say it doesn’t seem to play to her strengths. Of course, I could be wrong. If you could explain to me why the AIG rescue involves, in an important way, construction bonds, that would help reassure me that she’s more tuned in than might appear at first look.

      I guess what I am trying to say is this: while my vote is not at issue, my opinion on who will better handle the task of rethinking financial regulation is. I think the issue of who will handle the economy better is unresolved by a lot of voters. McCain would do well to put some meat on the bones instead of relying on the tattered Republican brand so we can better understand how he really would approach it.

  • TexasTom

    Intelligent evaluation of the overall situation. You are much easier to read and coherent than most other sources.

    “Another extremely important point I need to make is this: the distress is confined largely to Wall Street. America?s industrial businesses are in exceptionally good financial health. They?ve been building their balance sheets for at least two years now, and they?re well-positioned to come roaring back as soon as the financial system and the economy stabilize. “

    The fundamental of America are strong. The American worker can overcome short term adversity this time just like so many other times.

    The nattering nabobs of negativism be damned!

  • gamecock

    And btw Manhattanite, I appreciate your great intellect, experience and insight as usual.

    The thing that puzzles me is that the foreclosure of so small a % of mortgage loans can cause so much turmoil. I have heard that less than 3-5% of mortgages taken out in the last 7-10 years have failed.

    School the rooster

  • Skanderbeg

    Thanks as usual for your willingness to provide your insights at the cost of your own sleep. :-)

    Best overall line of all though:

    Another extremely important point I need to make is this: the distress is confined largely to Wall Street.

    That’s what everyone needs to keep in mind. It’s a nuisance to have your stocks get battered, but out in the rest of the world all this doesn’t reflect very much.

    This may finally be a reckoning for a decades-long structural problem. More about that as a separate post if I can quell things enough in the next couple days to write about it!

    • blackhedd

      You pay it every month, so it represents a stream of cash flows until the maturity date, or until you prepay it.

      Bundle a whole pile of those together and you get something called a mortgage-backed security that looks a lot like a bond.

      People who traditionally buy bonds for investment portfolios (like pension funds and insurance companies) aren’t allowed to buy mortgages, because their mathemtatics is too messy, but they can buy MBS because the analytics are just like traditional bonds.

      The value of a bond is equal to the present value of the future cash flows, minus a risk adjustment (which depends on the credit quality of the bond). Most people who buy bonds are required by charter to only invest in bonds with a specific credit-quality rating.

      So what happens when mortgage-default rates tick up from half-a-percent to maybe two percent, as you suggest?

      All of a sudden you have to re-do the risk adjustment on all the securities based on those mortgages.

      And all of a sudden, their credit quality may fall below the point at which many investors are allowed to hold them.

      That was never supposed to happen. And since there’s no liquid secondary market for MBS (and there never has been, so that’s not abnormal), investors may be in a position where they have to sell MBS for whatever price they can get.

      That could easily lead to a situation where, for example, an MBS that if held to maturity might well be worth 96 cents on the dollar, in fact has a notional market value of 70 cents. Or even 20 cents.

      Does that make it any clearer?

      • gamecock

        from this crisis out here is the dearth of loan activity, and of course, have for over 10 months. Much of my legal work since 2001 when I left private practice for corp work has been tied to the housing market. It had picked up a bit the past few months until a few weeks ago, at least for me.

        And of course, this crisis, even as is, and much more so should it deepen, could precipitate a deep recession, in my opinion.

        more later, esp here

        http://www.redstate.com/diaries/gamecock/2008/sep/18/paulson-panic-prevention-for-a-us-too-big-t/

        • gamecock

          You penetrated the rooster’s mind wonderfully. Now, so is the problem that the institutions were too heavily invested in these wack instruments?

          • larueladue

            If the jihadists think that the time is ripe, and try to take advantage of the financial situation by attempted terrorist strikes on us between now and the election (successful or not), I think that people will rethink putting Obama in the White House, and vote for national security. There is just too much of a stark difference between the candidates there.

            Don’t get me wrong: I am not hoping, nor predicting that this will happen. I just think that the temptation might be too much for them to resist. This is too close to a “perfect storm” in their world view.

          • Skanderbeg

            GC,

            I’ll just add to blackie’s superior illumination skills that your question is a good one.

            A mortgage is supposed to be something grounded in a simple reality – financing the purchase of a house (or such). And indeed most of them are indeed “performing” loans.

