We economists knew since beginning of the year or at the end of 2008 that the 2nd wave of foreclosures and economic shocks will be on or around July/August... no later than 2009 3Q.

Even we junior economists with only Master's degree were talking about it over our beer in next door pub that the US economy will experience shocks from:

1) Lagged influence of layoffs on consumption and mortgage payments
2) Credit card debts (mixed with consumption habits of an average Americans)
3) Speculations on commodities

and of course, the multiplied effects of all.

Last month, the chairman of Wells Fargo also admitted that he expects the US economy to hit the rock bottom in 2009 4Q in an informal private meeting (never appeared in public).

The more important thing is all the economists like us already knew this months and months ago,
so I have already minimized my losses in my 401K and actually have gained on my fund allocations.

But if I read news these days, I am surprised by innocence and how dumb a number of investors are to speculate on oil prices and go crazy on small day to day changes in economic indicators.

I didn't know anything about supply and demand until 4 years ago for god's sake, and these investors should have much more experience than I do and much more knowledge. But apparently their panic is not hard to notice on NYTimes and WSJ on my iPhone.

Even on the oil prices, it's a text book material to invest in commodities when the economy is in trough,
but the thing is we are clearly still going down until now as recent unemployment figures have shown.

Also, those 3 factors mentioned are somewhat textbook material already.

A common knowledge that even an infant investor knows despite lack of any technical knowledge is that markets always go through two peaks or equivalently two troughs. As the US economy is still in recession, and there has been only one trough, another trough is expected and even we junior economists already knew that the shock should hit the US economy on 2009 3Q, given how the credit card cycles, recent consumption, and labor statistics behave. It should be almost a common knowledge who has taken more than 3 economics courses in college, yet those investors are making just grave mistakes over and over again.

Recently, Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch (now Bank of America) received accolades because their performances were improved because they focused on the basics of investment banking - as an underwriter and broker instead of all the crazy things they did in recent years. Accolades for going back to basics!!! Applauded!!!

But apparently there are still so many dumb crazy investors who do not know any basics (or clearly have forgotten) and keep on speculating and thus hurt the market in general, which could exacerbate the current economy.

Again, those dumb people are so useless and even harmful for good and/or smarter people. 
Posted by 【洪】ILHONG
,

A sinking feeling in South Korea

By Louise Lucas, Song Jung-a and Raphael Minder

Published: October 13 2008 19:46 | Last updated: October 13 2008 19:46

ship building Korea
Lowered expectations? A vessel under construction at the STX yard in Jinhae. South Korea is the world leader in shipbuilding but an economy reliant on exports is vulnerable to a fall in demand Bloomberg

  

The global credit crisis is washing up on Asia’s shores. The region, having been through its own devastating financial crisis in 1997-98, remembers many of the lessons that others forgot. By and large, Asia today is a continent of current account surpluses, well-capitalised banks and modestly leveraged balance sheets.

But fault-lines exist. South Korea, which was bailed out by the International Monetary Fund in 1997, has seen its currency plunge to a 10-year low amid a scramble for dollars.

Politicians and the private sector are rallying round. Kang Man-soo, finance minister, is taking his plea for dollars to Wall Street, where he is due to meet executives of banks such as Citigroup and Morgan Stanley. Posco, the steel maker, said last week it would sell $1bn (€730m, €570m) of bonds overseas as part of efforts to stabilise the won. Employees at Kyunggi NongHyup, a farmers’ bank in greater Seoul, are hunting down dollars so that they can open deposit accounts at the lender – and provide it with foreign funding. The employee who hauls in the most dollars will win a prize.

Lest anyone miss the point that one of the world’s most successful exporting nations is in a bind, Mr Kang recently told a parliamentary session that “apart from exports, everything – including investment, consumption, employment and the current account balance – is showing a trend similar to that seen during the [Asian crisis]”.

