Category Archives: markets

Fannie and Freddie “Restructuring”

Posted on by
Reply

Federal National Mortgage Association—Fannie Mae—and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation—Freddie Mac—are at the heart of the US housing industry, since they play a central role in guaranteeing a major fraction of the mortgage loans through which we Americans buy our homes.  They also lie at the heart of the housing bust that was a major cause (albeit not the only one) of the Panic of 2008.  Their role in the bust stems from their decision functionally to waive credit standards and to encourage anyone with two nickels to rub together to borrow to buy a house, whether those borrowers could afford to make the loan payments or not.  And too often Fannie and Freddie waived the two-nickel standard, too.

The mortgage industry cries out for major reform, and now some of that reform might be in the offing.  A plan worked out by Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Chairman Tim Johnson (D, SD) and Committee Ranking Member Mike Crapo (R, ID) and preliminarily agreed by President Barack Obama looks do away entirely with Fannie and Freddie and to replace them with a system of Federally insured “mortgage securities” whose private insurers would be required to take initial losses before any government guarantee would be triggered.

Of course, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid won’t like the bill because it has Republican fingerprints on it.  House Republicans won’t like the bill, either, since they’re opposed to any government backstop in the private economy.  This isn’t a done deal.

This is, though, a valuable and needed step in the right direction.

There’s no arguing with a tired old man who insists on clinging bitterly to his hatred of all things Republican; Senate Democrats need to lose their fear of him and bypass him on this matter.

On the other hand, the chuckleheads in the House do have a chance to get smarter all on their own.  They’re right to insist that there be no Federal backstop in the housing market, much less in private economy, generally.  However, they also need to understand that this deal isn’t the final step, and that if they hold out for everything all in one fell swoop, they won’t get anything at all.

They should pass this deal, if it gets to them in substantially this form, and then they should begin working on a follow-on bill that withdraws that Federal backstop.  After all, if the free market wants such a thing—in the insurance industry, it’s called reinsurance—a market for mortgage reinsurers will develop.  If such a market doesn’t develop, it’ll be because the free market doesn’t need one.  If the governments of the individual States think such a thing is a good idea for their citizens, they can face their citizens and propose such a thing.  If the citizens of those States demure, then a State government backstop isn’t useful.

Step by step.  Slowly, and so surely.

EU Trade Protectionism

Posted on by
Reply

Now the EU is looking to claim that cheeses originally made in Europe cannot be made anywhere else and marketed under those European generic names: feta and parmesan cannot be made in the US, but only in Greece and Italy, for instance.  Never mind that it’s the same cheese made here, the manufacturers have to use different terminology to market their cheeses, the EU is demanding.  The EU even is (mendaciously, say I) claiming that feta, for instance,

is so closely connected to Greece as to be identified as an inherently Greek product.

As if that original connection matters at all in a global market.  And, never mind that feta produced elsewhere is plainly competitive, if not superior, or there’d be no market for that produced-elsewhere feta.

The AP says that this sort of thing is

important for the EU as Europe has tried to protect its share of agricultural exports and pull itself out of recession.  The ability to exclusively sell some of the continent’s most famous and traditional products would prevent others from cutting into those markets.

Never mind that Europe does not own any share of any market; the market is possessed (not owned) by the aggregation of individual buyers and sellers that choose to operate in it.  Europe—as with any participant—earns a share of a market by competing effectively in it.

No, this is an issue that needs to be dragged out until after the 2016 elections, and we get a President that has the moral courage to stand up for American, if not free market, interests.

Some More re Obamacare

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal provided an interactive and a graph earlier this week in their online issue.

The Healthcare.gov Explorer, available here, allows you to quickly explore the highlights of what’s available in your county.  As I’ve mentioned before, what I can get in my little county in Texas would be vastly more expensive in terms of premiums required and deductibles to be paid by me before the health plan would begin to pay (only) some of my expenses, were I to have to replace what my wife’s employer provides due to the employer’s decision to cancel its program.

This (these) graph(s) shows the subsidies you’re paying, both in terms of additional Obamacare taxes and in terms of those higher premiums and deductibles in order to pay for someone else’s health plan.  I’ve broken the WSJ‘s single image into two parts for convenience.  Keep in mind that the example presented is for a single person (and for that person living in Ohio).  The first part gives the basis for subsidy calculations:

This second part gives the additional subsidies that are available under Obamacare:

I’ve written elsewhere about the poverty trap that is government welfare, and the rational nature of the economic decision to stay on welfare rather than take a wage increase which is that trap.  Here, we see that a person making $11,490 (a student, perhaps) who graduates and takes an entry-level job at $28,725 will see his health plan out-of-pocket costs skyrocket from $1,000/yr to $5,000 and his $100 deductible go to $1,500.  He’ll also see his monthly premium (heroically assuming that the two plans in these two graphs have identical premiums, but you get the idea) increase by $1,212 per year.  The total health plan cost increase of $6,612 per year represents nearly 40% of that wage increase—and this is before considering the other welfare subsidies which this man also loses from that wage increase.

