More on TEN’s US 2007 Recession Contract
At the instigation of James Hamilton, TEN has tightened up the specification of its US 2007 recession contract:
Expiry will be based on the data reported by the U.S. Department of Commerce (Bureau of Economic Analysis, Table 1.1.1, “Percent Change From Preceding Period in Real Gross Domestic Product”) as reported by the BEA as of February 15, 2008.
If the table as reported at that time indicates that any two consecutive quarters between (and including) 2006:Q4 and 2007:Q4 are negative, then the contract will expire at 100. Otherwise, the contract will expire at 0.
This is a considerable improvement on the former contract specification (although the press release with the previous contract specification is still showing at Tradesports’ sister site Intrade). TEN could benefit from closer collaboration with the economics community in the design of their contracts, preferably before the contracts are actually listed for trading!
UPDATE: Felix Salmon shorts Nouriel:
Economonitor is going to make a bold prediction, though: that the contract won’t trade higher than 25 any time soon. I’m a seller at these levels.
UPDATE II: Felix once again proves the value of RGE Monitor as a contrarian indicator:
OK, so I was completely wrong yesterday afternoon when I said that the Intrade recession contract wouldn’t rise above 25: the first thing I see when I walk into the office this morning is that it managed to trade at an eye-popping 35 overnight.
posted on 09 January 2007 by skirchner in Economics, Financial Markets
(0) Comments | Permalink | Main
True Confessions of Peter Costello
Treasurer Costello is quoted in the weekend Australian Financial Review (no link) saying:
I think there is also evidence now that the round of tax cuts in May could well have been used to boost savings [sic]. The interesting thing is that although they were very substantial tax cuts, consumption didn’t grow by that much. It looks like people have taken the opportunity of the tax cuts to put some money away. Although I can’t give you figures yet, I do believe that a lot of money is being put into superannuation in preparation for the changes next year.
There is indeed very little evidence that recent tax cuts have boosted consumption. Costello probably doesn’t realise it, but these remarks effectively concede the point often made on this blog, that the government’s budget surpluses come partly at the expense of private sector saving. They make a nonsense of claims that tax cuts might result in higher interest rates, since the substitution between public and private saving leaves national saving unchanged. Household sector dissaving (on a national accounts basis) is largely a function of households paying more tax (and mortgage debt interest) as a share of GDP to keep their consumption share steady, while gross national saving has also remained approximately steady.
posted on 08 January 2007 by skirchner in Economics, Financial Markets
(0) Comments | Permalink | Main
Nouriel Roubini Can Now Put His Money Where His Mouth Is
Doomsday cultists like Nouriel Roubini can now put their money where their mouth is with Intrade’s 2007 US recession contract:
Contract on US Economy going into Recession
Thursday, Jan 4, 2007
The Exchange has listed a contract on the United States economy going into recession during 2007. This contract can be found under Financial—Economic Numbers—US Economy in Recession.
This contract will expire at 100 if the United States economy goes into recession during 2007. The contract will expire at 0 if it does not.
For expiry purposes a recession is defined as two successive quarters of negative real economic growth. Expiry will be based on figures released by the United States Department of Commerce and reported in three independent and reliable media sources.
The contract will be expired once the 2007 fourth-quarter figures are released (may not be until 2008). If however the 2007 third-quarter figures show positive growth the contract will be expired at 0.
As is often the case with prediction markets, the contract specification raises more questions than it answers. There is no reference to whether the contract expires with the advance, preliminary or final GDP releases. The potential expiry with the Q3 release still leaves open the possibility of a recession in 2007 as a result of revisions to historical data. You could be right about a recession in 2007 and still lose money with this contract specification. And why do we need the media to confirm data released by the BEA? Perhaps Intrade are trying to avoid the problems that arose with their North Korean missile launch contract.
posted on 05 January 2007 by skirchner in Economics, Financial Markets
(1) Comments | Permalink | Main
Does No New Spending Qualify as Expenditure Restraint?
We have previously noted that the federal government’s concern for the supposed impact of tax cuts on interest rates does not extend to new spending measures. Reports in the lead-up to the Expenditure Review Committee process now suggest that the government is ‘putting the squeeze on spending.’ But note that this does not refer to existing spending programs, only to ministers’ wish-lists for new spending:
BILLIONS of dollars in potential budget measures - including a costly schools and science package - have been dumped as the Howard Government puts the squeeze on spending…
Mr Howard, the Treasurer, Deputy Prime Minister Mark Vaile and Finance Minister Nick Minchin have already scrubbed out dozens of new initiatives brought forward by ministers before Christmas…
Decisions to curtail spending spread across health, welfare, indigenous policies, agriculture and industry.
