In this section
Offers for readers
Follow the news from interest
The comment stream
Recent comments
- 1 of 20818
- ››
Editors choice
- 1 of 295
- ››
Finance sector jobs
Lead from the front utilising your strategic, technical and leadership qualities within th...more
New Zealand
Lead from the front utilising your technical expertise in this highly attractive senior li...more
New Zealand
Customer focus, high performance, exceeding client expectations and achieving profitable g...more
New Zealand
Key leadership position in the bank. Be a part of one of the fastest growing banks in New ...more
New Zealand

The news stream
Latest news
Most commented
- Fonterra to tighten TAF rules 67
- Govt eyes NZ$1.4b revenue grab 58
- English defends current account blowout 56
- 90 seconds at 9 am 51
- BNZ cuts most fixed mortgage rates 48
- 90 seconds at 9 am 43
- Thursday's Top 10 with NZ Mint 38
- Budget 2012 reactions 36
- Budget tax moves to target high income NZers 29
- Wednesday's Top 10 with NZ Mint 24
Most viewed
Top 10 at 10: Negative interest rates for UK?; Vampire Squid probe; China a giant ponzi scheme; Dilbert
Here's my Top 10 from around the Internet at 10am. I welcome your additions in the comments below and please send any suggestions for tomorrow's Top 10 at 10 to bernard.hickey@interest.co.nz . Apologies for the delay. A few commitments this morning. We believe honesty does not impede sales.
1. Finally the US government is grinding into gear to investigate pay and flash trading at Goldman 'Vampire Squid' Sachs, Reuters reported. We wonder if the Goldmanites inside the Beltway will allow it to get very far or deep. Either way, it will be fun to watch.
The firm set aside $6.65 billion in the quarter for compensation expenses, adding to a firestorm of criticism about pay practices on Wall Street. So far this year Goldman has set aside $11.3 billion for compensation.
As the firm faces unwanted attention for its bonus pool, Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein told his staff to be cautious about making large purchases, the New York Post reported on Tuesday.
Michael Holland, a money manager with Holland & Co in New York City, called the government's inquiry about compensation "a symbol" of Washington's interest in curbing Wall Street pay.
"Politics is a major part of the life of Lloyd Blankfein and his cohorts," said Holland. "I think this is a preview of things to come."
2. The Telegraph's Economics Editor Edmund Conway points out that British banks now have more money parked with the Bank of England than the amount of cash flowing around the economy. This is a first, as the chart below shows. Conway points to a solution: charging banks negative interest rates for having money with the Bank of England (ie the banks pay the BoE to leave money in the bank...) I'm not sure I agree, but it shows how big a problem the UK economy has. HT via email Ross Palmer.
Related Topics

The graph - in conjunction with what we know about how much banks are lending out to people (ie not much) - underlines the following dilemma: the BoE is pumping billions of pounds worth of cash into the economy, money that is supposed to be stimulating growth and yanking the country back out of recession. That wall of latent cash truly is massive, and must strike fear into the heart of any inflation hawks out there.
But much to the BoE's annoyance, banks are hoarding much of it, leaving vast quantities in their reserves. As I've said a number of times in previous blogs, it is a similar issue to the one the Bank of Japan faced as it experimented with quantitative easing (QE) in the late 1990s and early 2000s.
Now Charles Goodhart, a former Bank policymaker and someone with an impeccable reputation, has come along with a suggestion: why not start charging the banks for holding large amounts of reserves with the Bank? In effect, he is proposing negative interest rates for these banks. At the moment they receive interest on those reserves at the Bank rate (ie 0.5pc), which is hardly generous but then is no deterrent to leaving the cash safely in the bank. If, as Goodhart suggests, you charge them a 0.5pc fee on every pound above a certain amount, it would encourage them to go out and use that cash lending to businesses and people, hopefully combating the credit crunch.
