SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: yard_man who wrote (1874)3/12/2004 1:41:51 PM
From: mishedlo  Respond to of 116555
 
I revised that last post and changed a couple things.
Check it out. It might make sense for you too!

M



To: yard_man who wrote (1874)3/12/2004 2:14:11 PM
From: mishedlo  Respond to of 116555
 
UK BUDGET OUTLOOK UK
lenders urge Brown not to hike tax on new home buyers
Friday, March 12, 2004 12:15:07 PM

LONDON (AFX) - Nationwide building society is among the many UK lenders and trade associations calling on Chancellor Gordon Brown to ease financial pressure on first-time home buyers when he unveils his latest budget on Wednesday.

With soaring house prices and rising interest rates leading young Britons to turn to rented accommodation in increasing numbers, the country's leading building society urged Brown to raise the stamp duty threshold for first time buyers to 150,000 stg from 60,000 stg. "This is just below the level at which stamp duty would now begin, had it been linked to the house price index over the past 10 years," Nationwide said in its budget submission.

The National Association of Estate Agents went one step further, demanding that first time buyers be made exempt from paying stamp duty on all properties under 250,000 stg, arguing that they were "key to the health of the UK housing market." Since taking up his post in 1997, Brown has steadily lifted property taxes as he looks to simultaneously fund a substantial increase in public spending and cool the country's rampant housing market.

Victor Dauppe, tax specialist at chartered accountants MacIntyre Hudson, estimates the Treasury raked in as much as 5 bln stg from property taxes in the fiscal year to April 2003, more than triple its take just six years earlier.

The NAEA warned that if Brown were to further tax the housing market he would risk sending prices into a downward spiral.

"Just by leaving the unfair (stamp duty) thresholds in place, he (Brown) is in fact raising tax because house prices are far outstripping inflation, which is running at under 2 pct," said NAEA chief executive Peter Bolton King.

The Portman Building Society is calling for even more radical reform, proposing the tax be levied on sellers not buyers.

"This would exempt first time buyers from having to pay the tax at a time they can least afford it and transfer the burden to existing homeowners, most of whom have enjoyed some benefit from rising house prices," it said.

UK independent mortgage broker Mortgage Talk's technical director Andrew Frankish also called for a revision of thresholds.

As a result of rising prices "even the most modest starter home attracts a government tax of at least 600 stg," he said.

MacIntyre Hudson's Dauppe reckons Brown will be reluctant to raise existing rates on an indiscriminate basis.

Such a move would be politically unpopular in a country where around 70 pct of people live in their own home.

Instead, he believes Brown is more likely to introduce new bands at the higher end of the market, while allowing recent house price rises to bring more buyers into the existing higher bands.

"The temptation to introduce a new top band for stamp duty will surely prove too great for the chancellor to resist. He needs to plug the gap in the nation's finances quickly, and frankly, it is hard to see a quicker or easier way for him to raise tax than through stamp duty," Dauppe said.

MacInytre Hudson predicts Brown will introduce new bands for stamp duty at 5 pct on property transactions between 750,000 and 1 mln stg, and 6 pct on homes sold for more than that.

fxstreet.com



To: yard_man who wrote (1874)3/12/2004 2:45:58 PM
From: mishedlo  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 116555
 
Fannie Mae (FNM:NYSE) will release the "fair value" of their current derivative positions on Monday during their annual disclosure. Phil Erlanger opines "We were amazed by the absence of short sellers in this stock and by how many institutions still own this name, given that it's controversial accounting standards have been known in the marketplace for quite some time."



To: yard_man who wrote (1874)3/12/2004 2:49:09 PM
From: mishedlo  Respond to of 116555
 
Deflation and the Dollar
by John Succo

Several Minyans have questions concerning the impact of deflation (I am not saying there is deflation, I am just responding to the question) on the dollar. There have apparently been some newsletters discussing deflation and its positive impact on the dollar: one newsletter referred to the huge amount of debt (denominated in dollars) as a “synthetic short position in the dollar”.

My position is that deflation will not necessarily cause a rally in the dollar: there are many cross-currents (much of which concerns how central banks, which have been given the ability to control money supply, react to the situation) that will determine how the dollar will react in a deflationary scenario. I’ll discuss just a few below.

First of all, deflation (as the opposite of inflation) works like this: purchasers of goods who perceive prices will go down in the future will wait to buy things. This can happen when there is over capacity in production. This causes the propensity to hold dollars (not spend) to increase. Corporations’ profitability suffers as consumers pull back spending. As the demand for dollars increases, holders want to deposit those dollars and earn interest.

The Federal Reserve in order to combat this situation of higher demand for dollars (and lower demand for goods) begins to lower rates, effectively increasing the supply of dollars. Holders of dollars, realizing they are not getting much from depositing their dollars on account, are discouraged from depositing the dollars and encouraged to spend them (or put them in other assets like stocks). The lower interest rates also act to lower costs for corporations, helping profitability.

The end product of this process is increased debt: this is how the supply of money enters the system.

We have been through this cycle in various magnitudes since the Federal Reserve was instituted. There is no dispute that this process is responsible for the creation of debt. The level of debt in the U.S. relative to GDP is at historically high levels. There is dispute as to whether or not this matters. I believe it is how we handle the liquidation of this debt that has implications for the dollar under a deflationary scenario.