EDUCATION REMITTANCES:

‘The amount I need to send is growing’

South Korea’s tumbling currency has brought sleepless nights for Kim Seung-ki, a technology analyst at a Seoul securities house and one of the thousands of kirogi appa, the “geese fathers” who fund their families’ overseas schooling, writes Song Jung-a

Every month Mr Kim changes an ever bigger chunk of his won-denominated salary into dollars, which he duly remits to his wife and two children who migrated to Canada for the young Kims’ education.

“The amount that I have to send them is getting bigger, adding more financial burden. And I am afraid the situation will get worse,” he laments.

More Koreans have been choosing this split existence, as parents and children alike despair of a gruelling school system based on rote learning.

The trend started in the rich districts of southern Seoul but has spread across the country, with many middle-class families joining the trend despite the personal sacrifices and financial costs involved.

Koreans form the largest group of foreign students in the US, with about 73,000 studying there. The number has been growing rapidly, with an American education increasingly seen as a ticket to success in Korea.

The US is the prime destination but cheaper countries such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand are becoming popular alternatives. Last year, nearly 218,000 Koreans were studying at overseas universities and graduate schools, up 36 per cent from four years ago. But the number of children attending school abroad, at around 30,000, has jumped 80 per cent over a similar period.

Although South Koreans are increasingly becoming global consumers of higher educational services, the tumbling won may put a brake on the trend as parents start to feel the pinch. The won has plunged about 24 per cent so far this year to its lowest level in a decade, reminding many South Koreans of the 1997-98 financial crisis, in which the value of the local currency halved. At that time, many parents brought children studying abroad back home, unable to meet the cost.

“I still don’t want to bring them back, although it is getting more difficult,” says Mr Kim. “But I may have to if the situation gets worse.

South Korea’s problems look scarily familiar. Like the US, its consumers and companies have taken on too much debt. Like banks in the US and UK, Korean lenders rely on wholesale markets for funding – and with global credit markets clammed up, they are left in the same position: between a rock and a hard place.

South Korea has some $175bn in external short-term debt that has to be rolled over by the end of next June. Of this, perhaps $80bn relates to foreign banks’ onshore branches and can be deducted (on the assumption that the banks’ head offices will make dollars available). It is the balance that has Korean policymakers sweating at night – and which lies behind the pleas for access to dollar credit lines.

In a worst-case scenario, Korea’s foreign exchange trove of $240bn could be deployed. But what makes the position of Korean banks especially precarious is that domestic liquidity too is ebbing. The widening spread between banks’ funding rates and policy rates shows that risk aversion exists on home turf as well.

Lee Myung-bak

Hence, perhaps, the appeal to grassroots patriotism. Last week, President Lee Myung-bak (right) lambasted Koreans for not helping stem the won’s tumble. “Some businesses and individuals seem to think they can get rich quickly by hoarding dollars,” he said. “But individual greed should be put aside in times of national crisis.”

Individual greed was put aside in spades in the last crisis, when housewives brought necklaces and wedding rings to be melted down in order to repay foreign debt. This time, that may not be possible. Korean consumers tend to have more debts than baubles, a result of a push into home ownership. Indeed, levels of indebtedness in Korea are enough to make the average American blush: private sector debt stands at 180 per cent of gross domestic product.

Reliance on overseas markets has increased too. Banks rake in 12 per cent of their funding from overseas, according to Moody’s Investors Service. Wholesale markets are more important than in most of the rest of Asia, where banks generally have far more deposits than they can lend on to borrowers. In Korea, by contrast, the loan-to-deposit ratio is about 124 per cent. For the big four banks, adjusted loan-to-deposit ratios rose to 150-180 per cent in the second quarter, according to Moody’s. The rating agency changed its outlook on the four to negative this month.

“The liquidity squeeze is serious, and an obvious concern is that it may evolve into an issue of solvency,” says James McCormack, head of Asia-Pacific sovereign ratings at Fitch Ratings.

Elsewhere on the checklist for vulnerability, South Korea ticks several boxes. It has high external debt. Short- and long-term borrowing totals $400bn, above the levels at the time of the last crisis both in nominal terms and as a percentage of GDP.

