Economic Crisis – Page 18 – artdiamondblog.com

Chinese Economic Crisis Predicted by Investor Who Predicted Enron Collapse

“James Chanos made his hedge fund fortune predicting problems at companies and shorting their stock.” Source of caption and photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited below.

Chanos’ views discussed below are plausible and worth taking seriously. Earlier and overlapping worries about the sustainability of China’s boom were expressed in a credible and scary book by David Smick called The World is Curved.
In addition to some of the concerns expressed by Chanos, Smick also emphasizes that China’s restrictions on the internet will dampen the ability of its entrepreneurs to succeed. That view seems prescient given China’s growing attempts to censor the internet and to hack Google.

(p. B1) SHANGHAI — James S. Chanos built one of the largest fortunes on Wall Street by foreseeing the collapse of Enron and other highflying companies whose stories were too good to be true.

Now Mr. Chanos, a wealthy hedge fund investor, is working to bust the myth of the biggest conglomerate of all: China Inc.
As most of the world bets on China to help lift the global economy out of recession, Mr. Chanos is warning that China’s hyperstimulated economy is headed for a crash, rather than the sustained boom that most economists predict. Its surging real estate sector, buoyed by a flood of speculative capital, looks like “Dubai times 1,000 — or worse,” he frets. He even suspects that Beijing is cooking its books, faking, among other things, its eye-popping growth rates of more than 8 percent.
“Bubbles are best identified by credit excesses, not valuation excesses,” he said in a recent appearance on CNBC. “And there’s no bigger credit excess than in China.” He is planning a speech later this month at the University of Oxford to drive home his point.
. . .
(p. B4) . . . he is tagging along with the bears, who see mounting evidence that China’s stimulus package and aggressive bank lending are creating artificial demand, raising the risk of a wave of nonperforming loans.
“In China, he seems to see the excesses, to the third and fourth power, that he’s been tilting against all these decades,” said Jim Grant, a longtime friend and the editor of Grant’s Interest Rate Observer, who is also bearish on China. “He homes in on the excesses of the markets and profits from them. That’s been his stock and trade.”
Mr. Chanos declined to be interviewed, citing his continuing research on China. But he has already been spreading the view that the China miracle is blinding investors to the risk that the country is producing far too much.
“The Chinese,” he warned in an interview in November with Politico.com, “are in danger of producing huge quantities of goods and products that they will be unable to sell.”

For the full story, see:
DAVID BARBOZA. “Shorting China: the Man Who Predicted Enron’s Fall Sees a Bigger Collapse Ahead.” The New York Times (Fri., January 8, 2010): B1 & B5.
(Note: the online version of the article has the title “Contrarian Investor Sees Economic Crash in China” and is dated January 7, 2010.)
(Note: ellipses added.)

The reference to the Smick book is:
Smick, David M. The World Is Curved: Hidden Dangers to the Global Economy. New York: Portfolio Hardcover, 2008.

“Now Mr. Chanos is betting against China, and is promoting his view that the China miracle has blinded investors to the risks in that economy.” Source of caption and poster: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited above.

Art Diamond Identified as One of “the Country’s Most Prolific and Influential Economics Bloggers”

Source of graph: http://image.exct.net/lib/fef61175736207/m/1/Q9-Report-Card2.gif

The Kauffman Foundation recently invited me to participate in a quarterly survey on economic policy that they are compiling from among bloggers who they have identified as among “the country’s most prolific and influential economics bloggers.” I agreed to participate.
Apparently tomorrow (2/2/10) they will release the results of the first survey.
Below I have quoted most of a press release that they emailed out today.
(The Kauffman Foundation is one of the leading non-profit organizations supporting research on entrepreneurship.)

Top Economics Bloggers Grade U.S. Institutions that Influence Economy in New Kauffman Survey

Watch for complete results tomorrow of the first
‘Kauffman Economic Outlook:
A Quarterly Survey of Leading Economics Bloggers’

The country’s most prolific and influential economics bloggers grade the institutions and organizations that impact the economy in a new Kauffman Foundation survey. On an A to F grading scale, the nation’s top economics bloggers give the highest marks to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and General Accountability Office (GAO), as well as to the “U.S. business community.” Central banks such as the Federal Reserve and European Central Bank got passing grades by most, with few A’s and many F’s. Similarly, the World Bank had mixed marks. The worst marks went to Wall Street firms (31 percent F’s) and the U.S. Congress (51 percent F’s).
Learn more about what these insightful analysts think about U.S. economic performance, policy, institutions, and the deficit in the first “Kauffman Economic Outlook: A Quarterly Survey of Economics Bloggers,” which will debut tomorrow, Feb. 2, 2010, at www.kauffman.org.
The survey was conducted in mid-January 2010 by soliciting input from bloggers ranked among the top 200 economics bloggers according to Palgrave’s Econolog.net. Ten core questions and seven topical questions were designed in coordination with a distinguished board of advisors.

