Sign in to wowOwow

Enter the email address that you used when registering at wowOwow.
The password field is case sensitive. Click here if you have forgotten your password.

Please register for wowOwow

Newsletter subscriptions
Sign up to receive wowOwow's weekly newsletter and get our best picks delivered right to your inbox. Our newsletter content is hand-picked by the wowOwow editorial team and provides the top features, news, and commentary from our site. Subscribing to our newsletter is free and safe. We will never share your email or other information with a third-party without your direct consent.
By registering, you indicate that you have read and agree
with our privacy policy and terms of service.

Money | 04/18/2008 10:06 am

Bears, Bulls, Chickens and Pigs: Economic Slowdown? Bring it On!

By Liz Peek
© Landov

EDITOR’S NOTE: Liz Peek is a financial columnist.

Investment bank CEOs have become regular pep boys of late, suggesting that the worst of the credit crunch is behind us. The cheery projections by the likes of Lehman’s Dick Fuld and Morgan Stanley’s John Mack were a welcome offset to continued bank write-offs and losses. Mostly, financial industry first-quarter results were not as bad as expected, including this morning’s release from Citigroup. The giant bank announced a $5.1 billion loss, which included $12 billion in write-downs. You might not think this was good news, but it was an improvement over the fourth quarter, when the company lost $10 billion. Relief was audible; the market looks to open up strongly as a result.

Are bankers simply trying to boost investor (and maybe each other’s) confidence? That wouldn’t be such a bad thing, since fear has certainly played a role in the roller coaster financial markets for months. All kinds of credit instruments are selling at ridiculous prices, simply because there are no bidders. For instance, a financial exec told me this week a portfolio of student loans that were 97% guaranteed by the federal government were selling for 90 cents on the dollar. That’s not economics; that’s fear.

The sense that we’re moving through (I was about to say “past” – can’t do that) the mortgage crisis has had an impact. On Wednesday the stock market posted the biggest one-day advance in weeks, rising 257 points, despite oil prices hitting another record high and the dollar sinking to a new low against the euro. This reaction is not entirely silly. The Federal Reserve has aggressively cut interest rates in hopes of thawing credit markets and stabilizing financial institutions. They have also loosened the monetary reins to prevent the country from sinking into recession. If and when Wall Street begins to find its footing, policy makers will stop cutting rates, allowing the dollar to recover some lost ground.

Weakness in the dollar is blamed for soaring oil prices, which hit new record highs this week. Traders are citing all kinds of factors for the strength: Russian production may have plateaued, storms closed Mexico’s ports. I don’t think fundamental factors are dominant here. The announcement of a giant oil discovery off the coast of Brazil and reduced-demand projections from the International Energy Agency barely moved the needle.

Rather, there has been a huge amount of speculative money flowing into oil and into other commodities as hedge funds have desperately looked for trades that are working. Mike Rothman of the International Strategy & Investment Group, one of Wall Street’s best research outfits, confirms this. He points out that while average daily trading volume of key energy futures has historically averaged 3-5 times world consumption, today the figure is close to 14 times consumption. I firmly believe that at some point this bubble will collapse, too.

