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 (19693)12/28/2004 11:19:24 AM
From: mishedlo  Respond to of 116555
 
Brazil central bank sees 7.4 pct inflation in 2004, 5.3 in 2005
[Haim, you might be interested in this - mish]
Tuesday, December 28, 2004 1:43:59 PM
afxpress.com

BRASILIA (AFX) - The central bank said it expects inflation to reach 7.4 pct in 2004 and 5.3 pct in 2005, compared with previous estimates of 7.2 pct and 5.6 pct respectively

It noted the 2004 inflation forecast is still below the 8 pct target set by the government

It also raised the GDP growth forecast to 5 pct in 2004 from 4.4 pct forecast in September. The 2005 forecast stands at 4 pct



To: CalculatedRisk who wrote (19693)12/28/2004 2:02:16 PM
From: mishedlo  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 116555
 
Bush expected to delay major tax overhaul
Social Security, budget grab center stage
By Jonathan Weisman and Jeffrey H. Birnbaum
Updated: 1:17 a.m. ET Dec. 28, 2004

Wholesale changes to the tax code that just weeks ago were identified as a Bush administration goal by the end of 2005 are being pushed back for at least another year.

White House economists, Republican tax aides in Congress and outside economic advisers say key White House officials have determined that they have their hands full with Bush's pledge to overhaul Social Security and a budget plan that will demand politically painful cuts to non-defense spending.

The president will soon name a panel to examine tax policy, but he will leave it to the Treasury Department to monitor the panel's work. It is widely expected that Treasury Secretary John W. Snow will ultimately recommend incremental changes to the tax code, not replacing it with a new system, such as a single flat income-tax rate or a national sales tax, according to these sources.

"The likelihood of a really dramatic change is fairly low," said Kevin A. Hassett, director of economic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute.


• More politics coverage
"They're sort of punting," said one economic adviser outside the White House who maintains strong contacts with administration economists, noting that Bush is not likely to turn his attention to the tax issue until 2006, and will do so then only if the Social Security and budget issues have been resolved.

Claire Buchan, a White House spokeswoman, said an overhaul of the tax code remains a Bush priority, noting the White House economic conference this month devoted a panel to tax simplification.

But the president may have tipped his hand during that two-day conference when he devoted his time to Social Security changes and limits on civil lawsuits. His one mention of tax simplification came when he reiterated his support for the permanent repeal of the estate tax, a move Bush said would eliminate 300 pages of the Internal Revenue Code.

"I think the president signaled that he is going 'incremental' on tax reform, not radical," a policy aide who recently left the White House said after Bush's speech.

Since the conference, tax policy analysts and business lobbyists have been looking for clues in a 2002 study done by the Treasury Department. Its author, former assistant Treasury secretary for tax policy Pamela F. Olson, said she has been fielding a steady stream of calls about the report, especially about its fifth, most incremental tax option. "There's certainly a number of people who have read it in recent weeks," she joked.

'Option 5'
Under what has become known among lobbyists on K Street simply as "Option 5," Bush's previous tax proposals would be enhanced, not replaced. Washington would create lifetime savings accounts and retirement savings accounts to replace the current array of tax-preferred savings accounts for retirement, education and health care.

A lifetime savings account would allow each person to save up to $5,000 a year, shielding capital gains, interest and dividend income from all taxation. Unlike existing tax-favored accounts, the money could be withdrawn at any time for any reason. A family of four could shield $20,000 a year from investment taxation, and since few families could save that much, capital gains, interest and dividend taxation would effectively end for the vast majority of Americans, the Treasury study said.

The plan would also repeal the alternative minimum tax, the parallel income tax system that was set up to ensure the rich pay taxes but that increasingly ensnares the middle class. For low- and middle-income taxpayers, the standard deduction would be significantly increased.

The current four tax-filing categories -- married filing jointly, married filing separately, single and head of household -- would be simplified to just married couples and all others. The six current income tax rates -- 10 percent, 15 percent, 25 percent, 28 percent, 33 percent and 35 percent -- would collapse to four, losing the 28 percent and 33 percent brackets.

