Roubini & Obama On Bank Nationalisation

Nouriel Roubini's View:

So why is the US government temporizing and avoiding doing the right thing, i.e. take over the insolvent banks? There are two reasons. First, there is still some small hope and a small probability that the economy will recover sooner than expected, that expected credit losses will be smaller than expected and that the current approach of recapping the banks and somehow working out the bad assets will work in due time. Second, taking over the banks – call is nationalization or, in a more politically correct way, “receivership” – is a radical action that requires most banks be clearly beyond pale and insolvent to be undertaken. Today Citi and Bank of America clearly look like near-insolvent and ready to be taken over but JPMorgan and Wells Fargo do not yet. But with the sharp rise in delinquencies and charge-off rates that we are experiencing now on mortgages, commercial real estate and consumer credit in a matter of six to twelve months even JPMorgan and Wells will likely look as near-insolvent …

…So while Plan A is now underway today’s very negative market response to this Treasury plan suggest that it will not fly. Markets were expecting a more clear plan but also a plan that would bail out shareholders and creditors of insolvent banks. Unfortunately that is not politically and fiscally feasible. It is thus time to start to think and plan ahead for for Plan N (“nationalization” of insolvent banks).

-----------------------------------------

Obama's View:

TERRY MORAN: There are a lot of economists who look at these banks and they say all that garbage that's in them renders them essentially insolvent. Why not just nationalize the banks?

PRESIDENT OBAMA:Well, you know, it's interesting. There are two countries who have gone through some big financial crises over the last decade or two. One was Japan, which never really acknowledged the scale and magnitude of the problems in their banking system and that resulted in what's called "The Lost Decade." They kept on trying to paper over the problems. The markets sort of stayed up because the Japanese government kept on pumping money in. But, eventually, nothing happened and they didn't see any growth whatsoever.

Sweden, on the other hand, had a problem like this. They took over the banks, nationalized them, got rid of the bad assets, resold the banks and, a couple years later, they were going again. So you'd think looking at it, Sweden looks like a good model. Here's the problem; Sweden had like five banks. [LAUGHS] We've got thousands of banks. You know, the scale of the U.S. economy and the capital markets are so vast and the problems in terms of managing and overseeing anything of that scale, I think, would -- our assessment was that it wouldn't make sense. And we also have different traditions in this country.

Obviously, Sweden has a different set of cultures in terms of how the government relates to markets and America's different. And we want to retain a strong sense of that private capital fulfilling the core -- core investment needs of this country.

And so, what we've tried to do is to apply some of the tough love that's going to be necessary, but do it in a way that's also recognizing we've got big private capital markets and ultimately that's going to be the key to getting credit flowing again.

p/s photo: Tavia Yeung Yi

Critics Of The Stimulus Plan

Its often been said that you cannot please everyone. Having watched CNBC, I can finally confirm that they have too many Republicans on the show as anchors. I am not saying that Obama's stimulus plan is perfect, far from it, but it is never going to please the majority because there are not just two sides to the stimulus plan. There are many sides you can take. If you put the top 10 economists into a room to debate the plan, I would bet that there would be 11 views.

I also think I have to put a strong protective layer on my TV screen as I am very very close to throwing things at my TV everytime Gasparino or Kudlow speak.

We have to appreciate that beneath our views and opinions on the stimulus plan are our very unique assumptions of what will work and where our inherent priorities and biases lie. Safe to say that most people who like to say things on business channels will have a view, and believe that their understanding of economics are the appropriate school of thought.

It is easy to bash the plan if you are a conservative, hence you are unlikely to find favourable articles reading Wall Street Journal. Not calling everyone is wrong but that we all need a broader context to appreciate the enormity of the task at hand. My words in purple below.

WSJ: There's $1 billion for Amtrak, the federal railroad that hasn't turned a profit in 40 years; $2 billion for child-care subsidies; $50 million for that great engine of job creation, the National Endowment for the Arts; $400 million for global-warming research and another $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects. There's even $650 million on top of the billions already doled out to pay for digital TV conversion coupons.( OK, the Amtrak thing and Arts facility are a bit silly but the child subsidies sounds ok for those who require them in times like these. The global warming and carbon capture are ok as part and parcel for the US to further their advancement in cutting edge arena - the US not only need to boost employment but also invest for the long term to boost their competitive advantage in technology and other cutting edge industries).

