• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Разное390
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации32
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы188
      • Показать ещё
      Люди204
      • Показать ещё
      Компании819
      • Показать ещё
      Формат21
      Показатели225
      • Показать ещё
      Издания30
      • Показать ещё
      Сферы12
Фискальный обрыв
04 декабря, 15:15

The Victory of ‘No’

The GOP’s unprecedented anti-Obama obstructionism was a remarkable success. And then it handed the party to Donald Trump.

01 декабря, 13:10

GOP may delay Obamacare replacement for years

Republicans are setting up a high-stakes deadline to replace the health care law.

29 ноября, 14:00

Senate to offer bipartisan tributes to Biden

Vice President Joe Biden has his share of bipartisan admirers in the Senate, where he served for 36 years before heading to the White House as President Barack Obama’s second-in-command. And a group of Democrats and Republicans will honor Biden’s legacy both in the administration and on Capitol Hill next month with a series of Senate floor tributes to the outgoing vice president — with Biden in attendance. The tribute is the brainchild of Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), who now holds the Senate seat that Biden occupied for more than three decades. Coons first approached Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) with the idea in August, and McConnell — who's worked closely with Biden in the past, including negotiating a way for Congress to extricate itself from the fiscal cliff crisis in late 2012 — was quickly on board, Coons said.“I don’t think we’re going to have a public life without Joe Biden,” Coons said in an interview Monday. “I am very hopeful that he will remain a very strong, very effective voice in Washington, internationally and in Delaware. I view it as a celebration of his next chapter in public service.”The hour-long tribute is scheduled for Dec. 7 in the afternoon. Coons will kick it off, and other top senators will follow with their own accolades for Biden — including McConnell, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.).“The leader agreed with it and is helping to make it happen,” McConnell spokesman Don Stewart said.Biden spokeswoman Meghan Dubyak confirmed that the vice president indeed plans to attend the tribute.Though his name has been batted around for various political jobs, including the next chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Biden has said he plans to focus on initiatives to battle cancer once he leaves office. His son, Beau Biden, died from brain cancer last year. “He has made an enormous difference already in fighting for cures for cancer, in supporting state and local law enforcement and in working in a bipartisan way to push some very important issues internationally and domestically,” Coons said. “But frankly, he also has a deserved reputation for being an incredibly loyal friend and for being a very straight-talking, common-sense senator.”

12 ноября, 15:41

The Black Swan President

Donald Trump is the biggest unknown ever to take control of the White House. What’s the worst-case scenario? The best? As the country waits to find out, Politico Magazine asked 17 experts to game out a Trump presidency.

08 ноября, 21:38

Here's How Stocks Have Performed on Recent Election Days

Election Day 2016 is finally here, and stocks are gaining. In an effort to sniff out a pattern, we also took a look at the performance of the markets on other recent Election Days.

07 ноября, 17:41

Этот безумный безумный финансовый мир либо история одного грааля))

Скоро уже почти как пять лет на рынке из месяца в месяц из года в год происходит одно и тоже событие! Это событие можно смело на языке трейдеров назвать популярным словом паттерн, торговая система либо вовсе Грааль! Тот самый, который многим не дает покоя! Его даже можно было бы назвать строкой из известной песни Слепаков: а что бл… ь если нет..? Как же он выглядит? Рассмотрим на примере знакомого и показательного актива, на индексе широкого рынка SP500! На стороне этого рынка давно и не безуспешно играют три очень влиятельных игрока хеджера: ФРС, ЕЦБ, Банк Японии! Благодаря им этот актив имеет устойчивый восходящий тренд! Однако безоткатный рост это слишком примитивно поэтому для публики периодически устраивают шоу! За это время на сцене отметились следующие персонажи-события: понижение инвест рейтинга США, фискальный обрыв(разрыв), проблемы греческих долгов и банков, игры с госдолгом США, Брексит в конце концов и.т.д! И каждый раз картина маслом. За месяц до события ИКС «независимыми и беспристрастными» СМИ начинается, вперемешку с истерией, нагнетание страха. Рынки под натиском авторитетных аналитиков корректируются в среднем на 5% в ожидание армагедона! Но в самый ответственный момент появляется  герой в маске и всех спасает) После чего рынки не только возвращаются к точке начала коррекции, но и обновляя хаи идут выше, хотя принципиально ничего не изменилось. И так из года в год, что могло вам принести тысячи, сотни и даже миллионов долларов! Вот и сейчас история повторяется! На этот раз инфоповодом стало избрание президента США, даже ФБР не удержалось и включилось в игру) Как же долго это будет продолжаться? Очевидно до тех пор пока сохраняется статус кво! Так будет наверное и в это раз ведь имя будущего президента-женщины уже и так все знают! Вот только хочется спросить: а Что Бля… ь Если Нет???

26 октября, 15:59

The Business of Business Jets

Periodically in the course of the various projects we're developing, we come across data that's interesting in and of itself. Today, that data is about the business of business jets, in which we're looking at the number of new business jets manufactured in the United States in the years from 2002 through the present. When new, business jets can carry price tags of anywhere between $3 million and $65 million, where at the typical sales price of $20 million for a midsize business jet, a change of just 50 sales in a single year can represent a billion dollar swing in the economy. That makes the 55% decline in the industry that occurred in 2009 and 2010 an especially dramatic event. Lagging behind the official starting and ending dates of the Great Recession, the U.S. business jet industry effectively shrank its annual production by somewhere in the ballpark of $10 billion. Something similar happened on a considerably smaller scale between 2012 and 2013, where the total number of business jets made in the USA fell by 10%. That microrecession directly led to Hawker Beechcraft's bankruptcy, where the company discontinued making business jets altogether as part of its subsequent reorganization. The company today is owned by Textron (NYSE: TXT), the parent company of Cessna, which manufactures a line of small to mid-size business jets. Cessna's production was also hammered during the Great Recession, like all manufacturers, and uniquely between 2012 and 2013. Sales of business jets were expected to improve in 2013 after being hit last year by fears of a "fiscal cliff". However, mandatory U.S. government spending cuts have made small business owners - Cessna's main customers - cautious about big purchases. "There's rumored money sitting on the sidelines, waiting for clarity in the economy," said Jens Hennig, vice-president of operations at General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA). Global shipments of business jets fell 4 percent to 283 aircraft in the first half of 2013, according to GAMA, which represents more than 50 fixed-wing aviation aircraft makers, including Cessna. Part of that negative business climate was directly generated by President Obama, who specifically targeted the buyers of business jets for criticism during his first term and also during the 2012 presidential debates. President Obama also proposed the budget sequester that produced the cuts in federal government spending cited by small business leaders as a leading reason for why they put off acquiring business jets during this time. The only U.S. business jet manufacture to gain market share during this time was Gulfstream, a wholly owned subsidiary of General Dynamics (NYSE: GD), thanks largely to the introduction of two new models in late 2012, the G280 and the G650, the latter of which opened up a new niche in the business jet market: large-cabin executive jets. These new planes would fall in between the mid-size cabin aircraft manufactured by Cessna and Boeing's converted commercial transport aircraft, and proved especially popular with global customers, particularly in the Middle East. Flashing forward to 2016 however, reports indicate that the market for Gulfstream's large-cabin business jets has begun slipping compared to previous years, while Canada's Bombardier, which manufactures Learjets and its Challenger 300/350 model in the United States, has seen sales drop by nearly one third. At the same time, Cessna's sales are projected to rise during the year, thanks in part to new models it has begun producing. And then, there's Boeing, whose business jet business represents a small fraction of its overall sales, which are pretty stable from year to year at a very low number. ReferencesGeneral Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA). General Aviation 2000 Statistical Databook. Table 1.4a. Worldwide Business Jet Shipments by Manufacturer (2002-2015). [PDF Document]. 29 March 2016.

