Thursday, February 26, 2009

The DECB Daily Market Report

Dow = 7182.08 88.81 (-) ;
last week's range [7366, 7556]
last week's range (change) = [51, 298]
[Nov.20.08 bear-market low 7552.29]
VIX = 44.66 (-);
last week's range [47, 49]
Oil = $44.46 (+) ;
last week's range [35, 39]
Dollar Index = 87.81 (null) ;
last week's range [87, 88]
Baltic Dry Index = 1950 10 (-) ;
last week's range [1846, 2099]
BLS - Unemployment = 7.6%

*Red means out of range, below the lower bound
*Bold means out of range, above the upper bound

Economic Events of the Day

Event(Indicator) Consensus Actual +/-
Existing Home Sales - Level - SA 4.80M 4.49M -0.31
Existing Home Sales - M/M Change 4.80 M % -5.30% /null/
Existing Home Sale - Yr/Yr Chang 4.80 M % -8.60% /null/
---
Consumer Confidence - Level 35.50 25.00 -10.50
---
US - Jobless Claims (wk2/21, 2009)

New Claims - Level 625.00K 667.00K 42.00
4-week Moving Average - Level 625.00K 639.00K 14.00
---
US - Durable Goods Orders (Jan, 2009)
Reporting Period: Jan, 2009
Associated Indicators
Event(Indicator) Consensus Actual +/-
New Orders - M/M change -2.50% -5.20% -2.70
---
New Home Sales - Level - SAAR 330.00K 309.00K -21.00
---

Powered by ScribeFire.

The DECB Daily Asian Market Report

NI225 (Japan) = 7457.93      3.29 (-)
last week's range [7416, 7750]

HK:HSI ( Hong Kong} = 12,894.94      110.14 (-)
last week's range [12699, 13456]



Powered by ScribeFire.

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

The DECB Daily Market Report

Dow =     7270.89      80.05 (-) ;
last week's range [7366, 7556]
last week's range (change) = [51, 298]
[Nov.20.08 bear-market low 7552.29]
VIX  =    44.67 (-);
last week's range [47, 49]
Oil    =   $42.31   (+) ;     
last week's range [35, 39]
Dollar Index = 87.81 (+)  ;
last week's range [87, 88]
Baltic Dry Index = 1960.00      50 (-)  ;
last week's range [1846, 2099]
BLS - Unemployment = 7.6%

*Red means out of range, below the lower bound
*Bold means out of range, above the upper bound



Powered by ScribeFire.

The DECB Daily Asian Market Report

NI225 (Japan) = 7461.22      192.66 (+)
last week's range [7416, 7750]

HK:HSI ( Hong Kong} = 13005.08      206.561 (+)
last week's range [12699, 13456]



Powered by ScribeFire.

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Half of modified mortgages go sour in 6 months

Thrift regulator releases study on success rate of reworked loans
By Ronald D. Orol, MarketWatch
Last update: 4:15 p.m. EST Feb. 24, 2009

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) - More than half of all modified mortgages defaulted again within six months, a top banking regulator testified on Tuesday.
A study looking at loans that were modified in the first three months of 2008 showed that 37% of borrowers were more than 30 days behind on their payment within three months, and 55% had re-defaulted within six months¸ said Grovetta Gardineer, a managing director at the Office of Thrift Supervision, which conducted the study.
The statistics echoed the results of a similar report released last year by the Office of Comptroller of the Currency that also showed a similar high level of re-defaults on modified mortgages.
Gardineer described details of a "mortgage metrics" report at a House Financial Services Committee hearing on Capitol Hill.
That plan seeks to use government funds to encourage private mortgage investors and other lenders to modify mortgages for troubled homeowners who are still current on their payments. The government hopes it can help up to 9 million homeowners avoid default or foreclosure.
The plan also seeks to help other borrowers that owe more than 80% of the value of their homes to refinance high-cost mortgages into ones that have lower interest rates. In many cases, borrowers in these circumstances owe more than their homes are worth and otherwise wouldn't be able to refinance.
It's unclear whether the Obama approach will reduce the number of homeowners who re-default on mortgages modified as part of the program.
Whole mortgages
The OTS report also showed that modified mortgages held by banks had slightly lower re-default rates than those serviced on behalf of third parties, such as investors in mortgage securities. It showed that 35% of modified whole mortgages held by banks re-defaulted after three months while 51% re-defaulted after six months.
"The lower re-default rate for loans held by servicers may suggest that there is greater flexibility to modify loans in more sustainable ways when loans are held on a servicer's own books than when loans have been sold to third parties," Gardineer said.
Roughly 88% of the mortgages in the study were held by third parties through securitized mortgages, according to the report. These securitized mortgages are held by Fannie Mae , Freddie Mac and private mortgage investors.
OTS will release its report on the fourth quarter of 2008 in March.
The report also suggests that borrowers who owe more than their homes are worth after a modification are more likely to default on their mortgages. The result suggests that the Obama administration's borrower refinancing program may have a greater chance of succeeding.



Powered by ScribeFire.

Delinquencies accelerate in fourth quarter

Bank charge-offs jump 42% to record $34.5 billion
By Rex Nutting, MarketWatch
Last update: 3:47 p.m. EST Feb. 24, 2009

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) - Bank loans were going bad at a faster pace in the fourth quarter of the year, forcing banks to charge-off a record $34.5 billion in delinquent loans, the Federal Reserve reported Tuesday.
The seasonally adjusted delinquency rate for all bank loans rose to 4.6% in the fourth quarter from 3.7% in the third quarter. That's the highest delinquency rate since 1992 in the aftermath of the savings & loan crisis. A year ago, the delinquency rate was 2.4%.
Delinquencies were growing faster last quarter than at any other time since the Fed started collecting the delinquency data in 1985.
For residential real estate, the delinquency rate rose to a record 6.3% in the fourth quarter from 5.2% in the third quarter and 3% a year earlier.
Consumer credit card delinquencies rose to a record 5.6% from 4.8% in the third quarter.
Delinquencies for commercial real estate loans increased to 5.4% in the fourth quarter from 4.7% in the third, and double the rate a year earlier.
The charge-off rate increased to 1.9% from 1.5% in the third quarter, with banks charging off a record $35.5 billion, up from $24.2 billion in the third quarter and $13.9 billion in the fourth quarter a year earlier.



Powered by ScribeFire.

The DECB Daily Market Report

Dow =     7350.94      236.16 (+) ;
last week's range [7366, 7556]
last week's range (change) = [51, 298]
[Nov.20.08 bear-market low 7552.29]
VIX  =    45.49 (-);
last week's range [47, 49]
Oil    =   $39.85   (+) ;     
last week's range [35, 39]
Dollar Index = 86.83 (-)  ;
last week's range [87, 88]
Baltic Dry Index = 2,010.00      74 (-)  ;
last week's range [1846, 2099]

*Red means out of range, below the lower bound
*Bold means out of range, above the upper bound



Powered by ScribeFire.

The DECB Daily Asian Market Report

NI225 (Japan) = 7,268.56      107.60 (-)
last week's range [7416, 7750]

HK:HSI ( Hong Kong} = 12,789.60   385.50  (-)
last week's range [12699, 13456]



Powered by ScribeFire.

