Boom2Bust.com

Why Ethanol Sucks

“So ethanol is bad for taxpayers, bad for consumers, bad for the environment, and bad for the world poor. Does anyone benefit from ethanol?”

Wall Street Journal Online Video Link

Source:

“Ethanol: Silly Senator, Corn Is for Food!”
reason.tv
Wall Street Journal Online, August 14, 2008

Windfall Profits Tax? Where’s The Windfall?

Driving back and forth between Chicago and Burlington, Wisconsin, last week, I listened to the news on the radio quite a bit. There was a lot of chatter about Exxon Mobil reporting its highest quarterly profit ever ($11.7 billion) on Thursday. Not surprisingly, politicians were quick to criticize the announcement. The New York Times’ Clifford Krauss wrote Friday:

Democrats in Congress were quick to criticize Exxon’s profit, hoping that the resentment felt by many drivers over high gasoline and diesel prices could help them in an election year.

“Inside the boardrooms at the major oil companies, it’s Christmas in July,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York.

Does anyone still pay attention to this guy? IndyMac. Lest we forget!

Anyway, one politician decided to take on the issue of oil company profits directly. On Friday, Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) announced a new proposal where oil companies enjoying record profits would face a “windfall profits” tax, where the cash would be passed on to consumers in the form of a rebate.

Hmm. A “windfall-profits” tax. I seem to recall that a windfall-profits tax was previously imposed on oil companies back in 1980, but was eliminated in 1988 after oil exploration and gasoline prices both fell. I’ve also heard that the tax raised only $79 billion, well below its proponents’ estimates. As a matter of fact, oil industry economists blamed the tax for contributing to a decline in exploration and drilling, helping set the stage for the energy crisis we currently face.

A reduction in oil exploration and drilling. Great. That’s exactly what our country needs right now. Which leads me to ask, which rocket scientist came up with this idea?

Earlier today, ABC News’ Jake Tapper asked the Obama campaign about the specifics behind the tax proposal. From their exchange:

TAPPER: What is a “windfall profit”?
OBAMA CAMPAIGN: Senator Obama believes that while oil companies and shareholders need incentives to run well managed businesses that invest in efficiency and innovation, a significant share of the record profits the big oil companies have been making have nothing to do with their management skill or investment decisions. Instead, it is the result of changes in the price of oil because of factors like supplies in the Middle East, demand in Asia, and disruptions and distortions in the oil market.

Therefore, a well designed mechanism can impose a fee on a small share of these windfall profits without affecting incentives for oil companies and without affecting the price of oil. Indeed, as the Congressional Research Service recently concluded: “[T]o the extent that a surtax on the corporate income of crude oil producers on their upstream operations could approximate such a [pure corporate profits] tax, this would not raise crude oil prices and would not increase petroleum imports in the short run. While the current corporate income tax is not a pure corporate profits tax, a surtax for oil companies would arguably be an administratively simple and economically effective way to capture estimated oil windfalls in the short run.” [Emphasis added, “The Crude Oil Windfall Profits Tax of the 1980s: Implications for Current Energy Policy,” Congressional Research Service, 3/9/06, p. 32.]
TAPPER: Should such a tax only be applied to oil/gas industries?
OBAMA CAMPAIGN: Yes.

Okay. Enough of this foolishness.

…a significant share of the record profits the big oil companies have been making have nothing to do with their management skill or investment decisions. Instead, it is the result of changes in the price of oil because of factors like supplies in the Middle East, demand in Asia, and disruptions and distortions in the oil market.

Geez, is that the best they can come up with? In which parallel universe is any business or industry NOT affected by external factors such as supply-and-demand fluctuations, disruptions, and distortions? As such, is it fair to impose additional taxes on a business or industry just because these factors (which had “nothing to do with their management skill or investment decisions”) played out the way they did?

Yet, the most disturbing aspect of this ill-contrived proposal is the fact that profit margins in the oil and gas industry aren’t exactly at windfall levels. The evidence? From the July 27 issue of Parade Magazine (based on U.S. Department of Energy data):

Although Exxon Mobil netted $40 billion in 2007, the average profit margin for oil companies is just 7.6%, compared with 9.2% for most manufacturers.

Adding to growing speculation that the proposal is purely for political pandering, the Wall Street Journal wrote yesterday:

Maybe they have in mind profit margins as a percentage of sales. Yet by that standard Exxon’s profits don’t seem so large. Exxon’s profit margin stood at 10% for 2007, which is hardly out of line with the oil and gas industry average of 8.3%, or the 8.9% for U.S. manufacturing (excluding the sputtering auto makers).

