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: CalculatedRisk who wrote (17635)12/4/2004 10:01:42 PM
From: mishedlo  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 116555
 
The 7 stages of a dollar crisis

'Experts' simplistically tout a weak dollar as good news. No wonder many regular folks are unaware that its dramatic decline could spell real trouble.

By Bill Fleckenstein

Along the way to a full-blown crisis, the steps leading up to it may either pass unnoticed or prompt insufficient concern. That is the story of the dollar. Its decline continues to strike many folks as good news. It is only a matter of time before that perception changes. The inevitable crisis will inflict damage, but those who see where we are headed can protect themselves beforehand. To this end, I'll explain where I believe we are in that process.....

moneycentral.msn.com



To: CalculatedRisk who wrote (17635)12/4/2004 10:48:53 PM
From: mishedlo  Respond to of 116555
 
Housing Is The New Economy
by Broderick Perkins

It's the housing sector, stupid.

Outpacing the flaccid, once technology-driven stock sector as an investment tool, the more potent housing market has hammered home its position as a cornerstone of the economy's foundation -- and it appears to have much more staying power. .....
......

realtytimes.com



To: CalculatedRisk who wrote (17635)12/4/2004 11:01:42 PM
From: mishedlo  Respond to of 116555
 
The Makings Of A Meltdown

Why the danger of a stampede away from the dollar remains

DECEMBER 13, 2004

businessweek.com

If investors needed a wake-up call about how heavily the global financial system relies on the actions of Asia's central banks, they received a nasty one on Nov. 26. A widely reported remark by People's Bank of China Policy Board member Yu Yongding that Beijing planned to trim its purchase of U.S. Treasuries quickly sent the dollar to four-year lows vs. the euro and the yen. The markets, spooked just a week earlier by statements from Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, were filled with speculation that the day of financial reckoning was coming for America and its soaring trade and government budget deficits. If China were to start dumping U.S. assets, the theory goes, other Asian central banks would likely follow to protect the value of their foreign reserves from a dollar crash.

FALSE ALARM
It looks like a false alarm. Beijing quickly moved to quell the fears by declaring that Yu had been misquoted. Soon after, Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao repeated for the umpteenth time that Beijing will not change any time soon its policy of pegging its currency, the yuan, at 8.3 to the dollar. That means China would have to keep adding dollars to its $515 billion in foreign reserves, which this year have been growing at about $15 billion per month, in order to offset inflows from foreign investment and export earnings. While the dollar continued drifting to 102 yen and the euro hit $1.33, many analysts argue that it may be poised for a technical rebound as Japan, South Korea, and other nations intervene in the markets again to halt the sharp appreciation of their currencies.

Still, those days of jittery trading have exposed a raw nerve that is likely to run through the world financial system through 2005. How much longer, asks a growing chorus of economists, can the U.S. continue to rely on Asian central banks to finance its skyrocketing twin deficits? China, Japan, and other Asian nations already have amassed $2.2 trillion in foreign reserves, much of them recycled into U.S. Treasuries. Meanwhile, the U.S. current-account deficit, expected to reach $665 billion this year, or a record 5.7% of gross domestic product, would hit 6.3% of GDP in 2005 and 7% in 2006, based on current oil prices and import and export trends. And given its low domestic savings rate, the U.S. will likely have to step up its offshore borrowing to finance the gap. As a result, traders sense the approach of a mega-realignment of the dollar vs. global currencies.

BENIGN EXERCISE
Look closely at U.S. data, however, and fears of an Asian dollar stampede look overblown. They show that Asian central banks, with the exception of Japan, already have been weaning themselves off dollar assets for the better part of the year -- without triggering a spike in inflation or U.S. rates. Taiwan and South Korea have increased their dollar holdings only modestly, those of Thailand and Singapore have stayed virtually flat, and Hong Kong's Treasury holdings have dropped by $5 billion. As a result, the Singapore dollar is up 4% this year against the greenback while the Korean won has leapt 14%. "Everybody has been scaling back, and the whole exercise has been pretty benign," says emerging-market strategist Chen Zhao of Montreal-based BCA Research.

