| Alex's profileThis is my lucky lifePhotosBlogNetwork | Help |
|
This is my lucky lifeAn Asian Expatriat's View of Asia and America June 02 Visit of U.S. Treasury to BeijingDo you smell what the Rock is Cooking? - The Rock BEIJING, June 1 (Reuters) - U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on Monday reassured the Chinese government that its huge holdings of dollar assets are safe and reaffirmed his faith in a strong U.S. currency. "Chinese assets are very safe," Geithner said in response to a question after a speech at Peking University, where he studied Chinese as a student in the 1980s. His answer drew loud laughter from his student audience, reflecting scepticism in China about the wisdom of a developing country accumulating a vast stockpile of foreign reserves instead of spending the money to raise living standards at home. In his speech, Geithner renewed pledges that the Obama administration would cut its huge fiscal deficits and promised "very disciplined" future spending, possibly including reintroduction of pay-as-you-go budget rules instead of nonstop borrowing. "We have the deepest and most liquid markets for risk-free assets in the world. We're committed to bring our fiscal deficits down over time to a sustainable level.March 10 Dummy’s View of the Global Crisis
March 02 What is the best mode of transport in Beijing during Rush Hour Hi Folks, Long time no blog. A lot have happenings in the past few mths I'm away. Seems like the world renewed itself. It's that dramatic of change. But more on that on a later date. For now, do you know what's the best way to travel if you are in a rush in Beijing? 7 groups of foreigner decide to try and find out by employing different means to go from DaWangLu in South 3rd Ring road to GuLou (Bell Tower) in North 2nd Ring road. Here are the means of transport - 1. Bus 2. Subway 3. Taxi 4. Private Car 5. Walking 6. Motorcycle 7. Bicycle. Guess which method wins and which is the slowest method? Find out more from - http://www.thebeijinger.com/blog/2009/02/27/The-Great-Race-Seven-commuters-in-the-dash-across-Beijing Cheers. December 28 Making money appear out of thin air From IHT website today, pretty good stuff
Printing money and its price
By Peter S. Goodman
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Borrowing and spending beyond ordinary limits largely explains how Americans got into such economic trouble. For decades, businesses and consumers feasted relentlessly, as if gravity, arithmetic and the tyranny of debt had been defanged by financial engineering. Armed with credit cards and belief in a bountiful future, Americans brought home ceaseless volumes of iPods and cashmere sweaters, and never mind their declining incomes and winnowing savings. Banks lent staggering sums of money to homeowners with dubious credit, convinced that real estate prices could only go up. Government spent as it saw fit, secure that foreigners could always be counted on to finance American debt. So it may seem perverse that in this new era of reckoning with consumers finally tapped out, government coffers lean and banks paralyzed by fear many economists have concluded that the appropriate medicine is a fresh dose of the very course that delivered the disarray: Spend without limit. Print money today, fret about the consequences tomorrow. Otherwise, invite a loss of jobs and business failures that could cripple the nation for years. Such thinking carries the moment as President-elect Barack Obama puts together plans to spend more than $700 billion on projects like building roads and classrooms to put people back to work. It is the philosophy behind the Federal Reserve's decision to drop interest rates near zero meaning that banks can essentially borrow money for free while lending directly to financial institutions. This is the mentality that has propelled the Treasury to promise up to $950 billion to aid Wall Street, Detroit and perhaps other recipients. But where does all this money come from? And how can a country that got itself in peril by borrowing and spending without limit now borrow and spend its way back to safety? In the case of the Fed, the money comes from its authority to print dollars from thin air. Since late August, the Fed has expanded its balance sheet from about $900 billion to more than $2.2 trillion, creating $1.3 trillion that did not exist to replace some of the trillions wiped out by falling house prices and vengeful stock markets. The Fed has taken troublesome assets off the hands of banks and simply credited them with having reserves they previously lacked. In the case of the Treasury, the money comes from the same wellspring that has been financing American debt for decades: Investors in the United States and around the world not least, the central banks of China, Japan and Saudi Arabia, which have parked national savings in the safety of American government bonds. Americans have gotten accustomed to treating this well as bottomless, even as anxiety grows that it could one day run dry with potentially devastating consequences. The value of outstanding American Treasury bills now reaches $10.6 trillion, a number sure to increase as dollars are spent building bridges, saving auto jobs and preventing the collapse of government-backed mortgage giants. Worry centers on the possibility that foreigners could come to doubt the American wherewithal to pay back such an extraordinary sum, prompting them to stop or at least slow their deposits of savings into the United States. That could send the dollar plummeting, making imported goods more expensive for American consumers and businesses. It would force the Treasury to pay higher returns to find takers for its debt, increasing interest rates for home- and auto-buyers, for businesses and credit-card holders. "We got into