Jump to content

Financial News


jasonxctf

Recommended Posts

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 29, 2010 -> 07:57 AM)
Advanced Q4 GDP reading announced - 5.7% growth, Q/Q. 4.7% was the concensus expectation. Futures markets indicate a big open in response.

 

 

And 3.4% was due to inventories. So not as impressive as it seems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personal consumption was up only 1.44% so the consumer remains a weak spender, not surprising considering the unemployment rate. State and local gov't spending was slightly negative despite the fact that much of the stimulus bill went to them. As the stimulus winds down we will see more pressure on local govt's as tax revenue continues to be a problem.

 

This GDP is very misleading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Jan 29, 2010 -> 10:38 AM)
Personal consumption was up only 1.44% so the consumer remains a weak spender, not surprising considering the unemployment rate. State and local gov't spending was slightly negative despite the fact that much of the stimulus bill went to them. As the stimulus winds down we will see more pressure on local govt's as tax revenue continues to be a problem.

 

This GDP is very misleading.

The increased GDP being heavy in retail and wholesale inventory buildups, seems to be in line with the NABE reading we saw a few days ago. It seems like businesses are anticipating growth, this is another sign of that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 29, 2010 -> 10:52 AM)
The increased GDP being heavy in retail and wholesale inventory buildups, seems to be in line with the NABE reading we saw a few days ago. It seems like businesses are anticipating growth, this is another sign of that.

 

 

Actually, no. For several reasons. First one is you've got a bubble on the automotive side. Second, inventories were at a really low level after 1Q2009... and is still low comparable to "normal" times. It's just a replenishment - and you won't see real growth spending if the stuff keeps up like it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Special Inspector General for TARP says the government is trying to blow the housing bubble back up.

•To the extent that the crisis was fueled by a “bubble” in the housing market, the Federal Government’s concerted efforts to support home prices risk re-inflating that bubble in light of the Government’s effective takeover of the housing market through purchases and guarantees, either direct or implicit, of nearly all of the residential mortgage market.

And also from this report:

To the extent that huge, interconnected, “too big to fail” institutions contributed to the crisis, those institutions are now even larger, in part because of the substantial subsidies provided by TARP and other bailout programs.

• To the extent that institutions were previously incentivized to take reckless risks through a “heads, I win; tails, the Government will bail me out” mentality, the market is more convinced than ever that the Government will step in as necessary to save systemically significant institutions. This perception was reinforced when TARP was extended until October 3, 2010, thus permitting Treasury to maintain a war chest of potential rescue funding at the same time that banks that have shown questionable ability to return to profitability (and in some cases are posting multi-billion-dollar losses) are exiting TARP programs.

• To the extent that large institutions’ risky behavior resulted from the desire to justify ever-greater bonuses — and indeed, the race appears to be on for TARP recipients to exit the program in order to avoid its pay restrictions — the current bonus season demonstrates that although there have been some improvements in the form that bonus compensation takes for some executives, there has been little fundamental change in the excessive compensation culture on Wall Street.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spending and income numbers this morning, for December, give a mixed bag...

 

Income up 0.4%, expectations were 0.3%, but that was caused in part by a large SSI payment - wages and salaries increased by 0.1% (sixth increase in a row).

 

Consumer spending was up 0.2%, expectations were 0.3%. But November's number was revised up from 0.5% to 0.7%.

 

Basically, slow growth, just like we've seen for months - positive movement, but not enough to substantially lower unemployment.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So how long before the FDIC taps the $500 billion line of credit from Treasury?

 

They collected $45 billion in fees for 2010-2012 up front. This $45 billion is already down to $23.141 billion.

 

There have already been 15 bank failures in 2009. On a pace for 150-200.

 

ARMs and Negative Amortization Mortgages are starting to reset. But, they are too far underwater to be helped by mortgage modification programs.

 

 

I like my recessions with a double dip..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 1, 2010 -> 02:26 PM)
I am sure people who can't afford it will love to see their gas prices and utilities go up in price.

It makes zero sense to continue to subsidize oil and gas at much higher rates than alt energy. I prefer we don't continue barrelling towards economic disaster, and keeping reliance on fossil fuels will only hasten that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Feb 1, 2010 -> 03:58 PM)
Yeah, and police and fire layoffs too.

 

 

Are these the same firemen and policemen the Clintons hired and then the states and citites had no way of paying? Let's put 200,00 more on the streets but then let the states try to pay for it when the Federal teat runs dry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Feb 1, 2010 -> 06:53 PM)
Are these the same firemen and policemen the Clintons hired and then the states and citites had no way of paying? Let's put 200,00 more on the streets but then let the states try to pay for it when the Federal teat runs dry.

Not often you hear a Republican explicitly argue "We need fewer policemen and firemen." I'm impressed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 2, 2010 -> 08:05 AM)
Not often you hear a Republican explicitly argue "We need fewer policemen and firemen." I'm impressed.

What he's criticizing is that it was an unsustainable, partially funded mandate. And he's right.

 

Also, the right answer to fighting crime is not always more cops.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...