            The problems start when people start aggregating them and turning them into financial instruments of various sorts. It’s very easy for things to sequentially move further and further from the underlying grounded reality.

            There have been a lot of upsides to the creation of new financial instruments over the past c. 25 years. But there are also some ugly aspects, and we’re seeing those of late….

          • kowalski

            Not to interrupt the conversation but the answer is: “Crystal.” And it has been for a few years now: I was frightened enough of the things I saw going on in the real estate market in Chicago three years ago, because what I saw were people taking mortgages on properties and when I looked at the inflated value and the real wealth of the buyer, I couldn’t figure out how they thought they were going to continue pay that mortgage. Unless, that is, in the interim they flipped the property to someone else for an even higher price who also wouldn’t be able to pay the next mortgage. I got out at what I considered to be the reasonable and fair top of the market for the property I sold, after putting about $10,000 into it on repairs to make it “like new” — but I have little doubt the buyers expected to flip it again in another year for an extra $50k-$100k.

            Crazytown. That was in 2005 and it didn’t make any sense to me then.

  • Achance

    I know that the US can print more and up to a point borrow more, but the price in currency debasement has to become unbearable at some point.

    Though on a much smaller scale, all governments and political figures fundamentally behave the same way. I’ve watched lots of administrations try to hide bad revenue projections and budget shortfalls by spending like there’s no tomorrow in the runup to an election thinking they’ll fix it if they win and if they lose, they can just blame the other guy when it all comes crashing down. Somehow I think there’s a whole bunch of trying to keep the balls in the air until after the election going on.

    • gamecock

      truly, thanks for the simple yet profound insight man

      • olderthangandalf

        I would love to buy assets at 20 cents on the dollar that could be worth 40 cents on the dollar, much less seventy or ninety.

        If broad categories of investors are foreclosed from holding junky debt and have to dump them at stupid prices, how does a relatively smalltime but accredited investor get in line to buy some?

        • gamecock

          Because (and I am going to pose this question to him and Skanderbeg) it appears that the main problem may have been the bundling of mortgages as a new financial instrument and not so Is the problem then really so much the maes and macs per se, if the main problem is the bundling of mortgages into new financial instruments.

          Why? Because since less than 3-5% of the mortgages failed, I would trade that for the HUGE increase in stable homeownership, which is STILL at an alltime high overall and minority.

          still thinking

  • FWGuy

    I agree with some ou your statements especially about how big and important the money markets are to the world’s financial health.

    But I disagree things are not still very bad.

    On September 16th the Libor soared 3.33 percentage points to 6.44 percent. The increase was the biggest in its history.

    The rate was as low as 2.07 percent in June.

    A rate of around 4% still says we are in trouble.

    So all the people who keep talking about letting the these financial business fail – banks, investment banks and insurance.

    Are setting of the dominoes with who know how bad the damage can be in the end.

    We will all pay no matter what, the Fed and Treasury have already dumped $900+ Billion since December in to the financial system. Mostly in loans but that money will turn into gifts if we keep letting large finanicals like Lehman Bros to collapse.

    Letting Lehman Bros. collapse caused Merrill-Lynch to disappear in a fire sale and AIG to collapse and another huge bailout had to occur to save the CDS market from collapsing.

    This is more than letting a few fat cats lose money – we all loose money if you are a tax payer, own stock or own mutual funds.

    • blackhedd

      The Fed can print an infinite amount of money. The Treasury can create an almost-infinite amount of credit (which behaves in the economy almost like money) by borrowing it.

      It’s not known to be the case that creating an infinite amount of money is necessarily damaging, popular wisdom and doomsaying by Ron Paul supporters notwithstanding. Economists are divided on the issue. But Zimbabwe-style hyperinflation only happens when you create more money than can be absorbed by high-quality credits in the real economy.

      But forget about all that. The reality is that the Fed has been very careful to sterilize all of their liquidity-enhancing operations since the beginning of the crisis thirteen months ago, and they will most likely continue to do so.

      How will you know that true inflation is coming? If it should ever come to pass that the Federal Reserve needs to “increase the size of its balance sheet.” Those are the magic words that I fear.

      The Fed’s balance sheet is now about $800 billion. $40 billion or so of that is “Fed funds,” the monetary reserves held by banks.

      The composition of the rest has changed very significantly this year, from all Treasury debt to about half mortgage-backed securities of various kinds.

