Severe Risk, Says Roubini


Notwithstanding what I said earlier about seeing some buying opportunities, I cannot help but pass on this, well, terrifying post from Nouriel Roubini, who has been right all along. My willingness to dip my toes in at this point are based on the fact that the havoc in the markets right now is based on all the counter-party activity vis-a-vis the Lehman CDSs. (I think Barry is making roughly the same argument here.) That being said, it might not be. The markets could implode. And my question would be, what happens if they do? Is this the game changer? Is this, not as Stirling has written, the penultimate crisis, but the crisis?

I don't have that answer, but I'm inclined to think it isn't the big one, as it were. That isn't to say this isn't bad. Markets globally sold-off today. Currencies all around the world are falling versus the dollar, something I am very surprised by in a sense, but when I think about it I get it. Lots of 'wins' are being sold across the globe to cover Lehman liabilities, etc. . . and being repatriated to the US, hence the rally in the dollar and the dramatic rise in the Yen as the carry-trade unwinds. (I always thought the carry trade would be the trigger for what's happening now, not the sub-prime sludge.) Anyway, I'm just thinking out loud at this point. But one thing is clear: you can try and prevent short-selling, but markets will always clear. And they should be allowed to. However, as Roubini notes, there is a point where it can take on a life of its own that is nastier than anything any of us can imagine and world policy makers need to get their act together fast to prevent it. I'm with Volcker on this, as I think we can.

There is one huge complicating factor in all of this, that no one is talking about: Iraq. We've sunk so much money into Iraq, literally bled it away in the sands, that we very may well not have the resources to deal with this crisis. No one yet has mentioned raising taxes, have they? Any kind of shared sacrifice for the common good? Hell, I know that is a quaint notion, but ladies and gentlemen, where are the leaders?


Sean Paul Kelley October 10, 2008 - 7:48am
( categories: Economics: USA | The Markets )

Problem is, they're falling out of fifth-story windows. It would appear that what's going to happen is what's going to happen, and to let those who want to play the market do as they will.

Bonddad thought there would be a bounce before this latest plunge, and Barry Ritholtz got burned putting in trades at a technical support level. Mish seems to think this is wave three in a five-wave cycle, implying a bounce and then the "big one." The traders on the floor are asking, "where are the buyers?" but if that's the case, today and Monday will be worse. Could be that everyone is shifting their 401(k) money out of equities. Some are saying that the stock market was a balloon also, and that the crash will continue until P/E ratios will be ridiculously attractive.

Even if that happens, all the wealth destruction will lead to layoffs, unemployment, poor Christmas sales, weak earnings. Then lower stock prices and higher P/E ratios.

My feeling is that we have to go lower, and that stocks are finding their real values.

Jonathryn October 10, 2008 - 8:34am

When facing a large economic contraction. Stock prices have to reflect the new (lower) p/e ratios that will happen as demand contracts.

Synoia October 10, 2008 - 10:57am

If we're facing a large economic contraction, and the P/E ratios are at or above 15...

NateTG October 10, 2008 - 11:15am

Is this, not as Stirling has written, the penultimate crisis, but the crisis?
I don't have that answer, but I'm inclined to think it isn't the big one, as it were.

While history repeats itself, it doesn't often do so in precisely the same way. However, looking back at the previous "big one," the market crashed in October (coincidence?), 1929, and things didn't completely unravel until several years later. After deflation had taken hold, it was really only WWII that finally turned things around, and things didn't actually take off again until several years after the war was over.

As I remember, it was only in 1949 that folks began to fell that things were back to normal and the buying began that drove the consumer economy. My dad traded in his 1936 Ford for a 1949 Ford, and you could buy bubble gum again, which I had heard about but which wasn't available during the war. While I wasn't around for the Great Depression, you can bet I heard all about it from my relatives, many of whom worshipped FDR, even the ones who were moderate Republicans.

If this crisis repeats anything like that pattern, this could be a decade long unravelling or even more, after which the world will have completely changed and a new order will reign, as it did post-WWII. That world order is now coming to an end, although it may die hard.

I think we may see a similar pattern of down-stepping as things unravel this time, and "the big one" won't be evident for awhile. In the interim there will be periods in which many think that things have bottomed out when it is just a bear rally.

The probabilities favor a fairly long-term bear, given the amount of bad paper involved, coupled with the problems that the global real economy faces at this juncture. If so, there will be lots of false positives along the way as the trend unfolds, so don't fall for any bear traps.