Web version of press release:
http://view.exacttarget.com/?j=fe5916727d650c747316&m=fef61175736207&ls=fded1c77726707797712717c&l=fe5815757461007a7c13&s=fe27157476630575771d75&jb=ffcf14&ju=fe2f16767565027b701575

Recession Is Prolonged By Doubts on Obama Policies

(p. A17) Several pieces of evidence point to extreme caution by businesses and households. A regular survey by the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB) shows that recent capital expenditures and near-term plans for new capital investments remain stuck at 35-year lows. The same survey reveals that only 7% of small businesses see the next few months as a good time to expand. Only 8% of small businesses report job openings, as compared to 14%-24% in 2008, depending on month, and 19%-26% in 2007.

The weak economy is far and away the most prevalent reason given for why the next few months is “not a good time” to expand, but “political climate” is the next most frequently cited reason, well ahead of borrowing costs and financing availability. The authors of the NFIB December 2009 report on Small Business Economic Trends state: “the other major concern is the level of uncertainty being created by government, the usually [sic] source of uncertainty for the economy. The ‘turbulence’ created when Congress is in session is often debilitating, this year being one of the worst. . . . There is not much to look forward to here.”
Government statistics tell a similar story. Business investment in the third quarter of 2009 is down 20% from the low levels a year earlier. Job openings are at the lowest level since the government began measuring the concept in 2000. The pace of new job creation by expanding businesses is slower than at any time in the past two decades and, though older data are not as reliable, likely slower than at any time in the past half-century. While layoffs and new claims for unemployment benefits have declined in recent months, job prospects for unemployed workers have continued to deteriorate. The exit rate from unemployment is lower now than any time on record, dating back to 1967.
According to the Michigan Survey of Consumers, 37% of households plan to postpone purchases because of uncertainty about jobs and income, a figure that has not budged since the second quarter of 2009, and one that remains higher than any previous year back to 1960.
These facts suggest that it was a serious economic mistake to press for a hasty, major transformation of the U.S. economy on the heels of the worst financial crisis in decades. A more effective approach would have been to concentrate first on fighting the recession and laying solid foundations for growth. They should have put plans to re-engineer the economy on the backburner, and kept them there until the economy emerged fully from the recession and returned to robust growth. By failing to adopt a measured approach to economic policy, Congress and the president may be slowing the economic recovery, and thereby prolonging the distress from the recession.

For the full commentary, see:
GARY S. BECKER, STEVEN J. DAVIS AND KEVIN M. MURPHY. “OPINION; Uncertainty and the Slow Recovery; A recession is a terrible time to make major changes in the economic rules of the game.” The Wall Street Journal (Mon., JANUARY 4, 2010): A17.
(Note: ellipsis in original.)

Wall Street Bet that Feds Would “Paper Over Mistakes”

In the commentary quoted below, “LTCM” stands for the Long-Term Capital Management hedge fund.

(p. A25) Because families without the real economic means to repay traditional 30-year mortgages were getting them, housing prices grew to artificially high levels.

This is where the real sin of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac comes into play. Both were created by Congress to make housing affordable to the middle class. But when they began guaranteeing subprime loans, they actually began pricing out the working class from the market until the banking business responded with ways to make repayment of mortgages allegedly easier through adjustable rates loans that start off with low payments. But these loans, fully sanctioned by the government, were a ticking time bomb, as we’re all now so painfully aware.
A similar bomb exploded in 1998, when LTCM blew up. The policy response to the LTCM debacle is instructive; more than anything else it solidified Wall Street’s belief that there were little if any real risks to risk-taking. With $5 billion under management, LTCM was deemed too big to fail because, with nearly every major firm copying its money losing trades, much of Wall Street might have failed with it.
That’s what the policy makers told us anyway. On Wall Street there’s general agreement that the implosion of LTCM would have tanked one of the biggest risk takers in the market, Lehman Brothers, a full decade before its historic bankruptcy filing. Officials at Merrill, including its then-CFO (and future CEO) Stan O’Neal, believed Merrill’s risk-taking in esoteric bonds could have led to a similar implosion 10 years before its calamitous merger with Bank of America.
We’ll never know if LTCM’s demise would have tanked the financial system or simply tanked a couple of firms that bet wrong. But one thing is certain: A valuable lesson in risk-taking was lost. By 2007, the years of excessive risk-taking, aided and abetted by the belief that the government was ready to paper over mistakes, had taken their toll.
With so much easy money, with the government always ready to ease their pain, Wall Street developed new and even more innovative ways to make money through risk-taking.