Monday, February 23, 2009

The DECB Daily Market Report

Dow =     7114.78      250.89 (-) ;
last week's range [7366, 7556]
last week's range (change) = [51, 298]
[Nov.20.08 bear-market low 7552.29]
VIX  =    52.62 (+);
last week's range [47, 49]
Oil    =   $38.25   (-) ;     
last week's range [35, 39]
Dollar Index = 87.26 (+)  ;
last week's range [87, 88]
Baltic Dry Index = 2,084.00      15 (+)  ;
last week's range [1846, 2099]
BLS - Unemployment = 7.6%



Powered by ScribeFire.

Bernanke Offers Jobless Recovery as Humphrey-Hawkins Hopes Fade

By Craig Torres

Feb. 23 (Bloomberg) -- Hubert Humphrey and Augustus Hawkins wouldn’t like what Ben S. Bernanke has to say to Congress tomorrow.

The Federal Reserve chairman, delivering semiannual testimony required in legislation written by the late lawmakers, will describe a U.S. economy returning to growth next year without generating many new jobs. Even with credit markets thawing, Fed officials see unemployment persisting at 8 percent or higher through the final three months of 2010.

“We could have an awkward situation where the recession ends and the job-loss situation continues for some time,” says Christopher Rupkey, chief financial economist at Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd. in New York. That “probably hasn’t been a factor that has pressured the Fed since the 1990-1991 recession.”

A recovery with slow job growth would keep pressure on the Fed to hold interest rates around zero and to continue or expand billions of dollars in lending programs and asset purchases. It would also mark a failure to fulfill the mandate of the Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act, signed into law by President Jimmy Carter on Oct. 27, 1978, that the central bank achieve both maximum employment and stable prices.

“We’ve got a lot to talk about,” says Representative Maxine Waters, a California Democrat who succeeded Hawkins in Congress in 1991. She serves on the House Financial Services Committee, which will hear from Bernanke on Feb. 25, the day after he meets with the Senate Banking Committee.

Presidential Nominee

Hawkins died in 2007; the bill’s other author, Minnesota Senator Humphrey -- a former Democratic vice president and 1968 presidential nominee -- died in 1978 before the measure was approved.

Bernanke, the 55-year-old Fed chairman, says returning to lower levels of unemployment depends on financial stability and improved flows of credit. The Fed has used its balance sheet to try to compensate for the pullback in bank lending, more than doubling Fed credit to the economy to $1.9 trillion.

Preventing higher unemployment “depends critically on policy,” Bernanke told the National Press Club in Washington on Feb. 18. “If we can take strong and aggressive action, including the Fed’s actions to try to improve credit markets, I think we can break the back of this thing and we will begin to see improvements in 2009.”

While some Fed officials expect economic growth to resume in the latter half of this year, unemployment may not get below 7 percent until 2011 or even later, according to the latest forecast.

Jobless Recovery

That means the U.S. may be in for its third jobless recovery since 1991. The recession bottomed in March of that year, and unemployment kept increasing for 15 months, reaching 7.8 percent in June 1992. Similarly, the last recession ended in November 2001, and unemployment didn’t peak until reaching 6.3 percent in June 2003.

“We have to expect a similar kind of outcome” in the next recovery, says Conrad DeQuadros, partner at RDQ Economics LLC in New York.

Job losses this time around may be broader and longer- lasting, suggesting they will be even more difficult to overcome when the economy eventually starts growing again.

Employers slashed 598,000 jobs in January, the biggest monthly decline since December 1974. Of the workers affected, 48.5 percent were terminated permanently, the highest proportion in government statistics going back to 1967.

That’s an indication fewer companies are trying to “hoard” labor. Employers in industries that are likely to shrink have little reason to retain workers as long as possible or lay them off temporarily to avoid retraining costs.

Eliminating Positions

Retailers including Circuit City Stores Inc., which filed for bankruptcy last year, have trimmed 592,000 jobs since November 2007, eliminating 45,000 positions in January alone.

In financial services, employment fell by 42,000 last month following 25 bank closures in 2008. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. classified 171 banks as “problem” in the third quarter and said industry earnings fell 94 percent from the previous year.

Manufacturing employment dropped by 207,000 in January, the largest one-month decline since October 1982. More factory jobs will vanish as General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC discontinue models and close plants to avoid bankruptcy.

Companies are terminating workers or reducing hours even faster than they are trimming output -- causing productivity in the fourth quarter to increase at a 3.2 percent annual rate, more than economists had forecast.

Broad Decline

What’s more, the decline in employment is broader than ever. A Labor Department index that compares the number of industries hiring with the number cutting jobs hit a record low of 25 in January. That means 75 percent of the 271 industries tracked were firing and only 25 percent were adding workers.

“The labor force is now having a more difficult time returning to employment, and that absolutely will create pressure to keep the policy response aggressive,” says Abiel Reinhart, economist at JPMorgan Securities Inc. in New York. “You also see a larger chunk of people leaving the labor force altogether.”

JPMorgan expects the Fed to keep the benchmark lending rate at zero to 0.25 percent for the next two years, not raising rates until at least 2011.

President Barack Obama may also need to expand the $787 billion fiscal-stimulus package he signed into law Feb. 17.

Tax Breaks

Chris Varvares, president of Macroeconomic Advisers LLC in St. Louis, says Obama’s tax breaks and government investment will keep the peak unemployment rate at about 8.8 percent instead of around 9.5 percent without the federal spending. A jobless rate that lingers above 8 percent means “we may have to have several expansions of unemployment benefits,” he says.

Former House Financial Services Committee Chairman Jim Leach says the worst thing policy makers can do is not to do enough.

“It is an extraordinary challenge for the Fed and the Congress,” says Leach, now a visiting professor at Princeton University in New Jersey. “One of the lessons of the ‘30s is that in 1937 Franklin Roosevelt, fearing inflationary pressures, reversed gears on fiscal policy. And so, all of a sudden, the economy began to weaken again.”

While the Fed can’t cut interest rates any more, it still has plenty of tools. Bernanke has already said the Fed is studying purchases of long-term Treasuries, a move that may lower interest rates for consumers and businesses.

The Fed could also broaden the collateral it will accept in a program designed to finance auto, small-business and credit- card loans. The Fed said this facility could expand to $1 trillion from $200 billion.

“As aggressive as the policy response has been to date, a high unemployment rate raises questions about whether that has been enough or whether we are in store for a lot more,” says Brian Sack, a former Fed economist and vice president at Macroeconomic Advisers.

To contact the reporter on this story: Craig Torres in Washington at ctorres3@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: February 22, 2009 19:00 EST




Powered by ScribeFire.

Geithner Bad Bank Alternative May Rely on Loans to Hedge Funds

By James Sterngold

Feb. 23 (Bloomberg) -- Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner’s financial-rescue plan may be doomed if he doesn’t offer low-cost loans to hedge funds and other investors to help them buy toxic assets weighing down bank balance sheets.

Creating a “bad bank” or “aggregator bank” that would use federal funds to acquire and warehouse the assets, as some have proposed, would be costly for taxpayers and require too much government interference, say two experts on distressed securities who have pitched an alternative plan to officials.

John Ryding, chief economist at RDQ Economics LLC in New York, and Matt Chasin, chief operating officer of Sorin Capital Management LLC, a Stamford, Connecticut-based hedge fund that manages about $1 billion, say the Treasury Department should provide loans at commercial rates to investors for up to 50 percent of the purchase price of securities. The financing would be for as long as the maturities of the assets being acquired.

“One of the problems the banks have been facing is that the markets have forced artificially low prices on these assets because there’s not enough financing available for buyers,” said Ryding, 51, a former Federal Reserve economist who advises hedge funds. “There’s a lot of capital looking for distressed assets, if hedge funds can get good financing.”