The best strategy is to be greedy when everyone else is fearful (buy low), and fearful when everyone else is greedy (sell high) . Easier said than done, especially in bear times.

tjfxh October 10, 2008 - 12:27pm

recall my early call that it was going to unravel last September and October, which it didn't. I was a year early. Still, better early in a situation like this than late.

“Is not our first thought to go on the road? The road is our source, our vault of treasures, our wealth. Only on the road does the ‘traveller’ feel like himself, at home.”
Ryszard Kapuscinski

Sean Paul Kelley October 11, 2008 - 1:26am

No one yet has mentioned raising taxes, have they? Any kind of shared sacrifice for the common good?

Cut taxes in good times and raise them in bad? Recipe for double disaster.

The US is tapped out, and we will be lucky to escape without a monetary crisis. Even though the dollar is gaining relative strength at the moment, don't be fooled. The US is in deep doo-doo due to all the debt profligacy that it has no choice now but to increase. "Printing" is going to increase, perhaps exponentially as conditions worsen and deflation (delevering) spirals, asset values plummet, and prices plunge in a down trend lasting some time.

These are going to be difficult times unless or until human intelligence and enduring values replace self-interest and self-preservation.

tjfxh October 10, 2008 - 12:38pm

says, the reaped the rewards of the last 20 years and they are going to sacrifice to bail us out of this mess. They can afford it.

“Is not our first thought to go on the road? The road is our source, our vault of treasures, our wealth. Only on the road does the ‘traveller’ feel like himself, at home.”
Ryszard Kapuscinski

Sean Paul Kelley October 11, 2008 - 1:27am

While most of us, including Warren Buffett, feel that the correct way forward is a progressive tax policy, we need to look at it more broadly at this juncture instead of from the angle of "punishing the rich," as an outcry against what has happened in the economy rises and pitchforks are raised.

I think that its a matter of strategy now as much as policy. As a matter of strategy we need to reexamine all policy, including fiscal policy, in terms of where we are now, where we want to go from here, and how best to get there.

This requires a few vision for America, which is lacking so far. Neither McCain or Obama are playing straight with this, and both are trying to make political points rather than propose policy based on vision. "It's the vision thing."

My view is that it is futile to remain in the ongoing dialectical conflict between the elite and the bourgeoisie because the country as a whole is not served, nor is the world in this age when globalization is affecting all. Therefore, I would prefer to see a debate about incentivization and de-incentivization in public policy rather than going back to "tax and spend" v. "borrow and squander."

We need to look at all policies, especially fiscal policy, in terms of creating a national and global commonwealth, in which all are called upon to make the contributions appropriate to their circumstances. We also need to look at new forms of taxation, such as a Tobin tax on financial transfers. But the wealthy have to be brought into this process as participants in creating and actualizing this vision in order for it to work over time.

Practically speaking, it is difficult to tax large corporations and wealthy individuals because they have developed ways of avoiding this. Moreover, this approach creates the incentive for them to fund regressive political causes..

What is required is a new vision for America that emphasizes national and global prosperity with distributive instead of growth as increase of nominal national GDP as the criterion of economic progress. Absent such a vision, there is no solid basis for policy-making, and strategy devolves into that of the permanent campaign, and governing is damaged. As a consequence there are protagonists and antagonists, those constituencies that are rewarded and those that are ignored or punished.

I think that Obama gets this in his insistence on a new politics of bipartisanship, if I understand him correctly, although he has yet to articulate a comprehensive new vision as the basis for policy. I hope he will soon do so.

tjfxh October 11, 2008 - 6:52pm
Don October 10, 2008 - 11:40pm

AP - The government will buy an ownership stake in a broad array of American banks for the first time since the Great Depression, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said late Friday, announcing the historic step after stock markets jolted still lower around the world despite all efforts to slow the selling stampede. more


"The mythical John McCain is an affable, straight-talking, moderately conservative war hero who is an expert on foreign policy" - Bob Herbert

nymole October 11, 2008 - 12:19am

As I document in my forthcoming book, Power of Money: The Rise and Decline of the American Century, in every major US financial panic since at least the Panic of 1835, the titans of Wall Street—most especially until 1929, the House of JP Morgan—have deliberately triggered bank panics behind the scenes in order to consolidate their grip on US banking. The private banks used the panics to control Washington policy including the exact definition of the private ownership of the new Federal Reserve in 1913, and to consolidate their control over industry such as US Steel, Caterpillar, Westinghouse and the like. They are, in short, old hands at such financial warfare to increase their power.

Now they must do something similar on a global scale to be able to continue to dominate global finance, the heart of the power of the American Century.
Behind the Panic: Financial Warfare and the Future of Global Bank Power

tjfxh October 11, 2008 - 1:12am

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.