If deflation begins to spiral downward it is bad for debt holders: they must pay back their debt in dollars that will be worth more in the future. They will logically attempt then to pay back this debt as soon as possible. They will be motivated to sell assets to pay down debt. Many of these assets will of course be denominated in foreign currencies: think of a corporation in debt that owns assets around the world. As corporations sell these non-dollar assets they sell the foreign currency and buy dollars to pay off the debt. This process of unwinding debt in a deflationary scenario strengthens the dollar and this is what the writer means by “huge debt acting like a synthetic short position in the dollar”.

The Federal Reserve wants to avoid this situation at all costs and is on record as saying so. After all, the U.S. government is the world’s largest debtor and would suffer greatly under deflation: their goal is to re-inflate so as to pay back their debt with cheaper dollars in the future.

The writer’s scenario occurs, at least initially, when the Federal Reserve loses control of the spiral and has trouble stopping it. The problem with the end result of a lower dollar is that it assumes two things: that the Federal Reserve will not print dollars to infinity and that there will be only minor defaults by debt holders. Either one will cause less confidence in the dollar and the dollar to weaken.

The more defaults there are and the more the Federal Reserve tries to fight the forces of deflation by printing dollars, the more pressure on the dollar. Enough of it and it will cause the dollar to drop in the face of deflation, causing U.S. interest rates to actually rise. This is called stagflation.

These are only a few of the cross-currents that can make a direct cause and effect statement misleading.



To: yard_man who wrote (1874)3/12/2004 2:54:45 PM
From: mishedlo  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 116555
 
Brian Reynolds, on treasuries, spreads, and other things

Following the change of language at the January Fed meeting, we noted that investor sentiment had changed and that the equity markets were in a correction. Two weeks ago, we noted how this correction had a number of similarities to the one that occurred from mid-June of last year through August, and now we are seeing even more similarities.

In February, we noted how, after a strong rise and a long period of overbought stochastics, the S&P topped out in mid-June, as was the case with the S&P in mid-January. In both cases, the longer-term stochastics then went from overbought almost (but not quite) to oversold, then the market rallied to put in what appeared to put in a double-top, with the peaks about a month apart. Following the double-top, the market began to sell off again, as that technical pattern emboldened bearish investors (which brought us up to when that column was written in late February).We then wrote: "If the similarities between the two periods were to hold, this current selloff would accelerate over the next few weeks, with the S&P piercing support. That would further embolden the bears, but would also push the stochastics to an oversold level sometime in late March, setting the stage for a resumption of equity gains."

Well, that scenario has played out, with the S&P breaking support in the 1125 area while the short-term stochastics have just entered oversold territory, and we are finding more similarities between the two corrections:

-In last year's correction, bearish investors were pointing to the lack of job creation. Last Friday's payroll report has renewed those concerns.

-The soft payroll report on Friday caused bond yields to break below critical support, causing a large number of mortgages to become refinanceable and sending mortgage managers to scurry and buy even more Treasuries to hedge themselves. In last year's correction, we were in the midst of a similar Treasury buying frenzy.

-Corporate bonds have held up well in both Treasury rallies, allowing most of the impact of the Treasury bond move to flow through to corporates.

Given that last summer was the first time in 5 years that both corporate and Treasury buyers were applying stimulus together, leading to higher stock prices once investors realized the impact of those forces, it stands to reason that the current dual stimulus will eventually have a similar impact on equity prices. Given that the short-term stochastics have just entered oversold, and the slower stochastics have a way to go before they get there, it may take some more time before the correction ends. But, the longer that the fixed income markets are aligned this way, the greater the odds are that we will eventually see higher prices.

We also wrote that we need to be alert to forces that would change our opinion, as history doesn't always repeat exactly.

We were appearing on Bloomberg TV early yesterday morning when news of the horrible attack in Spain was breaking. At the time, the newswires were indicating that it was the work of a separatist group, and the equity futures were down only slightly. We said on the air that, whether terrorism is regional or global, it is a serious concern. However, we also added that investors have had nearly three years to think about terrorism worries. We've written in the past that we know there are people who are trying to destroy capitalism and who would love to try more attacks; the question for investors is how successful any attack will be at disrupting commerce; even the massive 9/11 attacks only disrupted the economy for a short time.

From that standpoint, while yesterday's attack elevated worries amongst equity investors, corporate bond investors were more sanguine. Investment-grade spreads were only 1-2 basis points wider, while junk spreads were only 4-5 basis points wider. So, the reaction in corporates was more muted than in the equity market. As long as the corporate market remains healthy, it should limit how bad equities can get. Otherwise, we would expect LBO activity to markedly increase. Should the corporate market worsen significantly, however, it would increase the odds that the equity correction turns into something worse.

Side note:
It was a year ago today that we noted that the longer-term stock/bond technical momentum indicators that we watch had moved so in favor of stocks that there was the possibility that we might see the beginnings of the bond-to-stock trade. That day turned out to be the low for the year, as the subsequent news flow from the war encouraged more of that trade to be put on.

Since then, these indicators have not produced much of a meaningful signal, as the subsequent outperformance by stocks over Treasuries has been more or less a constant through February. In the last few weeks, though, stocks have substantially underperformed Treasuries. While the momentum indicators that we look at are not yet back to the levels of a year ago, some of them are at their most favorable level for stock outperformance against Treasuries since late March/early April of last year.