And corporations would be allowed to immediately deduct -- or "expense" -- from their taxes a portion of the cost of business investments, instead of having to slowly write off those costs based on complex depreciation allowances.

To cover the cost of the tax changes, the plan would tax the value of an employee's health insurance benefit as if it were income. "Most Social Security benefits" would also be taxed as income, the report says. Finally, the plan eliminates the itemized deduction for state and local tax payments.

Tax lobbyists have seized on the plan because it fits Bush's stated desire to simplify the tax code while maintaining the progressive income tax structure as well as deductions for mortgage interest payments and charitable giving.

"The president is very serious about tax reform," said Rachelle Bernstein, vice president and tax counsel of the National Retail Federation. "The question for all of us is whether it will move away from the income tax system or whether it's significant reform of the current income tax. My bet is it's reform of the income tax," Option 5.

Incremental changes
In an interview, Snow said Olson's tax analysis would inform deliberations, as would previous Treasury studies. "I don't want to go in with a blueprint in mind," he said. "I don't want prior ideas to shape this."

He pointed out that all previous proposals needed to be reexamined. For instance, "expensing," a key feature of Option 5, "clearly simplifies aspects of the corporate income tax," he said. But an immediate write-off for business plant and equipment purchases could reduce the tax burden on profitable companies so much that they would end up receiving tax refunds, a prospect Snow said would have to be avoided.

But lobbyists, economic advisers and congressional aides say it is only natural to look at incremental options. At this point, the Treasury Department appears ill-equipped for any dramatic rethinking. The job of assistant Treasury secretary for tax policy -- the Treasury's top tax position -- has been vacant since Olson announced her resignation a year ago. Gregory F. Jenner -- Olson's deputy, who had taken her post on an acting basis -- quit this month. Treasury officials gave Eric Solomon, who is deputy assistant secretary for regulatory affairs, the additional assignment of acting deputy assistant secretary for tax policy. But the top tax policy spot remains empty.

The formulation of a whole new tax code has been made all the more difficult by Bush's simultaneous pledges to overhaul Social Security and cut the budget deficit, and the conditions he has already put on changing the tax code.

"The presumption is that revolutionary changes in the tax code are likely not an option now given the budget deficit and given the challenges of doing this in addition to Social Security," said Dan Danner, senior vice president for public policy at the National Federation of Independent Business, the small-business lobby. "The presumption of most of the people on the outside is the most likely outcome is incrementalism."

msnbc.msn.com



To: CalculatedRisk who wrote (19693)12/28/2004 2:17:16 PM
From: mishedlo  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 116555
 
A definition of "savings"

Mish to Heinz:
What in your view of things constitutes "savings"?
Is putting money into an IRA savings?
What about the gains/losses on that?
Paying down a home mortgage?
Paying off a HELOC?
Is the amount of home equity one has "savings"?
What does the government include in "savings" when they say it is .2%?

Heinz:
actually, the calculation of the savings rate is very simple - as it should be. it simply counts income minus outlays - what's left is the savings rate (expressed as a percentage of income). there has been a lot of uninformed discussion of this topic in places like the 'National Review' where the neo-cons and their friends, the Keynesians-in-drag, like to hang out. they argue that investments in stocks, changes in the 'value' (i.e., the price, actually...) of home equity, etc. should be included in the calculation to arrive at a representative number. but this is obviously nonsense. let us take the example of stocks, which are an investment , not savings.
to be able to buy stocks, one has to of course first accumulate savings. however,when you buy say 100 shares of XYZ, you give control over your savings to whoever sells you those stocks. i.e. one investor exchanges his investment for the savings of another. the essential character of the stocks thus traded as representatives of investment funds doesn't change. the fact that the price of said stock has e.g. increased obviously can NOT increase the pool of savings (since the price increase is the result of a multitude of transactions in which savings that have already been counted toward the savings rate are exchanged for stocks).