If that’s what constitutes windfall profits, most of corporate America would qualify. Take aerospace or machinery — both 8.2% in 2007. Chemicals had an average margin of 12.7%. Computers: 13.7%. Electronics and appliances: 14.5%. Pharmaceuticals (18.4%) and beverages and tobacco (19.1%) round out the Census Bureau’s industry rankings. The latter two double the returns of Big Oil, though of course government has already became a tacit shareholder in Big Tobacco through the various legal settlements that guarantee a revenue stream for years to come…

The Journal summed it up best when it stated:

…a windfall is nothing more than a profit earned by a business that some politician dislikes. And a tax on that profit is merely a form of politically motivated expropriation.

It’s what politicians do in Venezuela, not in a free country.

Sources:

“Exxon’s Second-Quarter Earnings Set a Record”
Clifford Krauss
New York Times, August 1, 2008

“Obama’s Proposed ‘Windfall Profits Tax’”
Jake Tapper
ABC News, August 5, 2008

“With Gas at $4 a Gallon… Who Is Getting Your Money?”
Parade Magazine, July 27, 2008

“What Is a ‘Windfall’ Profit?”
Review & Outlook
Wall Street Journal, August 4, 2008

Morgan Stanley’s Chief U.S. Economist Says Recession Is Here

Richard Berner, Morgan Stanley’s chief U.S. economist, said yesterday at a public finance and pension fund conference in Illinois that the United States is in a mild recession. Berner added that the U.S. housing crisis still has “a long way to go” because of excess supply and caution by both lenders and potential homebuyers. The 2007 winner of the William F. Butler Award for excellence in business economics also warned of an elevated inflation threat which should pressure corporate earnings, contribute to market volatility, and feed a relatively steep yield curve, according to Reuters’ Karen Pierog. She wrote:

U.S. consumers are facing a perfect storm of eroded housing prices, higher energy and food prices and a weaker employment picture, Berner said…

As for energy, Berner said finite supply in the face of rising global demand will keep the price per barrel of oil high.

“My guess is in the next two to three years the equilibrium price will still be north of a hundred bucks,” he said.

Gray’s Papaya, NYC
Source: The Baltimore Snacker

Source:

“Mild recession, modest recovery for US - Morgan Stanley”
Karen Pierog
Reuters, June 2, 2008

Banks May Write Down Additional $300 Billion

Yesterday, global strategy consulting firm Oliver Wyman said in a new study that an additional $300 billion in write-downs related to the U.S. subprime mortgage meltdown may be announced by banks before the crisis is over. Back on January 18 I noted that write-downs had already surpassed $100 billion. In a press release picked up by Yahoo! Finance yesterday, John Colas, Managing Director and head of the North American Corporate Strategy Practice at Oliver Wyman, said:

The credit crisis is unlikely to resolve itself before the end of this year. We also see strong likelihood of price corrections in emerging markets and this combination will extend the value loss and turbulence witnessed in 2007.

The management consultancy said in its “State of the Financial Services Industry” report:

We expect a stormy 2008. While governments, central banks and regulators scramble to address the aftermath of the sub-prime fallout, several other crises are mounting.

These other disruptions include:
• A significant slowdown in European real estate markets, especially in Spain and the UK
• The continued weakening of the U.S. dollar
• A collapse in commodity prices
• A fall in Chinese and Indian stocks

The financial services industry should expect “turbulent conditions for 2008 and beyond.” Oliver Wyman predicted that American banks are especially at risk. From its 2008 report:

North American financial services firms will have a tough year. Market uncertainty, combined with further write-downs and expected home-price and loan-volume declines, implies more squeezes on earnings. Banks most likely will have to increase loan-loss reserves.

In North America last year, the financial sector lost 13% in market value, second only to Japan. In contrast to the United States, the value of financial companies in Canada grew 12%.

For the first time since 2002, the global market value of the industry fell, according to the annual report. Controlling for exchange rates, the industry lost 7% of its market value last year. While $300 to $400 billion was gained in red-hot emerging markets last year, financial institutions lost more than $1 trillion in mature economies.

The Hazards Of Economic Forecasting

According to Bloomberg yesterday, Bank of America Corp. CEO Kenneth Lewis said at an industry conference in New York that fourth-quarter profit will be “quite disappointing.” Lewis predicted a “challenging” 2008 with higher writedowns for securities tied to the U.S. mortgage market. Jeffrey Harte, a Chicago-based analyst at Sandler O’Neill & Partners LP, told Bloomberg in an interview:

What’s disturbing is it sounds like Bank of America is becoming more bearish on the U.S. economy. Their franchise probably spans the consumer more than others, so what they say is meaningful.

