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.
Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Hope Praytochange who wrote (57303)10/22/2012 9:37:07 AM
From: Peter Dierks1 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 71588
 
If Ben Bernanke Sought Advice
How a financial analyst might assess the firm of B. Obama & Associates and its Fed funders.
October 21, 2012, 6:30 p.m. ET

By NOAM NEUSNER
Memo to: Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke

From: MacroMicro Investor Evaluations LLC



Dear Mr. Bernanke:

Thank you for the opportunity to provide our counsel with regard to your counterparty, B. Obama & Associates. To summarize, you have requested an objective assessment of him and his record as an investor, including an evaluation of whether you should continue putting significant sums of capital—backed by your institution—at risk with him and his team. The sum for his latest fund, HopeChange Fund II, is roughly $80 billion a month.

It is clear that Mr. Obama is a very impressive man, commanding significant personal and leadership gifts. In our meetings with him, we have been charmed by his wit and impressed by his zeal. It doesn't surprise us that he has a significant record of raising capital from a variety of sources. Nor does it surprise us that he keeps company with some of the world's best-known investors and capitalists, including Warren Buffett.

It isn't immediately clear, however, that he understands what it takes to be an investor. While he uses the word "invest" quite liberally, he doesn't seem to focus at all on the returns from his prior investments.

His current portfolio of investments includes:

• A major stake in an auto company, where he carries a value of roughly $12 billion on an original investment of $26 billion—pretty shocking considering overall market gains;

• A $7 trillion portfolio of mortgage-backed debt, much of which is plagued by late payments and an asset base still well below the price of the original debt;

• A modest portfolio of low-interest or no-interest unsecuritized loans to speculative solar-energy plants, wind farms and biofuel plants. For unclear reasons, he and his team have subordinated their own credit priority on some of these loans, thereby imperiling recovery of now-compromised assets;

• A loan portfolio of $1 trillion to post-adolescent adults so they can attend colleges that train them to take jobs that will leave them unable to pay back the loans. Perhaps in anticipation of the problems this will cause, he has cut the interest rate charged on those loans in half, to 3.4%. Meanwhile, the default rate on these loans has gone up to an alarming 13%. Mr. Obama calls this portfolio a good investment, though it appears his return on the investment is somewhere less than zero.

B. Obama & Associates has also made significant long-term commitments of funds—"investments"—in pre-kindergarten programs, high-speed rail and free cellphones for low-income families. We haven't been able to assess how these investments will return any capital to the client in the future. We are therefore inclined to believe that these funds aren't so much invested as given away.

Meanwhile, Mr. Obama has derided the only clear-cut success of his past investing—those funds that he and his predecessor agreed to invest in financial institutions during the very worst of the financial crisis in 2008-09. This gambit allowed Mr. Obama to lock in some solid gains. But rather than call attention to this success, he has criticized the borrowers who paid back the money on time with interest. This is an unusual way to do business.

Mr. Obama has trumpeted his auto investment, despite his losses on it and the curious way his legal team pushed out the prior investors when the market for the company's securities was particularly poor. In this case, however, he seems to have figured out how to monetize his losses through in-kind contributions of political support from co-investors.

We appreciate that you have a significant interest in Mr. Obama's success, but we would advise you to reduce your risk by steadily rolling back your position. We assume you will be able to help Mr. Obama understand that your shareholders have lost confidence in his investing plans, though they apparently remain quite charmed by him. Perhaps he can better apply his talents to writing a book?

Mr. Neusner, a principal with 30 Point Strategies, was a speechwriter for President George W. Bush.

online.wsj.com



To: Hope Praytochange who wrote (57303)11/26/2012 1:03:55 AM
From: greatplains_guy1 Recommendation  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 71588
 
The Unanswered Question: What About Clinton-Era Spending Rates?
Nov 24, 2012 4:45 AM EST

Neither Democrats nor Republicans, careening toward the dreaded fiscal cliff, appear willing to explain how we can return to Clinton-era tax rates without cutting spending to Slick Willy’s levels. Michael Medved says we need an honest response.

In the debate on our fiscal crisis, one crucial question is never answered or even asked: if we’re supposed to go back to Clinton-era tax rates because they were good for America, why don’t we simultaneously return to that era’s spending rates?

In other words, what is government doing so much better today than it was then to justify vastly increased expenditures, totaling more than $1 trillion a year in inflation-adjusted dollars?