a brief on-topic excursion:

the Austrians actually look at a different form of savings , one that excludes the monetary component. this is not relevant for the savings RATE, but it is in terms of determining whether savings suffice to expand the production structure of the economy. this is often referred to as the 'pool of real funding' - an extremely important economic concept that unfortunately eludes statistical capture.

to explain what it is, consider a Crusoe economics example. say you're John and you live on an island. you subsist on a diet of apples, which grow on your apple tree. you need 20 apples a day to survive. one day you realize that by making a tool you could increase your harvest by 50%. however, making the tool takes time - say a day. that means you have to save 20 apples to be able to do so. for 20 days you therefore subsist on 19 apples a day - the 20 apples left over are your 'subsistence fund' - the pool of real savings, that allows you to invest in making the tool. once the tool is made, and you harvest 30 apples a day, your subsistence fund grows by 10 apples a day - the pool of real funding grows, and thus the production structure can be lengthened further, and so on.

if you now begin to trade some of your apples for the products made by another island inhabitant, you use them as money. obviously, if you and the other dude decide to use a certain commodity as money, this does nothing to change the essential fact that only the pool of REAL funding supports your economic activities. if you consume more than you produce, the pool of real funding begins to shrink. a shrinking pool of real funding leads eventually to a shortening of the production structure, and a diminishing division of labor (the division of labor flows from the lenghtening of the production structure). you are in fact then eating the seed corn. this is precisely why the low US savings rate is a cause for concern.

monetary pumping can only create a make-believe economic upswing as long as the pool of real funding still grows. it follows that the entire theoretical foundation of modern day mainstream economics is complete baloney - since it holds that monetary pumping can 'grow' the economy. it can do no such thing. the actual size of the money supply is irrelevant to wealth creation. it is the pool of real funding which determines whether economic growth is possible or not.

if we decided for instance to use a completely fixed stock of gold as our money supply, then the purchasing power of one unit of this money would rise over time. if the stock were not fixed, but grew by roughly the same percentage as our collective economic output, purchasing power of one unit would remain relatively stable. if we introduce a central bank and paper money , and the CB decides to print a lot of 'money' willy-nilly, purchsing power of one unit will decline over time. however, the creation of money out of thin air has other insidious effects that are not visible at first glance. the problem is that it allows for consumption WITHOUT preceding production.

let's go back to the Crusoe economics example: if John wants to vary his diet by purchasing fish from Jill, he needs to take apples from his subsistence fund and exchange them for Jill's fish. he must first
PRODUCE apples, before he can consume fish. a third inhabitant,
Alan, proposes that instead of bartering fish for apples, they should all use the gold produced by his gold mine next door for the purpose of economic exchange. since both John and Jill like gold ornaments, they agree. iow, they regard gold as a useful commodity - and Alan has successfully argued that due to its divisibility, durability and fungibility, it makes for a far better money than perishable apples and fish.

as time passes, Alan proposes that in order to make the payment system more efficient, he will store everybody's gold in his vault and issue receipts for it. that way no-one needs to lug around bags of gold coins, but they can instead exchange the receipts. you see where this is going - if Alan decides to issue more receipts than there is gold in his vault (i.e., he begins the fraudulent enterprise known as a 'central bank') , he will be able to consume without having to first produce (aside from producing essentially worthless paper receipts that is). in this example it becomes easy to see that a plethora of harmful effects is likely to follow. for one thing, the pool of real funding is now liable to shrink rather than grow, since Alan is now able to exchange something for nothing - and consume the something for free. also, the sudden proliferation of receipts does not immediately become apparent to everyone involved. at first, the remaining producers of real wealth erroneously believe that demand for their products has increased naturally, and they accordingly expand production. but the increase is artificial - iow, it seduces them into making malinvestments, which further weakens the pool of real funding over time. in short, the whole fraudulent system only 'works' as long as wealth creation manages to continue IN SPITE of it - not, as statists of all stripes hold, BECAUSE of it.