Geithner sketched out a rescue plan on Feb. 10 that was short on specifics. It called for a “public-private financing component,” with up to $1 trillion, that would enable financial institutions “to cleanse their balance sheets of what are often referred to as ‘legacy’ assets.” He said it “could involve putting public or private capital side-by-side and using public financing to leverage private capital.”

Aggregator Bank

Treasury officials said in background briefings that the plan would include some kind of government financing for private purchases of toxic assets, mostly mortgage-backed securities. Details are still being worked out, they said.

Ryding, who was chief U.S. economist at Bear Stearns Cos. until last June, when JPMorgan Chase & Co. acquired the failed securities firm, first offered his plan in a Sept. 30 investor note. His proposal, which he says was presented to Treasury and Fed officials last fall, would limit taxpayer losses, allow the market to determine prices for troubled securities and restart trading in the assets.

Realistic pricing set by the markets would unlock a freer flow of capital, Ryding and Chasin say, and avoid claims that the government is subsidizing either the banks, if prices are set too high, or the purchasers, if they are set too low.

Spokespeople at the Fed and Treasury declined to comment on the plan.

TATL, TALF

“Lack of financing is a huge problem for the market,” said Laurie Goodman, a senior managing director at Austin, Texas-based Amherst Securities Group LP and a former head of mortgage research at UBS AG. “Extending the lending facility would raise the value of the mortgage assets, as the yield required by the marginal buyer, a hedge fund, would be lower.”

Ryding and Chasin, who also worked at Bear Stearns, call their fund a Troubled Asset Term Lending facility, or TATL. It would be similar to one developed by Treasury last year, the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility, or TALF. That fund is scheduled to begin operating in early March and will provide up to $1 trillion of financing for buyers of new securities backed by credit card, auto and small-business loans.

The TATL fund would provide financing for so-called legacy assets, such as mortgage-backed and other collateralized securities that are declining in value and corroding bank balance sheets.

‘Increasing Liquidity’

Under the plan, the government would charge rates similar to those for commercial loans before the credit crisis, about 125 basis points over the London Interbank Offered Rate. The financing would be for as long as the maturities of the securities acquired, and it would cover a maximum of half the purchase price.

That would make it more likely, Ryding and Chasin say, that the government would recover the full value of the loan in the event of a default. In that case, the U.S. could seize the securities provided as collateral and would only lose money if the value of the asset fell more than 50 percent below the purchase price.

“This is potentially a way of increasing liquidity, and if you could do that it may get you to a place where you can start making new securitizations,” which would allow increased lending, said Lee Cotton, an investor and former president of the New York-based Commercial Mortgage Securities Association.

Price vs. Leverage

Some hedge fund managers expressed skepticism. Eric Banks, a partner at New York-based Tolis Advisors LP, which invests in distressed securities, said the real problem is that many banks are unwilling to sell toxic assets at depressed prices and take additional writedowns.

“Although government loans could improve secondary market participation and liquidity, legacy distressed assets owned by banks have been offered with seller financing included, yet only sporadic transactions occurred,” Banks said. “The primary cause of the ongoing stalemate seems to be price rather than leverage.”

Ryding and Chasin agree that, even if the plan works, it will force banks to absorb additional losses, which might require more taxpayer money.

“At the end of the day, this will not relieve banks of their capital-inadequacy problems,” said Chasin. “The government is probably going to have to fill that hole.”

To contact the reporter on this story: James Sterngold in Los Angeles at jsterngold2@bloomberg.net

Last Updated: February 23, 2009 00:01 EST




Powered by ScribeFire.

Economic Notebook Features

a) The DECB Daily Asian Market Report
b) The DECB Daily Market Report
c) Articles of Interest (new)
d) The Fed Report (new - coming this week)
e) The BLS Report (new - coming this week)
f) Economics 101 (new)
g) Depression Watch



Powered by ScribeFire.

The DECB Daily Asian Market Report

NI225 (Japan) = 7,416.38      141.27 (-);
last week's range [7416, 7750]

HK:HSI ( Hong Kong} = 13175.10   475.93 (+)
last week's range [12699, 13456]



Powered by ScribeFire.

Depression Watch (Fri. Feb.20.2009)

{Dow Close}

(Fri Feb.20) =           7,365.67     100.28 (-) ; the week's range [7366, 7556] ; the difference = 190
(Fri Feb.13)     =        7,850.41    82.35 (-) ; the week's range [7850, 8271] ; the difference = 421
(Fri Feb.6)   =        8,280.59    217.52 (+) ; the week's range [7937, 8281] ; the difference = 344
(Fri Jan.30) =            8,000.86  ;  148.15 (-) ; the week's range [8000, 8375] ; the difference = 375
(Fri Jan.23)          =  8,077.56   45.24 (-)


[note - Nov. 20 bear-market low of 7,552.29 ]

{Range}

(4wks) =              [7850, 8281]
(5wks) =              [7366, 8281]

{Change Range}

(Feb.16-Feb.20) = [51, 298]
(Feb.09-Feb.13) = [7, 382]
(Feb.02-Feb.06) = [64, 218]
(Jan.26-Jan.30) = [64, 226]

{FFC - Friday to Friday Change}
(Fri Feb.20) =                            317.96 (-)
(Fri Feb13) =                               430.18 (-)
(Fri Feb.6) =                              279.73 (+)
(Fri Jan.30) =                            76.7 (-)
(Fri Jan.23) =                            203.66 (-)

(4 wks) =                                318.59 (-)
(5 wks) =                                748.77 (-)

Range (4 wks) = [77, 430] ; Difference = 353
Range (5 wks) = [77, 430] ; Difference = 353

{VIX}
(Fri Feb.20)     =                       49.30    ;  the week's range [47, 49] ; the difference = 2
(Fri Feb.13)     =                       42.93    ;  the week's range [41, 47] ; the difference = 6   
(Fri Feb.6)     =                        43.37    ;  the week's range [43, 46] ; the difference = 3
(wk-avg Feb.20) =                  48.375    ;     6.468 (+)
(wk-avg Feb.13)   =                  44.41    ;     0.374 (-)
(wk-avg Feb.6)   =                  40.978    ;     3.620 (-)
(wk-avg Jan.30)   =                43.014    ;     6.394 (-)
(wk-avg Jan.23) =                  49.408    ;     2.336 (+)


Range (4 wks) = [41, 49] ; Difference = 8
Range (5 wks) = [41, 49] ; Difference = 8

{Oil}
(Fri Feb.20) =                 $38.94 ; the week's range [35, 39] ; the difference = 4 ;
(Fri Feb.13) =                   $37.51 ; the week's range [34, 40] ; the difference = 6
(Fri Feb.6) =                  $40.17 ;  the week's range [40, 41] ; the difference = 1
(Fri Jan.30) =                 $41.68 ;  the week's range [42, 46] ; the difference = 4
(Fri Jan.23) =                 $46.47

Range (4 wks) = [36, 46] ; Difference = 10
Range (5 wks) = [36, 46] ; Difference = 10

{Dollar Index}

(Fri Feb.20) =                86.61 ;  the week's range [87, 88] ; the difference = 1
(Fri Feb.13) =                86.04 ;  the week's range [85, 86] ; the difference = 1
(Fri Feb.6) =                  85.29 ;  the week's range [85, 86] ; the difference = 1
(Fri Jan.30) =                86.00

{Baltic Dry Index}

(Feb.20) = 2,099.00      42.00 (+) ; the week's range [1846, 2099] ; the difference = 253

{NI225 - Japan}

(Fri Feb.20) =                7,416.38      141.27 (-);  the week's range [7416, 7750] ; the difference = 1

{HK:HSI - Hong Kong}

(Fri Feb.20) =                12,699.17      324.19 (-) ;  the week's range [12699, 13456] ; the difference = 1


{Last Week}

A new approximate range has been set, [7900, 8300] . This after much of the week was spent at the [7900] low end of the range.