For the full commentary, see:
CHARLES GASPARINO. “Three Decades of Subsidized Risk; There’s a reason Dick Fuld didn’t believe Lehman would be allowed to fail.” The Wall Street Journal (Fri., NOVEMBER 6, 2009): A25.

Young Firms Create Two-Thirds of New Jobs

(p. A25) While a slight improvement over last month’s numbers, today’s employment update from the Bureau of Labor Statistics presents a dismal picture for American workers. As policy makers search for the best remedies to strengthen our economic performance, they can’t afford to overlook new firms and young firms.

Unfortunately, in troubled economic times the language of recovery is too often tilted toward large, established companies or to “small businesses,” a broad term that traditionally applies to businesses with fewer than 500 employees. The conventional wisdom is that such businesses account for half of the labor force and are therefore the engine of future job creation.
That’s not quite the case. The more precise factor is not the size of businesses, but rather their age. According to the Census Bureau, nearly all net job creation in the U.S. since 1980 occurred in firms less than five years old. A Kauffman Foundation report released yesterday shows that as recently as 2007, two-thirds of the jobs created were in such firms. Put more starkly, without new businesses, job creation in the American economy would have been negative for many years.
. . .
Entrepreneurs have a proven track record of job creation, especially in the early years of their firms. Eliminating or lowering the economic and regulatory hurdles that stand in the way of their success will pave the way for sustained expansion after the government’s current stimulus measures come to their inevitable end.

For the full commentary, see:
CARL SCHRAMM, ROBERT LITAN AND DANE STANGLER. “New Business, Not Small Business, Is What Creates Jobs; Nearly all net job creation since 1980 occurred in firms less than five years old.” The Wall Street Journal (Fri., NOVEMBER 6, 2009): A25.
(Note: ellipsis added.)

Fat-Tailed Distributions Seldom Used “Because the Math Was So Unwieldy”

Source of cartoon: online version of the WSJ article quoted and cited below.

(p. C1) Last year, a typical investment portfolio of 60% stocks and 40% bonds lost roughly a fifth of its value. Standard portfolio-construction tools assume that will happen only once every 111 years.

With once-in-a-century floods seemingly occurring every few years, financial-services firms ranging from J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. to MSCI Inc.’s MSCI Barra are concocting new ways to protect investors from such steep losses. The shift comes from increasing recognition that conventional assumptions about market behavior are off the mark, substantially underestimating risk.
. . .
(p. C9) Many of Wall Street’s new tools assume market returns fall along a “fat-tailed” distribution, where, say, last year’s nearly 40% stock-market decline would be more common than previously thought.
Fat-tailed distributions are nothing new. Mathematician Benoit Mandelbrot recognized their relevance to finance in the 1960s. But they were never widely used in portfolio-building tools, partly because the math was so unwieldy.

For the full story, see:
ELEANOR LAISE. “Some Funds Stop Grading on the Curve.” The Wall Street Journal (Tues., SEPTEMBER 8, 2009): C1 & C9.
(Note: ellipsis added.)

Stimulus Recipients “Have Strong Incentives to Inflate Their Reported Numbers”

(p. A19) After reporting GDP, the government released new numbers claiming that the stimulus programs have “created or saved” over a million jobs. These data were collected from responses by government agencies that received federal funds under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Agencies were required to report “an estimate of the number of jobs created and the number of jobs retained by the project or activity.” This report is required of all recipients (generally private contractors) of agency funds.

Unfortunately, these data are not reliable indicators of job creation nor of the even vaguer notion of job retention. There are two major problems. The first and most obvious is reporting bias. Recipients have strong incentives to inflate their reported numbers. In a race for federal dollars, contractors may assume that the programs that show the most job creation may be favored by the government when it allocates additional stimulus funds.
No dishonesty on the part of recipients is implied or required. But when a hire conceivably can be classified as resulting from the stimulus money, recipients have every incentive to classify the hire as such. Classification as stimulus-induced is even more likely if a respondent must only say that, except for the money, an employee would have been fired. In this case, no hiring need occur at all.
. . .
Net labor market figures do exist. Administrations have always been held to the time-tested and well-understood monthly job numbers put out by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which reports the unemployment rate and the net job gain or loss for the economy as a whole. It is important to use reliable, accurate and well-understood numbers to determine the true causes of recovery. The unemployment rate, now at 9.8%, has continued to rise, and job losses have remained at high levels throughout the stimulus period. Few will be comforted by the good-news-only claim that the stimulus “created or saved” over one million jobs.

For the full commentary, see:
EDWARD P. LAZEAR. “Stimulus and the Jobless Recovery; Jobs ‘created or saved’ is meaningless. What matters is net job gain or loss, and that means the unemployment rate.” The Wall Street Journal (Mon., NOVEMBER 2, 2009): A19.
(Note: ellipsis added.)
(Note: the online version of the article was dated Nov. 1st.)