03 октября, 22:15

How To Win At The "Beat The Wall Street Estimate" Game

Submitted by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com, Over the weekend, I got a few tweets talking about some technical analysis currently being passed around the Internet suggesting the S&P 500 is about to make a significant move towards 2400. While anything is certainly possible, the problem with the analysis is the lack of fundamental underpinnings to support such a move higher, namely, economic growth and corporate profitability. Of course, the issue ultimately comes down to valuations. At a price of 2400, based on current earnings per share of $86.92, the market would be trading at the second highest level of valuations in history with a P/E of 27.61. However, as I was tweeted yesterday morning: @LanceRoberts @JLyonsFundMgmt what about 129-133$ forward earnings est? — Paolo Riccelli (@paolo_riccelli) October 2, 2016   Let’s assume for a moment the $133 EPS estimate was accurate. This would put the forward P/E ratio at just 18x earnings – still well above the long-term historical average P/E of 15. However, in Paolo’s attempt to justify the bullish meme, the forward earnings estimate is no longer $133/share but, according to S&P, just $122.15 through the end of 2017. IF we assume those estimates are correct, now the forward P/E rises to 19.64x earnings. Certainly not cheap.  But even those estimates are a likely a fantasy. Throughout history, earnings are consistently overstated by roughly 33%. This overstatement of estimates can be clearly seen in the chart below. If we held Wall Street analysts to their estimates at the beginning of this year, much less the beginning of the previous quarter, 100% of companies would have missed earnings during the second quarter of this year. In fact, in just the past three months, analysts have now ratcheted down their estimates for the third quarter to their lowest levels yet. In other words, in order for companies to win the “beat the estimate game,” they need the bar lowered far enough to ensure they can clear it. The problem is actually worse than just Wall Street analysts consistently lowering earnings estimates to make company reports look better, corporations themselves have been using four primary tools to boost earnings per share as well.   Inherent Conflict Of Interest There is an inherent conflict between Wall Street, corporate executives, and individual investors. Today, more than ever, corporate executives are compensated by stock options, and other stock-based compensation, which is tied to rising stock prices. There are billions at stake and the game of “beat the Wall Street estimate” is critical in keeping corporate stock prices elevated. Unfortunately, this leads to a wide variety of gimmicks to boost bottom line profitability which is not necessarily in the best interest of long-term profitability or shareholders. In a study by Lawrence Brown, Andrew Call, Michael Clement and Nathan Sharp it is clear that Wall Street analysts are clearly not that interested in your financial well-being. The study surveyed analysts from the major Wall Street firms to try and understand what went on behind closed doors when research reports were being put together. In an interview with the researchers John Reeves and Llan Moscovitz wrote: “Countless studies have shown that the forecasts and stock recommendations of sell-side analysts are of questionable value to investors. As it turns out, Wall Street sell-side analysts aren’t primarily interested in making accurate stock picks and earnings forecasts. Despite the attention lavished on their forecasts and recommendations, predictive accuracy just isn’t their main job.” The chart below is from the survey conducted by the researchers which show the main factors that play into analysts compensation. It is quite clear that what analysts are “paid” to do is quite different than  what retail investors “think” they do. “Sharp and Call told us that ordinary investors, who may be relying on analysts’ stock recommendations to make decisions, need to know that accuracy in these areas is ‘not a priority.’   ‘The part to me that’s shocking about the industry is that I came into the industry thinking [success] would be based on how well my stock picks do. But a lot of it ends up being ‘What are your broker votes?’   A ‘broker vote’ is an internal process whereby clients of the sell-side analysts’ firms assess the value of their research and decide which firms’ services they wish to buy. This process is crucial to analysts because good broker votes result in revenue for their firm. One analyst noted that broker votes ‘directly impact my compensation and directly impact the compensation of my firm.'” The question really becomes then “If the retail client is not the focus of the firm then who is?”  The survey table below clearly answers that question. Not surprisingly you are at the bottom of the list. The incestuous relationship between companies, institutional clients, and Wall Street is the root cause of the ongoing problems within the financial system. It is a closed loop that is portrayed to be a fair and functional system; however, in reality, it has become a “money grab” that has corrupted not only the system but the regulatory agencies that are supposed to oversee it. However, the analysts are only one-half of the equation, the other half comes from the outright manipulations of earnings per share by corporations to obfuscate weak revenue growth.   How Do They Do It As shown below, since 2009, the reported earnings per share of corporations, the bottom line of the income statement, have increased by a total of 211% which is the sharpest, post-recession, increase in reported EPS in history. However, at the same time, reported sales per share, which is what happens at the top line of the income statement, has only risen by a marginal 28% during the same period. In order for profitability to surge, despite rather weak revenue growth, corporations have resorted to four primary weapons:  wage reduction, productivity increases, labor suppression and stock buybacks. The problem is that each of these tools creates a mirage of corporate profitability. Furthermore, as I will discuss below, each has a negative impact on investors and/or the economy. Stock Buybacks Create An Illusion Of Profitability One of the primary tools used by businesses to increase profitability has been through the heavy use of stock buybacks. The chart below shows outstanding shares as compared to the difference between operating earnings on a per/share basis before and after buybacks. The problem with this, of course, is that stock buybacks create an illusion of profitability. If a company earns $0.90 per share and has one million shares outstanding – reducing those shares to 900,000 will increase earnings per share to $1.00. No additional revenue was created, no more product was sold, it is simply accounting magic. Such activities do not spur economic growth or generate real wealth for shareholders.   Working For Two Since the end of the financial crisis, corporations have been able to markedly boost profitability through increases in productivity. In any business, the highest single expense is the cost of labor which includes benefits like health care costs which have been surging since the onset of the Affordable Care Act. Therefore, increases in productivity can reduce the need for employment. The first chart below shows non-farm business sector output (ie productivity) as compared to the employment to population ratio. As productivity increases the need for employment is reduced. Automated answering systems have been used to replace receptionists, automated billing systems, outsourced help desks, etc. have allowed for lower head counts for businesses while increasing output per person. Higher output, and lower costs have led to the highest profit per employee in history as shown in the chart below. Note: It is worth noting increases in the wages/profits ratio has been a good leading indicator of the onset of recessions. Just sayin’.   What? You Want A Raise? While increasing productivity will increase profitability – a large and available labor pool, which creates competition for existing jobs, keeps wages suppressed. Suppressed wage growth, combined with increases in productivity have created massive profitability for businesses. The chart below shows average hourly earnings which remain well below the recession peak. The spike in 2012, is deceiving because the entirety of the increase came in the 4th quarter as corporations panicked prior to the “Fiscal Cliff.” After that one-time effect passed wages once again fell going into 2015. However, beginning in 2015 the impact of higher health care costs began to set in and as companies reached the limit of employee reductions, wages were forced to increase. With profitability now under pressure, it is unlikely that we will see any significant increases in compensation in the near term particularly as real unemployment remains elevated.  This does not support the economic recovery story.    Sorry, We Aren’t Hiring Full-Time The reason that I state the real unemployment remains elevated is that despite increases in employment in recent months it has been a function of population growth rather than an improved outlooks by businesses. The issue of population growth is ignored by most analysts and economists when discussing employment, but should not be. As I discussed in “Why Baby Boomers Can’t Retire:” “Recent employment increases, while encouraging, have been little more than a function of population growth. As the population grows, incremental demand increases caused by that increase in population will create employment needs in areas most impacted by that population growth. This is why job formation has been primarily focused in retail, service and hospitality areas.” In other words, based on population growth, there has ACTUALLY been a NEGATIVE growth rate in employment of nearly 5-million individuals. In order to keep costs minimized businesses have resorted to temporary hires rather than full-time employment which incurs additional costs of benefits and healthcare. The expectation is that temporary workers will eventually become full-time employees, however, with the impact of higher healthcare costs due to the Affordable Care Act, temporary hires may be the new normal. The chart below shows full-time employment relative to the population. With full-time employment still near levels normally associated with recessions, it shows that businesses remain focused on the cheapest cost of labor possible. The chart above also shows jobless claims which have been steadily falling since the peak of the crisis. This is due to “labor hoarding” where businesses have literally run out of employees to terminate or fire. However, just because fewer people are being terminated it does not mean that greater levels of full-time employment are being created which is what is needed to create sustainable organic economic growth.   If You Can’t Make It, Fake It? There is no doubt that corporate profitability has surged from the recessionary lows.  However, if I am correct in my assessment, then the recent downturn in corporate profitability may be more than just due to an economic “soft patch.”  The problem with cost cutting, wage suppression, labor hoarding and stock buybacks, along with a myriad of accounting gimmicks, is that there is a finite limit to their effectiveness. More importantly, Wall Street knows this already and it should not come as no surprise that companies manipulate bottom line earnings. By utilizing “cookie-jar” reserves, heavy use of accruals, and other accounting instruments they can either flatter, or depress, earnings. “The tricks are well-known: A difficult quarter can be made easier by releasing reserves set aside for a rainy day or recognizing revenues before sales are made, while a good quarter is often the time to hide a big “restructuring charge” that would otherwise stand out like a sore thumb.   What is more surprising though is CFOs’ belief that these practices leave a significant mark on companies’ reported profits and losses. When asked about the magnitude of the earnings misrepresentation, the study’s respondents said it was around 10% of earnings per share.“ As I stated at the beginning, the reason that companies do this is simple: stock-based compensation. Today, more than ever, many corporate executives have a large percentage of their compensation tied to company stock performance. A “miss” of Wall Street expectations can lead to a large penalty in the companies stock price. As shown in the table, it is not surprising to see that 93% of the respondents pointed to “influence on stock price” and“outside pressure” as the reason for manipulating earnings figures. Note: For fundamental investors this manipulation of earnings skews valuation analysis particularly with respect to P/E’s, EV/EBITDA, PEG, etc. Revenues, which are harder to adjust, may provide truer measures of valuation such as P/SALES and EV/SALES. So, as we head into the third quarter earnings season, it is important to be aware of what is real, and what isn’t. To win the “Beat The Estimate Game” focus on the quality, rather than the quantity, of earnings. As was pointed out previously by the WSJ: “First and foremost, investors should keep an eye on cash flow: Strong earnings when cash flow deteriorates may be a sign of trouble. The advantage of this approach is that, unlike some of the other warning signs, it is easily measurable, arming the investors and analysts who do their homework with strong ammunition against management.   Secondly, stark deviations from the earnings recorded by the company’s peers should also set off alarm bells, as should weird jumps or falls in reserves.   The other potential problem areas are more subjective and more difficult to detect. When, for example, the chief financial officers urge stakeholders to be wary of ‘too smooth or too consistent’ profits or ‘frequent changes in accounting policies,’ they are asking them to look at variables that don’t necessarily point at earnings (mis)management.” As the quarterly ritual of the earnings season approaches, executives and investors would do well to remember the words of the then-chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission Arthur Levitt in a 1998 speech entitled “The Numbers Game.” “While the temptations are great, and the pressures strong, illusions in numbers are only that—ephemeral, and ultimately self-destructive.” Couldn’t have said it better myself.

15 сентября, 06:00

Ten Signs You Might Be a Libertarian

Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party’s presidential candidate, likes to say that most Americans are libertarians but don’t know it yet. So why can't Libertarians (and other third parties) gain more political traction? The post Ten Signs You Might Be a Libertarian appeared first on Freakonomics.

10 сентября, 14:40

Republicans rave about Tim Kaine

'I think he could be very effective with working with people here,' says one of the potential VP's many GOP fans in the Senate.