The current account balance has teetered into the red, for the first time since the crisis of 1997-98. Portfolio capital flows into the country are susceptible to swift changes of direction – foreigners have been net sellers of the stock market in each of the past four years, for example. The economy, which Mr Lee pledged would grow by 7 per cent a year, is instead decelerating sharply and is this year expected to expand by a modest 4.7 per cent.

Arguably, this time around, Korea could be seen as a victim of its own success. On a macroeconomic level, a country that derives 40 per cent of its GDP from exports will now have to cope with dwindling western demand for its products. Companies such as Samsung and LG supply consumers worldwide with goods ranging from computer chips and mobile phones to televisions and fridges. Korea is also the world’s leading shipbuilding nation, with unchallenged expertise in the manufacturing of advanced vessels such as liquefied gas carriers. Hyundai, meanwhile, has built the world’s largest car manufacturing centre in its southern fiefdom of Ulsan, using a dedicated deep-water port to ship out 1m vehicles a year.

Beyond such household names, the country’s small- and medium-sized enterprises are often world leaders in niche markets and have come to play a key role in South Korea’s development. SMEs account for 88 per cent of Korea’s employment, half of its manufacturing output and 32 per cent of its exports.

Knock-on effects

Seoul is to help small and midsize enterprises (SMEs) suffering losses from a currency derivative product called kiko (knock-in knock-out).

Kiko contracts set a predetermined range for the won/dollar exchange rate. So long as the won stays within this range – usually 10 per cent – holders can sell at a specified rate. But if the currency moves beyond that, they take a bigger hit than if no derivative contract were in place.

The government estimates that SMEs chalked up W1,285bn ($1.03bn, £591m, €756m) in losses on the instrument as of the end of August.

Yet this segment is highly vulnerable to a downturn, implying higher unemployment, reduced domestic demand and more bank loans turning bad. “I think Korea will weather this [crisis] but not without some battle wounds,” says Duncan Wooldridge, Asia chief economist at UBS. “I’m much more concerned about the risk of a domestic credit bubble bursting. Many people do not seem to appreciate the risk.”

While the rapidly weakening won should stimulate exports, it again recalls the 1997 crisis and adds to fears about rolling over short-term dollar-denominated debt. It also risks depleting Korea’s formidable foreign currency kitty, the sixth biggest in the world and a key difference between 2008 and 1998, when reserves were a mere $22bn. While the current $240bn gives the Bank of Korea a far bigger buffer, it can still be whittled back – JPMorgan estimates that intervention, on both the spot and futures market, cost $40bn over the past two months.

While the government makes frequent reference to its foreign reserves and insists that the won will stabilise, economists are divided over whether the currency can recover soon, especially in the wake of Korea’s interest rate cut last week.

But it is hard for ordinary Koreans to avoid a sense of panic when the government unveils ever more desperate-sounding measures: on Monday, for example, Mr Lee urged people to ration energy consumption and overseas spending. “If we cut down on energy by 10 per cent, we will not post a current account deficit,” he told radio listeners.

Adding to nervousness is the fact that Koreans have been here before – several times in the past decade. Takahira Ogawa, sovereign analyst at Standard & Poor’s, notes that Korea was among the first Asian economies to recover from the 1997-98 crisis, in part because the government increased the issuance of domestic corporate bonds to companies shut out of international markets. The financial groups accumulating the paper soon ran into difficulties and had to be bailed out by the government.

Still determined to galvanise growth, the government then targeted consumer spending. A cocktail of tax incentives and credit card deregulation prompted a debt-fuelled spending binge – and another burst credit bubble in 2002-03. Hundreds of thousands of Koreans were obliged to file for bankruptcy; several also committed suicide.