In selling the plan, President Obama has said this bill will make "dramatic investments to revive our flagging economy." Well, you be the judge. Some $30 billion, or less than 5% of the spending in the bill, is for fixing bridges or other highway projects. There's another $40 billion for broadband and electric grid development, airports and clean water projects that are arguably worthwhile priorities. (Both are essentials, although one can argue for a greater deployment for infrastructure). Add the roughly $20 billion for business tax cuts, and by our estimate only $90 billion out of $825 billion, or about 12 cents of every $1, is for something that can plausibly be considered a growth stimulus. And even many of these projects aren't likely to help the economy immediately. (That's the bone of contention for most critics, that only 12% of actual plan is for actual stimulus. If thats the basis for judging the stimulus plan, then its a short sighted view as what brought the US to its knees is the lack of savings, lack of proper regulation, voracious appetite for debt... the plan needs to address the future as well, if not, then even after recovery the US will be left behind in many cutting edge industries, and investing in broadband, education, science are necessary to go hand in hand with jobs creation in order to sustain a more competitive USA of the future).

Most of the rest of this project spending will go to such things as renewable energy funding ($8 billion) or mass transit ($6 billion) that have a low or negative return on investment. Most urban transit systems are so badly managed that their fares cover less than half of their costs. However, the people who operate these systems belong to public-employee unions that are campaign contributors to . . . guess which party? Here's another lu-lu: Congress wants to spend $600 million more for the federal government to buy new cars. Uncle Sam already spends $3 billion a year on its fleet of 600,000 vehicles. Congress also wants to spend $7 billion for modernizing federal buildings and facilities. The Smithsonian is targeted to receive $150 million; we love the Smithsonian, too, but this is a job creator? (OK, the Smithsonian is not necessary but please, look at the bigger picture, its only $150m, same with cars, its $600m... if you guys want to get bogged down in small stuffs you will be missing the bigger picture. As for renewable energy and mass transit, these low yielding investments are necessary as backbone for business and seeking alternative energy sources.)

Another "stimulus" secret is that some $252 billion is for income-transfer payments -- that is, not investments that arguably help everyone, but cash or benefits to individuals for doing nothing at all. There's $81 billion for Medicaid, $36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits, $20 billion for food stamps, and $83 billion for the earned income credit for people who don't pay income tax. While some of that may be justified to help poorer Americans ride out the recession, they aren't job creators. (This is where the Republicans come out whingeing ... you need safety nets strengthened during difficult times. Its not a yes/no question for the stimulus, and as conservatives you would shy away from supporting these measures, but they are not wrong or bad, just what you believe in and what is fair).

As for the promise of accountability, some $54 billion will go to federal programs that the Office of Management and Budget or the Government Accountability Office have already criticized as "ineffective" or unable to pass basic financial audits. These include the Economic Development Administration, the Small Business Administration, the 10 federal job training programs, and many more. (Obama has already promised for more oversight and accountability. The ineffectiveness of these institutions has more to do with the previous government or rather the Republicans, so shut up... I guess if I was American I would be a Democrat).

Oh, and don't forget education, which would get $66 billion more. That's more than the entire Education Department spent a mere 10 years ago and is on top of the doubling under President Bush. Some $6 billion of this will subsidize university building projects. If you think the intention here is to help kids learn, the House declares on page 257 that "No recipient . . . shall use such funds to provide financial assistance to students to attend private elementary or secondary schools." Horrors: Some money might go to nonunion teachers. (I don't see the issue here, you need to invest in education. God knows how far behind the US is lagging behind many other countries. So what if some of it goes to teachers, you want better teachers, and people who are properly incentivised).

The larger fiscal issue here is whether this spending bonanza will become part of the annual "budget baseline" that Congress uses as the new floor when calculating how much to increase spending the following year, and into the future. Democrats insist that it will not. But it's hard -- no, impossible -- to believe that Congress will cut spending next year on any of these programs from their new, higher levels. The likelihood is that this allegedly emergency spending will become a permanent addition to federal outlays -- increasing pressure for tax increases in the bargain. Any Blue Dog Democrat who votes for this ought to turn in his "deficit hawk" credentials.

This is supposed to be a new era of bipartisanship, but this bill was written based on the wish list of every living -- or dead -- Democratic interest group. As Speaker Nancy Pelosi put it, "We won the election. We wrote the bill." So they did. Republicans should let them take all of the credit.

(Well, to all the conservatives, I know one thing the Republicans won't do if they were in office... they wouldn't freeze their own pay. Let the change begin, let they guy do something, you buggers had your chance, in fact, you buggers fucked it up royally during the last administration).

p/s photo: Noon Wongsawan

Obama's Shrewd Strategic Move

Wall Street Journal / WASHINGTON -- Facing growing criticism of his economic recovery plan, President-elect Barack Obama made public Saturday a detailed analysis by his economic advisers that estimates the $775 billion plan of tax cuts and new spending would create 3.5 million jobs over the next two years.