{This Week}

A new approximate range has been set (again) this week ; [7300, 7700] . This range allows for a movement of either 100 points from the low or 100 points from the high (50% of the 190, rounded to 200, difference).



Powered by ScribeFire.

Depression Watch (Feb.16-Feb.19.2009)

{Dow}
(Thurs) =        7,465.95      89.68 (-)
(Wed) =                7,555.63    50.65 (+)  
(Tues) =        7,552.60    297.81 (-)     
(Mon) =                closed
last week's range [7850, 8271]
last week's range (change) = [7, 382]
Nov. 20 bear-market low of 7,552.29

{VIX}
(Thurs)     =                 47.08 (-)
(Wed)    =                  48.46  (-)
(Tues)  =                   48.66 (+)
(Mon)    =                  closed
Normal   =                30 [3 +/-] {Best Fit Curve: Trig. function}
last week's wk-avg =  44.41
last week's range [41, 47]

{Oil}
(Thurs)     =                $38.76  (+) ;  
(Wed)       =               $34.75   (-) ;             
(Tues)    =                $35.05    (+) ;
(Mon)    =                $closed ;     
last week's range [34, 40]

{Dollar Index}

(Thurs)     =              87.55 (-)  
(Wed)       =              88.03 (+)           
(Tues)    =               87.63 (+)
(Mon)    =               closed (+)
last week's range [85, 86]

{Baltic Dry Index}

(Thurs) =              2,057.00      71 (+)
(Wed) =                  1,986.00       91 (+)
(Tues) =                 1,895.00      49 (+)
(Mon) =                  1,846.00    62

{NI225 - Japan}

(Thurs) =        7,557.65      23.21 (+)
(Wed) =              7534.44  111.07 (-)
(Tues) =             7645.51  104.66 (-)
(Mon) =              7750.17

{HK:HSI - Hong Kong}

(Thurs) =        13023.36        7.36 (+)
(Wed) =             13016.00    70.60 (+)
(Tues) =             12945.4
(Mon) =              13455.88    98.79 (-)

{BLS}

Unemployment =  7.6% (Jan.09)


{Last Week}

In math there is only one type of number, and rounding any number reduces the accuracy. However, this is not true in physics. In physics numbers are measurements, or calculations of measurements. Here the limitations to accuracy stand beyond the control of math. Consequently, in dynamic modeling, round can actual serve to improve the accuracy of a model. For example, in our case, we need to create a container that identifies normal movement (a normal trading range). How we set the rounding of the bounds, will determine the quality of normal trading range, and allow us to separate significant movements in the market, from option plays or market manipulation.

{This Week}

Our current model is working well, significant moves outside the appropriate ranges are being identified. Understanding the use of ranges helps us filter out all the noise coming from the media, and focus solely on the numbers. It needs to be understood, that we are modelling a dynamic system and there is no prediction - there is only an approximation. The goal is the achieve the closest approximation.

We found that the DOW provided the closest approximation to the economy, and that while the VIX improved our understanding, it wasn't (and isn't) as sufficient as the range identification. As such, we removed the S&P 500 from our model (leaving the VIX). Next, we found that the Asian markets did have an effect on the DOW, so two markets were selected to track against the DOW. These are the Hong Kong : Hang Seng Index and the Nikkei. These markets have been added to the Dollar Index and the Baltic Dry Index.








Powered by ScribeFire.

Friday, February 20, 2009

Fannie Mae Rescue Hindered as Asians Seek Guarantee (Update1)

By Wes Goodman and Jody Shenn

Feb. 20 (Bloomberg) -- Asian investors won’t buy debt and mortgage-backed securities from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac until they carry explicit U.S. guarantees, similar to those given on bonds issued by Bank of America Corp. or Citigroup Inc.

The risks are too great without a pledge that the U.S. will repay the debt no matter what, according to Hideo Shimomura, chief fund investor in Tokyo for Mitsubishi UFJ Asset Management Co., and other bondholders and analysts in Japan, China and South Korea interviewed by Bloomberg. Overseas resistance may hamper U.S. efforts to hold down home-loan rates and rebuild the nation’s largest mortgage-finance companies.

Even after President Barack Obama vowed on Feb. 18 to sink as much as $400 billion of capital into Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, double the original commitment, “there is still a concern that there is no guarantee” from the government, said Shimomura, who oversees $4 billion in non-yen bonds for the arm of Japan’s largest bank.

“Looking at the risk, they’re not so attractive,” he said. “We need a guarantee before we’ll buy.”

Foreign investors sold $170 billion of agency debt and securities in the second half of 2008, the largest amount since the Treasury began tracking sales in 1977, according to the most recent data. Asians, the biggest non-U.S. block of owners in the category, unloaded $70 billion worth from July through December, after scooping up $55 billion in the second quarter and being net buyers during much of the last decade.

The sell-off and calls for a guarantee reflect a continuing lack of confidence among foreign investors five months after the U.S. seized control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The takeovers followed the biggest surge in mortgage defaults in three decades.

Buying Programs

Without restoring foreign demand, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke will find it more difficult to cut rates on housing loans, which depend on the ability of the finance companies to attract investors for their securities at the lowest possible yield. Fannie and Freddie sell debt to fund their purchases of mortgages.

At a minimum, the Fed may have to spend more than $600 billion in its buying program for securities issued by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Ginnie Mae and the Federal Home Loan Banks, according to Margaret Kerins, an agency-debt strategist at RBS Greenwich Capital in Greenwich, Connecticut. The Treasury also bought $94.2 billion worth of mortgage-backed securities to make up for the withdrawal of foreign investors.

“You’d be back to the situation that prompted them to act” if the purchases of Fannie and Freddie debt were discontinued before foreign investors return, she said.

Yield Spreads

The Fed’s buying program resulted in a yield of 2.06 percent on Fannie Mae notes maturing May 2012 at the close of trading Feb. 18 -- 0.15 percentage point less than government- guaranteed Bank of America bonds maturing a month later and 0.12 percentage point less than similar Goldman Sachs Group Inc. debt, according to RBS Greenwich data.

Yield gaps between Fannie Mae’s 10-year debt and Treasuries have narrowed from the record of 1.75 percentage point set in November, after countries worldwide announced plans to back bank bonds and offer buyers more federal guarantees. At 0.67 percentage point, it is now 0.30 percentage point above what the spread averaged in 2006, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

The average 30-year fixed mortgage rate fell to a record low of 4.96 percent last month from 6.47 percent in the last week of October, according to Freddie Mac surveys. It rose to 5.04 percent during the week ended yesterday.

Half of $12 Trillion

Fannie Mae, based in Washington, and Freddie Mac, in McLean, Virginia, have about $1.7 trillion of corporate debt outstanding and $3.7 trillion of their guaranteed mortgage-backed securities held by other investors. The two mortgage companies finance almost half of the $12 trillion of residential loans outstanding.

The government-run conservatorship won’t end until the mortgage market recovers and the companies regain profitability, Federal Housing Finance Agency Director James Lockhart said yesterday on Bloomberg Television. He took charge of Fannie and Freddie last September and describes the companies’ U.S. backing as “effective,” though not “explicit.”