31 августа, 01:10

Debt, Deficits & Economic Warnings

Submitted by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com, While the world has been focused on the Federal Reserve, the markets, and the upcoming election, few have noticed the expansion of the deficit in recent months which is now in excess of $667 billion up from a recent low of $530 billion. The chart below shows the history of U.S. surplus/deficit: During the financial crisis, the deficit ballooned to a record of $1.35 trillion as tax revenue declined as Government spending swelled. Importantly, the Federal Deficit was approaching 10% in 2009, a historical record for the U.S., but still remains at levels associated with weaker economic growth rates and recessions. The decline in the deficit was artificial in many ways as it was primarily due to the reforms from the “2011 Budget Control Act” which including tough spending cuts and a big tax bite that impacted a large majority of the middle class. Much of that “austerity” has now been reversed.   Tax The Rich The surge in tax revenues was a direct result of the “fiscal cliff” at the end of 2012 as companies rushed to pay out special dividends and bonuses ahead of what was perceived to a fiscal disaster and higher tax rates. The large surge in incomes was primarily generated at the upper end of the income brackets where individuals were impacted by higher tax rates. Those taxes were then paid in April and October of 2013 and accounted for the sharp decline in the deficit. Also, it is important to remember that payroll taxes also increased due to the expiration of the payroll tax cut from 2010. (Note: the increased tax collection from payrolls remains currently.)  This surge in tax revenue can be seen more clearly in the chart below of tax receipts as a percentage of GDP. While making the rich “pay their fair share” may increase revenue in the short run, over the longer term higher tax rates, and the subsequent redistribution of wealth leads to lower economic growth. Louis Woodhill put it best: “To ‘tax’ is to take away something from someone and give it to the government. ‘The rich’ are rich because they own a lot of assets. So, what it means to ‘tax the rich’ is to take assets away from rich people and transfer them to the government.   So, what are the assets that the rich own? The rich don’t have money bins full of cash, like Scrooge McDuck. Rather, they own things like factories, office buildings, and oil wells, either directly or indirectly via stocks and bonds. In other words, the rich own most of the ‘nonresidential fixed assets’ of the nation. These assets certainly count as ‘wealth’, but what they are physically are the tools that workers use to produce America’s GDP.” This is critically important to understand. By increasing taxes, to generate additional revenue for the government, you decrease the available capital that could be used for productive investments. Since the government doesn’t want factories, office buildings, or oil wells, but rather cash, this forces the liquidation of productive investments thereby reducing capacity for economic growth. The current Administration is failing once again to recognize the problems that exist with this country, at this moment, does not lie with the “rich.” Instead, the problem is a lack of ability for consumers to maintain a standard of living that is well beyond their earnings capability. While the two most recent Administrations have been heavily criticized for running burgeoning deficits – the reality is that the average American has been doing the same for the past thirty years. While tax dollars do get recycled back into the economy, repeated studies have shown that government spending has a much lower “multiplier” effect as compared to dollars spent directly by consumers and businesses.  I have highlighted the periods when receipts as a percentage of GDP have peaked. There are two things worth noting in the chart above/below. Rising levels of receipts have coincided with stronger levels of economic growth in the early stages which is not surprising as more revenues lead to higher collections. However, once those collections exceed 18% of GDP, it has generally marked the peak of economic activity and a subsequent recessionary drag in the economy. There is one other point to be made. While there are many calls to raise taxes on the rich, give more to the poor, what the chart shows is that none of that really makes much difference. Regardless of the level of tax rates – tax receipts as a percentage of the economy has remained mired between 16 and 21%. Why? Because when you raise taxes, you lower economic growth and, therefore, collect less in revenue. During recessions, tax collections are at the lower end of the range while during expansions collections are at their highest. So, what does all of this mean? As Arthur Laffer noted 3 decades ago, it really is possible to set tax rates too high such that it actually hurts the economy. We appear to once again be in such a condition now. The chart below shows receipts as a percent of GDP as compared to the S&P 500 index. (Note: Each peak in tax collections has coincided with a mean-reverting event in the markets as a recessionary drag took hold.) While there are many that expect that the markets can repeat the secular bull market of the 90’s, and by extension, receipts could test the previous high, this is not likely. The demographic and economic makeup, valuation levels and interest rates currently weigh heavily against that probability.   It’s The Deficit Stupid As stated above, as the “rich” invest in productive investments it leads to higher employment, strong consumer demand and economic growth. In turn, this leads to higher tax revenue. However, deficits, and deficit spending, are HIGHLY destructive to economic growth as it directly impacts gross receipts and saved capital equally. Like cancer – running deficits, along with continued deficit spending, continues to destroy saved capital and damages capital formation.  Debt is, by its very nature, a cancer on economic growth. As debt levels rise it consumes more capital by diverting it from productive investments into debt service. As debt levels spread through the system it consumes greater amounts of capital until it eventually kills the host. The chart below shows the rise of federal debt and its impact on economic growth. The reality is that the majority of the aggregate growth in the economy since 1980 has been financed by deficit spending, credit creation and a reduction in savings. This reduced productive investment in the economy and the output of the economy slowed. As the economy slowed, and wages fell, the consumer was forced to take on more leverage to maintain their standard of living which in turn decreased savings. As a result of the increased leverage more of their income was needed to service the debt – and with that the “debt cancer” engulfed the system. The Austrian business cycle theory attempts to explain business cycles through a set of ideas. The theory views business cycles: “As the inevitable consequence of excessive growth in bank credit, exacerbated by inherently damaging and ineffective central bank policies, which cause interest rates to remain too low for too long, resulting in excessive credit creation, speculative economic bubbles and lowered savings.” The problem that is yet not recognized by the current Administration and mainstream economists is that the excessive deficits and exponential credit creation can no longer be sustained. The process of a “credit contraction” will eventually occur over a long period of time as consumers and governments are ultimately forced to deal with the deficits. The good news is the process of “clearing” the market will eventually allow resources to be reallocated back towards more efficient uses and the economy will begin to grow again at more sustainable and organic rates. Today, however, expectations of a return to economic growth rates of the past are most likely just a fairy tale. The past 8-years of stock market returns have been fueled by trillions of dollars of support and direct injections into the financial system – that support is not sustainable in the long run. While the injections have kept the economy from falling into a depression in the short term – the unwinding of that support will suppress economic growth for many years to come. There is no way to achieve the necessary goals “pain-free.”  The time to implement austerity measures is when the economy is running a budget surplus and is close to full employment. That time was two Administrations ago when the economy would have slowed but could have absorbed and adjusted to the restrictive measures. However, when things are good, no one wants to “fix what isn’t broken”. The problem today is that with a high dependency on government support, high levels of underemployment and rising budget deficits, the implementation of austerity measures will only deter future economic growth, which is dependent on the very things that need to be “fixed”. The processes that fueled the economic growth over the last 30 years are now beginning to run in reverse, and when combined with the demographic shifts in the U.S., the impact could be far more immediate and prolonged than the media, economists and analysts are currently expecting. Sacrifices will have to be made, the economy will drag on at subpar rates of growth, individuals will be working far longer into their retirement years and the next generation of Americans will lead a far different life that what the currently retiring generation enjoyed. It is simply a function of the math.

29 августа, 17:00

Why I’m Bullish on “The Robot Revolution”

The gloom-and-doomers are warning of the coming “Robot Revolution.” Here’s why investors shouldn’t be quaking in their boots.

15 августа, 23:12

Update: Predicting the Next Recession

CR August 2016 Update: In 2013, I wrote a post "Predicting the Next Recession". I repeated the post in January 2015 (and last summer and early this year) because of all the recession calls. Late last year, the recession callers were out in force - arguing the problems in China, combined with the impact on oil producers of lower oil prices (and defaults by energy companies) - would lead to a global recession and drag the US into recession.  I didn't think so - and I was correct.I've added a few updates in italics by year.  Most of the text is from January 2013.A few thoughts on the "next recession" ... Forecasters generally have a terrible record at predicting recessions. There are many reasons for this poor performance. In 1987, economist Victor Zarnowitz wrote in "The Record and Improvability of Economic Forecasting" that there was too much reliance on trends, and he also noted that predictive failure was also due to forecasters' incentives. Zarnowitz wrote: "predicting a general downturn is always unpopular and predicting it prematurely—ahead of others—may prove quite costly to the forecaster and his customers".Incentives motivate Wall Street economic forecasters to always be optimistic about the future (just like stock analysts). Of course, for the media and bloggers, there is an incentive to always be bearish, because bad news drives traffic (hence the prevalence of yellow journalism).In addition to paying attention to incentives, we also have to be careful not to rely "heavily on the persistence of trends". One of the reasons I focus on residential investment (especially housing starts and new home sales) is residential investment is very cyclical and is frequently the best leading indicator for the economy. UCLA's Ed Leamer went so far as to argue that: "Housing IS the Business Cycle". Usually residential investment leads the economy both into and out of recessions. The most recent recovery was an exception, but it was fairly easy to predict a sluggish recovery without a contribution from housing.Since I started this blog in January 2005, I've been pretty lucky on calling the business cycle.  I argued no recession in 2005 and 2006, then at the beginning of 2007 I predicted a recession would start that year (made it by one month with the Great Recession starting in December 2007).  And in 2009, I argued the economy had bottomed and we'd see sluggish growth.Finally, over the last 18 months, a number of forecasters (mostly online) have argued a recession was imminent.  I responded that I wasn't even on "recession watch", primarily because I thought residential investment was bottoming.[CR 2015 Update: this was written two years ago - I'm not sure if those calling for a recession then have acknowledged their incorrect forecasts and / or changed theirs views (like ECRI and various bloggers). Clearly they were wrong.] [CR August 2016 Update: Now it has been three and a half years!  And yes, ECRI has admitted their recession calls were incorrect.  Not sure about the rest of the recession callers.]Now one of my blogging goals is to see if I can get lucky again and call the next recession correctly.  Right now I'm pretty optimistic (see: The Future's so Bright ...) and I expect a pickup in growth over the next few years (2013 will be sluggish with all the austerity).[CR August 2016 Update: 2013 was a little better than I expected, but still sluggish. 2014 and 2015 saw some pickup in growth, but 2016 was sluggish in the first half.]The next recession will probably be caused by one of the following (from least likely to most likely):3) An exogenous event such as a pandemic, significant military conflict, disruption of energy supplies for any reason, a major natural disaster (meteor strike, super volcano, etc), and a number of other low probability reasons. All of these events are possible, but they are unpredictable, and the probabilities are low that they will happen in the next few years or even decades.[CR 2016 Update: The recent recession calls are mostly based on exogenous events: the problems in China and in commodity based economies (especially oil based).  There will be some spillover to the US such as fewer exports (and an impact on oil producing regions in the US), but unless there is a related financial crisis, I think the spillover will be insufficient to cause a recession in the US.]2) Significant policy error. This might involve premature or too rapid fiscal or monetary tightening (like the US in 1937 or eurozone in 2012).  Two examples: not reaching a fiscal agreement and going off the "fiscal cliff" probably would have led to a recession, and Congress refusing to "pay the bills" would have been a policy error that would have taken the economy into recession.  Both are off the table now, but there remains some risk of future policy errors.  Note: Usually the optimal path for reducing the deficit means avoiding a recession since a recession pushes up the deficit as revenues decline and automatic spending (unemployment insurance, etc) increases.  So usually one of the goals for fiscal policymakers is to avoid taking the economy into recession. Too much austerity too quickly is self defeating.[CR 2016 Update: Most of the poor policy choices in the U.S. are behind us. Austerity hurt the recovery, but austerity appears over at the state, local and Federal levels.  It is possible the Fed could tighten too quickly. ]1) Most of the post-WWII recessions were caused by the Fed tightening monetary policy to slow inflation. I think this is the most likely cause of the next recession. Usually, when inflation starts to become a concern, the Fed tries to engineer a "soft landing", and frequently the result is a recession. Since inflation is not an immediate concern, the Fed will probably stay accommodative for a few more years.So right now I expect further growth for the next few years (all the austerity in 2013 concerns me, especially over the next couple of quarters as people adjust to higher payroll taxes, but I think we will avoid contraction). [CR 2015 Update: We avoided contraction in 2013!] I think the most likely cause of the next recession will be Fed tightening to combat inflation sometime in the future - and residential investment (housing starts, new home sales) will probably turn down well in advance of the recession. In other words, I expect the next recession to be a more normal economic downturn - and I don't expect a recession for a few years. [CR 2016 Update: This was written in 2013 - and my prediction for no "recession for a few years" was correct.  This still seems correct today, so no recession in the immediate future (not in 2016 or the first half of 2017).  Note that all 2017 forecasts assume Ms. Clinton will be the next President.]