this is why i always point out when modern day economic imbalances are discussed, that all the busy-bodies with their long laundry lists of prescriptions of how to 'fix' things (like e.g. that absurd 11-point list emanating from PIMCO) continually miss the mark - they refuse to recognize, let alone debate, that the root of the imbalances is the monetary system itself.

when monetary and fiscal pumping failed to produce an economic upswing in post bubble Japan , Austrians knew that Japan's pool of real funding had begun to shrink. it was not possible anymore for the central bank to get its artificial demand machine into gear - once the pool of real funding is in dire straits, no amount of addtional paper chits can 'rescue' the economy in question. the arduous process of liquidating the malinvestments stemming from the preceding boom has to first run its course.

one would have thought that the utter failure of Keynesian policy prescriptions In Japan in the wake of the bust would lead to a rethinking of the premises leading to the failure. not so. instead, the past 15 years have passed with economists constantly demanding MORE OF THE SAME, and in spades please! naturally no-one wants to admit that they essentially know nothing and have been wrong their entire life...that the most basic assumptions they have taken for granted are in fact nothing but hot air. so it is not that their prescriptions are nonsense, it must be the half-hearted implementation of same that's at fault! in short, Japan has been harrassed (not that its policy makers needed a lot of encouragement actually...) into compounding its mistakes manifold. it now sports the biggest ratio of public debt vs. GDP of all the industrialized nations, with NOTHING to show for it. the solution? MORE OF THE SAME PLEASE! print more money, and increase your debt further - the standard response of today's economists to every perceived economic ill.

i must add though that this PIMCO nut of yesterday is adding fresh twists in terms of guaranteed-to-fail interventionist proposals that go to show that people's ingenuity in going forcefully down the path
of economic ruin truly knows no bounds.
where do they find these people? we can conclude that the pool of statist fools is definitely NOT shrinking.



To: CalculatedRisk who wrote (19693)12/28/2004 2:36:29 PM
From: mishedlo  Respond to of 116555
 
From Heinz to RodgerRafter on "Why Failed Airlines Don't Just Die"

Heinz:
i fully agree. GE Capital is actually a very poorly capitalized high risk hedge fund/investment bank. if only 3% of its assets go sour, its entire capital will be wiped out. not exactly a comforting thought - and a good explanation for the 'prop up' job they did with the airlines.
============================================================
Original post from RR
"Why Failed Airlines Don't Just Die"
GE props them up by loaning ever more money so that they won't default on the debts they already owe and so that GE will be able to lease out all the aircraft they own. The numbers are astounding. I read a WSJ article on this the other day and a quick search turned up this article from Minneapolis:

startribune.com

"GE said it has invested more than $7 billion in airlines around the world since the 9/11 attacks. GE helped prop up America West Airlines and helped finance Air Canada's reorganization. GE is the biggest creditor at bankrupt UAL Corp., the parent of United Airlines, with $1.6 billion at stake. Ditto for US Airways, where GE has nearly $3 billion at stake, according to financial filings.

GE gets to report generous income off of this high yield debt... up until the point where they finally have to write most of it off.

"This fall, GE lent Delta Air Lines $630 million to help it avoid bankruptcy."

And to help GE prop up its pension plan value, and to prop up its own earnings...

pumping money into airlines is in part a way to avoid huge losses from an airline collapse. GE, which has 1,239 airplanes and $29 billion of airplane loans and leases, has an interest in keeping its leased planes in circulation.

$29 Billion = GE's total earnings from Fiscal 2002 and 2003 combined = about 1/3 of GE's shareholder equity.

When it helps prop up airlines, it's "because we think we make a lot of money on it," said Henry Hubschman, president and CEO of GE Capital Aviation Services and the transportation-financing unit of GE Commercial Finance. "The time you do best is when they are most in need of money," he said.

Put through the patented RodgerRafter BS Deconstruction Machine, the above statement yielded the following: "In the short term, we (the executives) expect to show big profits and we (the executives) will get to skate off with big, fat bonus checks that we'll write to ourselves, all by acting like criminal, back-alley loan sharks. Who cares if they'll never dig out from under the aggressive terms of our bail out offers?"