“This is a very, very tough budget,” said one senior government figure. “It’s very tight and there’s not much joy for new (spending) initiatives.”
The linked article gives an interesting insight into the political economy of the ERC process when it says:
[Treasurer] Costello has indicated that he does not want the 2007-08 surplus to drop below its projected level of $9.7 billion, equivalent to 1 per cent of gross domestic product. Any new spending would depend on the economy producing more revenue than expected, although Mr Costello is also committed to preventing any increase in the tax burden.
In other words, the government will spend whatever it can get its hands on, subject to revenue and the budget balance remaining steady as shares of GDP. This hardly qualifies as expenditure ‘restraint,’ something the government has shown no interest in since its first budget.
posted on 04 January 2007 by skirchner in Economics, Financial Markets
(0) Comments | Permalink | Main
Malthus Resurrected
The Australia Institute’s Clive Hamilton resurrects Malthusian economics:
The business lobby and the Government will not admit it, but a high level of immigration is of no economic benefit. Gross domestic product grows but the higher income is merely spread over more people.
Hamilton also says that:
The fact that John Howard, who has gained re-election by exploiting Hansonite xenophobia, has presided over a record inflow of foreigners is an irony little remarked, not least because the Government tries to keep the figures quiet.
For someone who shares Pauline Hanson’s desire for zero net migration, this is more than a little rich. Indeed, there is very little daylight between Hanson and Hamilton on most public policy issues.
posted on 31 December 2006 by skirchner in Economics
(0) Comments | Permalink | Main
The US Trade Deficit and the Bond Yield ‘Conundrum’
David Malpass, on the US trade deficit and the so-called bond yield ‘conundrum’:
For decades, the trade deficit has been a political and journalistic lightning rod, inspiring countless predictions of America’s imminent economic collapse. The reality is different. Our imports grow with our economy and population while our exports grow with foreign economies, especially those of industrialized countries. Though widely criticized as an imbalance, the trade deficit and related capital inflow reflect U.S. growth, not weakness—they link the younger, faster-growing U.S. with aging, slower-growing economies abroad…
The trade deficit and a low “personal savings rate” are key parts of the bond market’s multi-year pessimism about the U.S. growth outlook. But just as the high level of U.S. savings is likely to add to future growth—the savings rate is only low if you arbitrarily exclude gains—the trade deficit and heavy capital inflows are also positive parts of the growth outlook. Rather than signaling a slowdown, the inversion of the yield curve—“Greenspan’s conundrum,” in which bond yields are low despite solid growth and rising inflation—is probably the result of this deep underestimate of the U.S. growth outlook, plentiful liquidity, and a backward-looking deflation premium for bonds, the reverse of the backward-looking inflation premium that kept bond yields unusually high in the 1980s.
posted on 21 December 2006 by skirchner in Economics, Financial Markets
(0) Comments | Permalink | Main
‘Tax Cuts Cause Higher Interest Rates,’ But Government Spending Doesn’t?
Treasurer Costello and Finance Minister Minchin are quick to raise the spectre of higher interest rates whenever the subject of tax cuts comes up and a justification is needed for continued Commonwealth revenue hoarding. Apparently, the same logic doesn’t apply to new government spending, as Alan Wood notes in relation to the government’s Mid-Year Economic & Fiscal Outlook (MYEFO):
Peter Costello and Finance Minister Nick Minchin have also been making noises about tightening the reins.
So what about Appendix A of the update, headed “Policy Decisions Taken Since the 2006-07 Budget” - that is, over the past six months.
This runs to more than 130 pages of the 250-page mid-year economic outlook.
And guess what the total spending adds up to over four years - $17.3 billion.
In fact, with the budget balance as a share of GDP little changed over the projection period, there is little reason to expect Commonwealth fiscal policy to have any impact on interest rates. This illustrates the point that when revenue collections are coming in much stronger than expected, tax cuts need not be any more stimulatory than the government’s new spending since the Budget. Yet if the government were to announce $17 billion in tax cuts, the ‘tax cuts lead to higher interest rates’ brigade would be out in force and the next interest rate increase would almost certainly be blamed on tax cuts.