Bank of America is the second-largest U.S. bank by assets, and the biggest when looking at deposits, with almost 6,000 offices across the country.

You may remember Bank of America’s Mr. Lewis from my June 21 post. At that time, I wrote:

In an interview with Bloomberg on Tuesday, Bank of America’s Chief Executive Officer Kenneth Lewis said the U.S. economy will pick up speed due to a recovery in the housing sector. Lewis predicted, “You’ll see the economy begin to pick up in the third and fourth quarters,” and the slowdown in home sales is “just about to be over.” He went on to say that the housing market will begin to improve in the next month or two, forestalling a recession, according to Bloomberg. Lewis believes that job growth will lift home prices and reinvigorate construction by early 2008.

Bloomberg made a note yesterday that regarding this housing prediction, “Bank of America Corp. Chief Executive Officer Kenneth Lewis is learning the hazards of economic forecasting.”

However, to be fair, says Alex Pollock, a former president of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago and resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, Lewis’ optimism wasn’t the exception back then. Pollock told Bloomberg:

Early in the summer, a lot of people including high-ranking Washington officials, thought it was a problem in the subprime sector that wasn’t going to spill over into other areas. Like the old saying, forecasting is easy, but forecasting correctly is the hard part.

Yet, there were those who correctly forecast that problems associated with the U.S. housing sector weren’t going away soon. I also wrote in that June 21 post:

However, as Bloomberg pointed out, Mr. Lewis’ views contradict those of other market watchers, including money manager Paul McCulley of Pimco. At a Bloomberg News panel discussion on Tuesday, McCulley insisted that, “The housing-market recession ain’t over… It’s going to be a long, protracted recession.” Some are willing to go farther than that. Mark Kiesel, executive vice president of California-based Pacific Investment Management, said in Bloomberg yesterday, “It’s a blood bath… We’re talking about a two- to three-year downturn that will take a whole host of characters with it, from job creation to consumer confidence. Eventually it will take the stock market and corporate profit.” Nouriel Roubini, a former Treasury Department director under the Clinton administration and head of Roubini Global Economics in New York, added, “It’s not just a housing recession anymore, it looks more and more like an economic recession.” Roubini believes the chance of a recession in 2007 is at “50-50,” greater than the 33% chance former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan was calling for back in March.

Today there are still a number of analysts saying there is no end in sight to the ongoing housing nightmare in the United States. Just this Tuesday, Fannie Mae CEO Daniel Mudd told CNBC that he didn’t expect the U.S. housing market to fully-recover until 2010.

2010? So much for a one to two month turnaround…

Is A Republican President Really Better For The Economy?

In the December 11 article “Economists Say Recession Risk Is Climbing,” the Wall Street Journal talked about some of the findings from its latest survey of economists. When asked which presidential candidate would be best for the economy, only half of the 52 economists participating in the survey responded. The Journal reported that 35% of respondents chose Rudolph Giuliani, 19% chose John McCain, and 15% picked Mitt Romney as the candidate who would be best for the U.S. economy. Hillary Clinton was picked by 8% of economists participating in the poll, while 4% chose John Edwards. Ron Paul, Michael Bloomberg, and Alan Greenspan each got a write-in vote. Alan Greenspan?

I’m not surprised that the survey results showed economists felt a Republican White House would be best for the U.S. economy. I’ve always heard that the economy performs better under a Republican president. Even when I was an undergraduate student at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in the early nineties, some of my classmates said that it was a shame that President Clinton and the Democrats were reaping the benefits of economic policies instituted by President George H.W. Bush’s administration. So tonight, I’m going to explore the claim that Republican administrations are “best” for the U.S. economy.

I call to your attention a study done in December 2006 by Elliott Parker, Ph.D., who is a Professor of Economics at the University of Nevada-Reno. Using data from the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis, Dr. Parker first compared the economic performance of Republican and Democratic presidencies from 1929 through the end of 2005. He found that the Real GDP Growth Rate (annual average) was 1.9% for Republican administrations and 5.1% for Democratic administrations during this time. Real GDP Growth Rate Per Capita was .7% for the Republicans and 3.8% for the Democrats. However, the professor pointed out that the years comprising the Great Depression and WWII should probably be excluded from the comparison. So economic performance from 1949 (end of Truman administration) to 2005 was compared, which showed Real GDP Growth Rate (annual average) under Republican administrations now stood at 2.9% and Democratic administrations at 4.2%. Real GDP Growth Rate Per Capita was 1.7% for the Republicans and 2.9% for the Democrats. These results prompted Dr. Parker to conclude that “the economy has grown significantly faster under Democratic administrations, and more than twice as fast in per-capita terms.”

