• Straight talk on mutual funds, bonds, real estate, and annuities
• Techniques for avoiding financial disasters
• Tools to help readers track their debt and create a plan for staying out of it
• Road maps to buying a home and saving for college and retirement

Today's Commentary: 11.07.05
What, Me? Worry?

Broadly defined however, worry is something a person does - and perhaps, at times, a whole marketplace - that involves outright concern over something they have no control over. Planning out one's next move in the face of this anxiety can often stop the worrier in their tracks, leaving them without any clear direction.

Below is a somewhat inclusive tally of troublesome annoyances that have me concerned, in large part because the optimism that so many believe we should have about our economic future, is now much clearer to the average observer as not so good.

First up is the the continued and hypnotic pace at which the Federal Reserve Board is raising the short term interest rates. For the 12th time, this august body of bankers has increased the rate it charges the biggest banks in the hopes of, at first, fighting deflationary pressures (that beast is back in the closet) and now, the specter of inflation.

Greenspan, the soon-to-be-but-not-soon-enough departed Fed chief has painted himself into a corner using tactics that once worked in a less vibrant, more manufacturing based economy. He can do little else but keep pushing for the slowdown as he always has, step or two behind the curve. Unfortunately, times have changed and this in not your father's inflation.

When poor ol' Ben Brenanke, as he will be known after he inherits this barren landscape of incoherent policies, will come to realize is that his former boss has tried mightily to fix a world that has changed so dramatically in the last twenty or so years, that old methods may not work. This is not the Fed of the Volcker era.

When Mr. Volcker was the chief banker, he had real inflation to worry about and could resort to the good old fashioned method of raising rates, which he pushed to 10%. This had the desired effect of slowing the economy down to recessionary standards and thus he tamed inflation. Back in the day, this was the best medicine for an ailing economy.

But that kind of economy, one that is producing products that Americans buy - there was a time in the not too distant past when US factories actually sold products to meet American demand and their customers were largely American as well - is a thing of the past. Factory numbers have declined significantly since those days with manufacturing, once providing 95% of what we bought, are now down to less than 80% and trending further even without GM and the auto group losing ground.

Replacing those products has created a global marketplace, one that relies on the American consumer and their spending habits. We want stuff and we will borrow to get it. We also want it to be inexpensive. Volcker did not have to contend with this formidable obstacle.

Secondly, the jobs numbers were weak and may just continue that way for some time to come. There was time when economist argued about employment versus inflation and how low one could go before the other began to rise. Called the "nonaccelerating rate of unemployment", this mouthful of economic jargon simply meant that as folks went back to work, they would demand more money for their talent and this would push prices higher. The unfortunate fact is unemployment has seemed to drop, even if 76 million Americans are, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, remain voluntarily on the sidelines but wages have stagnated.

The paltry jobs numbers, well below sage and optimistic estimates in light of the September decline, were blamed on energy prices. Perhaps they did have an effect but for the most part, energy has wormed its way into the economic landscape and the prices for keeping warm and transporting goods to marketplaces and the kids to grandma's house, will stay far more expensive that just a year ago.

Worth noting about those employment numbers was the small increase in jobs created was spread over all groups with the lion's share going to construction. Which leads me to worry number three and four: the housing market.

Mr. Greenspan has made it relatively clear, which in itself is worrisome from a man noted for his mystical musings, that the reason he is raising rates is to cool off an economy energized by housing prices. The so-called robustness of growth in this country over the last four years is attributed to the rise in housing prices, accommodative money supply, historically low interest rates, and the resultant wealth effect of having so much darned available cash to spend as a result of limitless equity.

Give a sub-par borrower the chance to buy a home that they would normally have been unable to buy, and the economy grows. Give that same sub-par borrower a loan that would not have been possible had the banking industry not created an industry within itself, a cottage trade accommodated by spreading the risk and re-selling these loans to folks looking for some measure of return outside the normal Treasury notes, and the problem of risk is conveniently shifted. Which further adds to the problem. Give that same sub-par borrower the bad news that, in the very near future, $500 billion, give or take a hundred billion, in adjustable rate mortgages they own, the favorite of this less than creditworthy group, will face higher mortgage payments as result of revaluations. In truth, the number of revalued mortgaes because of the creativity of mortgage lenders will exceed $1.2 trillion.

The assault on the homestead is coming from several different angles and this should have consumers worried. If the trend of cautiousness catches fire - already in evidence as first time mortgage applications have slowed, new homes aren't being grabbed up at the same torrid rate, and as I mentioned earlier, current mortgages are revalued - the housing market will create a large pool of new layoffs estimated to be north of 1.6 million.

These workers, among the highest paid and credited with inflating the most recent, albeit paltry wage increases, will not be easily absorbed into the economy anytime soon. Remove the equity wealth, push the ranks of the unemployed up significantly and slow the consumer with higher rates and ever slower wage growth, and you have the makings of a bleak 2006 for the new Fed chief and the President.

Which brings me to worry number five. With his disapproval rating now at 60%, the President has made it clear that he wants to focus on his "economic agenda". A focused Mr. Bush is worrisome in itself when you consider how he focuses.

Before him lays an economy that has shown no real growth as a result of his tax cuts. Business profitability, while noteworthy is the result of corporate stinginess and lack of capital spending, has been used to buyback stock or pay dividends all the while increasing productivity without expanding the workforce even as they slowed real wage growth.

This is likely to change for the worse should the economy suffer significant consumer pullback. The resiliency of the consumer, a group that has no real savings and now, the chance that they no longer have real access to further pools of cash, has caused concern to increase along with inventories. Christmas started as soon as the goblins of Halloween were stored away and could last well into February of next year.

With a tax proposal, actually two headed for the President's consideration, the consumer will not fair as well should these become law. Eliminating the housing deduction would lower the prices for upper end homes while increasing the price for lower end ones. While the mortgage and home building industry can see no good coming from the removal of this incentive, economist take another view.

The removal of the mortgage interest rate deduction has gone on for too long providing, and the numbers bear this out, no real increase in overall homeownership in this country. Trading up has been the biggest advantage of the tax breaks for the wealthy and that may be the saving grace for all of us. If the wealthy are affected, the group that the President has continued to erroneously suggest are the driving economic force in this country supplying not only jobs but opportunities, it will probably die a death without consideration. But those wealthy taxpayers largely live in blue states and are among the largest charitable donors and pay enormous amounts of additional taxes in the form of state and local tithings. President may not be long on politacl capital anymore, but he is not short of paybacks.

Should that happen and the President begin to back the permanency of his previous tax cuts as the only alternative to the proposals offered by his appointed commission, keeping the economy growing will become significantly more difficult without hard stops in spending. And there is no real need to worry about that. Spending cuts, unless they have a direct effect on the middle class, are not about to happen anytime soon.

As Ben Bernanke told a group of Asian bankers not too long ago, and I paraphrase, "we have a printing press and all we need to do is print more money." What, me? Worry? Yes.

BlueMoney Report

The Blue Money Report
Financial Commentary covering a wide range of topics concerning money, investing, and how it effects the average investor and their financial health.

It is the World of Money and Investing Explained.

Our Publication
If you are interested in providing your readers with our syndicated column, you can request it here