That’s not enough for foreign investors these days, said Laurie Goodman, a senior managing director at Austin, Texas- based Amherst Securities Group LP. Goodman was a former head of fixed-income research at UBS AG.

‘Full Faith’

“Overseas investors are looking for the full-faith-and- credit clarification,” Goodman said. Such a pledge would essentially about double the U.S.’s debt, potentially boosting the country’s own borrowing costs.

“The U.S. government is worried about the agency market, and market participants feel the same way,” said Kei Katayama, head of the foreign fixed-income group in Tokyo at Daiwa SB Investments Ltd., who oversees $1.6 billion of non-yen bonds for the arm of Japan’s second-biggest brokerage.

Katayama sold all of his agency debt on Sept. 16, the day after Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. filed the biggest bankruptcy ever, taking it as a sign to get out of riskier assets, he said.

The bonds also have been difficult to sell after credit markets froze last year, according to Jaemin Cheong, who trades U.S. securities in Seoul at Industrial Bank of Korea, South Korea’s biggest lender to small and mid-size companies. He said he won’t touch them.

Hedge-Fund Sales

Sellers in the fourth quarter included Caribbean-based investors, often hedge funds, which dumped a net $35.8 billion of the agency debt and securities after buying $15.7 billion in September. China sold $10.4 billion in the period after unloading $8 billion in September, while South Korea got rid of $10.5 billion.

“China’s demand for U.S. agency bonds will gradually decrease because China has drawn lessons from the credit crisis and learned to invest smarter,” said Yi Xianrong, a researcher at the Beijing-based financial research institute of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, which advises the government. “We will try to stay away from these types of bonds.”

Freddie Mac Treasurer Peter Federico connects the sales to certain institutions and doesn’t think it is part of “a broader liquidation,” although “it kind of felt like that for a couple of weeks or months later in the year.

“There are a couple of institutions who continue to sell agency debt,” he said in a Feb. 18 telephone interview. “I think their reasoning for doing that is not related to their comfort with our credit. It’s their own monetary-management and currency-related issues. Apart from those institutions, I don’t believe there is a lot of demand to sell going forward.”

Freddie Mac Treasurer

Federico spoke after the company completed a record $10 billion, three-year note sale at yields of 2.24 percent, or 0.02 percent more than JPMorgan Chase & Co. offered in a sale of government-guaranteed, three-year debt of the same size.

Asian investors bought 12 percent of this week’s sale, and North American investors purchased 72 percent, according to the company. The U.S. share was high in comparison to recent years, “but it’s very consistent with what we’ve seen over the last six months, where the U.S. domestic investor who probably understands the conservatorship status better than foreign investors has really been supporting the market in a big way,” said Drew Ertman, head of financial-institutions debt coverage at Morgan Stanley, one of the underwriters.

Amy Bonitatibus, a Fannie Mae spokeswoman, declined to comment.

Attractive Alternatives

Sales of agency debt and securities may be more closely tied to the availability of better returns in corporate bonds than a lack of faith among investors, according to Andrew Harding, chief investment officer for fixed income at Allegiant Asset Management in Cleveland. Those include bank debt with explicit U.S. guarantees offering higher yields, he said.

“I don’t think the credit quality or housing market has precluded people from buying agency debt right now,” said Harding, who helps manage $20 billion for Allegiant. “There are just more attractive alternatives.”

Fukoku Mutual Life Insurance Co. spent last year trimming “risky assets,” and it sold all agency holdings in the third quarter, said Satoshi Okumoto, general manager at the company in Tokyo, which has $63.5 billion in assets.

“It’s not really the same credit” as government debt, Okumoto said. “It’s one step below.”

To contact the reporters on this story: Wes Goodman in Singapore at wgoodman@bloomberg.netJody Shenn in New York at jshenn@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: February 20, 2009 03:33 EST


Powered by ScribeFire.

BOE’s Gieve Sees Risk of Decade-Long Depression (Update1)

By Jennifer Ryan and Brian Swint







Feb. 20 (Bloomberg) -- Bank of England Deputy Governor John
Gieve
said policy makers are trying to protect Britain from the
threat of a decade-long slump similar to that experienced by
Japan in the 1990s.


“Do we face a ten-year depression like Japan? That is a
risk, and a risk that we and other policy makers are taking very
seriously,” he said late yesterday after a speech at the London
School of Economics. “It’s a serious risk but we are addressing
it. There’s a huge amount of policy easing in the pipeline. I
don’t think it’s inevitable.”


The Bank of England this month cut the benchmark interest
rate
to 1 percent, the lowest ever, and sought permission from
the government to buy securities to create money. Policy makers
are trying to avoid the fate of Japan in the 1990s, when policy
makers hesitated before tackling a banking crisis and then
struggled to revive economic growth, leading to a so-called
“Lost Decade.”


Gieve said that the Bank of England will probably start so-
called quantitative easing in the next few weeks to increase
money supply. Policy makers are currently debating what the
“effective” zero rate is after limiting this month’s reduction
on concerns about banks’ willingness to lend at low rates of
interest, he said.


He is the latest U.K. official this month to mention the
prospect that the economic slump could turn into a depression.


1930s


Prime Minister Gordon Brown said Feb. 4 the world is
suffering a “depression.” Ed Balls, the Education Secretary
and a former adviser to Brown when he was Chancellor of the
Exchequer, suggested Feb. 7 the U.K. is facing a crisis bigger
than the slump of the 1930s.


After the panic at Northern Rock Plc in Sept. 2007, Gieve
twice joined David Blanchflower in voting in the minority for a
quarter-point interest-rate cut, while the majority of the nine-
member monetary policy committee preferred no change.


The Bank of England began buying commercial paper a week
ago when its asset purchase facility became operational using
money allocated by the Treasury. It will release data today
showing the value of transactions conducted so far.


“We don’t know how deep and prolonged this recession will
be or how soon and how completely financial markets will
recover,” Gieve said in his prepared remarks. “So it is too
early to reach settled conclusions on causes or cures.”


Last Speech


The speech was Gieve’s last as a policy maker at the U.K.
central bank. He will leave his post at the end of the month
after serving on the interest-rate setting Monetary Policy
Committee since January 2006.


Gieve will take up a position at the Kennedy School of
Government at Harvard University. On the MPC, he will be
replaced by Paul Fisher, who was previously the bank’s executive
director of foreign exchange.


There are several lessons to be learned from the financial
crisis, Gieve said. Targeting inflation may not be enough for
policy makers to steer the economy.


“If inflation targeting by an independent central bank is
an essential foundation of policy, it is pretty clearly not
sufficient on its own,” he said. “Having a large arsenal of
policy instruments, which vary in their point of influence,
provides some welcome flexibility.”


‘Cautious Skepticism’


Policy makers must “be willing to back their judgments,
whether in identifying asset bubbles or identifying firms or
markets which threaten financial stability, and to take
preemptive action,” Gieve said. “Our default position should
be one of cautious skepticism.”


Gieve said that authorities need the power to enforce
“dynamic provisioning” for financial institutions to reduce
the tendency of some accounting rules to inflate a boom and
exacerbate a bust in the economic cycle. Authorities could also
introduce restraints on lending terms, he said.


For now, the economy may slump further. Data on U.K. retail
sales and mortgage repossessions will be released today. The
next interest-rate decision is March 5.