The latest slump takes place under the watch of a relatively new, and unpopular, government. “The government has lost its credibility in terms of economic policy, because of its failed handling of currency rates. People don’t seem to trust its policy management capability, which makes the current situation more difficult,” says Huh Chan-gook, a researcher at the Korea Economic Research Institute.

The most immediate concern for Korea, however, is how to unwind the leverage that it has accumulated since the Asian crisis. That will not only be painful for the banks but could also bring the economy to a standstill, given how much of the lending has been handed to SMEs in the form of collateralised loans. Since 60 per cent of these SME loans are supported by government-controlled banks, however, the most likely scenario is a quantum leap in non-performing loans.

Furthermore, while the currency’s fall should normally benefit exporters, it could prove expensive for the many that have taken hedges against currency swings (see above). Two years ago, when the Korean won was steadily appreciating, shipbuilders and others grew worried about the mismatch between rising manufacturing costs and dollar order books stretching for as long as three years. To protect themselves, they bought hedging contracts from banks, which in turn had to go and borrow short-term US currency to offset this additional risk.

For now, Koreans are not running to their banks to withdraw savings and most pundits remain confident that Korea and its banks are sufficiently solid to avoid an Icelandic-style implosion. Some investors, in fact, are already positioning themselves to take advantage of a recovery. Just as it did in the aftermath of the 1998 crisis, when it established its presence in Korea, Oaktree Capital Management, the US private equity fund, is now earmarking $3bn to buy on the cheap once calm returns. “If assets become mispriced, they become more attractive,” says Oaktree’s Asian managing director, Robert Zulkoski.

Alas, if the experience of the west is any guide, it may take some time and angst before that point is reached.









Source: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e32a33d0-9952-11dd-9d48-000077b07658.html

Posted by 【洪】ILHONG
,
September 21, 2008

A Professor and a Banker Bury Old Dogma on Markets

This article was reported by Peter Baker, Stephen Labaton and Eric Lipton and written by Mr. Baker.

WASHINGTON — For the last year, as the nation’s economy lurched from crisis to crisis, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben S. Bernanke, had been warning Henry M. Paulson Jr., the Treasury secretary, that the worsening situation might ultimately force a sweeping federal intervention.

A longtime student of the Great Depression, Mr. Bernanke was acutely aware of what could happen without a decisive move. Finally, the moment that called for action arrived late Wednesday. Less than 24 hours after the Fed bailed out American International Group, the giant insurer, it was clear the turmoil gripping Wall Street was only growing worse and that ad hoc solutions were not working.

Talking into a speaker phone from his ornate office, Mr. Bernanke told Mr. Paulson that it was time to adopt a comprehensive strategy that Congress would have to approve. Mr. Paulson understood. Reluctant in recent days to send Congress a plan that lawmakers had warned had little chance of quick passage, he had worried that a rejection would only further shock the markets. But during two conference calls Wednesday night and Thursday morning, he agreed that they had no choice.

“It just happened dramatically,” Mr. Paulson said in an interview on Friday. “There was only one way that we could reassure the markets and deal with a very significant and broad-based freezing of the credit market. There was no political calculus. It was overwhelmingly obvious.”

Just like that, Mr. Bernanke, the reserved former Ivy League professor, and Mr. Paulson, the hard-charging former Wall Street deal maker, launched what would be the government’s largest economic rescue operation in modern times, one that rivals the Iraq war in cost and at the same time may redefine Washington’s role in the marketplace for years.

The plan to buy $700 billion in troubled assets with taxpayer money was shaped by two men who did not know each other until two years ago and did not travel in the same circles, but now find themselves brought together by history. If Mr. Bernanke is the intellectual force and Mr. Paulson the action man of this unlikely tandem, they have managed to create a nearly seamless partnership as they rush to stop the financial upheaval and keep the economy afloat.

Befitting their roles and personalities, Mr. Paulson has become the public face of their team — he plans to appear on four Sunday talk shows — while the less visible Mr. Bernanke provides the historical underpinnings for their strategy.

