Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : The New Economy and its Winners -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rock_nj who wrote (47872)	1/25/2009 6:12:12 AM
From: stockman_scott	1 Recommendation Respond to of 57684

Time Magazine: Best 25 Financial Blogs time.com

To: Rock_nj who wrote (47872)	1/25/2009 7:11:36 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 57684

Bank Stability: A More Radical Solution _______________________________________________________________ By Peter J. Solomon PeHub.com Posted on: January 22nd, 2009 Gradually, in increments of tens of billions of dollars, we are nationalizing America’s banking system. Without a plan, without an organizational structure to oversee the new ownership and without an exit strategy, the nation is in the midst of a seminal shift in the relationship between the public and private financial sectors. We learned that in December, Bank of America’s chief executive Ken Lewis told the Federal Reserve Chairman and Treasury officials that he was concerned about the condition of Merrill Lynch and the risks to the bank from the merger. The Chairman urged completion of the merger for the good of the financial system and Mr. Lewis moved forward for “patriotic” reasons. These revelations come at the end of a six month period in which the Secretary of the Treasury and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve consistently reacted in an ad hoc manner to the destruction of the commercial and investment banking businesses as we have known them for over 70 years. We have reached the point where only the federal government, with its unlimited resources, can stabilize the financial sector. As we take the momentous step of abandoning the fundamental capitalist principle separating business and government, let us, at the least, explicitly acknowledge what we are doing. Let our leaders articulate the rationale and have a plan that taxpayers can understand and support. It was always clear that the severity of the financial crisis took the Bush Administration by surprise. The Troubled Asset Recovery Program (TARP) has been run in fits and starts. First, the Secretary proposed a plan to buy toxic loans and then shifted to a strategy of buying preferred stock in many commercial and investment banks to stimulate credit extension. In between, TARP has been used to buy a nearly 80% equity stake in AIG (now overseen by three government appointed trustees), to prop up the automobile companies, to provide capital to auto finance companies, and in a modest way, to relieve the mortgage crisis. The Federal Reserve has worked hand-in-glove with the Treasury. It has, among other actions, bought mortgages from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, supplied credit to banks and entered into loss sharing arrangements, first with Citicorp and now Bank of America. It has also pushed interest rates on Treasuries to almost zero. The Fed seems to have lost its independence and its balance sheet has swollen to over $2 trillion. The conversations between Mr. Lewis and federal officials aren’t a surprise given what we see about the government’s role in the break-up of Citicorp. Apparently, as some sort of quid pro quo for Treasury support, the bank is spinning off its retail arm, Smith Barney, and will dispose of other operations. It also agreed to a plan to make it easier for homeowners to renegotiate their mortgages. Thus, while Congress has been rightfully wondering about accountability for the TARP funds and what bonuses and dividends the recipients will pay using taxpayer money, it should be debating where we are going and what lines we have crossed. Hegel wrote, “The owl of Minerva begins its flight when the shades of twilight have already fallen”. Too late to be effective, Mr. Paulson discovered that incrementalism didn’t work. As he left office, he proposed a mega bank to take over bad loans from the banks. Organizational change comes after a plan. It isn’t a substitute for the plan itself. We propose that the Obama Administration and Secretary Geithner immediately announce that the Treasury will seek increased equity ownership in any financial institution that requires additional capital or in any entity – including finance companies – that needs more than $1 billion. The Treasury will become an active partner in distressed commercial banks. President Obama would reject the passive oversight, inadequate accountability and the process of striking deals in the obscurity of the Federal Reserve and Treasury conference rooms. Reflecting its shibboleth of change, let the Obama Administration be explicit about a changed relationship between government and private banking. Active involvement including, perhaps, board representation, is necessary as the taxpayer finally provides capital sufficient to permit a sound financial system. Leadership inspires confidence. Confidence begets credit. President Obama would be well advised to use the confidence the Nation has in his leadership to acknowledge the radical steps needed to get the banking system functioning for the good of the country. *Peter J. Solomon is Founder and Chairman of Peter J. Solomon Company, L.P., an investment banking firm. He was Counselor to the Secretary of the Treasury under President Jimmy Carter, Deputy Mayor for Economic Policy and Development under Mayor Edward I. Koch and Vice Chairman of Lehman Brothers in the 1980s.