      But it hasn’t gotten any bigger. Yet. The US dollar still is by far the highest-quality monetary product in the world. Since most people have no clue that this is the case, the Fed doesn’t get credit for what is some remarkably good stewardship in a very trying time.

      Hope that wasn’t more of an answer than you were looking for.

      • kowalski

        Get in a car and drive around, and take notes. You’ll find a lot of dross but you’ll also find a fair assortment of gems, particularly if you have a smart real estate agent and a good eye for value.

        My seat-of-the-pants feeling is that there are a lot of very good properties for sale right now that are ultimately worth more than the price the seller is asking. If you have the financing, go and get them.

  • Skanderbeg

    • Marcus_Traianus

      If you can point it out or send an email to the one on my account I will elucidate

  • streetwise

    in ONE DAY, a looming S&L crisis, a wobbly junk bond market facing a sea of indictements, a Reagan admin. badly weakened by Iran-Contra and a resurgent Democratic Congress.

    We got through that. We’ll get through this.

    In times like this, I always like to post the trailer for Rogue Trader:

  • WoodenWeasel

    Is this really the time to have all of your money in one bank, even if it is FDIC insured? I would expect that if a bank does fail, the FDIC will step in and make good on their obligations, but there might be a period of days or even weeks that you don’t have access to your money.

    WaMu will probably be gone pretty soon (people have been saying this for a couple of months now, and they seem to be heading for a crisis), and the general liquidity crisis may well hit a few other banks, and magnify their problems. And, everything can happen very quickly.

    My inclination is to take enough money to pay off bills for a month or two, and put that into a different bank, so that if one of the banks does collapse, I don’t have a liquidity problem that prevents me from paying my rent, credit card, electricity, etc.

    But, I’m not sure whether this is paranoid or prudent.

    • olderthangandalf

      getting in one some of the securitized bundles of mortgages, where the discounts seem to be a good bit steeper.

  • FWGuy

    I could not say it better myself.

    From J. Cramer on the current credit crisis and the needed fixes.

    What else can be done? We need to have a break in the action here. We need to have the Treasury and the Fed on television saying that they will issue $300 billion in one-year paper that will be used to finance the purchase of distressed assets that do not have home equity loans attachments at 30 cents on the dollar for those who want to sell them. This matters, because right now we have no idea what anything in the mortgage market is worth. Nothing. So the tendency is to either value them at zero or overstate them (as Lehman did, thereby wrecking their credibility).

    Why 30 cents on the dollar? Because given the underlying default rates, that’s going to be a bargain if the government just sits with it. The 30-cent floor would also bring out real buyers who might pay a little more, knowing they have a place to go if they need it. There is no moral hazard here. If institutions didn’t have to mark to market — and there is no market — we wouldn’t be in this jam. I know that the accounting standards are being changed right now to loosen up, but it won’t matter if there are no buyers.

    We also need, as I have been calling for endlessly, a Home Mortgage Resolution Trust that can buy distressed mortgages from banks and brokers and then work them out over time turning absurd exotic mortgages into 30-year fixed mortgages that would keep hardworking people from being thrown out of their homes. Congress needs to be engaged.

    OK, we immediately need to change the rules on these credit default swaps. This is a market — not unlike the old options markets, or stocks before federal regulations were created — where there is no regulation whatsoever. I believe this market needs to have sunlight shining on it to disinfect it. I believe that institutions should not be allowed to take this insurance if they don’t have an economic stake. That just should not be allowed. These transactions should be closed out and from now on, all trades must be posted on an exchange for scrutiny, an exchange like the New York Stock Exchange. Any non-disclosed contract should be cancelled going forward.

    These rules should be made immediate going forward. That way, these insurance contracts cannot be used to destroy the underlying security or company. Right now, this stuff us like taking a life insurance policy out on someone you hate, and it is legal to murder them. That’s not sound policy. Obviously these contracts, even if there is an economic interest, need a regulatory body, an SEC of their own.

    The SEC should immediately bring back the uptick rule and extend it to ETFs. All this would do, like the rule against naked shorting, is bring things back to the ’90s, where there was nothing wrong with the functioning of the market. The uptick rule was destroyed by firms like Lehman Brothers because it made them less money. There was no other real reason. The academic studies were all done by people who were not sophisticated enough to understand how the lack of a rule could be used by bigger hedge funds to destroy smaller financials. Things have gotten so nutty that several billion-dollar hedge funds with the same game plan have helped destroy firms like Lehman, Bear or AIG.