this mess to a considerable extent by overborrowing," said Martin Baily, a chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Bill Clinton and now a fellow at the Brookings Institution. "Now, we're saying, 'Well, O.K., let's just borrow a bunch more, and that will help us get out of this mess.' It's like a drunk who says, 'Give me a bottle of Scotch, and then I'll be O.K. and I won't have to drink anymore.' Eventually, we have to get off this binge of borrowing." Some argue that the moment for sobriety is long overdue, and postponing it further only increases the ultimate costs. "Our government doesn't have enough spare cash to bail out a lemonade stand," declared Peter Schiff, president of Euro Pacific Capital, a Connecticut-based trading house. "Our standard of living must decline to reflect years of reckless consumption and the disintegration of our industrial base. Only by swallowing this tough medicine now will our sick economy ever recover." But most economists cast such thinking as recklessly extreme, akin to putting an obese person on a painful diet in the name of long-term health just as they are fighting off a potentially lethal infection. In the dominant view, now is no time for austerity not with paychecks disappearing from the economy and gyrating markets wiping out retirement savings. Not with the financial system in virtual lockdown, and much of the world in a similar state of retrenchment, shrinking demand for American goods and services. Since the Great Depression, the conventional prescription for such times is to have the government step in and create demand by cycling its dollars through the economy, generating jobs and business opportunities. That such dollars must be borrowed is hardly ideal, adding to the long-term strains on the nation. But the immediate risks of not spending them could be grave. "This is a dangerous situation," says Baily, essentially arguing that the drunk must be kept in Scotch a while longer, lest he burn down the neighborhood in the midst of a crisis. "The risks of things actually getting worse and us going into a really severe recession are high. We need to get more money out there now." Had the government worried more about limiting spending than about the potential collapse of the mortgage giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, it might have triggered precisely the dark scenario that consumes those who worry most about growing American debt, argues Brad Setser, an economist at the Council on Foreign Relations. China purchased a lot of Fannie and Freddie bonds with the understanding that they were backed by the American government. No bailout "would have been portrayed in China as defaulting on the Chinese people," Setser said. That would have increased the likelihood that China would start parking its savings somewhere other than the United States. The most frequently voiced worry about the bailouts is that the Fed, by sending so much money sloshing through the system, risks generating a bad case of rising prices later on. That puts the onus on the Fed to reverse course and crimp economic activity by lifting interest rates and selling assets back to banks once growth resumes. But finding the appropriate point to act tends to be more art than science. The Fed might move too early and send the economy back into a tailspin. It might wait too long and let too much money generate inflation. "It's a tricky business," says Allan Meltzer, an economist at Carnegie Mellon University, and a former economic adviser to President Ronald Reagan. "There's no math model that tells us when to do it or how." But that, as most economists see it, is a worry for another day. Some policy makers are focused on staving off the opposite problem deflation, or falling prices, as demand weakens to the point that goods pile up without buyers, sending prices down and reducing the incentive for businesses to invest. That could shrink demand further and perhaps even deliver the sort of downward spiral that pinned Japan in the weeds of stagnant growth during the 1990s. "Those who claim that sharp increases in federal borrowing and the national debt would be ill advised at the present time, when the economy is weakening while deflation threatens, have failed to study Japan's history," declared the economist John H. Makin in a report published by the conservative American Enterprise Institute ordinarily, a staunch advocate for lean government. So back to the well Americans go, putting aside worries about debt, unleashing another wave of synthesized money in an effort to prevent deeper misery. "Right now," Setser says, "the risk is not doing enough." December 22 Year End Hi Everyone, What a year it was huh? We made it to Dec 22 already. One year the wiser? I think so. Just recently , I and a couple of babybear's best friends has planned a surprise party for her birthday. We planned on inviting all of her closest friends over for a Karoake/Buffet party at a well known place in the CBD. It rocked ! :) Glad Maggie enjoyed. For 17 of us, it was heck of a songs and laugh party for over 4 hours. :) After all the singing, we went over to Hou Hai which is near Forbidden City. It was a cold night, so we manage to get some warmth at a bar, the name escapes me as it's like the bar and the bar next to it :) My best friend Chee Weei and his family are coming to Beijing for year end ! What a nice surprise to have them here for 7 days. I haven't really planned on what to do with them for 7 days, but it should be great. They have found a hotel to stay near Forbidden City area. I also managed to secure a short term apartment for the party of 6, if they are interested, they can stay right at my apartment community so it's easier for us to meet and go out together! It's about half cheaper to stay at short term stay apartment rather than hotel but of course, the service at the hotels would be better. So I'll wait for their decision which one they prefer. Christmas is coming and Christmas carols are in the air. I kinda put on some of the Christmas songs on mp3 while working, hehe. Hope the new year holds good wishes and health to all. Cheers. Alex November 29 When does bad money ends in US?Laura Rowley Money & HappinessFed's 'Consumer Bailout' Encourages More Bad Behaviorby Laura Rowley