This strange double standard is partly a product of the prevailing prejudice against people being allowed to spend their own money. The commentariat are largely of the view that the public are incompetent to spend tax cuts appropriately. Yet there are good reasons for thinking that a good portion of any tax cuts would go straight to the bottom-line of household balance sheets in the form of debt reduction, rather than being spent. The government’s much vaunted surpluses are simply displacing private sector saving, leaving national saving unchanged, with no implications for interest rates.
posted on 21 December 2006 by skirchner in Economics, Financial Markets
(0) Comments | Permalink | Main
In Defence of Hedge Funds
Sebastian Mallaby defends the role of hedge funds in the financial system:
the fear of hedge funds is overblown, based more on ignorance or simplistic caricatures than on actual knowledge. Many of the proposals for new regulation are so vague as to be impossible to evaluate or are poorly suited to address the supposed problems at issue. And even the most serious cause for concern—that hedge-fund operations might generate a “systemic risk” for the financial system as a whole—is neither limited to the hedge-fund sector nor best addressed through regulation of it. Rather than seeing hedge funds as sources of dangerous financial fires, in fact, it is more accurate to see them as the financial system’s benevolent fire fighters—and to let them have the tools they need to do their jobs well.
The long-short equity arbitrage fund is arguably an Australian invention. Australia is notable for regulating hedge funds in the same manner as other managed funds, making them available to retail investors, in sharp contrast to the ludicrous restrictions on retail participation in hedge funds in the US.
posted on 20 December 2006 by skirchner in Economics, Financial Markets
(1) Comments | Permalink | Main
Contrarian Indicator Alert: Roubini’s ‘Structural Gravity Force’
Nouriel Roubini dusts off his US dollar bear call, relying on that old faithful of structural US dollar bears, the current account deficit:
The large, still growing and eventually unsustainable US current account deficit is the structural gravity force that will keep on weakening the dollar over the medium term.
These ‘structural gravity forces’ must work differently for Japan, which runs a structural current account surplus while its real effective exchange rate is making 21 year lows:
It seems that ‘gravity force’ doesn’t work at short horizons either:
I am not in the business of predicting high frequency movements of currency over the horizon of a week or a month. But my macro and medium-term perspective tells me that fall of the dollar – over the medium term – has still a very long way to go.
posted on 19 December 2006 by skirchner in Economics, Financial Markets
(0) Comments | Permalink | Main
Fundamentals of House Price Inflation
Another installment in our on-going series on the fundamentals of house price inflation. The RBA has released a discussion paper, Housing and Housing Finance: The View from Australia and Beyond:
The general conclusion is that financial and macroeconomic developments have increased the demand for the stock of housing. Because the stock of housing is inherently slow to adjust, this has increased its relative price. Although this is a global trend, individual country institutions have affected outcomes, sometimes in ways that are not obvious. The resulting expansion in both sides of the household balance sheet is an important development for policy-makers to monitor, but it is probably not of itself a cause of financial instability.
posted on 15 December 2006 by skirchner in Economics
(0) Comments | Permalink | Main
More of What Nouriel Roubini Won’t Tell You About the US Economy
Larry Kudlow notes that the US November retail sales report almost single handedly tanks Roubini’s call for zero US growth in Q4:
The key point here is that it virtually eliminates the zero percent Q4 scenario from recession bears like Nouriel Roubini. You can’t get zero here - toss that scenario in the garbage.
This is what my associates at Action Economics had to say about the report:
The U.S. retail sales report should be a game-changer for those positioned for an imminent hard landing for the U.S. economy, with sizable housing sector “pass-through.” Hard landing estimates increasingly need to address why pass-through during the first 15-18 months of the housing correction is taking so long to materialize if it is really going to prove more dramatic than most economists assume.
And time is not on the side of those with a near-term doom-and-gloom view, as both the firming evident in most housing market data since the big June-August downsizing, and the robust uptrend in the MBA mortgage data over the last three weeks and other recent signs of reversal in the real estate market suggest that the correction for sales is likely approaching the end, though there will be lagged construction sector effects.
To be sure, most economists, as well as most FOMC members, have stuck to their guns that pass-through of weakness from the housing sector is thus far limited even if it remains the risk, and that the slowdown is proving orderly, with growth “at a moderate pace” as described in yesterday’s FOMC statement.