18 июля, 22:46

Convention Chair Ryan absent for contentious kickoff

CLEVELAND — House Speaker and Republican National Convention Chairman Paul Ryan will not assume the gavel here on Monday until after a series of potentially contentious votes, including what’s likely to be the last stand of anti-Trump delegates. Instead, the Trump campaign has tapped Rep. Steve Womack of Arkansas, who has a reputation for being able to manage tough floor issues, sources told POLITICO.The Wisconsin Republican — known for his sharp policy and stylistic differences with Donald Trump — is not expected oversee votes to approve the rules governing the convention or the party platform, a moment when delegates opposed to the presumptive nominee intend to disrupt the convention and attempt to block Trump’s nomination. Those rebellious delegates appear to have garnered enough signatures to force a full vote on the national convention rules. While that effort by anti-Trump forces is expected to be easily defeated, the Trump campaign and the RNC want to ensure they keep any last-minute drama to a minimum, and having an experienced hand like Womack holding the gavel could help.Some observers of past conventions said it’s not unusual for the chairman to pass off duties on the first day of the convention. But the decision is a break from 2012, when Ryan’s predecessor, ex-Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), presided when the convention adopted rules. Boehner's decision to rapidly approve the rules over vocal objections of Ron Paul supporters has left lingering bitterness among libertarian leaders in the GOP. A Ryan aide said it’s not surprising for Ryan to relinquish the gavel, saying procedures vary at each convention. The sources said his role this year is consistent with the role of speakers at previous conventions. “We’ve got a really capable guy, Steve Womack, running it today — one of our best parliamentarians when he runs the chair,” said Ryan on Monday afternoon when asked about his role.Since the convention is governed by House rules, the campaign and RNC asked for a House Republican who is well versed in overseeing testy floor proceedings. Womack, sources say, recently presided over part of House Democrats’ sit-in, the gun-control protest that shut the House down for more than 24 hours — a standoff that could have ended badly for Republicans had things gotten out of control. Womack also oversaw fiscal cliff votes, a series of querulous roll call votes relating to tax increases and the debt ceiling. Trump’s opponents are planning a move to reject the rules of the Republican Party adopted last week by the Convention Rules Committee. Defeating the rules package would open a new opportunity to stymie Trump’s nomination and create chaos on what is typically a tightly choreographed and uncontroversial proceeding. If they succeed in forcing a vote on the rules package, anti-Trump delegates will attempt to insert new language freeing delegates from their obligation to support Trump’s nomination.Whomever chairs the convention at the time, in this case Womack, is likely to move swiftly to stifle opposition to the presumptive nominee, just as Boehner did four years ago. The last-minute decision to have Womack in the chair is sure to anger some anti-Trump delegates who were hopeful they had an ally in the speaker. Ryan recently said that House Republicans should be free to vote their conscience when it comes to Trump. Some delegates took that to mean vote their conscious on nominating a candidate at the convention, though Ryan has not said that specifically.Ryan said he will preside Tuesday, when delegates are expected to formally nominate Trump from the convention floor. If anti-Trump delegates are defeated on Monday, as is likely, it’s unclear whether they’ll attempt to disrupt Tuesday’s prime-time nomination vote anyway.Ryan, of course, has also at times been a vocal critic of Trump, calling the real estate billionaire out on comments he’s made about Latinos and his reluctance to disavow David Duke. They're also at odds over major policy issues, including trade and immigration.As Trump closed in on the nomination in early May, Ryan announced he wasn't ready to get behind Trump and offered to step aside as chairman of the convention, a role typically performed by the highest ranking House Republican. But Trump said he still wanted Ryan as emcee. Since then, the two have appeared to be on better terms.

16 июля, 19:22

With Trump's VP Choice, GOP Misses Huge Opportunity

Donald Trump's failure to select a woman as his running mate is more evidence that his party is out of step with voters. At a time when Americans are wrestling with deep divisions of all kinds,, 51 percent of the population has just been foolishly ignored. It's been exactly a century since the first woman was elected to Congress: Republican Jeanette Rankin of Montana. Today, women number just 19 percent in the House. (Tiny Rwanda is first in the world, with 64 percent of lower chamber seats held by women - who, by the way, have been leaders in that nation's rebirth since the 1994 genocide.) Democrats have been way ahead of Republicans in electing women to high office in this country since the 1990s. Female Dems outnumber Republicans by a three-to-one margin. The Congressional gender imbalance probably won't change much in November. The Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers says 15 Democratic women are in the running for Senate seats compared with seven Republicans. On the House side, 138 Democrats are still in races, yet just 64 from the GOP are running. Sure, many of us advocating gender parity are cheering the prospect of Hillary's joining Theresa May in Britain and Angela Merkel in Germany, at the helm of three of the world's most powerful countries. But it's cool comfort when we look at the obstacles blocking women from Congress - structural, financial, and personal. Incumbency may be the most enormous barrier. Incredibly, some 88 percent of office holders are regularly reelected, thanks to their built-in fundraising muscle. When the huge majority of incumbents are men, women are essentially shut out. Republican women have an especially hard time reaching financiers and other power-brokers. Meanwhile, Democrats get a tremendous boost from the political action group EMILY's List. After all, "Early Money Is Like Yeast." But once women do break through, the gains are lasting. We've seen the long Senate tenure of Republican Susan Collins and Democrats Barbara Mikulski, Dianne Feinstein, and Barbara Boxer. (Boxer is retiring, but California's duet is likely to continue: Kamala Harris is expected to succeed her.) Democratic women in Congress have reached critical mass -- and they're critical actors. Why does this matter? For one thing, when women help lead a governing body, the culture changes. As Senator Mikulski says, "We work on macro issues and macaroni and cheese issues." For Republican women, problems start in the primaries, thanks to too little mentorship, minimal early funding, and the assumption that they're not conservative enough. Facing these hurdles, many pragmatic GOP women don't bother to compete. The one area they do show progress is at the state legislative level, where the party has seriously invested in growing the base of young female candidates. Especially if the Republican Party suffers major losses this year, the post-mortem should address not only diversity writ large but also strategies for getting women in their "pipeline" to move up. Why do I as an ardent Democrat care about the other party? The short answer is I want our country to work. Dozens of women in Congress have told me stories of how they reach across the aisle. An example: Three years ago, women forged a Senate compromise just days before we were going to plunge off the fiscal cliff. Sen. John McCain wondered aloud how much the Senate could get done if it were 50 percent female. Women who want to go to Washington need path pavers, not wall builders. Mr. Trump has blown his huge opportunity. The rest of us don't have to. Swanee Hunt founded Political Parity, a program advancing women's leadership in the United States. She is a former US ambassador and teaches at Harvard Kennedy School. Photo by Michael Vadon -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

11 июля, 17:00

How the News Media Costs You Millions

Many investors believe that they will earn higher returns if their decisions are informed by the latest news and analysis. This is almost certainly false.

23 июня, 01:03

Brexit: 'Uncertainty' Is The New Normal

Tomorrow is the U.K. vote, where its citizens will vote on whether to 'stay' or to 'leave' the European Union. In this post-Lehman (failure) era, we've had no shortage of fear and doubt. Remember the Fiscal Cliff, Sequestration, Cyprus, several chapters of the drama in Greece, Italy and Spain threatening [...]

Выбор редакции
21 июня, 21:45

For Jittery U.S. Investors, What Are Implications of A Possible Brexit?

Be cautious about trying to predict the long-term effects of geopolitical events. Dire predictions in late 2012 about the devastating effects of the "Fiscal Cliff" crisis never came to pass. Instead, 2013 turned out to be a banner year in U.S. markets.

