Central Perk: 23 ian. 2011

duminică, 23 ianuarie 2011

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

Camden NJ Police Union Rejects Offer to Save 100 Police Officer Jobs by 300-1 Vote; Camden a Living Hell; Mayor Accuses Union of Fear-Mongering
Timothy Geithner Meets Vladimir Lenin Stage II; Accounting Rule Changes at the Fed will Mask Losses
Sunday Funnies 2011-01-23 Student Loans; Solar Energy Madness in Europe
Jim Rogers Calls for $200 Oil, Remains Bullish on the Yuan; Limiting Factors Rogers Misses

Camden NJ Police Union Rejects Offer to Save 100 Police Officer Jobs by 300-1 Vote; Camden a Living Hell; Mayor Accuses Union of Fear-Mongering

Posted: 23 Jan 2011 09:04 PM PST

The Fraternal Order of Police in Camden New Jersey proved without a shadow of a doubt, public union willingness to toss fellow officers to the dogs.

In a 300-1 vote, the union rejected an offer that that would have saved 100 jobs. That offer called for three days a month of unpaid furloughs for patrol officers for six months, then one furlough day in each of the following 12 months.

Please consider Camden police union rejects concession deal that could bring back 100 laid-off officers

Two efforts to reverse some of the stunning police layoffs in one of America's most dangerous cities failed today.

A judge ruled that he won't force Camden to bring back 167 police officers who were laid off earlier in the week. Later, a union for most of the officers rejected a deal containing concessions, which would have put the majority of them back to work.

The layoffs reduced the size of the police force by nearly half in one of the nation's most impoverished and crime-ridden cities. Some civilian employees such as dispatchers also were laid off, along with about one-third of the city's firefighters.

Altogether, more than 15 percent of Camden's municipal workers, including 68 firefighters and about 100 civilians, were laid off as the city tries to fill a huge budget gap brought on by rising costs, decreased tax revenues and diminished aid from the state.

In an evening vote, the city chapter of the Fraternal Order of Police rejected a deal that would have reinstated officers in exchange for giving them unpaid furlough days.

F.O.P. Local 1 President John Williamson said the vote was 300-1 against the measure.

Mayor Dana Redd and Williamson both said about 100 officers could have been brought back under the deal. Williamson said the agreement called for three days a month of unpaid furloughs for patrol officers for six months, then one furlough day in each of the following 12 months.

Cannibalization at its Finest

That vote is one of the finest displays of union cannibalization (willingness to sacrifice junior officers for the sake of senior members) that you will ever see.

The police officers do not give a damn about their fellow officers or the city itself. All that matters is the senior members "get what they have coming to them".

Layoffs of Unprecedented Proportion Make for "Living Hell"

Please consider Camden struggles with lack of manpower due to police, firefighter layoffs

If you get into a car accident in Camden, the city's chief of police has this advice: Don't bother calling the cops unless there are injuries or blocked traffic. Likewise, don't call about vandalism. Or minor thefts.

With the city's police force cut almost in half by layoffs, Chief Scott Thomson said his department no longer has the manpower to respond to such calls. Not in Camden, which has struggled with graver problems like homicide, gun violence and drug dealing.

Other police agencies around the state have cut back, but nowhere have cuts been as deep as in Camden.

"I've never heard of a layoff of this proportion," said Rutgers Police Institute Executive Director Wayne Fisher.

Mayor Dana Redd and the police union held a last-ditch meeting Monday night but failed to reach an agreement.

"Instead of protecting and serving the city, the residents of Camden, they're choosing to protect their high salaries," Redd said. She said union concessions could still bring back 100 officers, but didn't provide details.

Union officials said they were open to wage freezes and furlough days.

"To say the union isn't bringing anything to the table is just not right," said Ed Brannigan, president of the state union. "But there's only so much you can give. How much blood do you have?"

Advertisements run by the police union say Camden may become a "living hell." One flier shows a robber pointing a handgun at a cowering store clerk under the title "Welcome to Camden."

Blood? What Blood?

The police union's preposterous offer was to freeze wages. Next the union whines "How much blood do you have?" as if the union was offering anything of substance in a wage freeze proposal.

Assuming the officers work 20 days a month, the city was asking for a 15% pay cut for 6 months and a 5% pay cut for the following year. Does that constitute blood? I think not. However, letting 100 officers go is certainly blood on the union's hands.

The firefighters union "negotiation" went even worse. They demanded small wage increases.

Both unions had the gall to run fear-mongering campaigns. Of course fear-mongering is standard public union operating procedure. The sad irony is that money to fear-monger comes straight from the taxpayers.

Mayor Accuses Police and Fire Unions of Fear-Mongering

Judge Declines to Intervene

Fortunately a New Jersey judge declined to intervene.