To contact the reporters on this story:
Jennifer Ryan in London at
jryan13@bloomberg.net;
Brian Swint in London at
bswint@bloomberg.net.






Last Updated: February 20, 2009 03:52 EST










Powered by ScribeFire.

The DECB Daily Asian Market Report

{NI225 - Japan}

7,416.38      141.27 (-)

{HK:HSI - Hong Kong}

12,699.17      324.19 (-)


Powered by ScribeFire.

Thursday, February 19, 2009

The DECB Daily Market Report

Dow =     7,465.95      89.68 (-) ;
last week's range [7850, 8271]
last week's range (change) = [7, 382]
VIX  =     47.08 (-) ;
last week's range [41, 47]
Oil    =   $38.76  (+) ;     
last week's range [34, 40]
Dollar Index = 87.55 (-)  ;
last week's range [85, 86]
BLS - Unemployment = 7.6%


Powered by ScribeFire.

The DECB Daily Asian Market Report

{NI225 - Japan}

7,557.65      23.21 (+) ;

{HK:HSI - Hong Kong}

13023.36        7.36 (+)


Powered by ScribeFire.

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

The DECB Daily Market Report

Dow =     7,555.63    50.65 (+) ;
last week's range [7850, 8271]
last week's range (change) = [7, 382]
VIX  =     48.46 (-) ;
last week's range [41, 47]
Oil    =   $34.75  (-) ;     
last week's range [34, 40]
Dollar Index = 88.03 (+)  ;
last week's range [85, 86]
BLS - Unemployment = 7.6%


Powered by ScribeFire.

The DECB Daily Asian Market Report

{NI225 - Japan}

(Wed) =            7,534.44  111.07 (-)

{HK:HSI - Hong Kong}

(Wed) =            13016.00    70.60 (+)


Powered by ScribeFire.

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

The DECB Daily Market Report

Dow =     7,552.60    297.81 (-) ;
last week's range [7850, 8271]
last week's range (change) = [7, 382]
VIX  =     48.66 (+) ;
last week's range [41, 47]
Oil    =   $35.05  (+) ;     
last week's range [34, 40]
Dollar Index = 87.63 (+)  ;
last week's range [85, 86]
BLS - Unemployment = 7.6%

Red - out of range (-)
Bold - out of range (+)

References;
http://community.marketwatch.com/DECB.Economics


Powered by ScribeFire.

Monday, February 16, 2009

Depression Watch (Fri. Feb.13 2009)

{Dow Close}
(Fri Feb.13) = 7,850.41 82.35 (-) ; the week's range [7850, 8271] ; the difference = 421
(Fri Feb.6) = 8,280.59 217.52 (+) ; the week's range [7937, 8281] ; the difference = 344
(Fri Jan.30) = 8,000.86 ; 148.15 (-) ; the week's range [8000, 8375] ; the difference = 375
(Fri Jan.23) = 8,077.56 45.24 (-)
(Fri Jan.16) = 8,281.22 68.73 (+)


{Range}

(4wks) = [8001, 8281]
(5wks) = [7850, 8281]

{Change Range}

(Feb.09-Feb.13) = [7, 382]
(Feb.02-Feb.06) = [64, 218]
(Jan.26-Jan.30) = [64, 226]

{FFC - Friday to Friday Change}
(Fri Feb13) = 430.18 (-)
(Fri Feb.6) = 279.73 (+)
(Fri Jan.30) = 76.7 (-)
(Fri Jan.23) = 203.66 (-)
(Fri Jan.16) = 317.96 (-)


(4 wks) = 318.59 (-)
(5 wks) = 748.77 (-)

Range (4 wks) = [77, 430] ; Difference = 353
Range (5 wks) = [77, 430] ; Difference = 353

{VIX}
(Fri Feb.13) = 42.93 ; the week's range [41, 47] ; the difference = 6
(Fri Feb.6) = 43.37 ; the week's range [43, 46] ; the difference = 3
(wk-avg Feb.13) = 44.41 ; 0.374 (-)
(wk-avg Feb.6) = 40.978 ; 3.620 (-)
(wk-avg Jan.30) = 43.014 ; 6.394 (-)
(wk-avg Jan.23) = 49.408 ; 2.336 (+)
(wk-avg Jan.16) = 47.072 ; 6.468 (+)


Range (4 wks) = [41, 49] ; Difference = 8
Range (5 wks) = [41, 49] ; Difference = 8

{Oil}
(Fri Feb.13) = $37.51 ; the week's range [34, 40] ; the difference = 6
(Fri Feb.6) = $40.17 ; the week's range [40, 41] ; the difference = 1
(Fri Jan.30) = $41.68 ; the week's range [42, 46] ; the difference = 4
(Fri Jan.23) = $46.47
(Fri Jan.16) = $36.51


Range (4 wks) = [36, 46] ; Difference = 10
Range (5 wks) = [36, 46] ; Difference = 10

{Dollar Index}

(Fri Feb.13) = 86.04 ; the week's range [85, 86] ; the difference = 1
(Fri Feb.6) = 85.29 ; the week's range [85, 86] ; the difference = 1
(Fri Jan.30) = 86.00

{Last Week}

The new approximate range, [8000, 8500] was the adherd to with a range of [7937, 8281] ~ [8000, 8300] which is within [8000, 8500]. The difference in range can then be approximated to be [300, 400] (rounding on the 100s), or [340, 380] (rounding on the 10s). When calculating range bounds, rounding is used to create a viable numerical container. For example, 5.2 is rounded down to 5 for both the lower and upper bound; 5.5 is rounded down (to 5) for the lower bound and up (to 6) for the upper bound.

{This Week}

A new approximate range has been set, [7900, 8300] . This after much of the week was spent at the [7900] low end of the range.

Depression Watch (Feb.09 2009 to Feb.12)

{Dow}
(Thurs) = 7,932.76 6.77 (-)
(Wed) = 7,939.53 50.65 (+)
(Tues) = 7,888.88 381.99 (-)
(Mon) = 8,270.87 9.72 (-)
last week's range [7,937, 8281]
last week's range (change) = [64, 218]

{VIX}
(Thurs) = 41.25 (-)
(Wed) = 44.53 (-)
(Tues) = 46.67 (+)
(Mon) = 43.64 (-)
Normal = 30 [3 +/-] {Best Fit Curve: Trig. function}
last week's wk-avg = 40.978
last week's range [40, 46]

{Oil}
(Thurs) = $34.58 (-) ;
(Wed) = $36.03 (-) ;
(Tues) = $37.84 (-) ;
(Mon) = $39.56 (-) ;
last week's range [40, 41]

{Dollar Index}

(Thurs) = 85.98 (+)
(Wed) = 85.82 (+)
(Tues) = 85.77 (+)
(Mon) = 84.91 (-)
last week's range [85, 86]

{BLS}

Unemployment = 7.6% (Jan.09)


{Last Week}

While we have removed the S&P 500, we have added the Dollar Index, reports from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), and ranges. Ranges are the lower and upper bounds [Lower, Upper] of the various metrics listed. Movement within the range can be considered normal and not eventful, but movements outside the ranges can be considered to be signals of change.


{This Week}

In math there is only one type of number, and rounding any number reduces the accuracy. However, this is not true in physics. In physics numbers are measurements, or calculations of measurements. Here the limitations to accuracy stand beyond the control of math. Consequently, in dynamic modeling, round can actual serve to improve the accuracy of a model. For example, in our case, we need to create a container that identifies normal movement (a normal trading range). How we set the rounding of the bounds, will determine the quality of normal trading range, and allow us to separate significant movements in the market, from option plays or market manipulation.