14 июня, 13:42

From Golden Boy To Fool's Gold: The Decline Of Paul Ryan

It is strange to see Paul Ryan looking like the subject of a hostage video. This, of course, is the effect of being confronted by reporters with the existence of Donald Trump. But Ryan became a prisoner long ago -- first, of the rigidity of his ideas; second, of his party's fratricide and incoherence. Beneath the narcissistic railings of a carnival barker Ryan surely hears the premonitory echoes of his own political demise. True, Ryan has more going for him than the right-wing lumpenproletariat of the House Republican caucus, whose shrill rhetoric and dull intellect reflect the primitive world of gerrymandered districts, separated by talk radio from the reality which lies beyond. He radiates clean living, with the pleasantly sharp featured and sincere affect of a dedicated high school gym teacher. Buoyed by his Catholic faith and a secure and prosperous family, he endured losses while still young -- the sudden death of his father, a grandmother afflicted with Alzheimer's. He became serious before his time, a hard worker in and out of school. He was marked for leadership early. Politics does not seem to have changed his essence. He sleeps in his office, goes home to his family in Wisconsin as soon and often as he can. His pursuits are the same -- hunting and fishing -- and so are his friends from youth. By all appearances, he is as grounded as politics allows. And, more than his Republican peers, he has a passion for ideas. But here, for many, lies the problem -- those ideas, too, are rooted in his youth. Specifically, college -- that heady time of imbalance between intellectual self -- confidence and one's actual experience of life. Most of us recover. But Ryan, perhaps, less than most. Thus his distressingly attenuated enthusiasm for the novels of Ayn Rand. Though the young Ryan was also devoted to the free market abstractions of Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises, Rand became his intellectual wellspring. For those whose short memories confer a certain mercy, a refresher course. In the estimate of critics, Rand's prose style was turgid and declamatory. But the real problem is her worldview. In Rand's telling, altruism is a sham, social consciousness a cover for envy of one's betters, government the enemy of individual enterprise. Only the creative selfishness practiced by a small class of capitalist superpeople -- the sole characters for whom Rand does not feel a withering contempt -- can rise above our collective mediocrity. This is social Darwinism run amok -- a Hobbesian landscape in which, quite telling, no children appear to complicate her avatars' single-minded pursuit of wealth. It is a world which has never existed, and never will, save in the minds of readers privileged enough -- and, in candor, white enough -- to imagine it in safety. To say the least, Rand's appeal to the political lab rats who comprise the Republican base -- embattled white and blue collar folks -- is roughly zero. But such has been Ryan's enthusiasm for Rand that, until it became an embarrassment, it seemed near -- boundless. Well into his congressional career, he credited Rand for inspiring him to enter public service; cited her as the source of his value system; and required his staffers to read her novels. "Ayn Rand," he asserted, "did the best job of anybody making a moral case for capitalism." Even now, his quarrel is not with her dystopian economics, but her atheism. Thus the yawning gulf -- too little noted for far too long -- between the philosophy of Paul Ryan and the actual lives of Republican base voters to whom he must appeal. Start with the epynomous "Ryan Budget." For lack of competition, Ryan has become the GOP's "serious thinker" on fiscal matters. In college, a friend recalls, Ryan's serious thinking centered on vigorous advocacy of trickle -- down economics. Problem is, it still does. In its various iterations, the Ryan Budget offers enormous tax cuts for the wealthy; eliminates taxation of capital gains, dividends and interest; and abolishes the corporate income and estate tax. Some versions partially privatize Social Security; privatize Medicare; fund Medicaid through block grants to the states; and eliminate the tax exclusion for employer-sponsored health insurance. Other versions decimate Medicaid and eliminate Obamacare without anything to take its place. In a time when many students are buckling under the weight of student loans, the Ryan plan tightens eligibility for Pell grants, drastically reducing the potential beneficiaries while shrinking the amounts available. Student loans begin accruing interest while the students are still in school. And, ironically, Ryan champions the for-profit colleges which, in many cases, are an expensive consumer fraud paid for by looting Pell grants. None of these proposals address the needs of those embattled workers on whom the GOP depends. But Ryan advocates these measures as a grown-up effort to balance the budget. Far from it, for the plans are rooted in wishful thinking, calculated evasions, and lousy math. This is ideology, not budgeting. And it marks Ryan's besetting weakness: a preference for philosophy over fact. Examples? Ryan's math depends on a hoary assumption which has been empirically disproven time and again -- that tax cuts at the top increase economic growth and, like magic, generate more tax revenues. Thus Ryan skips over enormous revenue losses which will inevitably explode the deficit. But his intellectual dishonesty is far more comprehensive. He proposes to eliminate tax loopholes and deductions -- which remain nameless. And he assumes zero growth in domestic discretionary spending -- which, according to Paul Krugman, means a 25 percent cut adjusted for inflation and increased population. This would further slash spending on transportation, education, housing, health-related research, veterans' assistance, homeland security, the justice system and environmental protection. Ryan spells out none of this. Inescapably, the plan punishes the most vulnerable. It cuts down on food stamps, unemployment insurance and, of course, entitlement programs which can be reformed in far less draconian ways. And virtually all the tax cuts go to the top 1 percent. Little wonder, then, that Ryan is a favorite of the Republican donor classes, including the funding circles of Paul Singer and the Koch brothers. Little wonder, too, that students of the Ryan plan assert that it would markedly increase poverty and income inequality. With a few more tweaks, one could fairly call it the Ayn Rand Budget. But reality has started gaining on Paul Ryan -- fast. In 2010, he and his House cohorts -- Eric Cantor and Kevin McCarthy -- recruited congressional candidates from the hard right by stoking Tea Party anger. But that same anger led to Cantor's humiliating primary defeat by an extreme right-winger. And then the trio's rageful janissaries brought down John Boehner and blocked McCarthys bid to succeed him. Desperate, the Republican caucus offered Ryan the speakership. His reluctance to accept this poisoned chalice was painful to watch. He knew too well the forces which awaited him -- he had helped put them where they were, and now they were consuming their political parents. Only Ryan was untouched. And so this man of ideas went from the safety of floating dubious budgets to presiding over a caucus beset by extremists. Worse, he assumed responsibility for one branch of a divided government, where the only alternatives to compromise are impotence or apocalypse - shutting the place down. So far impotence is winning. Ryan can't turn the "Ryan Budget" into law -- if the Senate didn't block it, President Obama would. But too many in his caucus won't support a compromise, even one which achieves key Republican priorities. Indeed, some of his right-wing progeny will only follow Ryan if he jumps off the fiscal cliff -- a political death spiral for his own career. In short, the GOP's presumptive savior is being swallowed by his own ideas and those who believe in them most fiercely. And now comes Donald Trump. Ryan's dilemma was captured by his recent announcement of a plan to fight poverty and unemployment through block grants to the states. This proposal, at least, is interesting, though it requires an increase in funding which his caucus is unlikely to embrace. Moreover, it included a truly Randian proposal -- repealing a new government regulation requiring that retirement advisors serve the interests of their clients, instead of profiting by steering them into high -cost investments. And the announcement itself - set in a struggling DC neighborhood - was overwhelmed by reporters' questions regarding the latest idiocy from Trump. This moment, too, was rich in irony. For the stark truth is that Trump is a political mutation spawned by Paul Ryan's "ideas." Ryan has long stood for tax cuts for the wealthy; free trade; slashing entitlements; shredding the social safety net; reforming immigration to benefit employers; and other nostrums favored by the commercial interests which fund the party. So how have Ryan and the GOP sold this to their base? They haven't, really. Instead the GOP offered diversionary scapegoats for their voters' economic insecurity -- inefficient government, welfare recipients, and thinly veiled attacks on Democratic "interest groups" -- i.e., minorities. In his crude and opportunistic way, Trump ripped the party's mask off. He took the tacit racism of all too many Republican officeholders and made it overt -- targeting Muslims, Hispanics and, with barely less subtlety, blacks. He said that free trade agreements betrayed American workers. He stood up against cuts in Social Security and Medicare. He questioned tax cuts for the rich. And, of course, he promised to build that Wall. In sum, he was everything that Paul Ryan is not. And the base loved him for it. Only Trump's historical illiteracy prevented him from narcissistically misappropriating Martin Luther King by telling his followers that, under "Trump", they would be "free at last" -- in this case from Ryan and the Republican donor classes. For them, Trump poses a hydra-headed problem. He has pretty well trashed their free-trade agenda: to the distress of Chamber of Commerce types, Trump is competing with Bernie Sanders for restive voters displaced by the global economy. In the process, he has turned the GOP's attack on identity politics into a defense of embattled white folks against the supposed depredations of a multiracial society. Establishment Republicans were horrified. Though too intimidated to say very much, they knew that Trump's alienation of minorities was a demographic loser. And when racism stops whispering and starts screaming, polite Republicans begin squirming. And so, yet again, they turned to Paul Ryan. Not only was he the party's highest elected official, but it's defender of serious ideas -- indeed, its very conscience. He became the GOP's St. Thomas More, it's man for all seasons. And so, like More, he dithered. Perhaps because he knows too well how the story ends, and dreads his own political beheading. For weeks, he refrained from endorsing Trump, providing cover for worried Republicans while cloaking himself in principle. But for a man bent on preserving his own political life and, quite likely, running for president, this pose had a half-life of its own. To pave the way for an endorsement, Ryan pretended to believe that the narcissistic casino magnate was buying into his serious ideas, facilitating their passage should Trump become president. But in the primaries Trump had kicked his agenda to the curb, and now was treating Ryan to condescension and veiled threats. And in Ryan's own caucus, nervous Republicans were pushing him to back their presumptive nominee. At last he did so, penning a letter to his hometown newspaper which, it was clear, he wished were written in invisible ink. Promptly, Trump rewarded him by attacking the federal judge presiding over a lawsuit against the bogus Trump University -- converting a respected Indiana-born jurist into a biased "Mexican" resentful of Trump's wall. Confronted with this evidence of blatant racism - not to mention emotional disturbance -- Ryan was compelled at the anti-poverty press conference to denounce Trump's virulence as "the textbook definition of a racist comment." And then this apostle of Republican inclusiveness reaffirmed his support for Trump -- because, after all, he would be better than Hillary Clinton. Really? Paul Ryan truly prefers that a narcissistic, ignorant, ungovernable, unqualified, race-baiting, misogynistic moron becomes our next president? The New York Daily News captured the moment perfectly, tagging photos of Trump and Ryan with the lethal headline: "I'm With Racist!" It will only get worse. On Sunday, Trump reacted to the slaughter perpetrated by a demented ISIS sympathizer at a gay nightclub in Orlando with the odious demagoguery which is his trademark, doubling down on his call for a ban on all Muslims from abroad, asserting that American Muslims at large "know what's going on" regarding terrorism, and congratulating himself on his supposed prescience in identifying these threats. He then topped this dangerous and irresponsible scapegoating -- so damaging to our national security and national fabric -- by implying that President Obama was complicit in, or at least tolerant of, terrorist violence against Americans. With every repugnant utterance from Trump, Paul Ryan becomes a little smaller. And so, in the end, Ryan is not merely a captive in Trump's hostage video. He is a politician caught between his rejected ideology, and the racist pseudo-populism of an interloper who emerged from the political and moral void he and his party helped create. Trump, of course, will lose. But he will leave behind a Republican Titanic, headed for an electoral iceberg which will shatter the party for years to come. Ryan may survive as speaker by clinging to some piece of ideological flotsam -- if only because no one else will want the job. But he will never rise above the waterline -- not in 2020, or ever. The shipwreck is catastrophic, and its fatalities include the party's would-be savior, President Paul Ryan. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

09 июня, 19:49

Barack Obama, Inequality Fighter

A new report finds the government is doing more to fight inequality right now than any year on record.