A New Jersey judge won't force Camden to bring back 167 police officers who were laid off Monday and Tuesday. The layoffs reduced the size of the police force by nearly half in a city that regularly ranks as one of the nation's most dangerous.

Unions for both rank-and-file officers and superiors argued the state Civil Service Commission did not take the right steps when it approved the layoffs. They also claimed the city laid off more officers than it originally planned.

Superior Court Judge Francis Orlando today said the proper place for the complaints is with the Civil Service Commission or an appeals court — not his court.

Camden is Bankrupt

On the surface, it is hard to understand the city's tactics here. Camden should have outsourced the entire police operation to the county sheriffs' association. I have not seen an instance yet where that action would not have saved money.

The real problem however, is Camden is bankrupt. It should declare bankruptcy. In bankruptcy court the union could then see what their salary and pension contract are worth.

Beneath the surface, the most likely explanation is the mayor might have to relinquish control of the city.

Governor Chris Christie should ask for a law to allow bankruptcy be imposed on a city, whether the city likes it or not. As with Detroit, only bankruptcy can save what remains of Camden, and Camden is clearly bankrupt.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Click Here To scroll Thru My Recent Post List

Timothy Geithner Meets Vladimir Lenin Stage II; Accounting Rule Changes at the Fed will Mask Losses

Posted: 23 Jan 2011 01:53 PM PST

Many people have taken notice of changes slipped into the Fed's balance sheet reporting rules that will allegedly shield the Fed from devastating losses. Please consider Accounting Tweak Could Save Fed From Losses.

Concerns that the Federal Reserve could suffer losses on its massive bond holdings may have driven the central bank to adopt a little-noticed accounting change with huge implications: it makes insolvency much less likely.

The significant shift was tucked quietly into the Fed's weekly report on its balance sheet and phrased in such technical terms that it was not even reported by financial media when originally announced on Jan. 6.

"Could the Fed go broke? The answer to this question was 'Yes,' but is now 'No,'" said Raymond Stone, managing director at Stone & McCarthy in Princeton, New Jersey. "An accounting methodology change at the central bank will allow the Fed to incur losses, even substantial losses, without eroding its capital."

The change essentially allows the Fed to denote losses by the various regional reserve banks that make up the Fed system as a liability to the Treasury rather than a hit to its capital. It would then simply direct future profits from Fed operations toward that liability.

"Any future losses the Fed may incur will now show up as a negative liability as opposed to a reduction in Fed capital, thereby making a negative capital situation technically impossible," said Brian Smedley, a rates strategist at Bank of America-Merrill Lynch and a former New York Fed staffer.

"The timing of the change is not coincidental, as politicians and market participants alike have expressed concerns since the announcement (of a second round of asset buys) about the possibility of Fed 'insolvency' in a scenario where interest rates rise significantly," Smedley and his colleague Priya Misra wrote in a research note.

Two Distinct Issues

Going forward, there are two key issues here (not counting losses with TARP), and none of the articles circulating properly explains either them, or when the real damage occurred.

Losses on Treasures as Interest Rates Rise
Losses on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Assets

Losses on Treasures as Interest Rates Rise

It is a simple statement of fact that there will be no losses on treasuries if the Fed hold the treasuries to term, which I believe is their intent. Note that the Fed concentrates purchases in the 3-7 year range, making it a relatively easy matter to hold those securities to term.

Moreover, if the economic recovery does not satisfy the Fed it can simply enter a program whereby it replaces expiring treasuries with new purchases. Should the Fed embark upon such a plan, it will offer an excuse that it is not expanding its balance sheet further.

I do not agree at all with the Fed's balance sheet expansion, I simply point out the risk of losses on treasuries is a theoretical issue, not a practical one.

Losses on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Assets

The accounting rule change will also allow the Fed to hide losses on MBS garbage on its balance sheet. Those toxic assets have a much longer duration. Can the Fed get rid of them for no losses?

The answer is yes, but it has nothing to do with accounting rule changes. The damage was done in late 2009 by Congress.

Timothy Geithner Meets Vladimir Lenin

Please consider John Hussman's January 4, 2010 article Timothy Geithner Meets Vladimir Lenin

"The best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency."

Vladimir Lenin, leader of the 1917 Russian Revolution

Last week, while Congress and the nation were preoccupied with the holidays, the Treasury made a Christmas eve announcement that it would be providing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac unlimited financial support for the next three years.

Put simply, in a single, coordinated stroke, the Treasury and the Federal Reserve have encroached on spending powers that are enumerated for the Congress alone. Under the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA), the Treasury has no such open-ended authority. Indeed, the applicable portion of the Act explicitly limits the total amount of mortgage principal (not losses, but total principal) as follows:

"LIMITATION ON AGGREGATE INSURANCE AUTHORITY.—The aggregate original principal obligation of all mortgages insured under this section may not exceed $300,000,000,000."