Along the way, they have cast aside the administration’s long-held views about regulation and government involvement in private business, even reversing decisions over the space of 24 hours and justifying them as practical solutions to dire threats.

“There are no atheists in foxholes and no ideologues in financial crises,” Mr. Bernanke told colleagues last week, according to one meeting participant.

The improvisational nature of their effort has turned President Bush and Congressional Democrats into virtual bystanders, sometimes uncertain about what comes next and left to wonder about the new power dynamics in the capital. Seemingly every time lawmakers tried to get a handle on what was happening and what role they might play with elections around the corner, Mr. Paulson and Mr. Bernanke would show up again on Capitol Hill for another evening meeting with another surprise development.

The two men have been working early and working late, tracking Asian markets and fielding calls from their European counterparts, then reconnecting with each other by phone eight or nine times a day, talking so often that they speak in shorthand. Mr. Paulson has powered through the long days with a steady infusion of Diet Coke. Asked twice to testify by the Senate last week, he begged off.

“He told me he had like four hours of sleep,” said Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut and chairman of the Banking Committee. But there were limits to Mr. Dodd’s sympathy. “The public wants to know what’s going on,” he said he replied.

Mr. Bernanke (his drink: Diet Dr Pepper) has made a point of leaving the office by midnight to get at least some rest, but friends say the toll on him is clear as well. Alan S. Blinder, a longtime friend and former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve, recalled seeing Mr. Bernanke at a conference last month in Jackson Hole, Wyo. “He looked like he had the weight of the world on his shoulders,” Mr. Blinder said.

And that was before last week.

Mr. Bernanke took office in February 2006 and Mr. Paulson five months later, both Republicans and Bush appointees, yet arriving from starkly different places. Mr. Bernanke, 54, had managed the academic politics of the Princeton economics department, where he served as chairman, by developing a conciliator’s style. Mr. Paulson, 62, rose to the top of Goldman Sachs by pounding the phones, and the occasional table.

“Hank is just the most hyperactive, get-it-done kind of guy who’s always trying to get the problem solved and move on. He’s impatient to fix things,” said Allan B. Hubbard, a former national economic adviser to Mr. Bush. “Ben is much more low-key. He’s very thoughtful. He’s an incredible thinker, listens well, analyzes well and is not intimidated by anyone. It’s probably a great pair.”

While Mr. Bernanke talks in lofty terms and Mr. Paulson speaks in great bursts of Wall Street jock language, the new Washington odd couple bonded in part over baseball. The Treasury secretary is a Chicago Cubs fan and the Fed chairman is a Boston Red Sox fan who has adopted the Washington Nationals and shares season tickets with the White House chief of staff, Joshua B. Bolten.

But neither Mr. Paulson nor Mr. Bernanke has been deeply involved in the political process before. As they try to navigate Washington together, they have surrounded themselves respectively with advisers drawn from Goldman and career professionals at the Fed.

Mr. Paulson initially declined to join the cabinet. He changed his mind only after extensive lobbying by Mr. Bolten, a former Goldman executive, and commitments by Mr. Bush to let him truly run economic policy, unlike his predecessors. The Hammer, as Mr. Paulson has been called since his days on the Dartmouth football squad, brought to Washington his characteristic intensity.

“He is a hurricane. He is used to living in a turbulent world,” said John H. Bryan Jr., a close friend and former chief executive of the Sara Lee Corporation. “He has lived in a world of deadlines, decisions and pressure-packed things.”

Mr. Paulson, a Christian Scientist, does not drink or smoke. Once, at a cocktail party where he was giving a speech, recalled Andrew M. Alper, a former Goldman colleague, Mr. Paulson accidentally took a gulp from a glass of vodka, thinking it was water. His face turned bright red and his eyes were watering for an hour. “He just kept going,” Mr. Alper said. “It did not slow him down.”

Mr. Bernanke has a more obscure nickname, Helicopter Ben, after a speech he gave in 2002 in which he talked about the Fed’s “helicopter drops” of emergency money to keep the system liquid. For Mr. Bernanke, the current crisis is the culmination of a lifetime of figuring how the system works from a theoretical viewpoint.