With an eye on Mr. Obama having immediate access to bailout money already approved by Congress when he becomes president, his economic team and the Bush administration have discussed having Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson ask lawmakers for access to the $350 billion remaining in the fund.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said the administration hasn't decided whether to make such a request, which would be made within the next week. Under the terms of the legislation creating the fund, Congress would have 15 days to reject the request.

The Obama transition team also has asked Neel Kashkari, the head of the rescue program at the Treasury Department, to remain in that position for a short time after the inauguration to help assure a smooth transition, according to an Obama official.

The 14-page analysis of Mr. Obama's $775 billion plan, which was posted on the Internet, concedes that the estimates are "subject to significant margins of error," both because of the assumptions that went into their economic models and because no one knows the final outlines of the package that will emerge from Congress.

"These numbers are a stark reminder that we simply cannot continue on our current path," Mr. Obama said in his weekly radio and YouTube broadcast address.

"If nothing is done, economists from across the spectrum tell us that this recession could linger for years and the unemployment rate could reach double digits -- and they warn that our nation could lose the competitive edge that has served as a foundation for our strength and standing in the world," he said.

Mr. Obama, who previously has provided few details of the massive spending and tax cut plan, released the report one day after the unemployment rate jumped to 7.2 percent, the highest in 16 years. The nation lost 524,000 jobs in December, bringing the total job loss for last year to 2.6 million, the largest since World War II.

If Congress fails to enact a big economic stimulus plan, Mr. Obama's advisers estimated that another 3 million to 4 million jobs will disappear before the recession ends.

As lawmaker criticisms of parts of his plan grew during the week, Mr. Obama agreed Friday to modest changes in his proposed tax cuts. Democratic congressional officials said his aides came under pressure in closed-door talks to jettison or significantly alter a proposed tax credit for creating jobs, and to include relief for upper middle-class families hit by the alternative minimum tax.

The new report is likely to intensify debate over the economic recovery plan even more, as economists outside the Obama team begin delving into the analysis. The report, for example, estimates that the unemployment rate at the end of 2010 would be 1.8 percentage points lower if the plan is enacted.

Top Democrats on Capitol Hill say there is far more agreement than disagreement on the major parts of the recovery plan: aid to cash-strapped state governments, $500-$1,000 tax cuts for most workers and working couples, and a huge spending package blending old fashioned public works projects with aid to the poor and unemployed and a variety of other initiatives.

The new report provides detailed breakdowns of how many jobs each part of the plan would create, even going so far as to provide estimates that more than 40% of the new jobs would go to women and that 90% of them would be created in the private sector. It also provides estimates of how many new jobs would be created in each different sector of the economy.

"It's not too late to change course -- but only if we take immediate and dramatic action," Mr. Obama said. "Our first job is to put people back to work and get our economy working again."

Comments: Everyone can get access to the detail analysis by Obama's proposed job plan. While many will be pondering on the details, one should not miss the strategic move by Obama. Its quite brilliant really. Knowing full well that the Republicans will make it tough on Obama to pass his plan, by making the plan public, the pressure will be back on the Republicans. Not many will now want to openly oppose the plan or shrink it. The key phrases "3.5m jobs" will stick in the public's minds. The report is 14 pages long and the brilliant strategic move by Obama's team to reveal it to the public will go a long way to ensuring a smoother passage. The equity markets are now riding on the plan. The sooner it is approved and implemented, the better.

p/s photo: Fiona Xie

Roubini Likes Something

NEWSWEEK: What are your thoughts on the team Obama assembled?

Nouriel Roubini: The choices are excellent. Tim Geithner is going to be a pragmatic, thoughtful and great leader for the Treasury. He has experience at the Treasury and the IMF [International Monetary Fund], then the New York Fed. I have great respect for both Geithner as well as Larry Summers. I think both of them in top roles in economics in the administration were good moves. I think very highly of them both.

What are the first things they need to tackle?
R: First one is the fiscal stimulus, because the troubled economy is in a freefall, so we really need to boost aggregate demand, and the sooner and larger the better. The second thing they should do is recapitalize the financial system. Most of the $700 billion is going to be used to recapitalize banks, broker dealers, finance companies and insurance companies. To do it aggressively and fast is going to be important.

The plan Obama has talked about includes spending on infrastructure and energy development to create jobs. How likely is that to produce long-term aid to the economy?
R: We need to do it because demand and spending and housing are literally collapsing. That will get a boost from public-sector spending: [spending on] infrastructure, unemployment benefits, state and local government aid, more food stamps. We're going to have to think larger, but I don't think you can pass most of it until January when [Obama] comes to power. We're going to have to wait, because nothing seems possible for the time being. But I expect most of his plans towill pass once the new administration is in power.

