by ilene - October 26th, 2010 1:53 am
Courtesy of Tyler Durden
SigTarp Neil Barofsky has just released the most scathing critique of all the idiots in the administration, with a particular soft spot for Tim Geithner.
On the failure of TARP to increase lending:
As these quarterly reports to congress have well chronicled and as Treasury itself recently conceded in its acknowledgement that "banks continue to report falling loan balances," TARP has failed to "increase lending" with small businesses in particular unable to secured badly needed credit. Indeed, even now, overall lending continues to contract, despite the hundreds of billions of TARP dollars provided to banks with the express purpose to increase lending.
On TARP’s sole success of boosting Wall Street bonuses:
While large bonuses are returning to Wall Street, the nation’s poverty rate increased from 13.2% in 2008 to 14.3% in 2009, and for far too many, the recession has ended in name only.
On TARP’s failure in general:
Finally, the most specific of TARP’s Main Street goals, "preserving homeownership" has so far fallen woefully short, with TARP’s portion of the Administration’s mortgage modification program yielding only approximately 207,000 ongoing permanent modifications since TARP’s inception, a number that stands in stark contrast to the 5.5 million homes receiving foreclosure filings and more than 1.7 million homes that have been lost to foreclosure since January 2009.
On the Treasury’s scam in minimizing publicized AIG losses, and on Geithner as a Wall Street puppet whose actions are increasingly destroying public faith in the government:
While SIGTARP offers no opinion on the appropriateness or accuracy of the valuation contained in the Retrospective, we believe that the Retrospective fails to meet basic transparency standards by failing to disclose: (1) that the new lower estimate followed a change in the methodology that Treasury previously used to calculate expected losses on its AIG investment; and (2) that Treasury would be required by its auditors to use the older, and presumably less favorable, methodology in the official audited financials statements. To avoid potential confusion, Treasury should have disclosed that it had changed its valuation methodology and should have published a side-by-side comparison of its new numbers with what the projected losses would be under the auditor-approved methodology that Treasury had used previously and will
by ilene - March 6th, 2010 9:28 am
Courtesy of Travis at Zero Hedge
GM today reported that they will reinstate over half, 600 of the 1,100 dealership franchises they told to get lost last year- in an effort to keep the other some 5,000 dealerships "healthy and profitable." The lucky 600 will be getting letters asking to stay with the automaker, that’s if they haven’t already closed their doors forever due to the fact that 1) car sales suck despite an upbeat report earlier in the week 2) some people would argue that GM cars suck and finally 3) the GM brand may be discontinued forever a la Pontiac, Saturn, and Hummer.
A consortion of dealerships have been fighting the Detroit giant, citing they’ve been treated unfairly and that GM was vague in their decisions and thoughts on what dealers are actually profitable, and which ones are not.
Chrysler too, which slashed almost 800 of it’s franchises is also reconsidering the cuts; according to the Associated Press "the decision was a compromise meant to avoid federal legislation that would require that the showrooms be kept open."
Under the revised cutting procedures, dealers would "get face-to-face reviews, binding arbitration and faster payments to help dealers slated for shutdown."
As published by the Associated Press on Yahoo!:
"Congress-brokered talks between dealer groups and the automakers began in September. But those talks stalled over disputes about the review process for targeted dealerships and other issues. Looming over the fight has been the threat of federal legislation to deal with the closures. Lawmakers warned that if a deal wasn’t reached, that legislation would move forward.
The White House has opposed the legislation over concerns that it could hurt GM’s and Chrysler’s efforts to rebound from their government-led bankruptcies."
I guess Congress figures, they’re not done launching torpedos at Toyota- better keep some of these domestic dealerships open to sop-up the overage from Toyota’s once ivory, and now bloodied domestic tower of safety and reliability.
by ilene - November 5th, 2009 1:15 pm
Government manipulation--the slide show. Is this the "change" we voted for? – Ilene
Courtesy of Joe Weisenthal at Clusterstock
A recent CBO report estimated that the government spends about $300 billion to intervene in the housing market each year. That’s based on a range of activities, from direct subsidies to homebuyers, to the mortgage interest tax deduction, and the backstop of Fannie and Freddie.
And thus it’s no surprise that the housing market doesn’t work like other markets, and that we had a major bubble there. Even now, Goldman Sachs estimates, the government is adding at least 5% to the cost of each home, through its various "affordability" measures.
But it’s not just housing. Virtually every important sector of the economy is being manipulated in some way.
by ilene - September 1st, 2009 1:10 pm
Click here for a FREE, 90-day trial subscription to our PSW Report!
Courtesy of Joe Weisenthal at Clusterstock
Jeez. Here we were thinking that the auto companies would come out with good numbers today, but that they’d need a big asterisk due to Cash-for-Clunkers.
But nope. They were just bad. Ford (F) missed lofty expectations, and Chrysler’s monthly sales actually showed a dip, when analysts were expecting a gain.
Cash-for-Clunkers sure was a hit, but mainly for the foreign automakers it seems.