79 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

Kay Sara
I can’t believe people would be putting money in oil at these prices. We bought it when it was $50 - didn’t hang on to it long enough to reap these new highs but I am with you, I think the oil bubble will burst.
By Kay Sara on 04/18/2008 1:39 pm
CAROLINE MuLVEY
Suzanne C, we changed everything to propane.To Change our heater to propane was expensive but the company let us pay $160.00 every two weeks. We finally got that paid off. Drier and the stove/oven was also propane. It seems to be cost efficient. And it does not raise the price every time.
By CAROLINE MuLVEY on 04/20/2008 2:21 am
Kay Sara
Liz, Can you explain what you now about USO (fairly new ETF)not tracking the oil prices for such a long time? It is now kind of in step but for the longest time it was mirroring the oil price trends. Thanks.
By Kay Sara on 04/18/2008 1:41 pm
CAROLINE MuLVEY
Suzanne C. Please forgive me I did not know you speaking about the stock market. I am so sorry that I misunderstood. Love Ya
By CAROLINE MuLVEY on 04/20/2008 2:25 am
Kay Sara
Caroline, nothing to forgive kind lady! If you only knew how many times i misunderstand. We are just talking here - plenty of room for readjusting. Besides we are tired, rushed, and pulled in many different directions while trying to make these cool connections with each other. I am glad you are happy with the conversion to propane. We are all having to make conversions I think. Best to you. Hope you are feeling better today. Did you get outside at all with the nice weather?
By Kay Sara on 04/20/2008 7:17 pm
Liz Peek
Dear Suzanne - I don’t know. You’d have to look at what USO is invested in. I’ll try to research this
By Liz Peek on 04/20/2008 12:41 pm
Kay Sara
Thanks, Liz. I really look forward to what you think and find. It is starting now to follow the trend of oil futures but it took a very long time. It should mirror the oil futures based on its investments from what I understand. I think the trend has more to do with institutions buying into the ETF ???????????
By Kay Sara on 04/20/2008 7:12 pm
Kay Sara
Ooops, meant to type it was NOT mirroring the oil price trends.
By Kay Sara on 04/18/2008 1:42 pm
J B
I believe that oil prices may be peaking short term but if one takes a long term view, i.e. three to five years, I believe they and prices of other natural resources will be higher.
By J B on 04/18/2008 2:00 pm
Liz Peek
Dear Joyce - I agree totally. Longer term, expansion in India and China almost guarantee that demand for oil will grow, and keep prices high. However, that incremental demand is still tiny compared to what we in the US consume. If US demand continues to soften, it will bring prices down. One of the biggest props to oil prices today, as it has been occasionally in history, is pollitical. Venezuela”s Hugo Chavez could well cripple his country’s production by forcing out international oil companies, Mexico is already dealing with that trade-off between nationalism and practicality, Nigeria is countering terrorists etc. The roster of unstable oil producers is an excellent reason why I advocate keeping oil prices in the U.S. high, if necessary with an import fee, to maintain investment in alternatives and in conservation. We should have doen this in the 1990s when oil prices collapsed, and took with them drilling activity and conservation. Though it would be tough on consumers, the economy is already adjusting to high-priced energy. The price wouldn’t have to be set at $100/bbl, but maybe $85 or some slightly more palatable level. All the best - Liz
By Liz Peek on 04/20/2008 12:32 pm
Kay Sara
Joyce, I think your long term view is correct. We need a water ETF there is PHO, but I think you will need to hold on to that for several years as well.
By Kay Sara on 04/18/2008 2:47 pm
Tinka Parker
Liz, do you think that other commodities like gold and silver are a bubble due to burst?
By Tinka Parker on 04/19/2008 3:11 pm
Liz Peek
Dear Tinka- I think gold and silver will be responsive to economic trends, yes. There was a story in the NYT, I think, or maybe the Financial Times, about Indians cutting back their purchases of gold jewelry. India is growing so rapidly that they have been a major source of incremental demand; now it is slowing. I believe in cyclles, and it seems to me that the whole commodities trade is due for a correction. That said, these trends typically endure longer than I expect (ie, I was ready to bail out of tech WAY too early.) That comes about because it takes a long time for institutional investors to climb aboard a treend. If pension consultants, for example, begin to push pension funds to invest incommodities as an asset clas, this bubble could persist. So- long answer to say I don’t know. I wouldn’t buy these metals here, personally. Wish I could be more helpful. Best - Liz
By Liz Peek on 04/20/2008 12:39 pm
Bonnie Oliver
Paul Volcker was on Charlie Rose a couple weeks ago and said he believes the real estate crisis may end by year end. New construction could begin again as early as late Fall. However, he added that the inventory of homes and condos for sale will remain high until at least 2009. Mr. Volcker also said that business has not yet been adversely hit by the real estate fall. This morning my local Union 76 station was selling premium for over $4.00 a gallon. My neighbors who bought their home last summer are facing a current $100,000 loss if they put their house on the market today. I have read here that more than one participant cancelled their television cable service to save a few dollars each month. It’s scary out there. I wish there was a legal way to force our major manufacturing companies to remain within the confines of America. Jobs are always the key to prosperity for a community or a country. Bribery? Doubtful. And NAFTA isn’t the real problem or this new Colombian Free Trade Agreement which may not be voted upon (too bad because the products from Colombia are already arriving duty free…the agreement would allow American products going into Colombia the same advantage). I don’t know if Congress is pushing industry away from our shores or if their actions are immaterial. I suspect the latter and suggest that the bottom-line is the culprit…or should I say the corporate need to make as much profit as possible and to ignore the needs of a town or country. Executives always point to their shareholders. Well, I read that about 60% of Americans are now shareholders, in one fashion or another, and I cannot believe one American wants another American to lose his livelihood so that the bottom-line increases by a few dollars. I don’t think any retiree does either. But how is possible for all of us to persuade American manufacturers to remain in America?
By Bonnie Oliver on 04/18/2008 4:14 pm
Kay Sara
Bonnie, 60% of Americans may be shareholders but they are oblivious to what specific companies their mutual funds own and as a shareholder of the company through threir 401K or IRA mutual funds wtc they really do not voice concern over the company’s policies. Actual shareholders removal from the company encourages freedom for the companies not to exercise any corporate social responsibility. My company has the name “American” boldly in its name yet is closing down U.S. plants, buying out older employees and our workers are on their 8th week of striking in rejection of having their hourly wage cut from $28/hr to $14/hour. At the same time this “American” company is sourcing and building plants in other countries and reaping record profits. They have also set up an off shore “company” to buy our products manufactured in other countries - this off shore “company” pays a higher price so that when we ultimately sell these products back to U.S. companies we pay no U.S. tax because we sold the items at transfer pricing - showing no profit. This is legal- a loop hole in our government’s tax law. Why do we build manufacturing plants in other countries? For 3 reasons - 1. labor and benefits (health care, workers compensation laws etc) are so incredibly cheap = increases profit 2. Our OEM customers demand we have local presence in these other countries to reduce transportation costs and associated risks of transporting good long distances, reduced lead time ,inventory levels , risk of excess and obsolete material once engineering or product changes are made and eliminates the need to warehouse and other carrying cost levels and 3. being in these other countries- due to their laws and the great potential of their markets- means great cha ching! potential. Today the U.S. market is lucrative because of our wealth- not the size of the market in population. As the wealth increases for the billions in other countries - the U.S. market will be insignificant to thse global corporations.
By Kay Sara on 04/19/2008 8:09 am