Obama is largely powerless for the next two months. What's your outlook from now through January?
R: The lame-duck session of Congress really needs to spend on unemployment benefits, aid to save the local governments and on food stamps. Those things are very short-run and are very important. It's really the most we can do for now.

Your view of the economic future is often a bit less than optimistic. What does Obama's team signal about what could be coming?
R: Look, he wants to get things done, so he's choosing a really terrific team. To me, it says that he's choosing people who have great experience. He's choosing people who are pragmatic and who realize the severity of the national problem we're facing. They're knowledgeable about markets, about the economy and the political process in Washington. These are the very best people he could have chosen. I can't look too far, but it's a very good signal of what he wants to do.

A few additional caveats on this interview, according to Roubini:

First, I told the Newsweek reporter – as full disclosure – that I had worked for Tim Geithner and Larry Summers when they were both at Treasury: I was head of a Treasury Office and the Senior Advisor to Tim Geithner in 1999-2000 who was at that time the Under Secretary for International Affairs while Larry Summers was Treasury Secretary. So some may that my positive views of the two may be biased/tinted by my working for them; on the other hand I know first hand about them and I have the greatest respect for their skills, intelligence, expertise, commitment to sound public policy and policy wisdom even if I may not always agree with all of their views.

Second, I have also to add that – as I argued in an interview with CNBC Monday morning - while I have the greatest respect for the new Obama economic team, they will inherit a huge economic and financial mess that will be extremely hard to fix even if they were to implement the most sound and consistent economic and financial policy package. This is going to be the worst US recession in decades as the strapped US consumer is now faltering. The recession train and the financial crisis train have left the station. What policy can do – at best – is to minimize the financial and economic losses and limit the extent and severity and length of the economic and financial crisis, not to prevent it.

President Elect Obama and his top notch team will inherit two wars and the worst economic and financial crisis in decades. So expect very difficult times ahead for the economy and for financial markets regardless of the best effort of Obama’s excellent economic team in trying to address these problems. Even a massive fiscal stimulus, a more rapid and coherent plan to recapitalize financial institutions and resolve the credit crunch, an aggressive plan to reduce the debt burden of insolvent household, and more aggressive and radical set of unorthodox monetary policies will not prevent a global stag-deflation in 2009 and possibly longer.

p/s photos: Kou Shibasaki

Buffett Likes The Mess The US Is In

SMH: Warren Buffett, the world's richest man in the Forbes magazine list, said in a newspaper commentary yesterday that he is buying US stocks even though the American economy is in a "mess".

Mr Buffett, 78, who became known as the Oracle of Omaha because of his fortune-building skills, said he has been buying into US companies even as "fear spreads".

"The financial world is a mess, both in the United States and abroad. Its problems, moreover, have been leaking into the general economy and the leaks are now turning into a gusher," the head of the Berkshire Hathaway Inc conglomerate wrote in The New York Times.

"In the near term, unemployment will rise, business activity will falter and headlines will continue to be scary.

"I've been buying American stocks. This is my personal account I'm talking about, in which I previously owned nothing but United States government bonds. (This description leaves aside my Berkshire Hathaway holdings, which are all committed to philanthropy). If prices keep looking attractive, my non-Berkshire net worth will soon be 100 per cent in United States equities."

The reason, he said, is a key maxim in his outlook: "A simple rule dictates my buying: be fearful when others are greedy and be greedy when others are fearful.

"Most certainly, fear is now widespread, gripping even seasoned investors. But fears regarding the long-term prosperity of the nation's many sound companies make no sense," Mr Buffett said.

"These businesses will indeed suffer earnings hiccups, as they always have. But most major companies will be setting new profit records five, 10 and 20 years from now."

Mr Buffett stressed he could not predict how the market would ride out its roller-coaster days in the short-term. "What is likely, however, is that the market will move higher, perhaps substantially so, well before either sentiment or the economy turns up."

Mr Buffett has supported Democrat Barack Obama in the race for the White House, but both Senator Obama and his Republican rival, John McCain, say they agree he would make a good treasury secretary.

Mr Buffett, who is noted for his personal frugality despite his huge fortune, has said in the past he believes the financial markets should be more tightly regulated.

Forbes's annual wealth list published in March, shows Mr Buffett's wealth jumped from $US52 billion ($75 billion) last year to $US62 billion, pushing Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates out of first place.

p/s photos: Angelica Lee Sin Je (this is what I meant by Malaysian girls' sweetness and unassuming beauty)