3. Rolfe Winkler at Reuters has done the unthinkable for any columnist in the United States. He has criticised Warren Buffett in a piece titled 'Buffett's betrayal'. His beef is that Buffett protests not to like government interference and bailouts, but he and Berkshire Hathaway are massively benefiting from these bailouts via various stakes in banks and insurers. Winkler backs his argument up with a revealing table.

It takes remarkable chutzpah to lobby for bailouts, make trades seeking to profit from them, and then complain that those doing so put you at a disadvantage. What saddens me is that Buffett is uniquely positioned to lobby for better public policy, but he's chosen to spend his considerable political capital protecting his own holdings.
If we learn one lesson from this episode, it's that banks should carry substantially more capital than may be necessary. You would think Buffett would agree. He has always emphasized investing with a "margin of safety" "” so why shouldn't banks lend with one? Yet he mocked Tim Geithner's stress tests, which forced banks to replenish their capital. Why? Is it because his banks are drastically undercapitalized? The more capital they're forced to raise, the more his stake is diluted.
4. Here's a fascinating piece from UBS economist Paul Donovan via FTAlphaville on why governments can't inflate their way out of a debt problem. Many bondholders fear governments will choose to print money to inflate their way out of a trouble, leaving them with worthless paper. But Donovan says governments won't get away with it because they are continually having to reissue debt and the price (interest rates) will race away ahead of them. Essentially governments won't be able to afford it because the rising interest costs will make money printing unsustainable.
As an example, the US can expect to roll over almost 45 per cent of its debt in the next 12 months and some 55 per cent over the course of the next two years. So according to UBS, if there is an inflation surge in the next 12 months, the US government would expect that to be reflected in higher borrowing costs "” thus negating any 'sympathetic' inflation-impact on its national debt. There's also the issue of TIPS, or index-linked (inflation-linked) securities.
The idea that governments can readily inflate their way out of their debt problems is a misnomer "” arising, perhaps, from confusion between the fate of the individual bondholder and the response of the collective market. An individual holder of a long duration bond will lose out as a result of inflation. However, modern governments can not rely on markets to remain collectively indifferent to inflation. Inflation will raise the nominal cost of borrowing (of course) but through the inflation uncertainty risk premium it will also add to the real cost of borrowing.
The higher debt service cost becomes a problem for a government that is pursuing an inflation strategy because government debt does have to be rolled over. Unless a government is willing to pursue hyper-inflation as a strategy, raising inflation will not reduce the government debt burden. Indeed, history indicates that the reverse result will be achieved.
5. Mish at Global Economic Analysis points out that US tax revenues have suffered their biggest drop since the Depression.
Recession? What recession? This is a depression. No it's not the great depression, but this is no ordinary recession as measured by housing, jobs, the stock market, the CPI, auto sales, and now federal tax revenues.
6. Remember the video where snippets of Peter Schiff were put together showing he was right. Here's a video fisking of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke's comments from the years before the US housing collapse showing he was utterly wrong. It's glorious and damning. The guy should not be reappointed.
Here's a sample of Bernanke's views on the US housing market from 2005.
You can see some types of speculation: investors turning over condos quickly. Those sorts of things you see in some local areas. I'm hopeful "” I'm confident, in fact, that the bank regulators will pay close attention to the kinds of loans that are being made, and make sure that underwriting is done right. But I do think this is mostly a localized problem, and not something that's going to affect the national economy.
Oy Vey! Watch this and weep. HT Mises.org
7. Here's my first link to a Chinese language site. Here former Morgan Stanley analyst and China guru Andy Xie says the Chinese growth this year is all a lie, or at least a Ponzi scheme. The site is in Chinese characters but the comments themselves are in English.
Chinese stock and property markets have bubbled up again. It was fueled by bank lending and inflation fear. I think that Chinese stocks and properties are 50-100% overvalued. The odds are that both will adjust in the fourth quarter. However, both might flare up again sometime next year. Fluctuating within a long bubble could be the dominant trend for the foreseeable future. The bursting will happen when the US dollar becomes strong again. The catalyst could be serious inflation that forces the Fed to raise interest rate.
