
![]() |
||
|
|
![]() |
|

« Third Bank of the United States? | Main | Presidential futures market after debate »
The news is gloomy, but I wonder if it adds up to a turning point in containing the global credit crunch. But this is only in the sense of preventing a systemic collapse and bringing liquidity back to the markets. The global recession will get worse.
First, central banks around the world are now truly coordinating their actions. Most importantly, the European Central Bank is acting in concert with its peers around the world rather than putting out increasingly other worldy statements about fears of inflation. Deflation is the far bigger risk today with asset prices imploding than inflation.
The bailout bill has been passed. The Fed and the Treasury are supporting both money market mutal funds and commercial paper.
An anecdote: A Hispanic immigrant family here in the Twin Cities bought a home a few years ago. Like many Hispanic families, soem family members are legal and some illegal. A few have returned to Mexico, and the remaining occupant coulnd't keep up the mortgage. She called the bank, apologized, and told them she couldn't keep making the payments. The bank said we'll work with you. She said, I really don't make enough to pay the mortgage. The bank's response: No, you don't understand. We want you to stay in the house. We will work out a deal. I think the bank's have finally figured out that foreclosed homes drive down home values, which leads to more foreclosed homes, which further drives down home values, and so on. It has taken too long but my guess is that a lot more will follow the lead of Bank of America and cut down the mortgage.
In a depressing story about the current state of the home market, the Wall Street Journal has this important statistic:
On a national basis, home prices peaked in mid-2006 after rising 86% since January 2000, according to the First American index. Since peaking, that index has fallen 13%.
The declines have made homes more affordable, bringing prices in many areas closer to their long-term relationship to incomes. In the second quarter, the median home price of about $203,000 was 1.9 times average pretax household income, according to Economy.com. That was close to 1.87 times income for 1985 through 2000, prior to the housing boom.
The housing market could start attracting buyers with numbers like that.
A financial crisis doesn't stop immediately. The recession will be deep and long, and the recovery anemic. But we may be at or near bottom when it comes to "the worst financial crisis since the great depression." Let's hope so.
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ||||||
| 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
| 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
| 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 |
| 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 |


Comments (1)
October 10, 2008 8:22 AM
I have a few questions for you on what I find to be some perplexing issues. First and foremost, I do not understand why finance companies are not lending. It seems to me that lending is finance. If they are not lending then what function do they have? An investment bank, it would seem, invests in a variety of enterprises in expectation of a profitable return. They don’t make cars. They don’t make hamburgers. They don’t repair appliances or install plumbing. They take money in and lend it out. So if they were not lending money anyway then why would we miss them if they were gone? Why would we give them 700B to lend when we could lend it ourselves, pocket the return ourselves. I do not believe that these finance companies will continue not to lend. I have heard that people cannot buy cars because they cannot get financing. What are GMAC, Ford Motor Credit and Chrysler Acceptance Corp. going to do if they are not going to lend money for auto purchases? What part of those corporations doesn’t understand that they need to sell cars to make the whole thing work? Besides, there are still companies that will lend money. They may not have the size of resources of the Lehmans, J.P. Morgans, Barclays et.al. but they are not in trouble and they will lend money because it is their charter. They are non-profit credit associations also known as Credit Unions. It seems to me that we are being blackmailed into shelling out for these companies when we have other alternatives. That is my first issue.
My second issue is that I don’t understand where that money is coming from and where it is going. If the government is getting it by borrowing it from future revenues then the money is currently out in the market making revenue to pay off this loan in the future. If it is out in the market now, then it is or has recently been in and out of the coffers of these same companies as it transfers through the economy. So how does the economy benefit by taking money that these companies have already and giving it back to them? How does that increase liquidity in any way? How does any one believe that this plan is going to have any effect at all unless they can infuse actual “new funds” into the system? I do not follow any logic here. Is there any logic here?