Mr. Bernanke made clear long ago that he realized he might someday be called on to act on his studies. Vincent R. Reinhart, a former Fed official, said Mr. Bernanke’s research into Japan’s financial crisis in the 1990s reinforced his view that the government had to be aggressive in intervening during market crises.

And at a party he had in 2002 to honor the 90th birthday of Milton Friedman, the famed economist, Mr. Bernanke, then a governor of the Federal Reserve, brought up the mistakes the nation made in the face of the Depression and promised not to repeat them. “We did it,” he said then. “We won’t do it again.”

Mr. Paulson, in the interview Friday, said that Mr. Bernanke had long warned that a moment might come like the one they saw last week.

“Going back a long time, maybe a year ago, Ben, as a world-class economist, said to me, ‘When you look at the housing bubble and the correction, if the price decline was significant enough,’ ” the only solution might be a large-scale government intervention, Mr. Paulson said. “He talked about what had happened when there had been other situations historically.”

Mr. Paulson said he agreed but hoped it would not come to that. “I knew he was right theoretically,” he said. “But I also had, and we both did, some hope that, with all the liquidity out there from investors, that after a certain decline that we would reach a bottom.”

He was also hearing as late as last Monday from senior Democratic and Republican lawmakers, including Steny H. Hoyer, the House majority leader, and Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the House Republican leader, that there was no chance Congress would adopt any legislation before it planned to leave town in September. Even Representative Barney Frank, a proponent of a greater role for the government in the market, said on Monday that the issue would have to be resolved by the next president and the new Congress next year.

By Tuesday, however, the troubles were only deepening. Lehman Brothers had declared bankruptcy, Merrill Lynch had agreed to be bought by Bank of America and A.I.G. was on the verge of collapse. Mr. Paulson and Mr. Bernanke put together an $85 billion bailout of A.I.G. and presented it to Mr. Bush.

But the two warned the president that it might not be enough to stabilize the broader crisis. A senior administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, paraphrased their message to Mr. Bush this way: “There may still be problems after this, and if there are, we’ll come back to you.”

They did, two days later, after plunging stock prices and frozen credit markets made clear the case-by-case strategy was not working. Mr. Paulson had been talking with Mr. Bush by telephone throughout Wednesday and early Thursday. The decision to finally take a radical, systemwide step came after an endless stream of conference calls involving Fed, Treasury and Securities and Exchange Commission officials, one participant recalled, when Mr. Bernanke said: “We have got to go to Congress.” Mr. Paulson concurred.

On Thursday afternoon, the two men, along with Christopher Cox, the S.E.C. chairman, went to the White House to explain their plan. “The president said, ‘Let’s do it,’ ” an official said. “There was no hesitation.”

Within hours, Mr. Paulson and Mr. Bernanke were in the office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, briefing Congressional leaders on how bleak the situation was. Lawmakers were shaken but offered tentative support. Torn by conflicting imperatives to take action and to go home to campaign, they seemed alternately grateful and resentful of the new power couple in Washington. Some referred to “President Paulson” and others groused about an unelected central bank chairman doling out hundreds of billions of dollars.

Mr. Paulson and Mr. Bernanke came under fire for being too aggressive and for not being aggressive enough. Senator Jim Bunning, Republican of Kentucky, said they were killing the free market. R. Glenn Hubbard, former chairman of Mr. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, said they should have acted sooner.

“The opportunity to have taken bold action would obviously have been better had they done it months ago,” he said. “But better late than never.”

In the end, what left so many lawmakers and economists frustrated was the sense that no one had a better idea. So they waited for Mr. Paulson and Mr. Bernanke to give them more details about what they wanted to do.

David M. Herszenhorn contributed reporting from Washington, and Michael Barbaro and Eric Dash from New York.

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

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/business/21paulson.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Posted by 【洪】ILHONG
,