Today’s U.S. retail sales report removes much of the controversy associated with this view.
posted on 14 December 2006 by skirchner in Economics, Financial Markets
(0) Comments | Permalink | Main
Forecast Evaluation
A few reasons why you should be reading James Hamilton rather than Dr Strangelove.
Meanwhile, Alex Robson reviews the long-range forecasting performance of some local economists:
Just after John Howard came to office in 1996, several academic economists - including many professors at our best universities - distributed a petition in response to the new PM’s proposal to reduce government spending and cut the size of the commonwealth public service.
The professors claimed that the cuts were economically irresponsible and socially damaging, and would “inevitably cause job losses” due to “downward multiplier effects” that would flow from the public sector to the private sector. They also claimed that “the consequent reduction in jobs and incomes would result in lower tax revenues”. They said there would be “a strong possibility of precipitating a substantial economic recession”.
The rest, as they say, is history:
After fifteen years of uninterrupted growth, Australia’s quiet economic boom shows no signs of ending. The longest expansion in Australian history, it has seen wealth more than double, average income increase by half as much again, and unemployment tumble to a rate last experienced more than quarter of a century ago.
posted on 13 December 2006 by skirchner in Economics
(0) Comments | Permalink | Main
Macro Myth-busting with Ed Prescott
Ed Prescott tackles five macroeconomic myths, including some of this blog’s favourite targets:
Myth No. 3: Americans don’t save. This is a persistent misconception owing to a misunderstanding of what it means to save. To get a complete picture of savings we need to investigate economic wealth relative to income. Our traditional measures of savings and investment, the national accounts, do not include savings associated with tangible investments made by businesses and funded by retained earning, government investments (like roads and schools) and business intangible investments.
If we want to know how much people are saving, we need to look at how much wealth they have. People invest themselves in many and varied ways beyond their traditional savings accounts. Viewing the full picture—economic wealth—Americans save as much as they always have; otherwise, their wealth relative to income would fall. We’re saving the right amount.
posted on 11 December 2006 by skirchner in Economics
(0) Comments | Permalink | Main
The Future Fund Revisited
Alan Wood references my Policy article on the Future Fund in this weekend’s Australian.
posted on 10 December 2006 by skirchner in Economics, Financial Markets
(0) Comments | Permalink | Main
‘Irrational Exuberance’ 10 Years On: History Exonerates Greenspan
Jeremy Siegel considers Alan Greenspan’s ‘irrational exuberance’ speech 10 years on:
Now that we have 10 years of economic and financial data, we can now accurately determine whether the market was indeed “irrationally exuberant” in December 1996. The answer is decidedly no. Had the market been overvalued, it would have shown poor return in the following decade. But it did not.
The compound rate of return from Mr. Greenspan’s speech through the end of November 2006 on the broadest index of U.S. stocks, the Dow Jones Wilshire 5000 Index, was 8.2% per year, while the return on the Dow industrials was even higher. International stock returns have been almost as good, with the Morgan Stanley EAFE index of international stocks returning 7.6% per year. All these returns include the bear market of 2001-2002 and were far greater than what was available on government bonds or cash over the last 10 years. Even taking inflation into account, these rates of return were very close to that achieved in long-term equity studies. There is no evidence that the market was overvalued at the time of Mr. Greenspan’s speech…
Looking back in August 2002, Mr. Greenspan was perfectly right when he said, at the annual Kansas City Fed economic conference in Jackson Hole, that “Historical data suggest that nothing short of a sharp increase in short-term rates that engenders a significant economic retrenchment is sufficient to check a nascent bubble. The notion that a well-timed incremental tightening could have been calibrated to prevent the late 1990s bubble is almost surely an illusion.” Had the Fed tightened further in late 1999 or early 2000, there would be little doubt that “brick and mortar” firms, as the non-tech stocks were called, would have borne the brunt of the tightening and pushed their valuations even lower. The subsequent recession when the tech bubble finally burst would have been far worse.
History has exonerated Alan Greenspan’s policy during the late 1990s. There is no good evidence that the market was in a bubble when he uttered his famous line 10 years ago, and he was wise in stepping back from it. Irrational exuberance finally did hit the stock market, but not at the time or in the scope envisioned by his critics.
For my own defence of Greenspan, see here.
posted on 06 December 2006 by skirchner in Economics, Financial Markets
(2) Comments | Permalink | Main
Page 67 of 97 pages ‹ First < 65 66 67 68 69 > Last ›
|