Sure, GE shareholders will get hosed in the long run, but GE's managers can probably keep up the charade until financial armageddon overwhelms the whole US economy and leaves them as just another financial disaster story (among countless others) where the pursuit of short term profits eventually led to financial ruin.



To: CalculatedRisk who wrote (19693)12/28/2004 2:42:06 PM
From: mishedlo  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 116555
 
Heinz replies to the following article on corporate bond outlook 2005

Heinz:
it is important to realize that the world is drowning in investment grade rated paper that is in reality junk. this is the case across the entire spectrum of private sector fixed income, and especially in all sorts of 'bundled' securities. they get their high ratings via the credit insurers or big banks giving their 'insured by us' imprimatur. i still remember an AA rated foreign issuer bundle going belly-up overnight in '00 because it contained lots of paper from an obscure Turkish bank that went bankrupt. this would have gotten a C minus rating at best normally, but with Citibank standing guarantor it became investment grade. the problem here is the sheer volume of such paper and the fact that invesors remain totally oblivious to the games being played. i.e. risks that would normally never ever be taken on by e.g. money market funds and other investors endowed with similar fiduciary responsibilities and limitations as to what they can invest in are routinely placed with such institutions. in many respects this is reminiscent of the financial insanity of the 1920's.

============================================================
corporate bond market faces a number of challenges going into 2005

After a strong running this year, the U.S. corporate bond market faces a number of challenges going into 2005 - challenges that may fundamentally alter the face of the investment landscape. The biggest concern looming ahead is the prospect of two market heavyweights - General Motors Corp. (GM) and Ford Motor Co. (F) - being stripped off their investment-grade ratings. With over $105 billion in corporate bonds outstanding in the Lehman Brothers U.S. Credit Index, a widely tracked performance gauge, these two issuers account for over 5% of this investment-grade index. Their fall to junk would mark a significant change for bond investors.

And that's just the event most likely to grab the headlines in the investment- grade market. Bondholders also worry that shareholder-friendly transactions - from stock buybacks to increased dividend payouts - will continue to gather pace in the new year as companies turn away from two years of rebuilding their balance sheets and improving their credit ratings. This year, for example, stock buybacks rose to $224 billion, the highest level since 1998, according to data from Thomson Financial in New York.

"Credit quality is transitioning to deteriorating from improving because of a conscious balance-sheet adjustment by companies," said Tim Doubek, corporate bond portfolio manager at American Express Asset Management, with around $100 billion in fixed income assets. "Investors have to be careful to not put too much risk in their portfolios - there's greater potential of a downside when you're paid very little to take on risk." GM and Ford are perhaps the best examples of deteriorating credit quality in the investment-grade arena, though not because of conscious shifts in balance sheet management. The two U.S. auto giants both carry triple-B-minus credit ratings with steady outlooks, teetering dangerously close to speculative-grade ratings.

More here:
Message 20893691



To: CalculatedRisk who wrote (19693)12/28/2004 3:07:09 PM
From: mishedlo  Respond to of 116555
 
ECB´s Tumpel-Gugerell says interest rates still at appropriate level
Tuesday, December 28, 2004 6:49:16 PM
afxpress.com

ECB's Tumpel-Gugerell says interest rates still at appropriate level FRANKFURT (AFX) - The current level of European Central Bank interest rates is still "appropriate," ECB board member Gertrude Tumpel-Gugerell said

Despite the high level of liquidity in the euro zone, "our analysis is unchanged overall, namely that the current monetary policy is appropriate," she said in an interview to appear in tomorrow's edition of daily Boersen-Zeitung

There are "no clear signs of a rise in domestic inflationary tension," although there are risks to price stability in the medium term, particularly as high oil prices filter through to producer prices, Tumpel-Gugerell said

At 2 pct, the ECB's key interest rate has remained unchanged since June 2003