That's $300 billion of original principal. If there is some loophole by which the Treasury's action is legal, it's clear that it was no part of Congressional intent, and certainly not broad public support. Taxpayers are now being obligated by the Treasury and the Fed to make good on a potentially much larger volume of bad mortgage loans, made by reckless lenders, guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in return for a pittance (called a "G-fee"), and packaged into securities which are now largely owned by the Federal Reserve, which has acquired them through outright purchases (not traditional repurchase agreements).

As I wrote several weeks ago, "The Federal Reserve has expanded the U.S. monetary base by more than 150% since the beginning of the recession. That is not a typo. The monetary base has soared from $800 billion to over $2 trillion. Much of this has been accomplished through outright purchases of mortgage-backed securities (not repurchases) and an equivalent creation of base money. Unless these securities can be sold back out into private hands for the same value that was paid to acquire them, the Fed will have effectively forced the U.S. government to make its implicit guarantee of these agency securities explicit, without the authorization of Congress. To the extent that the underlying mortgages default, the U.S. government will be forced to issue additional Treasuries to retire the mortgage backed securities now held by the Fed. Alternatively, if the U.S. does not explicitly bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to the full extent, the Fed will have created money, with no recourse, and without the equivalent backing of assets or securities on its books. In short, the Fed is now engaging in unlegislated, back-door fiscal policy."

The Treasury's action last week completes this circle. It provides a surprise pledge of public resources to make these mortgage loans whole, and an unlegislated commitment to make the "implicit" backing of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac explicit. All without debate, and without the force of public will. Even as the homeowners underlying these mortgages lose their property to foreclosure.

Accounting Rule Change Footnotes

From that perspective, and it's a proper one, these accounting rule changes are nothing but a tiny historical footnote on damage long ago done by Congress ceding power, knowingly or unknowingly to the Fed.

Fed Uncertainty Principle Yet Again

Clever readers will note this as a part of my Fed Uncertainty Principle.

Uncertainty Principle Corollary Number Two:

The government/quasi-government body most responsible for creating this mess (the Fed), will attempt a big power grab, purportedly to fix whatever problems it creates. The bigger the mess it creates, the more power it will attempt to grab. Over time this leads to dangerously concentrated power into the hands of those who have already proven they do not know what they are doing.

That was written April 3, 2008, long before the Fed started usurping powers the constitution grants Congress.

Taxpayers are now on the hook for these losses, and the accounting rule change is a mere reflection of that fact.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Click Here To scroll Thru My Recent Post List

Sunday Funnies 2011-01-23 Student Loans; Solar Energy Madness in Europe

Posted: 23 Jan 2011 10:50 AM PST

Reflections on a Wise College Major

For more on the student loan scam, please see Budget Deficit Accounting Fraud and the Off-Balance-Sheet Student Loan Scam; Time to Scrap Entire Student Loan Program

Solar Energy Madness in Europe

In an effort to spur solar energy in France, Germany, Spain and other European countries, bureaucratic dunces decided to pay as much as 10 times market rates for those supplying energy to the power grid.

In response, farmers in France have started building "barns" that serve no other purpose than a place to put solar panels. Supermarkets put solar panels on their roofs and unused sections of parking lots.

It has been a boom to solar panel makers (China), but it is costing costing the French power company Electricite de France SA more than a billion euros ($1.3 billion) a year to meet government mandated pledges to accept solar energy from those supplying the grid.

At the end of 2010, EDF received 3,000 applications a day to connect panels to the grid. In 2008, the number of applications was 7,100 for the entire year.

The results should have been easy to predict in advance, but you can never explain anything to economic illiterates interfering in the free markets hoping to make things better. They never do.

Please consider EDF's Solar 'Time Bomb' Will Tick On After France Pops Bubble

France's solar power boom that's led to farmers building unneeded barns just to cover them in panels is costing Electricite de France SA more than a billion euros ($1.3 billion) a year as it meets state pledges to pay above-market prices for renewable energy.

The cost is siphoning off funds from EDF as it plans to spend 35 billion euros to extend the life of France's aging nuclear plants.

The tax shortfall will widen this year and last until 2017 even as the government moves to cool the solar rush, said Aurel BGC analyst Louis Boujard.

EDF shares have dropped 20 percent over the past year, compared with a 3.7 percent decline in Europe's Stoxx 600 Utilities Index. The Paris-based company had net debt of $57 billion euros at the end of June, according to a company filing.

Elsewhere in Europe, governments have stepped in to contain spiraling growth in solar generation.

The Czech Senate introduced a temporary tax on solar producers in December, and Spain limited the hours during which existing solar parks can earn premium rates. Germany almost doubled the surcharge consumers have to pay in renewable-energy subsidies starting this year.

To end what it has called a "speculative bubble," France on Dec. 10 imposed a three-month freeze on solar projects to devise rules that could include caps on development and lowering the so-called feed-in tariffs that pay the higher rate for renewable power. The tariffs were cut twice in 2010.