The University of Nevada-Reno economics professor also uncovered the following while conducting the economic comparison between Republican and Democratic presidential administrations from 1949 to 2005:
• Unemployment Rate- Republicans 6.0%, Democrats 5.2%
• Change In Unemployment Rate- Republicans +0.3%, Democrats -0.4%
• Growth of Multifactor Productivity- Republicans 0.9%, Democrats 1.7%
• Corporate Profits (share of GDP)- Republicans 8.8%, Democrats 10.2%
• Real Value of Dow Jones Index- Republicans 4.3%, Democrats 5.4%
(in logarithmic growth rates)- Republicans 2.8%, Democrats 4.4%
• Real Weekly Earnings- Republicans 0.3%, Democrats 1.0%
• CPI Inflation Rate- Republicans 3.8%, Democrats 3.8%

Regarding the question of statistical significance, Parker noted:

The differences in growth, unemployment, and the corporate profit share are all statistically significant, and support the argument that the economy may actually perform better under Democrats. The differences in weekly earnings, stock market growth, inflation, and multifactor productivity all favor the Democrats as well, but these differences are not statistically significant.

Addressing the claim heard back in my college days, Dr. Parker also tried to account for a lag effect. He said, “It is a reasonable argument that economic performance early in a new administration is likely to be the result of policies followed by the prior administration.” Therefore, he tested whether lagging the effect of the administration on growth might support the argument that the economy actually performed better under Republicans. The professor found that even with up to four years of lagged effects, there was no evidence that the economy performed better under Republicans.

Dr. Parker drew the following conclusions regarding the claim that Republican presidencies are “best” for the U.S. economy:

But we can reasonably conclude that these government statistics provide evidence that directly contradicts the argument that the economy does better on average under Republican administrations. With lagged effects and other causes considered, the difference may be insignificant, but the economy may actually perform worse under Republicans.

NOTE: For more on this topic, see September 10, 2008, post, “Are Democrats Or Republicans Better For The U.S. Economy?”

Recession Outlook Goes Beyond Psychology

While reading a Bloomberg piece by Caroline Baum earlier today, I noticed that the senior U.S. economist at JPMorgan Chase & Co., Jim Glassman, said that the Fed yesterday “could have put an end to this recession discussion, which is a psychological thing right now.” Psychological? Maybe. But the prospect of an economic recession in the United States looks to be based on more than just fear. Take the latest Wall Street Journal survey of economists, for example. On Monday, the Journal said that of the 52 individuals polled:

…the economists, on average, now put the chances of a recession at 38%, the highest in more than three years, and up from 33.5% in November. They also reduced forecasts for U.S. economic growth across the board. They expect the nation’s gross domestic product to grow at an annualized rate of 0.9% this quarter, down from 1.6% in the previous survey, with six economists expecting either a negative or a flat reading. Three economists project an economic contraction in the first quarter, with the average growth forecast at 1.5%, down from 1.9% in November.

Kathleen Camilli of Camilli Economics, “the most pessimistic forecaster in the survey,” according to the Journal, said she sees “the internal dynamics of the U.S. economy deteriorating into recession” this quarter. “Growth will be negative this quarter, nonfarm payrolls will be revised down, and from what I can see, personal-consumption expenditures are rapidly slowing,” the economist added. Also among the bear camp, Ramachandra Bhagavatula, a managing director at New York hedge fund Combinatorics Capital LLC, said:

What is happening is that household net worth is not growing by leaps and bounds — if anything it is going down — [which means] people actually have to start saving out of their current income. That has negative effects on spending growth. In many ways, I think the next five years in this economy could look like Japan after 1990. The big [growth] you got in variety of asset classes — financed by borrowing because of extraordinarily low rates — will come out. When you look at the economic landscape, stock prices are too high, house prices are too high, and you put all the pieces together and the size of the adjustment needed seems reasonably large. How many years does it take? Who knows? It doesn’t necessarily mean we have five years of recession — maybe just 3-4 quarters of recession.

Echoing such sentiment, economists at Morgan Stanley said Monday that the U.S. economy will likely go into recession in 2008. MarketWatch noted that Morgan Stanley is the first major Wall Street firm to predict a recession. Chief economist Richard Berner and U.S. economist David Greenlaw in an updated forecast on the firm’s Global Economic Forum web site said that domestic demand is expected to fall 1% annualized over the next three quarters with zero growth in gross domestic product and a 5% to 10% drop in corporate earnings. For the full year, Morgan Stanley sees 1% growth.