The question came up during our Thanksgiving holiday, when I honored my personal tradition—which reliably annoys family and friends—of playing cherished orchestral music by the great American composer Charles Ives (1874-1954). “Uncle Charlie,” as he’s become known in our home, was a New England eccentric who wrote rich, challenging, impressionistic scores that draws on folk and popular music to sketch vivid sound images of America of a hundred years ago. “Thanksgiving and Forefathers’ Day,” his masterpiece for chorus and orchestra, always seems particularly appropriate for our November celebrations. But this year I’ve also spent much of the holiday with his weirdly evocative tone poem “The Unanswered Question,” a mysterious piece for strings behind a probing, insistent trumpet solo.

The relevant “unanswered question” of this moment in history centers on our federal government’s shocking spending levels.

In arguing for a return to Clinton-era tax rates for wealthy households, with a top marginal rate of 39.6 percent rather than the Bush-era 35 percent, President Obama suggests that Slick Willy cooked up precisely the right recipe for growth and prosperity. The boom times and economic dynamism that characterized the last five years of Bill Clinton’s presidency strongly support that contention. But by addressing only the taxing part of the equation and not the spending levels, Democrats leave out the most important element in the winning formula.

Indeed, even if we went back to the good old days of Clinton taxation levels but maintained our current rates of spending, we’d suffer from devastating deficits of close to $1 trillion each year.

According to official government figures, the feds collected revenues totaling 20.6 percent of the gross domestic product in 2000, the final full year of Clinton’s term. Under Obama in 2012, however, Washington spent money at a near-record rate of 24.3 percent of the GDP. Even with all of Clinton’s tax revenues, that still would have left a deficit of 3.7 percent of GDP, significantly higher even than the worst full year of the much-reviled George W. Bush.

Moreover, to reach Clinton-era revenue levels, Congress and the president would need to let all the Bush-era tax cuts expire, not just erasing breaks that benefit the wealthy. Yearly tax burdens for a typical, middle-class family earning $50,000 a year would increase $3,700, a development leaders of both parties consider utterly unacceptable. And all those punishing payments by hard-working, stressed-out Americans would still leave us with dangerous, damaging levels of deficit spending.

To put the situation in perspective, federal spending went up from 18.2 percent of the economy in the last year of the Clinton administration, to 20.8 percent in the last full year of the Bush administration, to 24.3 percent of the just-completed fiscal year. In raw dollar terms, the Clinton government shelled out an even $2 trillion for all federal programs. The Obama administration is lavishing $3.2 trillion in constant dollars even before its costly health-care reform takes effect.

Meanwhile, revenues declined at almost exactly the same rate as federal spending increased, going from 20.6 percent at the end of Clinton’s reign, to 17.6 percent in the final year of Bush, to an appalling 15.8 percent at the end of Obama’s first four years. It’s especially important to note that the low federal revenue numbers under Obama reflect the sour, slow-growth economy, not some new, unheralded tax cuts. Sure, Bush tax reductions contributed mightily to declining rates of government revenue between 2000 and 2008, but since Obama did nothing to alter the Bush tax reforms in his first four years, it’s illogical to blame those rates for the much lower revenue collections under the leadership of the hope-and-change president.

Conservatives ought to face up squarely to the uncomfortable fact that there’s scant evidence that sharply reduced taxation since the Clinton era has helped middle-class Americans build wealth or improve their economic standing.

But Democrats and other Obama apologists must confront the even more obvious truth that similarly steep hikes in federal outlays have done nothing to lift the circumstances of ordinary Americans. Washington has increased its share of the national economy by a frightening 34 percent since Slick Willy left office. It’s not possible to blame all of that on Bush’s two costly wars or his prescription drug benefit, as Obama increased federal spending as a share of GDP far more rapidly than did Bush.

Which brings us back to the question neither Democrats nor Republicans seem willing to confront as they contemplate budgetary disaster and the dreaded fiscal cliff:

If it’s appropriate to consider reinstating Clinton-era rates of taxation, why should it be unthinkable to restore Clinton era patterns of spending?


Composer Charles Ives, who made his living in the insurance industry and loved actuarial numbers, would have appreciated some honest response to that unanswered—and perhaps unanswerable—question.

thedailybeast.com



To: Hope Praytochange who wrote (57303)12/15/2012 10:40:09 AM
From: greatplains_guy  Respond to of 71588
 
Printing Our Way Out of Debt
By IRWIN M. STELZER
12:00 AM, Dec 15, 2012

The fiscal cliff is a diversion, designed by politicians to conceal their inability to come to grips with the fact that they continue to spend too much, and refuse to reform a tax structure that reduces the competitiveness of American companies in world markets. No matter what deal is cut, whether before or after the new year, it will at best nibble at the edges of the trillion-dollar annual deficits that are being piled up.