11 февраля 2014, 19:59

Джанет Л. Йеллен_наследница Бернанке Бена встаёт за печатный станок)

Г-жа Йеллен также призвал не преувеличивать опасения по поводу турбулентности на развивающихся рынках, таких как Турция "Мы внимательно следим за неустойчивостью на глобальных финансовых рынках. Нам кажется, что на данном этапе эти события не представляют значительную опасность для экономических перспектив США. Работа, чтобы сделать финансовую систему более надежной, до сих пор не завершена." Значительная часть работы по увеличению надежности финансовой системы США заключается в том, что даже не печатать бумагу и называть её деньгами, а в том, чтобы производить изменения в Специальных Финансовых Программах, чтобы ежемесячно почти из ниоткуда в финансовых и кредитных учреждениях США на счетах обновлялись цифры (конечно, в сторону увеличения) Чистая магия! Кто не знает -- эта магия называется количественное смягчение QE (нетрадиционная монетарная политика). Поначалу волшебная сила ФРС (единовременно) напитала экономику США на общую сумму в районе 2 трлн. долларов (официально) -- QE1, QE2 (вертолеты Бени). Потом ФРС стала регулярно впрыскивать магию от 40 до 85 млрд.$ ежемесячно. Получалось обычно больше -- 85 да 85) В общем, ФРС каждый месяц добавляла экономике США по 70, 80 млрд. надежности -- т.е. впрыскивала сумма почти в 1,5 раза большую, чем России удалось освоить за 7 лет на строительстве Олимпийских объектов в Сочи (даже по самым нескромным расчетам Навального) -- только у нас появились олимпийские объекты, а в США удалось поддержать прежний уровень комфорта проживающих там граждан Единственный минус -- пока еще многие считают, что эта магия приводит к тому, что вырастает государственный долг США (в целом получилось более 4 трлн. S -- примерно на эту сумму Казначейство США приобрело ипотечные ценные бумаги -- дав свежие нолики, забрав заплесневевший финансовый мусор). Чтобы еще как-то помочь своей экономике Центральный банк США сохраняет краткосрочные процентные ставки около нуля. Бернанке и Йеллен солидарны в использовании экономических стимулов. Их два: -- снижать процентные ставки, чтобы снизить стоимость заимствований для бизнеса и потребителей -- поощрять принятие рисков инвесторами (в т.ч. в покупке инвестиционного мусора) К февралю 2014 года QE3 снизили до 65 миллиардов долларов -- но это всё равно больше стоимости семилетнего строительства олимпийских объектов в Сочи Г-жа Йеллен уже сказала о своих планах для краткосрочных процентных ставок -- они должны удерживаться около нуля. В прошлой серии изумительного американского сериала "Повысим потолог госдолга" республиканцы и демократы договорились до 7 февраля 2014 года вообще не париться по поводу того, что государственный долг растёт, а планы по его обслуживанию всё нереалистичнее (не исключаю, что американские политики где-то глубоко подозревали, что сюжет следующего сезона сериала "Повысим потолог госдолга" будет подсказан какими-то серьезными изменениями в политике и экономике и не придется играть так же как в прошлый раз -- в американских сериалах вообще очень хорошая тенденция от сезона к сезону накал страстей увеличивать)) В общем, 7 февраля наступило, а сюжет остаётся столь же скучным. Чтобы хоть как-то разнообразить, политики уже почти договорились связать увеличение потолка долга с планом полностью восстановить пенсии для некоторых военных ветеранов (видимо, какие-то пенсии урезали, теперь их опять поднимут -- слабый сюжетный ход). Свежая передовица в Вашингтон Пост успокаивает: "... появилась опция обратного хода, которая, по существу позволяет демократам утвердить предел долга без каких-либо условий, почти полностью самостоятельно" В общем, в прошлом сезоне, когда "выключали" Правительство и т.д., всё произошло гораздо драматичнее. Голливуд сдулся. Можно почитать эту передовицу -- не рекомендую, дичь полная: нашим фантазерам из Правительства и Министерства энергетики есть чему учиться. Как там любят завершать свои паранормальные расчеты критики реальности из виртуальности?: "каждый россиянин заплатил за эту стройку..." "на эту дорогу можно было намазать слой икры...")) здесь ситуация несколько похожая -- почти любой человек в мире, получающий зарплату, разговаривающий по айфону..., в нашем глобальном мире связан с Беном Бернанке-Вертолетом и его последователями, бросающими деньги американской экономике  АПД: Палата представителей конгресса США проголосовала за "чистый", без дополнительных условий, законопроект, позволяющий расширить лимит государственного долга, передает Reuters. Документ, подводящий черту под напряженным противостоянием демократов и республиканцев, был утвержден незначительным большинством голосов: за его принятие проголосовал 221 парламентарий, против - 201. После утверждения в палате представителей документ будет направлен в сенат для обсуждения с последующим голосованием. Дебаты в сенате могут начаться уже 12 февраля. Это первый с 2009г. законопроект о повышении "потолка" госдолга, не связанный с уступками республиканцам. Его утверждение положило конец трехлетнему периоду "парламентских войн", отягощенных угрозой дефолта, октябрьским коллапсом федеральных бюджетных учреждений и общей экономической нестабильностью.

29 сентября 2013, 13:20

Да придёт Shutdown ... )

Угроза прекращения работы правительства США из-за острых разногласий между демократической администрацией президента Барака Обамы и республиканской оппозицией в Конгрессе сегодня стала вполне реальной. Палата представителей на своем заседании, начавшемся в субботу днем и затянувшемся за полночь, приняла новый вариант резолюции о временном финансировании федеральных министерств и ведомств, однако лидеры сената сообщили, что рассматривать его не будут. Белый дом также заявил, что такой документ ему не подходит и "президент наложит на него вето". ... В неоплачиваемые отпуска будут отправлены 800 тыс из 2,1 млн федеральных служащих, прекратится прием новых заявок на выплаты по социальному страхованию, будет остановлена господдержка ипотечных кредитов и займов малому бизнесу, закроются национальные парки и музеи. http://www.itar-tass.com/c16/895136.html _____________ Судя по последним решениям республиканцев (они снова проголосовали за продление финансирования, но теперь с условием отсрочки медреформы на год) Shutdown правительства практически неизбежен. Десократам в Сенате и Обами на принятие решения остается только понедельник. Поддержать законопроект республиканцев - значит отказаться от медреформы (где год, там и два, бюджетные споры будут каждый год), на возврат законопроекта обратно в Палату представителей Конгресса и повторные голосования времени практически не остается. Демократы в Сенате и Обама поддержать отсрочку реформы на год не могут - для них это полный фиаско, проще выключить правительство и обвинить во всем республиканцев. Shutdown правительства уже был в 1995-1996, тогда это произошло дважды: с 14 по 19 ноября 1995г. и с 19 декабря 1995г. по 6 января 1996 года. А всего за с 1976 года это происходило 17 раз, особенно активно при Картере в 1977-1979 годах но после 1980 года отключения были на 1-3 дня. Более вероятно, что shutdown приведет к некоторому падению ставок госбондов (как это было в 1995), росту доллара?... возможно незначительной коррекции фондовых индексов. Голдман насчитал замедление роста в 4 квартале на уровне 1% ВВП, что вполне реалистично, если shutdown протянется на несколько недель, но это скорее временный эффект. ФРС, видимо, под этим соусом может отодвинуть сворачивание QE3 ) Намного более важным является не shutdown, а решение о лимите госдолга, на счетах Минфина $18.5 млрд. на 26 сентября - это в 3-4 раза меньше, чем в предыдущие годы на ту же дату, учитывая налоговые поступления и расходы Минфин ожидает того, что деньги закончатся к 17 октября, shutdown вряд ли сможет сильно отодвинуть эту дату, но "критическая ситуация", может заставить республиканцев быть более сговорчивыми по лимиту госдолга, как и демократов (сдавать позиции намного проще, когда "ужас-ужас"). Что в итоге: ФРС получит повод для политики помягче, политики получат пинок для "поиска компромисса", рынки потрясет, ну и все получат возможность найти крайнего в слабом росте экономики ). P.S.: Если ФРС стимулирует экономику через повышение доступности кредита и низкие ставки, то почему: темпы роста кредита с начала запуска программы упали, ставки выше чем до запуска ). Рост производства, розницы, доходов населения, инфляции... уровень занятости - ниже? Зато выше фондовые индексы и цены на дома. ДОП.: Сенат вернул законопроект обратно, республиканцы планируют повторить заход ) 