Posted on Wednesday, November 26, 2008, 12:00AM If there's a small silver lining in the nation's financial crisis, it's that households were finally getting a grip on their bloated balance sheets, reducing credit card use, and increasing savings. Consumer spending fell 1 percent in October, the biggest drop in 7 years. But Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson doesn't want Americans to stop spending, because that will slow the economy. So he's using taxpayer dollars to make it easier for consumers to dig themselves more deeply into debt. More of What Ails Us The Treasury announced Tuesday that it will buy $600 billion in mortgages and mortgage securities backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and provide $200 billion in non-recourse loans to investors holding investment-grade (BBB or better) securities backed by newly or recently originated consumer loans. That includes credit cards, auto loans, and student loans, as well as small-business loans guaranteed by the Small Business Administration. The $200 billion will come from the Treasury's Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). "Millions of Americans cannot find affordable financing for their basic credit needs. And credit card rates are climbing, making it more expensive for families to finance everyday purchases," Paulson said Tuesday. "This lack of affordable consumer credit undermines consumer spending; as a result, it weakens our economy." It's an ironic solution to a crisis perpetuated in part by consumers signing on for more debt than they could ever hope to pay off. But it's not a surprising development amid the scattershot rescue strategy that has the government prepared to pledge $7.76 trillion on behalf of American taxpayers — $24,000 for each man, woman, and child, and enough to pay off half the nation's mortgages — according to a Bloomberg analysis. Taxpayer Stuck with the Tab Paulson called the $200 billion in the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF) "a starting point." In other words, at a time when record numbers of consumers have spent themselves into insolvency, and millions of others face increasing job insecurity, the government is hoping to balloon their borrowing — propping up spending in the short-term but potentially setting the stage for another debacle in the future. "You have to ask a simple question: Why is this necessary?" says Adam Lerrick, an economist with Carnegie Mellon University and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "Why don't the markets do this themselves? The obvious answer is they don't believe in the Triple-A rating [on the asset-backed securities]. Why should the Treasury have more confidence about the rating agencies than the market? What it's doing is shifting the credit risk of the bonds from investors to the taxpayers." A Backdoor Bank Bailout Lawrence J. White, economics professor at New York University's Stern School of Business, says the new strategy is a result of TARP's failure to provide liquidity after the Treasury shifted from purchasing toxic assets to buying equity stakes in financial institutions. "We didn't get a lot of liquidity out of the initial uses of the TARP program because it basically went into the banks' net worth," he says. "They weren't that much more inclined to lend. In some sense, this is a backdoor TARP." Lerrick argues that the financial system doesn't have a liquidity problem — it has a transparency problem. "There's plenty of liquidity — lenders have more cash than borrowers need," he says. "But we have an information crisis. Let's assume there are 100 major financial institutions in world, and 20 are in bad shape. If you don't know which 20 of those 100 are bad, you don't lend to anyone. The solution is to provide the markets with information so they can identify and go back to lending to the 80 sound borrowers, and quarantine the 20 bad borrowers. That's why massive injections of liquidity have done nothing to unfreeze the credit markets." Consume No More But even if a gusher of credit is forthcoming, the era of consumer-driven economic growth is over, argues Robert Manning, professor at the Rochester Institute of Technology and author of "Credit Card Nation: The Consequences of America's Addiction to Credit." "It's astounding how much consumer debt has increased since 2001, and government official] realize how little flexibility they have today versus other recessions," Manning says. "For most Americans in denial, this is going to be a real wakeup call; you're going to hear more often about sacrifice and learning to live within a budget, whether it's at the household or government level," Manning adds. White agrees that pumping up consumer lending "is not a sustainable approach. There's got to be a transition to where the consumer is saving more and spending less, and the spending is coming from either the industrial/business sector or government sector — using those consumer savings to build capital, whether it's a private-sector plant and equipment or social sector infrastructure. The change from a consumer-driven to more of an investment-driven economy has to be the long-run pattern for our economy." The Unending Bailout In the meantime, the current approach to the financial crisis lacks both predictability and credibility, two things the markets crave. The Citigroup windfall earlier this week demonstrated that the goal is not only to protect the system, but to prop up favored institutions. And the longer Treasury waits to formulate a coherent strategy, the longer the line of supplicants grows at its door. "It started out with commercial banks, then insurance companies, then money market funds, then automakers," says Lerrick. "Why not state and local governments? Why not homeowners? Where do you draw the line?" Until a line is drawn, we won't have any idea how much risk the government is willing to take, and what the bailout will cost. And according to research firm Demos, another $250 billion in adjustable-rate mortgages are poised to reset to higher monthly payments by the year's end. November 28 Malls, hotels next victims in new mortgage crisisMalls, hotels next victims in new mortgage crisis
By MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer Matt Apuzzo, Associated Press Writer
Thu Nov 27, 9:14 pm ET
WASHINGTON – The full scope of the housing meltdown isn't clear and already there are ominous signs of a new crisis — one that could turn out the lights on malls, hotels and storefronts nationwide. Even as the holiday shopping season begins in full swing, the same events poisoning the housing market are now at work on commercial properties, and the bad news is trickling in. Malls from Michigan to Georgia are entering foreclosure. Hotels in Tucson, Ariz., and Hilton Head, S.C., also are about to default on their mortgages. That pace is expected to quicken. The number of late payments and defaults will double, if not triple, by the end of next year, according to analysts from Fitch Ratings Ltd., which evaluates companies' credit. "We're probably in the first inning of the commercial mortgage problem," said Scott Tross, a real estate lawyer with Herrick Feinstein in New Jersey. That's bad news for more than just property owners. When businesses go dark, employees lose jobs. Towns lose tax revenue. School budgets and social services feel the pinch. Companies have survived plenty of downturns, but economists see this one playing out like never before. In the past, when businesses hit rough patches, owners negotiated with banks or refinanced their loans. But many banks no longer hold the loans they made. Over the past decade, banks have increasingly bundled mortgages and sold them to investors. Pension funds, insurance companies, and hedge funds bought the seemingly safe securities and are now bracing for losses that could ripple through the financial system. "It's a toxic drug and nobody knows how bad it's going to be," said Paul Miller, an analyst with Friedman, Billings, Ramsey, who was among the first to sound alarm bells in the residential market. Unlike home mortgages, businesses don't pay their loans over 30 years. Commercial mortgages are usually written for five, seven or 10 years with big payments due at the end. About $20 billion will be due next year, covering everything from office and condo complexes to hotels and malls. The retail outlook is particularly bad. Circuit City and Linens 'n Things have sought bankruptcy protection. Home Depot, Sears, Ann Taylor and Foot Locker are closing stores. Those retailers typically were paying rent that was expected to cover mortgage payments. When those $20 billion in mortgages come due next year — 2010 and 2011 totals are projected to be even higher — many property owners won't have the money. Some will survive, but those property owners whose loans required little money up front will have less incentive to weather the storm. Refinancing formerly was an option, but many properties are worth less than when they were purchased. And since investors no longer want to buy commercial mortgages, banks are reluctant to write new loans to refinance those facing foreclosure. California, New York, Texas and Florida — states with a high concentration of mortgages in the securities market, according to Fitch — are particularly vulnerable. Texas and Florida are already seeing increased delinquencies and defaults, as are Michigan, Tennessee and Georgia. The worst-case scenario goes something like this: With banks unwilling to refinance, a shopping center goes into foreclosure. Nobody can buy the mall because banks won't write mortgages as long as investors won't purchase them. "Credit markets have seized up," corporate securities lawyer Michael Gambro said. "People are not willing to take risks. They're not buying anything." That drives down investments already on the books. Insurance companies are seeing their stock prices fall on fears they are too invested in commercial mortgages. "The system has never been tested for a deep recession," said Ken Rosen, a real estate hedge fund manager and University of California at Berkeley professor of real estate economics. One hope was that the U.S. would use some of the $700 billion financial bailout to buy shaky investments from banks and insurance companies. That was the original plan. But Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has issued a stunning turnabout, saying the U.S. no longer planned to buy troubled securities. For those watching the wave of commercial defaults about to crest, the announcement was poorly received. "He's created havoc in the marketplace by changing the rules," Rosen said. "It was the stupidest statement on Earth." The Securities and Exchange Commission is considering another option that might ease the crisis, one that would change accounting rules so banks don't have to declare huge losses whenever the market declines. But the only surefire remedy is for the economy to stabilize,
for businesses to start expanding and for investors to trust the market
again. Until then, Tross said, "There's going to be a lot of pain going
forward." |
|
|||||||||||||
|
|