Thursday, February 12, 2009

The DECB Daily Market Report

Dow = 7,932.76 6.77 (-) ;
last week's range [7,937, 8281]
last week's range (change) = [64, 218]
VIX = 41.25 (-) ;
last week's range [40, 46]
Oil = $34.58 (-) ;
last week's range [40, 41]
Dollar Index = 85.98 (+) ;
last week's range [85, 86]
BLS - Unemployment = 7.6%

References;
http://community.marketwatch.com/DECB.Economics

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

The DECB Daily Market Report

Dow = 7,939.53 50.65 (+) ;
last week's range [7,937, 8281]
last week's range (change) = [64, 218]
VIX = 44.53 (-) ;
last week's range [40, 46]
Oil = $36.03 (-) ;
last week's range [40, 41]
Dollar Index = 85.82 (+) ;
last week's range [85, 86]
BLS - Unemployment = 7.6%

References;
http://community.marketwatch.com/DECB.Economics

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

The DECB Daily Market Report

Dow = 7,888.88 381.99 (-) ;
last week's range [7,937, 8281]
last week's range (change) = [64, 218]
VIX = 46.67 (+) ;
last week's range [40, 46]
Oil = $37.84 (-) ;
last week's range [40, 41]
Dollar Index = 85.77 (+) ;
last week's range [85, 86]
BLS - Unemployment = 7.6%

Monday, February 9, 2009

The DECB Daily Market Report

Dow = 8,270.87 9.72 (-) ;
last week's range [7,937, 8281]
last week's range (change) = [64, 218]
VIX = 43.64 (-) ;
last week's range [40, 46]
Oil = $39.56 (-) ;
last week's range [40, 41]
Dollar Index = 84.91 (-) ;
last week's range [85, 86]
BLS - Unemployment = 7.6%

Depression Watch (Fri. Feb. 6 2009)

{Dow Close}
(Fri Feb.6)   =        8,280.59    217.52 (+) ; the week's range [7,937, 8281] ; the difference = 344
(Fri Jan.30) =            8,000.86  ;  148.15 (-) ; the week's range [8000, 8375] ; the difference = 375
(Fri Jan.23)          =  8,077.56   45.24 (-)
(Fri Jan.16) =           8,281.22    68.73 (+)
(Fri Jan.9)     =        8,599.18    143.28 (-)

{Change Range}

(Feb.02-Feb.06) = [64, 218]
(Jan.26-Jan.30) = [64, 226]

{FFC - Friday to Friday Change}
(Fri Feb.6) =                              279.73 (+)
(Fri Jan.30) =                            76.7 (-)
(Fri Jan.23) =                            203.66 (-)
(Fri Jan.16) =                            317.96 (-)
(Fri Jan.9) =                               435.51 (-)

(4 wks) =                                1033.83 (-)
(5 wks) =                                754.1 (-)

Range (4 wks) = [77, 436] ; Difference = 359
Range (5 wks) = [77, 436] ; Difference = 359

{VIX}
(Fri Feb.6)     =                       43.37    ;  the week's range [43, 46] ; the difference = 3   
(wk-avg Feb.6)   =                  40.978    ;     3.620 (-)
(wk-avg Jan.30)   =                43.014    ;     6.394 (-)
(wk-avg Jan.23) =                  49.408    ;     2.336 (+)
(wk-avg Jan.16) =                  47.072    ;     6.468 (+)
(wk-avg Jan.9)   =                  40.604    ;     0.374 (-)

Range (4 wks) = [41, 49] ; Difference = 8
Range (5 wks) = [41, 49] ; Difference = 8

{Oil}
(Fri Feb.6) =                    $40.17 ;  the week's range [40, 41] ; the difference = 1
(Fri Jan.30) =                  $41.68 ;  the week's range [42, 46] ; the difference = 4
(Fri Jan.23) =                 $46.47
(Fri Jan.16) =                 $36.51
(Fri Jan.9) =                      $40.83
    
Range (4 wks) = [36, 46] ; Difference = 10
Range (5 wks) = [36, 46] ; Difference = 10

{Dollar Index}

(Fri Feb.6) =                  85.29 ;  the week's range [85, 86] ; the difference = 1
(Fri Jan.30) =                86.00

{Last Week}

A week into the Obama Administration, and we are at the lower bound of 8000. As well, we have had 4 weeks of week to week market declines. The question here is the market in the process of setting a new trading range. This would mean that the market is not a settled (flat) market (as suggested by economics reports on a market bottom) but transitional market, with a new range to be set. The downward momentum of the market (the change, FFC, etc.) provides a probability that the transition is downward. What we have seen over the last few weeks, was a narrowing of market range. Assuming that the maximum change of 519 occurs upward (+), then a maximum of 8500, becomes the new upper bound; and the new range [8000, 8500]

{This Week}

The new approximate range, [8000, 8500] was the adherd to with a range of [7937, 8281] ~ [8000, 8300] which is within [8000, 8500]. The difference in range can then be approximated to be [300, 400] (rounding on the 100s), or [340, 380] (rounding on the 10s). When calculating range bounds, rounding is used to create a viable numerical container. For example, 5.2 is rounded down to 5 for both the lower and upper bound; 5.5 is rounded down (to 5) for the lower bound and up (to 6) for the upper bound.


Powered by ScribeFire.

Depression Watch (Feb.02 2009 to Feb.05)

{Dow}
(Thurs) =        8,063.07    106.41 (+)
(Wed) =                7,956.66    121.70 (-)  
(Tues) =        8,078.36    141.53 (+)     
(Mon) =                7,936.75    64.11 (-)
last week's range [8000, 8375]
last week's range (change) = [64, 226]

{VIX}
(Thurs)     =                 43.73 (-)
(Wed)    =                  43.85 (+)
(Tues)  =                   43.06 (-)
(Mon)    =                  45.52 (+)
(wk-avg;Jan.30) =  43.014
Normal   =                30 [3 +/-] {Best Fit Curve: Trig. function}
last week's range [40, 46]

{Oil}
(Thurs)     =                $40.95 (+) ;  
(Wed)       =               $40.25 (-) ;             
(Tues)    =                $41.00 (+) ;
(Mon)    =                $40.39 (+) ;     
last week's range [42, 46]

{Dollar Index}

(Thurs)     =              86.02 (+)  
(Wed)       =              85.70 (+)           
(Tues)    =               84.88 (-)
(Mon)    =               85.95 (+)

{BLS}

Unemployment =  7.6% (Jan.09)
The latest Productivity and Costs news release
(http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/prod2.pdf)
-------------------------------------------------------------
Productivity rose 3.2 percent in the nonfarm business sector in fourth-quarter 2008, as hours fell faster than output.  Unit labor costs increased 1.8 percent.  Manufacturing
output per hour fell 3.0 percent; unit labor costs increased 13.3 percent.  All rates are seasonally adjusted annual rates.

===

The latest Employment Situation news release
(http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf)
-------------------------------------------------------------
Payroll employment has declined by 3.6 million since December 2007; about one-half of this decline occurred in the past 3 months. In January, job losses were large and widespread.

{Last Week}

Now that we have a good baseline, we want to refine our model to provide a greater understanding of market momentum. As such, we have removed the S&P 500 from the above, because it's already factored into the VIX and the Dow provides a better guide for week to week (and up) modelling.