Chinese asset markets have become a giant Ponzi scheme. The prices are supported by appreciation expectation. As more people and liquidity are sucked in, the resulting surging prices validate the expectation, which prompts more people to join the party. This sort of bubble ends when there isn't enough liquidity to feed the beast.
8. Meanwhile China has just uncovered a US$702 million fraud by a bank executive that involves a bank part owned by HSBC, the FT reports.
Liu Changming, former president of BoComm's Guangzhou headquarters, fled the country soon after authorities launched an investigation in late 2007, according to state officials and people familiar with the case. He is still on the run in spite of a global alert issued through Interpol to apprehend him.
According to people familiar with the case, the loans were channelled through subsidiary companies of Canton Properties without the knowledge of shareholders, who were told the company had no unpaid bank debt.
After Mr Wang disappeared in August 2008, Canton Properties suspended its shares and most of the company's board members, including Sir David Brewer, former lord mayor of London, resigned.
9. This is stunning. Reuters reports that 48% (yes almost half) of all US home owners are expected to be in negative equity by 2011. HT Blair Rogers via Twitter.
"We project the next phase of the housing decline will have a far greater impact on prime borrowers," Deutsche analysts Karen Weaver and Ying Shen said in the report.
Of prime conforming loans, 41 percent will be "underwater" by the first quarter of 2011, up from 16 percent at the end of the first quarter 2009, it said. Forty-six percent of prime jumbo loans will be larger than their properties' value, up from 29 percent, it said.
"The impact of this is significant given that these markets have the largest share of the total mortgage market outstanding," the analysts said. Prime jumbo loans make up 13 percent of the total market.
Deutsche's dire assessment comes amid a bolt of evidence in recent months that point to stabilization in the U.S. housing market after three years of price drops.
10. Here's a fun cartoon from the Washington Post.



Whoa, No.9! Hard to fathom.
Whoa, No.9! Hard to fathom. Poor, poor sheeple. Not a fan of the 'via Twitter'. Just saying...
Luke You should get into
Luke
You should get into Twitter. A lot of fun
http://twitter.com/bernardchickey
cheers
Bernard
@Luke, Do you want me
@Luke,
Do you want me to email instead then?
Just saying.
Cheers
Blair
http://twitter.com/BMR789
P.S. BCH and I twitter a lot - fast way to pass notes, tips etc.
Easier than email in fact.
Bernard your headline interpretation for
Bernard your headline interpretation for 9 is WRONG, 48% on homeowners will NOT be underwater,
What it said is 48% of those with a Mortgage will owe more than the house is worth,
only 2/3 of owner housing in the US has a mortgage
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/ahs07/tab3-15.pdf
so 48% of 2/3 is around 31% of all home owners,
Still scary but nowhere as nasty as 48%
An apology if someone else
An apology if someone else already posted this, but Axel Merk over at merkfund has a great piece summing up the current mess and debunking the "Green Shoots".
http://www.merkfund.com/merk-perspective/insights/2009-07-21.html
@Welly
I question your 2/3 number. I would say that 99.99% of homeowners have some form of mortgage now.
@Troy, IN the 2007 American
@Troy,
IN the 2007 American housing survey ( most recent available), there were roughly 46.4 million dwellings with a mortgage out of a total of 75.6 owned dwellings
that's 61.4% with a mortgage
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/ahs07/tab3-21.pdf
@Welly Like a good friend
@Welly
Like a good friend of mine always tells me "If your mother tells you she loves you, check your sources". If that 62% number is even remotely accurate (and i totally disagree with it) then the US economy wouldn't even be half as bad as it is right now. I can't even remember the last time someone burned their mortgage. Can you? Besides you can't rack up over $3Trillion in consumer debt with only 40 million dwellings!! That is $7million per dwelling"¦sorry but those numbers are woefully under estimated.