China has been quietly diversifying its holdings as well. Even though its foreign reserves have swelled by $100 billion over this year's first nine months, China has purchased only $17 billion worth of Treasuries and other U.S. bonds, BCA estimates. This is way behind the pace of 2003, when China bought $60 billion in U.S. bonds. Even though China still needs to buy Treasuries to offset investment inflows, that need is less urgent than before. In recent months, analysts say, China's repeated insistence that it will not change its currency peg soon apparently has helped stem the China-bound surge of speculative money. That means Beijing doesn't have to buy up as many dollars.

So where has Beijing been parking some of its mounting reserves? Some 20% are now in euros, estimates UBS Securities Asia (UBS ) economist Jonathan Anderson, while China also has put more in yen and pounds. "China has already diversified away from U.S. dollars," says Zhao Xijun, vice-director of the Finance & Securities Institute of Beijing's People's University. The shift has helped put upward pressure on the euro, which the Europeans are understandably concerned about: Europe has unfairly borne the brunt of the world's currency dislocations. But the Chinese move to diversify has created just a ripple in the $4 trillion U.S. Treasury market.

There are other reasons Asian central banks will probably not lead a panicky charge out of dollars. For one, Asia's economies still depend heavily on exports to the U.S. for growth and jobs. If Asian central banks stop buying dollars and send U.S. interest rates soaring, they will tank their biggest and most strategic market. "It's probable that over time central banks will want to reduce their exposure to a single currency like the dollar," says Nick Bennenbroek, senior currency strategist at Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. "But there's not much risk this will happen anytime soon."

In fact, some Asian central banks could start jumping back into Treasuries. After boosting its holdings in U.S. bonds by 46%, to $721 billion, in this year's first eight months, Japan has since stayed on the sidelines. As a result, the yen has risen by 6.8% in six months against the dollar. But Japanese Vice-Finance Minister Koichi Hosokawa has signaled that Tokyo will aggressively hold the line if the yen nears 100 vs. the dollar. South Korea already has begun to intervene again after the won hit a seven-year high.

This does not mean the scary dollar meltdown scenario will disappear. As Asian governments stepped back, hedge funds dramatically boosted their holdings of U.S. Treasuries this year. They're a far more footloose bunch than central bankers. That's why Yu's comments triggered such angst among those who see the makings of a dollar meltdown.

And as America's twin deficits continue to breach uncharted territory, "the chances of a hard landing for the dollar increase," says economist Nouriel Roubini of New York University's Stern School of Business. As Washington's borrowing needs rise, it may have to sharply raise bond rates to lure buyers. The risk also remains that some central banks with smaller U.S. holdings, such as Russia or India, would instigate a sell-off by deciding to dump U.S. assets if they sense that the dollar is ready for another big slide. Roubini also notes that the longer China maintains its rigid peg to the ever-dropping dollar, the more its currency will have to rise when it does decide to break the link. A dramatic revaluation would immediately affect the value of dollar-denominated assets. A 20% appreciation of the yuan, for example, would mean a $100 billion loss in the value of China's reserves -- equal to about 8% of GDP.

The U.S. and Asia can mitigate this risk by moving aggressively to correct the imbalances. The Bush Administration must devise a credible plan to narrow its yawning fiscal deficit and boost savings. Asian governments could start cutting their addiction to cheap currencies. "If the U.S. is ever going to reduce its trade deficit, somebody [in Asia] has to reduce their exports and increase domestic demand," notes Akio Mikuni, founder of credit rating agency Mikuni & Co.

The remedies are obvious -- but difficult. Don't expect Asian banks to instigate a dollar crash soon by bolting, but don't expect a risk-free correction in the financial system either. A real fix will take years.



To: CalculatedRisk who wrote (17635)12/4/2004 11:08:40 PM
From: mishedlo  Respond to of 116555
 
The Fabulous Destiny of Alan Greenspan

dailyreckoning.com

THE FABULOUS DESTINY OF ALAN GREENSPAN
by Bill Bonner

This week marks an important anniversary.