World Trade Barriers Are Increasing

The small dark blue squares indicate the “number of nations that have imposed protectionist measures on each country” and the light blue squares indicate the “number of measures imposed on each category of goods.” Source of quotations in caption and of graph: online version of the WSJ article quoted and cited below.

(p. A5) BRUSSELS — This weekend’s U.S.-China trade skirmish is just the tip of a coming protectionist iceberg, according to a report released Monday by Global Trade Alert, a team of trade analysts backed by independent think tanks, the World Bank and the U.K. government.
A report by the World Trade Organization, backed by its 153 members and also released Monday, found “slippage” in promises to abstain from protectionism, but drew less dramatic conclusions.
Governments have planned 130 protectionist measures that have yet to be implemented, according to the GTA’s research. These include state aid funds, higher tariffs, immigration restrictions and export subsidies.
. . .
According to the GTA report, the number of discriminatory trade laws outnumbers liberalizing trade laws by six to one. Governments are applying protectionist measures at the rate of 60 per quarter. More than 90% of goods traded in the world have been affected by some sort of protectionist measure.

For the full story, see:
JOHN W. MILLER. “Protectionist Measures Expected to Rise, Report Warns.” The Wall Street Journal (Tues., SEPTEMBER 15, 2009): A5.
(Note: ellipsis added.)

European Central Bank (ECB) Warns that Cash-for-Clunkers “May Delay Necessary Structural Change”

(p. A9) Cash-for-clunkers programs have no lasting economic benefit and could even lead to a “substantial weakening” in euro-zone automobile sales next year, the European Central Bank said.

The findings, though far from original, amount to an official slap on the wrist to European governments including those of Germany, France and Spain that rolled out the popular programs to stoke demand in their auto sectors at the height of the financial crisis.
. . .
Such incentive measures should be applied “with caution,” the ECB said, “as they may hamper the efficiency of the functioning of a free-market economy and may delay necessary structural change, thereby undermining overall income and employment prospects in the longer term.”

For the full story, see:
BRIAN BLACKSTONE. “Clunker Plans Are Risky Route, Central Bank Says.” The Wall Street Journal (Fri., OCTOBER 16, 2009): A9.
(Note: ellipsis added.)

Federal “Stimulus” Money Delays Omaha Road Work

“Work has been put on hold for this stretch of 132nd Street between Blondo Street and West Maple Road. Omaha officials say the stimulus funds will be worth the wait, but some nearby residents are upset about the slowdown.” Source of caption and photo: online version of the Omaha World-Herald article quoted and cited below.

We live near the still-two-lane stretch of 132nd pictured above, and were happy to read in the Omaha World-Herald early last spring that the city would be finishing the widening of 132nd, by widening the above stretch during the summer of 2009. As the summer progressed and widening did not, we became more and more puzzled.
Well, after you read the passages quoted below, you will ‘know the rest of the story’ as Paul Harvey used to say:

(p. 1A) The federal stimulus program, which was designed to accelerate roads projects around the country, instead put the brakes on widening a major Omaha thoroughfare.

The chance to grab $3.5 million in stimulus funds was worth delaying a widening project along 132nd Street between West Maple Road and Blondo Street, Omaha officials decided.
Work was supposed to begin last summer. Now the project between the Champions and Eagle Run golf courses won’t begin until next spring.
Preliminary work was begun in March, when utility lines were moved out of the way. Part of the street was closed for that work.
Area residents expected more crews to start work during the summer.
When nothing happened for months, a handful of residents in the nearby Sunridge neighborhood called the city. They com-(p. A2)plained that digging from the utility work was causing mud and rainwater to pool near the subdivision’s entrances off 132nd Street.
Resident Mary Ellen Pollard was surprised to find out that the widening work had been put on hold because of the stimulus program.
“I thought that stimulus package was for projects that were ready to go,” she said Monday. “If it was ready to go, why didn’t they proceed with it? . . . The barricades are up. Let’s go get it done.”
Plans change, public works officials said.
Meeting federal stimulus guidelines for environmental studies on the 132nd Street project, plus other planning and documentation requirements, took several months, City Engineer Charlie Krajicek said.
“We expected to have some work going this year, but it just didn’t work out,” he said.

For the full story, see:
Tom Shaw. “Stimulus slows 132nd St. work.” Omaha World-Herald (Tuesday October 6, 2009): 1A-2A.
(Note: the online version of the article is dated Weds., October 7 and has the slightly expanded title: “Stimulus Watch: Program slows 132nd St. work.”)
(Note: ellipsis in original.)

Source of map: online version of the Omaha World-Herald article quoted and cited above.