{This Week}

While we have removed the S&P 500, we have added the Dollar Index, reports from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), and ranges. Ranges are the lower and upper bounds [Lower, Upper] of the various metrics listed. Movement within the range can be considered normal and not eventful, but movements outside the ranges can be considered to be signals of change.







Powered by ScribeFire.

Friday, February 6, 2009

Economics 101: Defining Income & Expenses

Economics 101: Net Income = Gross Income - Expenses ;
Gross Income is the full amount on your pay check before anything is deducted.
Expenses are;
  1. paycheck deductibles;
  2. Housing (Rent, mortgage)
  3. Food
  4. Transportation
  5. primary utilities (heat and lights)
  6. secondary utilities (phone, cable/satellite, internet)
  7. taxes
  8. discretionary spending

We can split expenses into two types; Core Expenses (1-7) & Discretionary Expenses (8)


Powered by ScribeFire.

Thursday, February 5, 2009

The Twitter Daily Market Report

Dow =     8,063.07    106.41 (+) ;
last week's range [8000, 8375]
last week's range (change) = [38, 226]
VIX  =     43.73 (-) ;
last week's range [40, 46]
Oil    =   $40.95 (+) ;     
last week's range [42, 46]
Dollar Index = 86.02 (+)  ;
BLS - Unemployment = 7.2%

The latest Productivity and Costs news release ;
issued today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Highlights are below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Productivity rose 3.2 percent in the nonfarm business sector in fourth-quarter 2008, as hours fell faster than output.  Unit labor costs increased 1.8 percent.  Manufacturing output per hour fell 3.0 percent; unit labor costs increased 13.3 percent.  All rates are seasonally adjusted annual rates.

Labor cost increases should be seen as inflationary, and an economic negative.


Powered by ScribeFire.

Wednesday, February 4, 2009

The Twitter Daily Market Report

Dow =     7,956.66    121.70 (-)  ;
last week's range [8000, 8375]
last week's range (change) = [38, 226]
VIX  =     43.85 (+) ;
last week's range [40, 46]
Oil    =   $40.25 (-) ;     
last week's range [42, 46]
Dollar Index = 85.70 (+) ;
BLS - Unemployment = 7.2%


Powered by ScribeFire.

Tuesday, February 3, 2009

The Inflation Conundrum [A Twitter Thought]

Inflation pushes the cost of living up, and workers (unions & socialists) all scream for a minimum living wage, but this is contradictory. The price of a product (or service) is the cost + profit. Included in the cost of a product is essentially, materials + overhead. Materials are the raw materials need to manufacture the product; overhead is the operative cost of the business which includes taxes paid and the cost employment. This means that what a worker makes is factored into the price of the product plus profit. As a worker's pay increase so does the product price. This is inflation - and because the worker's pay is always a percentage of the products price, the pay increase will always just be a percentage of inflation (significantly less than 100% ; 100% = pay increase = inflation).


Powered by ScribeFire.

The Twitter Daily Market Report

Dow =     8,078.36    141.53 (+) ;
last week's range [8000, 8375]
last week's range (change) = [38, 226]
VIX  =     43.06 (-) ;
last week's range [40, 46]
Oil    =   $41.00 (+) ;     
last week's range [42, 46]
Dollar Index = 84.88 (-) ;
BLS - Unemployment = 7.2%


Powered by ScribeFire.

Monday, February 2, 2009

The Twitter Daily Market Report

Dow =     7,936.75    64.11 (-) ;
last week's range [8000, 8375]
last week's range (change) = [38, 226]
VIX  =     45.52 (+) ;
last week's range [40, 46]
Oil    =   $40.39 (+) ;     
last week's range [42, 46]
Dollar Index = 85.36 (+) ;
BLS - Unemployment = 7.2%


Powered by ScribeFire.

Things to note [Twitter Post]

Republicans need to step in, and step up, to stop this socialist blame game, and lynching of Wall Street, while union and GSE abuses go on ignored.


Powered by ScribeFire.

Breaking Wall Street [Twitter Post]

Socialist Democrats, like Claire McCaskill want to break Wall Street. As well, today [Feb.02.09 @ 3pm] on CNN's Talk To Rick (Rick Sanchez), he said, "to hell with Wall Street." If they are trying to avoid a depression, then why push Wall Street into bankruptcy - which will cause a depression. - http://ricksanchez.blogs.cnn.com/

BTW - Bonuses will be spent (as discretionary spending) exactly where it needs to be, in order to stimulate the economy. Providing real economic stimulus.
 


Powered by ScribeFire.

Sunday, February 1, 2009

Depression Watch (Fri. Jan. 30 2009)

{Dow Close}
(Fri Jan.30) =            8,000.86  ;  148.15 (-) ; the week range [8000, 8375] ; the difference = 375
(Fri Jan.23)          =  8,077.56   45.24 (-)
(Fri Jan.16) =           8,281.22    68.73 (+)
(Fri Jan.9)     =        8,599.18    143.28 (-)
(Fri Jan.2)   =        9,034.69    258.30 (+)     

{FFC - Friday to Friday Change}
(Fri Jan.30) =                            76.7 (-)
(Fri Jan.23) =                            203.66 (-)
(Fri Jan.16) =                            317.96 (-)
(Fri Jan.9) =                               435.51 (-)
(Fri Jan.2) =                            519.14 (+)

(4 wks) =                                323.69 (-)
(5 wks) =                                400.39 (-)

Range (4 wks) = [204, 519] ; Difference = 315
Range (5 wks) = [77, 519] ; Difference = 442

{VIX}
(Fri)     =                                 44.84    ;  the week's range [40, 46] ; the difference = 6   
(wk-avg Jan.30)   =                43.014    ;     6.394 (-)
(wk-avg Jan.23) =                  49.408    ;     2.336 (+)
(wk-avg Jan.16) =                  47.072    ;     6.468 (+)
(wk-avg Jan.9)   =                  40.604    ;     0.374 (-)
(wk-avg Jan.2)   =                  40.978    ;     3.620 (-)
Range (4 wks) = [41, 49] ; Difference = 8
Range (5 wks) = [41, 49] ; Difference = 8

{Oil}
(Fri Jan.30) =                  $41.68 ;  the week's range [42, 46] ; the difference = 4
(Fri Jan.23) =                 $46.47
(Fri Jan.16) =                 $36.51
(Fri Jan.9) =                      $40.83
(Fri Jan.2) =                    $46.34    
Range (4 wks) = [36, 46] ; Difference = 10
Range (5 wks) = [36, 46] ; Difference = 10

{Dollar Index}

(Fri Jan.30) =                86.00

{Last Week}

This week was two things; 1. Obama's Inaguration and 2. the addition of the FFC 5th week. The hype was that Obama was going to hit the ground running (which he did) and this would (hopefully) bring confidence back to the market. The result - an increase in the market's downward momentum. However, the silver lining (if one can call it that) is that the lower bound of 8000 has not be broken. This is economics strictly by the numbers, not by existing theory.

{This Week}

A week into the Obama Administration, and we are at the lower bound of 8000. As well, we have had 4 weeks of week to week market declines. The question here is the market in the process of setting a new trading range. This would mean that the market is not a settled (flat) market (as suggested by economics reports on a market bottom) but transitional market, with a new range to be set. The downward momentum of the market (the change, FFC, etc.) provides a probability that the transition is downward. What we have seen over the last few weeks, was a narrowing of market range. Assuming that the maximum change of 519 occurs upward (+), then a maximum of 8500, becomes the new upper bound; and the new range [8000, 8500]


Powered by ScribeFire.