01 марта 2013, 21:12

Конгресс и Белый дом не договорились по секвестру

Фото: EPA Конгресс и администрация США не смогли договориться по вопросу предотвращения секвестра бюджета. В результате США потеряют около 750 тысяч рабочих мест. Президент США Барак Обама обвинил республиканцев в сложившейся ситуации Обновлено в 21:46 мск "Эти сокращения ударят по экономике. Многие, сотни тысяч американцев, почувствуют их. Пограничная служба, Пентагон, ФБР и многие другие силовые ведомства столкнутся с сокращением финансирования и увольнениями. По расчетам экономистов, США потеряют около 750 тысяч рабочих мест", - сказал Обама, выступая в Белом доме. Президент обвинил республиканцев в том, что они довели дело до секвестра федерального бюджета. "Это произошло потому, что такой выбор сделали республиканцы в Конгрессе", - заявил он. - Обама вновь предложил отложить секвестр бюджета По словам Обамы, администрация США в ближайшие дни начнет разработку новой экономической стратегии, которая позволила бы нивелировать последствия секвестра и сгладить ущерб американской экономике. "В конгрессе есть группа парламентариев, которая обеспокоена оздоровлением экономики. В ней есть и республиканцы, и демократы. В ближайшие дни и недели мы (администрация США) свяжемся с этой группой, начнем консультации и выработку плана действий. Я намерен интенсифицировать этот процесс", - сказал Обама, выступая в Белом доме. Он повторил, что намерен сделать все, чтобы экономический ущерб от секвестра оказался как можно меньшим. При этом, по словам президента, основной удар от сокращения бюджетных расходов придется на силовые структуры, малый бизнес и средний класс. "Но есть и хорошие новости. Американский народ очень сильный и пройдет через все трудности", - отметил президент. - Конгресс США не смог отвести от национальной экономики угрозу секвестра Спикер палаты представителей Джон Бейнер по итогам встречи также заявил, что переговоры Обамы с лидерами Конгресса не принесли желаемых результатов. Он исключил возможность повышения налогов, заметив, что сейчас надо сконцентрировать внимание на проблеме сокращения расходов. "Дискуссия по поводу пополнения казны за счет доходов, на мой взгляд, завершена. Речь идет о решении проблемы, связанной с расходами", - сказал лидер республиканцев. В пятницу Обама встречался с лидерами обеих палат конгресса, чтобы обсудить меры по предотвращению секвестра. От этой встречи администрация ожидала договоренностей о предотвращении секвестра или о переносе сроков его начала. Однако длившиеся около часа переговоры не принесли результатов. Как объявил ранее Белый дом, президент США Барак Обама планирует подписать указ о переходе правительства на особый режим работы в связи с секвестром федерального бюджета. Речь идет о принудительном сокращении расходных статей федерального бюджета на общую сумму 85 миллиардов долларов. Члены Конгресса уже отклонили два законопроекта, которые могли если не устранить, то хотя бы смягчить последствия этого процесса, чреватого осложнением ситуации не только в Соединенных Штатах, но и в других странах. - Секвестр бюджета США. "Рынки ведут себя как испуганные зайцы" Правительство США разработало экстренные планы на случай секвестра, которые предусматривают сокращение большинства федеральных программ и частичное сворачивание работы в государственных ведомствах. Угроза секвестра была специально создана Белым домом и Конгрессом в 2011 году, чтобы у обеих ветвей власти появился мощный стимул для наведения порядка в национальных финансах. Однако в прошлом году они так и не сумели прийти к окончательному компромиссу по бюджету и налогам. В результате падение страны с "финансового обрыва" было предотвращено в самый последний момент лишь на основе временной договоренности, срок действия которой истекает сегодня. В результате секвестра на 46 миллиардов долларов будут сокращены расходы на оборонные нужды, на 28,7 миллиардов долларов - ассигнования на различные внутренние проекты, почти на 10 миллиардов долларов - финансирование программ медицинского страхования. - США вернут авианосцы в порты в случае секвестра бюджета В одном только Вашингтоне будет отправлено в неоплачиваемые отпуска свыше 13 тысяч гражданских служащих министерства обороны США. В штате Вирджиния это число составит 90 тысяч человек. Кроме того, властям придется приостановить обслуживание 11 военных кораблей, базирующихся на базе ВМС США в Норфолке (штат Вирджиния), а сокращение расходов на расположенные в этом штате базы американских ВВС и Сухопутных войск составит в общей сложности свыше 150 миллионов долларов. По материалам РИА Новости и ИТАР-ТАСС.

17 января 2013, 12:54

Демократы США требуют отказаться от потолка госдолга

Представители Демократической партии подготовили и представили законопроект об отмене потолка государственного долга США, сообщает Associated Press.Америка отступила от "финансового обрыва", однако за этой угрозой скрывалась новая, куда более серьезная. Технически потолок госдолга США был достигнут еще 31 декабря. Подобный шаг они объясняют тем, что "планка" госдолга не выполняет своей задачи сдерживания уровня расходов. Более того, данный инструмент не имеет практического применения и определяется в произвольном порядке.Аналогичной позиции придерживается глава ФРС Бен Бернанке, который также предлагал отказаться от данного механизма."Я думаю, было бы хорошо, если бы у нас не было этого", - заявил Бернанке, выступая в Университете Мичигана.В то же время он находит шансы того, что Конгресс откажется от постоянного повышения, минимальными.Предельно допустимый уровень государственного долга США на 31 декабря прошлого года составляет $16,394 млрд. До тех пор пока верхняя граница не будет повышена, Казначейство не может занимать сверх этой суммы, а это необходимо, для того чтобы расплатиться по всем финансовым обязательствам страны.В то же время основной причиной возникновения необходимости отказа от "потолка" могло стать использование этого инструмента представителями Республиканской партии как средства политического "шантажа" своих оппонентов. Столь резкие действия демократов связаны с ранее прозвучавшим заявлением республиканцев, которые сообщили, что намерены не уступать демократам и требовать для себя условий - лимит госдолга будет повышен только в обмен на сокращение расходов. Без этого условия республиканцы не будут голосовать за повышение лимита и даже готовы допустить технический дефолт.Если республиканцы продолжат настаивать на своей позиции, то они угрожают превратить Америку в самого крупного неплательщика в мире, что, естественно, будет усиливать давление на них со стороны общества.Предстоящая схватка между республиканцами и демократам будет очень тяжелой, и споры об увеличении налогов перед Рождеством сейчас кажутся детской игрой. Все значило, что ситуация с "фискальным обрывом" закончится тем, что богатые будут платить больше налогов, а сейчас никто не может предсказать результаты предстоящего боя."Никто не хочет дефолта, но мы не собираемся продолжать предоставлять президенту безграничную кредитную карту", - заявил конгрессмен-консерватор Джейсон Чафетз.Распространено мнение, что Обама и Конгресс в конечном итоге достигнут компромисса по расходам, что позволит повысить лимит госдолга, продолжить финансирование правительства и изменит автоматическое секвестирование расходов на $1,2 трлн до 1 марта. Ссылки по теме Бернанке: от потолка госдолга надо избавиться Обама снова призвал Конгресс увеличить госдолг США могут сэкономить на бюджетниках Проблема здесь в следующем: республиканцы, скорее всего, не пойдут на компромисс при сокращении расходов на $1,2 трлн. Это сокращения, о которых удалось договориться, республиканцы уже считают сделанным делом. Теперь они хотят сократить конкретные программы, а не общий объем расходов. Предполагает немедленное сокращение половины указанных расходов на оборону, а другая половина должна сократиться по остальным программам.У Обамы совершенно другое видение. Белый дом не только хочет, чтобы секвестр решил все проблемы, он хочет заменить некоторые сокращения дополнительным повышением налогов.Позиции Бейнера и Обамы уже не могут быть дальше, чем в вопросе увеличения потолка госдолга. Бейнер требует за доллар, на который будет увеличен госдолг, сокращения расходов на доллар. Это означает, что расходы должны быть дополнительно сокращены на $1 трлн и более, чтобы вопрос о госдолге был решен на длительное время. Обама не пойдет на такое. Он не будет сокращать расходы, и представитель Белого дома заявил, что позиция президента не изменится. Реального компромисса здесь просто не существует, отмечают обе стороны.

03 января 2013, 12:25

Барак Обама отсрочил "фискальный обрыв"

Барак Обама подписал законопроект по предотвращению роста налогов для большей части американского населения и предотвращению "фискального обрыва". Кроме того, подписан законопроект об оборонном бюджете. Ранее документ был одобрен Палатой представителей США и сенатом.Структура "фискального обрыва" Соглашение предусматривает повышение налогов на семьи, чей доход превышает $450 тыс. в год, с 15% до 20%, а также рост размера отчислений в бюджет для граждан, зарабатывающих в год более $400 тыс. Налог на недвижимость от $5 млн увеличится с 35% до 40%, налог на фонд заработной платы вырастет с 4,2% до 6,4%. Сократятся пособия по безработице для нетрудоспособных в течение более чем года. Для тех, кто не работает менее 1 года, размер пособия вырастет."Фискальный обрыв", который предусматривает отмену налоговых льгот, принятых при Джордже Буше, случился уже 1 январе 2013 г., но из-за того, что 1 января было выходным днем, воздействие на экономику было минимальным. Если бы новый закон принять не успели, то количество пособий по безработице сократилось, а государственные расходы резко сократились.Лимит госдолга США Что касается военного бюджета, то Пентагон получит $527,5 млрд, $88,5 млрд пойдут на зарубежные операции, в частности в Афганистане. Еще $17,4 млрд направят на ядерные программы Министерства энергетики США. В результате бюджет на военную отрасль в 2013 г. достигнет $633,4 млрд.Между тем эксперты отмечают, что трудности для Обамы только начинаются, несмотря на целый ряд подписанных соглашений, которые глава государства записал себе в актив. Республиканцы уже пообещали "отыграться" к марту, когда будет обсуждаться вопрос об очередном поднятии "потолка" госдолга США и автоматического секвестра госрасходов. Как известно, республиканцы выступают против этой меры, так как правительству снова придется выходить на долговой рынок ради финансирования бюджетных программ.