France Might Extend Cash For Clunkers Into 2010
by ilene - July 8th, 2009 11:55 am
Used car prices are going up – is this a sign of recovery and inflation or a complicated symptom of a deflationary environment? This debate illustrates, perhaps, why the same economic data can be interpreted in opposite manners by intelligent people. – Ilene
Courtesy of Jake at Econompic Data
Scott Grannis, of the blog California Beach Pundit, is quickly becoming my new favorite blogger to disagree with because he:
- Provides intriguing data
- Has a strong opinion
- Supports his opinion well
- These opinions run counter (in almost every case) to mine
In general he believes in the recovery and inflation, whereas I don’t and believe deflation is a real possibility.
One example was yesterday’s post regarding ISM Prices. In his view, the jump in ISM prices (by jump I mean they finally didn’t fall month over month) means deflation is no longer a threat. On the other hand, I believe that may be a result of the temporary jump we saw in commodities. He continues his ‘don’t worry about deflation’ message with yesterday’s post that (again) gave me the exact OPPOSITE initial reaction. Here goes:
According to Manheim Consulting, used vehicle prices jumped 16.4% in the first half of 2009 on a seasonally adjusted basis. Once more we are reminded that a weak economy and rising unemployment do not necessarily create deflationary conditions.
In other words, an increase in the price of used cars (off a large previous fall) proves that deflation is no longer an issue and we should (if anything) worry about inflation.
I think the rise in prices also has something to do with the return of money velocity. Consumers retrenched violently in the fourth quarter of last year, hoarding cash and repaying debt in the face of tremendous uncertainty. Money velocity collapsed. Now that confidence is returning, money is getting spent again. The economy is recovering some of the ground it lost.
Using what I refer to as the logic test, this makes no sense. If people are trading down (i.e. increasing demand for a cheaper / used good) this has deflation written all over it (not necessarily for that good, but for the broader economy). My logic and posted in
by ilene - June 21st, 2009 4:23 pm
Courtesy of Tom Lindmark, But Then What?
Depending upon your philosophical bent, this is either good news or another sign that the Apocalypse is near.
The WSJ is reporting that Toyota is slated to take over the title as the number 1 seller of light vehicles in the U.S.
The bankruptcies of General Motors and Chrysler are changing the landscape of the auto industry. The two U.S. companies are shuttering plants, shedding dealers and reducing their product lines.
As a result, Toyota Motor will become the largest seller of light vehicles in the U.S. It has held the top spot globally since last year.
The Japanese auto maker won’t be the only beneficiary of the two companies’ woes. But in terms of status, market clout and bragging rights, Toyota will be the No. 1 winner.
Its share of the North American light-truck and car market probably will rise to around 20% from 18.4%. GM will end up in second place with 13% to 16% — with Ford hot on its tail.
Although Toyota stock doesn’t change hands directly in the U.S., the company’s American depositary shares (TM), which represent them, are listed on the New York Stock Exchange.
And, at a recent price of around $76 — about $30 below their 52-week high — they’re a good bet for long-term investors.
The Journal suggests that the stock might be a good long-term buy. They point out that analysts suggest it could hit $115 and that it hit $137 a couple of years ago. Maybe, but just a caveat. Toyota and others now have the most fearsome of competitors – government owned companies. In the long run that probably means success for the competitors as political decisions trump business common sense. In the short run it could be formidable as the government does whatever is necessary to prove it didn’t make the stupid decision that everyone acknowledges it did.
Buy the stock at your peril.
by ilene - June 9th, 2009 8:46 pm
Courtesy of Tom Lindman of But Then What?
The black hole that is the auto industry needs to suck in more cash. The parts suppliers are once again lining up for federal aid.
From the WSJ:
U.S. auto-parts companies plan to ask the Obama administration for as much as $10 billion in new aid as the General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC bankruptcies deepen the suppliers’ troubles.
Trade groups will meet Wednesday with President Barack Obama’s auto task force at the Treasury Department to warn that hundreds of parts companies could collapse without the aid. They are mainly requesting that the government guarantee $8 billion to $10 billion in loans so banks will lend to the suppliers.
The parts companies account for more than three-quarters of auto-sector employment in the U.S., according to a Chicago Federal Reserve study, with employment of about 600,000—roughly five times as many workers as are expected to be employed by GM and Chrysler’s domestic operations once their government-subsidized restructurings are done.
Stabilizing the supply base is critical to ensuring the long-term viability of GM and Chrysler, said Neil De Koker, president and chief executive of the Original Equipment Suppliers Association.
“We could end up having all that money go to waste because they won’t be able to start up without suppliers,” Mr. De Koker said, referring to the taxpayer-funded assistance. “If there’s just one key part missing on a car, you can’t build it.”
His group, along with the Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Association, has prepared a 71-page presentation arguing that as many as 500 parts suppliers could be forced to liquidate this year. They cite several independent studies.
Make no mistake, the aid will be forthcoming. Once the government chose to go all in with the auto companies they committed themselves to preservation of the entire chain. All that remains to be seen is whether any sort of rationalization of the suppliers will take place. With a downsized GM and Chrysler there is arguably too much capacity upstream.
This is where the Obama commitment to a hands off approach to the industry will run founder. In order to rationally allocate assistance the auto task force will have to parse the vast list of suppliers, try and make some sense of what an efficient network would look like