The French cuts haven't slowed demand for new solar projects. EDF received 3,000 applications a day to connect panels to the grid at the end of last year, compared with about 7,100 connections in all of 2008, according to the government and EDF. France could reach its 2020 target of 5,400 megawatts of solar generating capacity by the end of 2011 if all proposed projects are completed.

France's energy regulator estimates EDF will pay an average of 546 euros a megawatt-hour for solar power in 2011. That's almost 10 times estimated spot market power prices of 55 euros, and the highest among renewable energy sources.

The promise of rich returns spurred suburban supermarkets to put photovoltaic panels in parking lots and farmers to install units on empty, purpose-built barns, according to a French parliamentary report.

Politicians Never See It Coming

"We just didn't see it coming," French lawmaker Francois-Michel Gonnot said of the boom. "What's in the pipeline this year is unimaginable. Farmers were being told they could put panels on hangars and get rid of their cows."

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Click Here To scroll Thru My Recent Post List

Jim Rogers Calls for $200 Oil, Remains Bullish on the Yuan; Limiting Factors Rogers Misses

Posted: 23 Jan 2011 02:41 AM PST

Jim Rogers says oil will hit $200. Please consider this audio interview with Justin Rowlatt at the Business Daily.

Here is a partial transcript from the BBC.

Justin Rowlatt: Do you really believe the Chinese boom can continue, because lots of people are saying there are all sorts of asset price bubbles that are going to trip the Chinese up in the coming years?

Jim Rogers: Well, the only asset bubble I see potentially in China is in urban coastal real estate, but real estate is not nearly the entire Chinese economy as it was in America and the U.K. Sure, they will have setbacks.

Justin, in the 19th Century, America had a horrible civil war. We had 15 depressions with a 'D.' We had very few human rights. We had massacres in the streets regularly. We had very little rule of law. You could buy and sell - you can still buy and sell congressmen in America, but in those days they were cheap. America had horrible problems, but they came out of that and had a pretty good 20th Century.

Justin Rowlatt: So what does that imply about where people should put their money; where are the sensible investments in Asia?

Jim Rogers: Well, the best way to invest in Asia in my view is to buy commodities, because the Chinese have to buy cotton, they have to buy zinc, they have to buy oil, they have to buy natural resources because they don't have enough.

If you want to invest in China and you own cotton, they are going to be very nice to you Justin. They are going to pay the bills, they are going to take you to dinner, they are going to pay you on time. If you want to invest in stocks, you have to do a lot of homework and know what you are doing. Another way is to invest in the currency. I own the renminbi. I expect the renminbi to go up a great deal over the next decade.

Justin Rowlatt: But commodities are already at relatively high prices, aren't they? I mean hasn't that horse bolted already?

Jim Rogers: No, no, the only commodity I know which is making an all time high is gold. Some commodities are up, yes. Sugar is up a lot, but Justin, sugar is still 50% below its all time high. How can you say that's bolted? Silver is going up, but silver is 40% below its all time high. Yes, commodities have been going up recently, but they are still extremely depressed on a historic basis.

Justin Rowlatt: So what about oil? I mean oil prices are pretty high, aren't they? Almost $100 a barrel. Are they really going to go higher do you think?

Jim Rogers: Well, the surprise is going to be how high the price of oil stays and how high it goes, because Justin we have had no major elephant oil discoveries in over 40 years. The International Energy Agency is going around the world pleading with people to listen. Known reserves of oil are declining. It is not good news. Unless somebody discovers a lot of oil very quickly, prices are going to go much higher over the next decade.

Justin Rowlatt: How high do you think the oil price could go then?

Jim Rogers: Justin, the price of oil is going to make new highs. It will go over $150 a barrel. It will probably go over $200 a barrel.

Limiting Factors Rogers Misses

Not many people have investment timelines of a decade. Moreover, there are a lot of things that can happen along the way. If oil were to drop to $60 and stay there for a number of years I would not want to be in it praying for $200 at some time in the future.

Rogers compares China to the US but fails to point point out (figure out), that one reason the US was able to grow fast was cheap oil prices. Other factors supportive of growth are strong personal property rights and a rule of law.

From my point of view, peak oil is a limiting constraint on the China's growth. Thus, on a fundamental basis, the higher oil and commodity prices go, the less bullish one should be on China.

Near-term Rogers clearly misses property bubbles and rampant unsustainable credit growth, over three times China's GDP growth. When that credit bubble pops, and China's property bubble with it, the Yuan will likely take a plunge as well.

For now, I side with Jim Chanos, a China bear in this debate. Please see "Consensus Nonsense"; Is the Yuan Undervalued? Who Wins a Currency War? for additional details.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Click Here To scroll Thru My Recent Post List