"How do we know when irrational exuberance has unduly escalated asset values, which then become subject to unexpected and prolonged contractions, as they have in Japan over the past decade?" asked the Fed chairman, when he was still mortal. The occasion was a black-tie dinner at the American Enterprise Institute in December - five years ago.

"We as central bankers," Greenspan continued, "need not be concerned if a collapsing financial asset bubble does not threaten to impair the real economy, its production, jobs, and price stability. But we should not underestimate or become complacent about the complexity of the interactions of the asset markets and the economy. Thus, evaluating shifts in balance sheets generally, and in asset prices particularly, must be an integral part of the development of monetary policy."

Mortals make mistakes. But Greenspan was right on target in '96. It was later, after he became a demi-god, the "Maestro," that the Fed chief erred.

In 1996, the bear market of '73-74 and the crash of '87 were still functioning as caution signs. Greenspan spoke on the evening of the 5th. On the morning of the 6th, markets reacted. Investors in Tokyo panicked...giving the Nikkei Dow a 3% loss for the day, its biggest drop of the year. Hong Kong fell almost 3%. Frankfurt 4%. London 2%. But by the time the sun rose in New York, where the Fed chairman was better known, investors had decided not to care. After a steep drop in the first half-hour, as overnight sell orders were executed, the market began a rebound and never looked back. By the spring of the year 2,000, the Dow had almost doubled from the level that had so concerned the Fed chairman.

But while the maestro was alarmed at Dow 6,437, he was serene at Dow 11,722. Fatal to Greenspan's judgment was a combination of bad information, bad theory and a human nature that - though unchanged for many millennia - seems to have slipped the attention of central bankers.

Greenspan's theory was that by carefully controlling the cost of credit and the money supply he could avoid serious economic downturns. You have suffered enough discussion of this issue here in the Daily Reckoning, dear reader. For today's purpose, we will just point out that Mr. Greenspan has everything he needs to get the economy back on track, except the essentials. He cannot make telecom debt worth what people paid for it. He can't restock consumers' savings accounts. He can't make Enron a good business. He can't erase excess capacity, nor make investment losses disappear.

In addition to the bad theory, Mr. Greenspan had bad information. The "information age" brought more information to more people - including to central bankers...but the more information people had, the more opportunity they had to choose the misinformation that suited their purposes.

Since the late '90s, however, many of the figures used to justify the New Economy have been revised, downward. "The government previously decided that neither corporate profits nor productivity improvements were nearly as good as they appeared to be in 1999 and 2000," reports Floyd Norris in the New York Times. "And now the industrial production numbers have been sharply revised downward."

"The new numbers show industrial production was dramatically overestimated, particularly in the high- technology area," Norris quotes John Vail, the chief strategist of Fuji Futures, a financial futures firm in Chicago.

What was true for the nation's financial performance was also true for that of individual companies. Companies engineered their financial reports to give investors the information they wanted to hear - that they earned one penny more per share than anticipated. But what they were often doing was exactly what Alan Greenspan worried about - impairing balance sheets in order to produce growth and earnings numbers that delighted Wall Street. Curiously, during what was supposed to be the greatest economic boom in history, the financial condition of many major companies - such as Enron and IBM - actually deteriorated.

But by 1998, Alan Greenspan no longer noticed; he had become irrationally exuberant himself. Markets make opinions, as they say on Wall Street. The Fed chairman's opinion soon caught up with the bull market in equities. As Benjamin Graham wrote of the '49-'66 bull market: "It created a natural satisfaction on Wall Street with such fine achievements and a quite illogical and dangerous conviction that equally marvelous results could be expected for common stocks in the future."

Shares rise, as Buffett put it, first for the right reasons, and then for the wrong ones. Shares were cheap in '82...the Dow rose 550% over the next 14 years. Then, by the time Greenspan warned of "irrational exuberance", shares were no longer cheap. But by then, no one cared. Benjamin Graham's giant "voting machine" of Wall Street cast its ballots for slick shares with go-go technology and can-do management. Shares rose further; and people became more and more sure that they would continue to rise.