The real action has shifted from America’s inactive politicians to our hyperactive central bankers, the members of the monetary policy committee, who are making Las Vegas high rollers look like risk-averse wimps. And the highest roller of all is bewhiskered former Princeton economics professor who presides over the Federal Reserve Board’s printing presses. Ben Bernanke, the board’s chairman, has an advantage over his Vegas counterparts. He can’t run out of money because he can always print more.

Bernanke’s “risky bet,” to borrow a characterization from the Wall Street Journal, is that he can safely keep pumping money into the economy until the unemployment rate drops from its current level of 7.7 percent to at least 6.5 percent. Unless, of course, the decline in the unemployment rate is due to a drop in the labor force participation rate, in which case easing will continue. If you think none of this matters because Bernanke will exit stage left in 2014, consider that his likely successor, vice chairman Janet Yellen, says the Fed’s complex mathematical models show that interest rates should remain at a zero well into 2016 and reach only about 1 percent by 2017 if unemployment is to reach acceptable levels.

The Fed chairman isn’t worried that the dollar will collapse, for three reasons. First, his fellow central bankers are prepared to do the same, witness the statement last week by Mark Carney, the Bank of England’s governor-in-waiting, “Today … a central bank may need to commit credibly to maintaining highly accommodative policy even after the economy, and potentially, inflation picks up.” In plain English: keep printing money even in the face of rising inflation.

A second reason the dollar is unlikely to take a major hit is that America remains a safe haven, if not from Bernanke and inflation, at least from overt confiscation, politicized court rulings, and the new UK fad of “moral,” retroactive tax exactions that has induced Starbucks to hand over to Her Majesty’s tax collectors tens of millions of pounds beyond what the law requires. Finally, Bernanke says that if the Fed’s projection of the inflation rate one and two years out exceeds 2.5 percent, he will start to raise interest rates—“take away the punch bowl” in central bank jargon. Note, however, that it is the Fed’s projection, rather than hard data, on which the Fed will rely, and forecasts of the inflation rate are often an unreliable indicator of the price rises that eventually occur.

Businesses have been clamoring for certainty, sitting on cash piles rather than investing, and unable to get a semblance of certainty from the politicians who control fiscal policy. Now they have it from the Fed in respect to monetary policy. No surprise that the new certainty is not welcomed by those who, like sole monetary policy committee dissenter, Chairman of the Richmond Fed, Jeffrey Lacker, worry that Bernanke is setting the stage for inflation down the road. Or by the frugal, who find that zero interest rates yield derisory returns on their savings and on the pension funds on which they rely. In a sense, Bernanke’s redistribution of income from savers and creditors to debtors makes President Obama’s redistribution from the wealthy to the middle class seem trivial by comparison.

The new certainty, by keeping interest rates close to zero, also makes it possible for the government to continue borrowing at a more rapid clip than if it faced higher interest rates, reducing its incentive to slice enough from current spending to make a serious dent in the deficit.

Bernanke is not the only central banker expanding his balance sheet. The Fed will add $1 trillion to its balance sheet next year, and other central banks an additional $10 trillion, leaving the world awash in fiat money. Central bankers are reacting to a long period of recession and slow growth, and in Bernanke’s case to what he calls the “enormous waste of human and economic potential” reflected in the high unemployment rate and the decline in the labor force participation rate. This dramatic change in targeting—using an economic indicator rather than a date to determine when the Fed’s work is done—announces a dramatically new monetary policy, one that elevates the goal of full employment far above the Fed’s other goal of stable prices.

To be fair to Bernanke, it is not clear that he has got it wrong. First, it is arguable that his launch of QE1 and QE2 created vehicles that could and did throw life savers to financial institutions that were drowning in flawed debt instruments, and that QE3 boosted post-recession sluggish growth. To mix my metaphors, another dose of an efficacious medicine might just be in the patient’s interest. Second, a new QE that dare not speak its name—make no mistake, the new policy is QE4—might well be needed if fiscal policy tightens when taxes go up and spending comes down, as both will in 2013 no matter how the fiscal cliff is resolved, or even if no deal is made.

Finally, Bernanke believes that the economy will grow at the unsatisfactory rate of 1.7-1.8 percent this year, and 2.7 percent next year (the central point of the predicted range), in part because uncertainty over the governability of the nation is driving down consumer confidence and stifling business investment.

There you have it. The Fed has been buying $40 billion of mortgage-backed securities and $45 billion of long-term treasuries every month. But until now it has also been selling $45 billion in short-term government securities. Those sales have stopped, so net purchases will go from $40 billion per month to $85 billion. Do that for a few months, and you have to print a lot of money. Do that until 2017 and you just might have a currency so debased that paying off the national debt will be a snap. So unless you are sitting on a batch of Uncle Sam’s IOUs, as are the Chinese, don’t worry, be happy. We will print our way out of our debt.

weeklystandard.com