02 января 2013, 06:07

Этот, как его там, - "фискальный обрыв"? )

Пора завязывать с активным празднованием НГ, а вспомнить про наших старых друзей на другом континенте. Еще успеем наотдыхаться ))  Клоунада в Конгрессе завершилась в лучших традициях голливудских блокбастеров. Напряжение, накал страстей, кровь и слезы при кульминации и промежуточное решение за несколько секунд до часа X. С этим они нас не подвели. Молодцы, умеют быть предсказуемыми. Другого ждать от них не имело смысла.Второе, в чем еще они не подвели нас, - так это то, что никакого адекватного решения разумеется нет. Одни смятения и непонятнки.  Кто нибудь ждал от них чего то внятного? Я нет. Предусмотрительно я занес в черный список спам фильтра все новости про «фискальный обрыв» вот уже как пол года, т.к. понимал, что не стоит тратить время на пустую болтовню этих клоунов и импотентов. Нет, они не дураки, а весьма образованные люди, но в своей сути лоббисты-клоуны (представители бизнеса) и импотенты (патологически боятся смелых шагов и волевых решений).На самом деле издевательства над мировым сообществом они начали не сейчас. Троллинг был всегда. Я не поленился и решил посмотреть, а какой официальный план правительства США в лице представителей Конгресса США был в 2001 году с проектом до 2012 года?Поверить в это сложно, но 10 лет тому назад они ожидали, что к 2012 году долг США станет почти нулевым, профицит бюджета стабильно растущим, а экономика цветущей.Эпик фейл перед вашими глазамиТеперь вы удивляетесь, почему я занес этих парней в спам фильтр и почему отключаю звук на ТВ, когда выступают конгрессмены?Тем не менее, раз в год, но с официальными документами стоит ознакомиться. У них вновь оптимистичные планы. Смотреть здесь. Эте бредовые прогнозы даже не буду комментировать, а обращу внимание на то, чего же они приняли касаемо налогов?Да, по голливудским традициям, они кинули кость американскому народу. Ведь, как знаете, по фильму Бэтмен, всегда должна быть надежда на лучшее у народа. Только так можно поверить в успех, собрать силы и волю в кулак и раздвигать границы мироздания. Помните, как бэтмен выбирался из тюрьмы по трубе? Однако, так получается пока только в кино.Конгрессмены как бы выступили героями. В новогодний праздник. Народ хотел растрясти богатых и конгрессмены сделали вид, что растрясли.Три ключевых решения:Повышение подоходного налога с 35 до 39.6% для тех, кто имеет годовой доход в 400 тыс долл и 450 тыс при семейном бюджете.Повышение налога с 15% до 20% на прирост капитала и дивиденды при условии годовой выручки выше 400 тыс долларов.Повышение налога с 35% до 40% на сверхэлитную недвижимость ценой выше 5 млн долларов.Сложно сказать, сколько официально людей имеют доход выше 400 тыс баксов. Но я знаю, что выше 250 тыс по данным за 2010 год имеют лишь 1.9% среди рабочей силы в США. Из этого можно предположить, что в 400 тыс попадают меньше 1% или менее 1.5 млн человек. Это обычно те, кто налоги не платит, т.к. имеет более, чем достаточно средств по налоговой оптимизации. Обычно эффективная налоговая ставка для богатых ниже 30% или около нее. Рост оф.ставки до 39.6% вероятно никак не скажется на них. Найдут законные средства по оптимизации налогов.Тем не менее, даже если все будут честно платить, то эффект близок к нулю в масштабах всей экономики. По расчетам Конгресса, в самом лучшем случае годовой эффект будет примерно 330 млрд (скорее фантастика в стиле профицита бюджета к 2012), хотя если брать налоги для богатых, то не более 62 млрд в год. Всего 62 млрд в год при дефиците 1.25 трлн! Хотя, это первый порыв к тотальному перераспределению с коммунистическим уклоном, которое активно тестируют социалисты во Франции.Просто заморозили ситуацию, оставив все как есть. Документов еще толком нет, окончательного решения нет, ничего короче пока нет. Хотя пытаются народ отвлечь от того, что например, компании показывают свои худшие результаты с 2009 года, а экономика летит в рецессию.Но также подвешенный вопрос относительно payroll tax с возможным ростом с 4.2% до 6.2%, что нивелирует весь якобы положительный эффект от повышения налогов для богатых. С другой стороны сам Бланкфайн был не против роста налога на богатых, что означает лишь одно: элита чувствует, что пахнет керосином. Они устроили тест драйв Греции и прекрасно видят к чему приводит утягивание поясов - погромы и беспредел на улице. Бланкфайн живет рядом с Центральным парком в Нью Йорке в апартаментах за 35 млн и ему не хочется, чтобы его разодрали на клочья голодные американцы по пути из офиса к дому. Это скорее, как необходимость, вынужденная мера. В свои 58 Бланкфайн выглядит лет на 40, денег много, вся жизнь впереди. Представьте, если дубиной по башке получит от случайного прохожего, который на GS в обиде? Какого будет? Мозги можно вышибить. Вероятно,  повышение налогов с 35 до 39.6% - это воля элиты, чем решение конгрессменов. 

05 декабря 2012, 22:19

США: производственная активность сократилась в ожидании fiscal cliff

ISM Manufacturing Index на минимумах июля 2009 г.3 декабря 2012 г. были опубликованы данные по индексу общенациональной производственной активности США, ISM Manufacturing Index, за ноябрь.В прошлом месяце индикатор деловых настроений в промышленности крупнейшей экономики мира зафиксировал значение на уровне 49,5 пункта против 51,7 в октябре, вновь уйдя ниже критического уровня в 50 пунктов. Таким образом, в четырех из последних шести месяцев индикатор деловых настроений оказывался в зоне сокращения. Текущее значение оказалось минимальным с июля 2009 г., когда PMI зафиксировал значение 49,2 пункта.Исторически, значение индикатора ISM Manufacturing (PMI) выше 42,6 пункта сигнализирует о росте экономики США. Таким образом, с учетом последних данных, 42 месяца подряд индекс  PMI подтверждает расширение американской  экономики.Анализ взаимосвязи между PMI и ВВП США указывает на то, что среднее значение PMI с января по ноябрь (51,8) соответствует росту ВВП в пределах 3,1%. В годовом сопоставлении, ноябрьский PMI в 49,5 пункта корреспондирует с годовым ростом экономики в пределах 2,3%.Индекс ISM Manufacturing базируется на ежемесячных исследованиях, проводимых среди выборки отобранных компаний. Это позволяет получить ранние индикаторы того, что реально происходит в экономике, отслеживая такие переменные, как производство, новые заказы, уровень запасов, занятость и цены в промышленных секторах. Значение индикатора выше 50 пунктов означает рост деловой активности в промышленности, ниже – наоборот, замедление. Специалисты института ISM отмечают, что падение среднего значения индекса ISM Manufacturing ниже 42,6 пунктов говорит о сокращении национальной экономики, выше – о ее расширении.Компоненты индекса PMIКомпонента новые заказы в ноябре зафиксировала значение в 50,3 пункта, что на 3,9 п.п. ниже значений октября. Тем не менее, рост в этом важнейшем индикаторе в структуре PMI  длится уже три месяца подряд после трех месяцев сокращения.Параметр выпуск продукции снизился на 1,3 п.п. относительно октября до 53,7 пункта. Рост субиндекса выпуск продукции в районе 51,2 пункта, за длительный период, обычно совпадает с положительной динамике в значении индекса промышленного производства США, который расчитывает Federal Reserve Board.Новые экспортные заказы сокращаются шесть месяцев подряд. Субиндекс занятости упал до минимальных уровней с 2009 г.Новые заказы за вычетом запасовНесмотря на сокращение общенационального индекса деловой активности в промышленности США в ноябре, разница между компонентами новые заказы и запасы осталась положительной и даже выросла (с 4,2 до 5,3 пункта). Безусловно, это является позитивным моментом в отчете PMI.Региональные PMI Manufacturing vs. ISM ManufacturingВ течение двух недель до публикации ISM Manufacturing Index, данные по индексам PMI представляют региональные Федеральные Резервные Банки Нью-Йорка (Empire State), Филадельфии (Philly Fed), Ричмонда (Richmond Fed), Далласа (Dallas Fed) и Канзас-Сити (Kansas City Fed), Чикаго (Chicago),  формирующие около 52,6% ВВП США.Учитывая различия в “весах” каждого региона, можно рассчитать сводный региональный индекс деловой активности в промышленности Соединенных Штатов Америки (Empire+Philly+Richmond+Dallas+Kansas+Chicago PMI Manufacturing). В ноябре ситуация в производственном секторе рассматриваемых регионов незначительно ухудшилась относительно октября. Сводный региональный индекс уже четыре месяца находится ниже 50 пунктов.  В последние месяцы заметно улучшение в региональных индикаторах производственной активности в разрезе по важнейшей компоненте - новые заказы (new orders). По нашим оценкам, в ноябре сводный региональный индикатор новых заказов впервые за последние шесть месяцев пересек рубеж в 50 пунктов.U.S. Economic Surprise Index vs. ISM Manufacturing IndexПоложительная динамика индекса экономического сюрприза (Bloomberg Economic Surprise) в ноябре поспособствовала улучшению ожиданий бизнеса относительно перспектив американской экономики.  Bloomberg Economic Surprise отражает уровень пере- или недооценки экономическими аналитиками трендов бизнес цикла. Элемент сюрприза отражает процентную разницу между прогнозами аналитиков и публикуемыми фактическими данными. Прогнозы аналитиков отслеживаются Bloomberg News и отображаются в терминале Bloomberg. Элементы сюрприза по еженедельным и месячным данным сглаживаются по последним шести месяцам, больший вес присваивается последним вышедшим данным. Элементы сюрприза нормализуются и затем агрегируются.*Индекс сюрприза vs. динамика фондового и долгового рынкаДинамика Bloomberg Economic Surprise Index после 2008 г. показывает высокую корреляцию с динамикой индекса широкого рынка S&P 500 и доходности 10-летних нот США. ISM Manufacturing Index vs. ВВП СШАВажность ISM Manufacturing Index заключается в том, что индикатор публикуется одним из первых среди серии данных по национальному производственному сектору США. Несмотря на то, что общий вклад промышленного сектора в ВВП США составляет около 19,2% (сектора услуг - 79,6%, сельского хозяйства - 1,2%), ситуация в данном сегменте экономики традиционно выступает в качестве опережающего показателя.Большинство экономистов отмечает, что слабая статистика по ISM Manufacturing в ноябре является отражением настороженности бизнеса по вопросу “фискального обрыва” (одновременного автоматического сокращения госрасходов и повышения налогов c января 2013 г.), предотвращение которого станет ключевым вопросом для Конгресса США в декабре 2012 г. Вопрос fiscal cliff действительно заслуживает пристального внимания, так как разногласия по данному вопросу существуют не только между республиканцами и демократами, но и внутри самих партий.