"Greenspan will never allow the economy to fall into recession," said analysts. "The Fed will always step in to avoid a really bad bear market," said investors. Over the long term, there was no longer any risk from owning shares, they said. And even Alan Greenspan seemed to believe it. If the Fed chairman believed it, who could doubt it was true? And the more true it seemed, the more exuberant people became.

"What happened in the 1990s," says Robert Shiller, author of the book Irrational Exuberance, "is that people really believed that we were going into a new era and were willing to take risks rational people would not take...people did not feel they had to save. They spent heavily because they thought the future was riskless."

But risk - like value - has a way of mounting up, even while it seems to disappear. The more infallible Alan Greenspan appeared...the more "unduly escalated" asset values became. Having warned of a modest "irrational exuberance," the maestro created a greater one.

Regards,

Bill Bonner
The Daily Reckoning

Editor's Note : Bill Bonner is the founder and editor of The Daily Reckoning. He is also the author, with Addison Wiggin, of The Wall Street Journal best seller Financial Reckoning Day: Surviving the Soft Depression of the 21st Century (John Wiley & Sons).



To: CalculatedRisk who wrote (17635)12/4/2004 11:12:44 PM
From: mishedlo  Respond to of 116555
 
Thoughts on Detroit Area Housing
Message 20827841



To: CalculatedRisk who wrote (17635)12/4/2004 11:28:14 PM
From: mishedlo  Respond to of 116555
 
Vancouver, BC

Real estate market takes a breather
It's going through an adjustment -- not a correction, experts say

canada.com

Derrick Penner
Vancouver Sun

Friday, December 03, 2004

B.C.'s hot housing market has cooled more quickly than expected, which should hold sales, housing starts and the Lower Mainland's average prices below 2004's torrid highs throughout 2005, Credit Union Central of B.C. said Thursday.

Credit Union Central chief economist Helmut Pastrick said with October property sales in the Lower Mainland down 30 per cent from the March peak, he believes the market is going through an adjustment, but not an outright correction.

"The amount of new [housing] supply that's coming on: new listings, newly constructed product, probably hasn't surged as much," Pastrick said.

"It's more of a decline in those monthly sales numbers that are responsible for the market downshift."

Pastrick adjusted his expectation for total property sales in the province down to 96,000 from the 102,600 estimate he made in June.

He is also projecting that 2005 sales will reach 94,800 and that 2005 housing starts will hit 31,600, which is slightly below the 32,400 units expected to be built in 2004.

Pastrick has also estimated that the average price for a house in B.C. will creep up to $289,700 in 2005 from $286,200, although he expects Vancouver's average 2005 price to slip to $370,000 from $375,000 and the Fraser Valley's average to slide to $285,000 from $290,000.

B.C.'s real estate market will still perform well, he added.

It will just "be more of a sideways market, if you will."

Tsur Somerville, director of the centre for urban economics and real estate at the University of B.C.'s Sauder School of Business, said the dampening of the market also reflects growing uncertainty in the economy.

He said economic stories in recent weeks have been more negative than positive.

The rising dollar has made it more expensive for American investors to pour money into buying condominiums in downtown Vancouver.

The dollar, which dropped 0.75 of a cent to 83.73 cents US Thursday, also hurts B.C.'s export industries such as forestry, mining and tourism.

"When we're talking about commodities, forestry and tourism, that's a big piece [of the economy]," Somerville said.

"Growth in the underlying economy is not as strong as people have forecast it to be and that has implications for real estate," he said.

"When you enter a period of uncertainty, you're going to see fewer transactions and fewer starts."

However, Gordon Maroney, president of the B.C. Real Estate Association, said he still believes underlying confidence in the province's real estate market is strong.

He said the market decline that started after its May peak was predictable.

In 2004 rising consumer confidence met falling mortgage rates while there was still pent-up demand for housing following several years when the real estate industry was in the doldrums.

"So we had a huge surge of purchasers who wanted to buy starting last July to the end of May this year," Maroney said.

"We've said for months...that the market could not continue."

Carol Frketich, regional economist for Canada Mortgage and Housing, said the high dollar and uncertainty over exports will dampen growth, but only by a matter of degree.