Same issue they have in
Same issue they have in the US regarding banks hoarding funds channeled to them through QE-related purchases and other central bank "liquidity" measures. Puts paid (for the time being) to the excitable hyper-inflationists out there (note: it's not inflationary if its sitting in a vault).
Furthermore, Conway sounds like a right Keynesian whack-job. My question to him would be: who are the banks going to lend the money too, the already over-leveraged populace who are worried about their job security and paying down existing debt? Where is the demand? And how is more debt going to fix the problem when too much debt was the cause of.... etc etc (you've all heard it before). He probably still thinks all the worlds financial problems are a result of a lack of liquidity as opposed to the insolvency of households and corporations.
Bernard, couldn't say it but I will, what a douche.
@Troy, Errr, $3 trillion (3*1E12)
@Troy,
Errr, $3 trillion (3*1E12) over 40 million(40*1E6) homes is $75,000 per home , and that is without credit cards and car loans,
@ Troy What the hell?!
@ Troy
What the hell?!
You think its OK to counter someones argument (backed up by hard evidence) with some incomprehensible voodoo back-of-the envelope calculation/logic of your own?
Why don't you try manning up with some of your own hard data instead?
Hubris much?
My bad...I must have gone
My bad...I must have gone up a couple orders of magnitude. But consumer credit implies just that...people running up credit cards and car loans and then taking out second and third mortgages to pay them off. $75k is still too high per household just on the consumer credit per dwelling. The average consumer debt is closer to $15K
@ Troy All it takes
@ Troy
All it takes is a google search and you'll no longer have to pull facts and figures out of your... ears... Watch, Ill even provide references.
1. "American consumers owed a grand total of $1.9773 trillion in October 2003, according to the latest statistics on consumer credit from the Federal Reserve. Thats about $18,654 per household, a figure that DOESN'T include mortgage debt. The number is up more than 41% from the $1.3999 trillion consumers owed in 1998." (http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/SavingandDebt/P70581.asp)
2. "Between 2000 and 2007, U.S. households nearly doubled their outstanding debt to $13.8 trillion"”an unprecedented amount in both nominal terms and as a ratio of liabilities to disposable income (138 percent). But as the global financial crisis worsened at the end of 2008, a shift occurred: U.S. households for the first time since World War II reduced their debt outstanding." (http://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/publications/us_consumers/)
#4 http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bd8252a4-39d7-11de-b82d-00144feabdc
#4
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bd8252a4-39d7-11de-b82d-00144feabdc0.html?ncli...
@scott The most recent figures
@scott
The most recent figures are here
http://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/releases/statisticsdata.htm
Under consumer credit, and outstanding mortgage debt
NZ's equivalent is here
http://rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/monfin/c6/data.html
@ Welly. Thanks. Japan headed
@ Welly. Thanks.
Japan headed for 2 yrs of deflation. Will the US join them? And the rest of the Western world? Stay tuned.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a6QmQJUmNKOQ
1. I suspect the general
1. I suspect the general inflation rate in the UK is >> the interest rates the banks are getting, so they ARE getting a negative REAL interest rate.
2. I do not understand why anyone EVER listened to Ben Bernanke. It's been a puzzle to me for ages that people take notice of his "statements". IMO they are only good for amusement.
3. Re China, yes 28% money supply growth is a little "over the top" LOL
I don't think it will last ;)
@Scott I present you this:
@Scott
I present you this:
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/Household%20Debt%207...
The average consumer debt is $8k, I said $15k just for a factor of safety. that leaves another $60K outstanding. So yeah my original 99% is right on the money. When is that last time you can remember someone, ANYONE, paying off their mortgage? So your numbers don't add up. Do yourself a favor, Stop googling!!
Bernard well done with your
Bernard well done with your first link to Andy Zie he is an oustanding analyst l have followed his work for years and found it to to exceptional way ahead of pack.
A more user friendly link to his work is http://english.caijing.com.cn/xieguozhong
This site is in english with lots of his previous writings.