Sanctions and Competition

Posted on by
1

Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, and Czech Republic have directly appealed to our Congressional leadership to expedite turning on the export spigot for our natural gas.  These four nations see the directness and immediacy of the advantage of buying natural gas from us rather than from the Russians.

There’s another effect, though, from our increasing our gas, and oil, exports as quickly and as far as we can.  That’s the effect on oil and gas pricing in the global markets.  Such a large and easy increase in supply will depress those prices, which will have a competition-based double whammy on Russia: it will deprive Russia of billions of dollars in income from its own oil and gas exports by lowering the price, sharply, that Russia can demand, through depriving Russia of its energy monopoly.  Keep in mind, also, that the Russian economy almost exclusively is built on oil and gas exports—it has nothing else other than cheap, second tier military equipment, and while that remains a strong Russian industry, it’s not strong enough to carry the Russian economy, much less provide the funding necessary for Russian…adventurism.

The other whammy also is in those sharply lower oil and gas prices.  That decrease will make it easier for erstwhile Russian “clients,” including Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Ukraine, the EU (Germany, France, and Great Britain especially) to get their energy from somewhere more reliable than Russia, and at a cheaper price.

That cheaper price for these others produces a separate whammy for them: cheaper energy can be only to the good for their economies as they struggle to break out of the doldrums remaining from the global Panic of 2008.

But that’s what competition does—it lowers prices and sets economies free to generate prosperity.  An attempt to boycott Russian oil and gas is unnecessary.

Crimea and Sanctions on Russia

Posted on by
1

Promptly opening the export spigot on our own oil and gas production and accelerating our development of those fields, including on Federal land (which will have minimal production effect today; although it’ll have significant effect in the near- to mid-term by significantly expanding the supply of oil and gas on the global market) will produce an immediate spike down in the global price of oil and gas, which will have an associated immediate negative impact on the value of Russian oil and gas exports.

Blocking Russian access to credit on the global banking system—even just on the American banking system—and requiring cash-only transactions will have a negative impact on Russia’s cash reserves.

Seizing the personal banking and physical assets held by the Russian oligarchs and by Putin will remove billions of dollars’ worth of value from these folks—and it’s the oligarchs as much as a mendacious Russian legislature who are the source of Putin’s political power.

Of course, a significant fraction of the success of the sanctions will depend on how well Europe does its part.  Their participation will go a long way toward identifying who truly believes in the sanctity—as opposed to the convenience—of national sovereignty and who just engages in empty rhetoric for personal gain.  Their participation will go a long way toward identifying who our friends are and who are just summertime soldiers.  Their participation will go a long way toward determining who stands with Ukraine and who are willing only to talk about standing with Ukraine.

We can’t let their timidity stand in the way of our acting, though.  Nor can we let the fact that the sanctions will bring Russian retaliatory sanctions on us deter us.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Friday sanctions imposed by the West “would inevitably hit the United States like a boomerang.”  Their foreign ministry added they “will not accept the language of sanctions and threats,” and will respond if sanctions are imposed.

What sanctions can Russia impose?  They can block further Western/American investment in Russian oil and gas field development.  They can block further Western/American investment in oil and gas delivery systems (read: pipelines).  They can cease existing Western/American investments throughout their economy, not only in their oil and gas industry.  They can begin dumping their holding of American Treasuries.  They even could deny us access via their territory and airspace to our bases in the ‘Stans from which we support our war effort in Afghanistan.

This will hurt us, to be sure.  But who else will it hurt?  Russia can’t develop its oil and gas industry without us—that’s why we’re there.  What they have developed has been being depleted for more than 10 years; those assets are declining in value.  Their economy is utterly dependent on oil and gas.  Recall the damage done Texas’ strictly oil and gas economy during the first Arab oil embargo and the Nixon price controls.

Dumping their US Treasury holding will devalue the rest of what they hold, decreasing their ability to convert the rest into cash with which to complete the now-demanded cash only transaction.

Our war in Afghanistan is winding down, and those bases already are becoming less and less critical to our efforts.

The oligarchs’ loss of their own overseas assets and their loss of access to non-Russian banking, even to their overseas villas and other assets will hurt Putin’s primary supporters where it hurts the most: in their own pocketbooks.

The sanctions that will boomerang on us will boomerang right back on them, and worse.

And our own actions will determine whether our own administration truly believes in the sanctity of national sovereignty, with whom we are friends, whether we stand with Ukraine.  I’ve no doubt where the American people stand.