• 657 days Will The ECB Continue To Hike Rates?
  • 657 days Forbes: Aramco Remains Largest Company In The Middle East
  • 659 days Caltech Scientists Succesfully Beam Back Solar Power From Space
  • 1,059 days Could Crypto Overtake Traditional Investment?
  • 1,063 days Americans Still Quitting Jobs At Record Pace
  • 1,065 days FinTech Startups Tapping VC Money for ‘Immigrant Banking’
  • 1,068 days Is The Dollar Too Strong?
  • 1,069 days Big Tech Disappoints Investors on Earnings Calls
  • 1,070 days Fear And Celebration On Twitter as Musk Takes The Reins
  • 1,071 days China Is Quietly Trying To Distance Itself From Russia
  • 1,072 days Tech and Internet Giants’ Earnings In Focus After Netflix’s Stinker
  • 1,076 days Crypto Investors Won Big In 2021
  • 1,076 days The ‘Metaverse’ Economy Could be Worth $13 Trillion By 2030
  • 1,077 days Food Prices Are Skyrocketing As Putin’s War Persists
  • 1,079 days Pentagon Resignations Illustrate Our ‘Commercial’ Defense Dilemma
  • 1,079 days US Banks Shrug off Nearly $15 Billion In Russian Write-Offs
  • 1,083 days Cannabis Stocks in Holding Pattern Despite Positive Momentum
  • 1,083 days Is Musk A Bastion Of Free Speech Or Will His Absolutist Stance Backfire?
  • 1,084 days Two ETFs That Could Hedge Against Extreme Market Volatility
  • 1,086 days Are NFTs About To Take Over Gaming?
  1. Home
  2. Markets
  3. Other

Ring-Fence the Bad Assets - Re-Arranging the Deck Chairs on the Titanic?

Yesterday I expressed my opinion on the lack of economic substance of allowing financial institutions to value the assets on their books at historical cost or whatever they so desire (Mark It as You Choose, but Is Enough Cash Coming In?). Today, yet another "costless" solution to the bad-asset problem is being put forth in the Financial Times - quarantine the bad apples from the good (Wall St banks seek to ring-fence bad assets). Simply isolating the bad assets does not make them "good." Selling the isolated bad assets in an arms-length transaction to some other private entity presumably results in a loss for the seller. If not, why are they considered bad assets? Selling the isolated bad assets to some government entity at some price above an arms-length transaction shifts the loss from the selling institution to the taxpayers. When will the modern-day alchemists face up to the fact that they have lead, not gold, on their balance sheets, take their losses and move on?

Jobless Claims - If One Week Does Not a Trend Make, How about 4 Weeks?

Initial jobless claims soared upward by 38 thousand in the week ended March 29. Maybe the moveable feast of Easter played havoc with the seasonal adjustment factor. Maybe a strike in the auto-equipment sector biased upward new unemployment claims. So, lets look at 4-week moving averages of not-seasonally-adjusted initial claims and compare them with year-ago data. Chart 1 shows that the year-over-year rate of increase in initial jobless claims is picking up speed - hitting 19.5% in the four weeks ended March 29. Obviously, the latest observation is affected by the surge in the latest one-week tally. But if we rewind the tape a little, we still see double digit year-over-year percentage increases in the 4 weeks ended March 15 (13.13%) and March 22 (14.35%). A similar rising pattern has been established for continuing unemployment claims (see Chart 2). Chart 3 shows that the unemployment rate among those covered by out-of-work insurance has stair-stepped its way up from 1.9% to 2.2%. In the words of Alfred Kahn, President Carter's Council of Economic Advisers chairman - the economy has entered a "banana."

Chart 1

Chart 2

Chart 3

 

Back to homepage

Leave a comment

Leave a comment