To: Rock_nj who wrote (47872)	1/26/2009 7:15:08 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 57684

Bill Gates: Economic crisis not short, but innovation will prevail gatesfoundation.org Bill Gates this morning released his first annual letter in his new full-time role at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. One of the sections focuses on the economy, providing a glimpse into the Microsoft co-founder's impressions of the current crisis... <<...2009 Annual Letter from Bill Gates: The Economic Crisis The financial market and economic conditions that have developed this past year are truly unprecedented. I hope two years from now when I write this letter I can look at this section as a reflection of something that was short-term and that has passed, but I think the effects of the crisis will last beyond that. Warren recently sent me an excerpt from John Maynard Keynes’ essay “The Great Slump of 1930,” which applies to this crisis as well: "This is a nightmare, which will pass away with the morning. For the resources of nature and men’s devices are just as fertile and productive as they were. The rate of our progress towards solving the material problems of life is not less rapid. We are as capable as before of affording for everyone a high standard of life—high, I mean, compared with, say, twenty years ago—and will soon learn to afford a standard higher still. We were not previously deceived. But today we have involved ourselves in a colossal muddle, having blundered in the control of a delicate machine, the working of which we do not understand. The result is that our possibilities of wealth may run to waste for a time—perhaps for a long time." If you take a longer timeframe, such as five to ten years, I am very optimistic that these problems will be behind us. A key reason for this is that innovation in every field—from software and materials science to genetics and energy generation—is moving forward at a pace that can bring real progress in solving big problems. These innovations will help improve the world and reinvigorate the world economy. Looking specifically at the foundation, our assets decreased in value by about 20 percent in 2008. I never thought I would say losing 20 percent is a reasonable result, but it is better than most endowments because so many asset classes went down by more than 20 percent in 2008. The team led by Michael Larson that handles the investments has always done a great job. During the past five years, as the foundation was growing, we spent a bit over 5 percent of its assets each year in addition to the gift from Warren. There is nothing magic about the 5 percent figure, except that it is the minimum required by the IRS. Our spending in 2008 was $3.3 billion. In 2009, instead of reducing this amount, we are choosing to increase it to $3.8 billion, which is about 7 percent of our assets. Although spending at this level will reduce the assets more quickly, the goal of our foundation is to make investments whose payback to society is very high rather than to pay out the minimum to make the endowment last as long as possible. The global recession and market turmoil are forcing everyone to take a hard look at their plans. Businesses and consumers are cutting back on spending. The 50-year-long credit expansion that fueled high spending levels, particularly in the United States, has turned into a credit contraction. Governments face revenue shortfalls at the same time their citizens need government services more than ever. A great example of this is education. Recent improvements taking place in K-12 education could be reversed because of budget cuts. State-funded two-year and four-year colleges will see record demand but may also face spending cuts. As governments respond to the crisis, they need to protect these investments even as they spend to stimulate the economy. In the United States only the federal government can do deficit spending and increase its investment in long-term goals like education. I am impressed with the way President Obama has talked about the need to do both and has his team looking at investments that fulfill both goals. Like education funding, I see foreign aid that is spent wisely as being a smart thing even during these tough times. I hope the United States and other rich countries will continue to increase their aid, and when I meet with political leaders I encourage them to do so. The British prime ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have been great about this. The most generous aid givers in proportion to the size of their economy are Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and the Netherlands. By this measure the big European countries are quite a bit more generous than the United States. Most of those that were not already large donors have increased significantly since the European Union and G-8 made new commitments in 2005. The current Italian government stands out because it is not only falling short on the increases but is actually cutting its aid budget. I don’t think this is because Italians care less about the issues, so I’m hopeful the government will find a way to restore this funding as part of its policy proposals when it hosts a G-8 summit this year. Although it will be difficult to keep aid-related issues on the front page during this crisis, we need to meet the challenge by making sure the success stories are told and making sure that inequity that is out of sight is not out of mind. Only with broad public awareness and voter interest will we keep aid on the positive track it needs to stay on. I am impressed by individuals who continue to give generously even in these difficult times. I believe that the wealthy have a responsibility to invest in addressing inequity. This is especially true when the constraints on others are so great. Otherwise, we will come out of the economic downturn in a world that is even more unequal, with greater inequities in health and education, and fewer opportunities for people to improve their lives. There is no reason to accept that, when we know how to make huge gains over the long term...>>