    The SEC should ask for equal disclosure for long and shorts, and the difference is just plain silly. Many, many short-sellers have asked how I can possibly think that this is good. To them I say, if we can nationalize Fannie and Freddie and AIG and Bear and let Lehman go, we can certainly ask for disclosure of the short side’s plans and a return to rules put in after the Great Depression to protect investors. It is absurd not to do this stuff.

    Finally, the Federal Reserve needs to temporarily cut the fed funds rate on an emergency basis to 1% as it was in 2003 even though things were not nearly as bad then as they are now. That’s just stupid not to do, even if there would be a huge loss of face. It should be coordinated with other cuts around the world and can be justified for the moment as part of a worldwide effort.

    We need these things done, and we need them done now. Not to save this market — it can’t be saved. It is too late; the time to act was August of 2007. This market has to be triaged. The next market must be protected for investors who no longer trust the market and think it is one big fraud, a rigged game, not as honest as wagering with a bookie at a local bar or newsstand.

    • kyle8

      I hope I am wrong, but it does no good to sugar coat it. Besides, If the democrats do win it is not going to be the end of my world. I don’t put as much importance on it as some.

      Or maybe you care to point out how the people are not going to vote for a change in party when they have lost a large amount of their investments and retirements.

      • kyle8

        Look, our party screwed up in myriad ways. When we headed into a war, Bush did not ask us to sacrifice, he said go out and spend and consume like normal. In the meantime, the republicans went on a spending spree that rivaled the Great Society.

        Yes there were some half hearted measures at reform, but Bush did not fight for them, instead he spent his time and effort on things like the amnesty bill.

        And the biggest failure was, ever since the Reagan administration, not enforceing the anti trust laws, thus allowing monstrosities like AIG to be formed, requireing that they be bailed out because of their sheer size.

        We did a lot of things wrong, and it does no good to play the partisan game in such a way that we try to fool ourselves.

        • Vegas_Rick

          Wanna bet that the markets will be significantly higher than they are now, going into November 4th?

          BHO is toast.

          • kyle8

            its not that far away.

          • janis

            I have disagreed with many of the things that the Republican Party has done over the past 8 years, many of them involving financial doings.

            But I do not blame the current crisis on them as the roots of this are in actions taken by Dems directly to force irresponsible loans to people who had no business getting them. Any enforcement efforts and reform efforts were blocked by the Dems.

            It’s you who have blinders on.

          • MrSandman

            are a joke. If you think you’re going to make money listening to Cramer….well….LOL….good luck with that.

          • Vegas_Rick

            And you’re right. You probably won’t do well listening to Cramer. He can’t decide from one minute to the next whether he’s a trader or an investor.

            When you’re giving advice on the stock market, that is a VERY important distinction.

          • kyle8

            I know that the whole bad loans to unqualified minorities is a talking point, but it is a VERY small part of the problem.

            The problem is that we were in a classic bubble, like the dot com bubble but much bigger. Lenders ignored all the usual rules of lending because of greed mixed with a very lax regulatory climate.

            There is plenty of blame to go around, but it does us no good to close our eyes to what our own party has done.

            On auxiliary of partisan politics is to demonize your opponents, another is to gloss over your own failings. I never want our side to become so separated from reality as to become like the Daily Kos bunch.

          • MrSandman

            There is plenty of blame to go around for sure.

            The GOP is responsible for repealing parts of Glass-Steagall Act allowing banks free rein. IMO that was comparable to giving an alcoholic keys to the bar while asking them to “take it easy”.

            The Dems under Clinton continued to allow Wall St. to securitize everything but the contents of your granny’s panties drawer. All the while Easy Al was more than happy to keep pumping out the cheap money. How long were we at 1% again??

            What exactly did anyone with a whit of economic common sense think was going to happen??

            Now it’s time to pay the piper. It’s not even close to being “over”. I think it’s only beginning myself. It’s all fun and games until the FDIC needs a bailout.

            We screwed ourselves. We deserve the pain. And believe me…we will pay…and it will hurt. At least you sir have the stones to step and accept some responsibility on behalf of yours, and my, party.

            I honestly this this whole situation will overshadow and consume whomever is in the WH. We’ll all be better off with John McCain…but he may be better off losing.

          • MrSandman

            I guess that shows how much tv I watch.

            Thank you for the correction.

          • MrSandman

            LOL. I guess that reveals how much TV I watch.

            Thank you for the correction.