Boom2Bust.com

Quotes For The Week

A hat-trick of quotations for you…

The rejection of the package is good because it shows that some people in the U.S. are still sane. A bailout will not buy the U.S. a way out. The government is less powerful than markets in fixing this mess.

-Marc Faber, in a September 30 phone interview with Bloomberg

Sometimes I think we need to put out an ad: “No, we don’t have any more jobs than you do.”

-Jodi Royal-Goodwin, the redevelopment agency director for Reno, Nevada, in response to an influx of homeless people coming to the city looking for jobs

Altogether, we have had eight years of no gains in real median wages, flat stock market returns, and minimal net new jobs. Despite what you have heard, after adjusting for debt spending, population growth and realistic adjustments to the GDP deflator, there have only been 3 or 4 quarters of GDP growth since 2005. If you adjust for military, government and minimum wage positions – i.e. jobs funded by tax payers and jobs that don’t pay anything - there have been absolutely no net new jobs. Bush’s largest gains have been with inflation, oil and food prices, debt, trade deficits, bankruptcies, foreclosures, and healthcare costs. If an assembly of the world’s leading economic strategists were to design the most destructive economic disaster possible, they could not match the results of Bush’s tenure. Even the most loyal Bush supporters will admit he has been an absolute disaster – that is if they’re being honest.

-Mike Stathis, Managing Principal of Apex Venture Advisors and author of America’s Financial Apocalypse, in a Market Orackle (UK) piece from September 14

Growing Threat For Gas Shortages

Have you heard about the gas shortages in the Southeast? It doesn’t seem to be getting a lot of coverage in the Chicagoland area. However, the other night I was driving down some rural road outside of Burlington, Wisconsin, when a story came on the radio about some Atlanta woman who set her alarm clock for 2:30 AM in the morning just so she could get to a gas station and avoid any lines. No such luck. Even in those wee small hours of the morning, this motorist had to wait almost half-an-hour before she could access a pump. So, what exactly is going on here, and is there any danger of it spreading to other regions of the United States? CNN Money’s Brian O’Keefe talked about the situation last week and wrote:

The immediate answer is that the double whammy of Hurricanes Gustav and Ike, which swept through the Gulf of Mexico earlier this month, caused much of the Gulf’s oil drilling and refinery production to be shut down. In particular Ike, which hit refinery-rich Southeastern Texas on Sept. 13, caused massive power outages in the Galveston and Houston areas.

As of this week, more than a dozen refineries around Texas City and Port Arthur were not operating at full capacity and, according to the Department of Energy, six refineries, with a combined capacity of 1.6 million barrels a day, were still not running at all.

As I suspected, there’s more to this story. O’Keefe added:

But while the current shortages can be traced directly to the two hurricanes, the severity of the problem points out a bigger issue: The U.S. has been operating for a while with razor-thin spare gasoline capacity.

In its most recent Weekly Oil Data Review, Barclays Capital pointed out that the U.S. gasoline inventory has reached its lowest level since August 1967, when demand was a little more than half its current level of 9.3 million barrels a day. At 178.7 million barrels, inventories are 21.6 million barrels below their five-year average.

The CNN Money senior editor recently spoke to Matt Simmons, the chairman of Houston energy industry investment bank Simmons & Co. and chief spokesman for the Peak Oil movement, who said of the situation:

Our system is so fragile, all you need is a tiny change to go from ‘Oh, we’re in fine shape’ to an unmitigated disaster.

Simmons also warned:

If we end up having gasoline shortages, the odds are about 90% that Americans will do what we always do: We’ll top up our tanks. And in topping up our tanks, within three or four days we’ll drain the pool dry and then within seven days we’ll run out of food.

To which O’Keefe remarked:

That sounds awfully dire. And it probably won’t happen. But, then again, a couple of months ago hardly anybody would have predicted that AIG would collapse, Congress would be mulling a Wall Street bailout, and ‘70s-era gas lines would be back.

Good points.

Source:

“Gas shortages: get ready for more”
Brian O’Keefe
CNN Money, September 27, 2008

World’s Highest Paid Investment Adviser: U.S. Faces Hyperinflation Or Depression

I don’t think I’ve ever mentioned this, but I am extremely grateful to Peter Brimelow over at MarketWatch. Without his column, I wouldn’t have access to the insights of Harry Schultz, the highest paid investment consultant in the world. For those readers not familiar with Mr. Schultz, I talked about him back on December 13. From that post:

Have you ever heard of Harry Schultz? I sure have, and to this day I am still in absolute awe of the money this man earns. Mr. Schultz, publisher of the International Harry Schultz Letter, is the highest paid investment consultant in the world at $3,500 an hour (or $4,900 an hour if you require his services during the weekend).

Brimelow talked about Schultz’ latest U.S. economic forecast this past Monday on MarketWatch. He wrote:

Harry Schultz’ The International Harry Schultz Letter was posted last night right about the time the Fannie Mae-Freddie Mac bailout was reported. But Schultz anticipated it, writing sarcastically:

“Flash: As we go to press, the US Government reveals plan to take over Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the biggest bail-out by taxpayers in history. It also wipes out the shareholders! Sunday selected to avoid stock market action same day, just as bank closures are told after market close Friday. That tells you what shape markets are in when government and CEOs hide behind holidays.”

Schultz had earlier made his overview clear (I’m translating slightly from of his text-message style):

“Fed maneuver room approximately gone. Any $US injection big enough to avert a depression triggers runaway inflation. If not big enough: depression. US on knife-edge. Gold helps you either way.”

This apocalyptic vision is consistent with his earlier predictions, such as one I discussed in a February 18 post. Brimelow stated back then:

Schultz writes: “It’s a derivative crisis, stupid!… 9,000 U.S. banks failed in 1929-1932; look for new records… Hyper-inflation is a distinct possibility; stay awake!”

Among his more colorful recommendations: “Buy a few local non-rare gold coins of whatever country you are in for emergency/barter use, smallest denominations… Keep 6-12 months cash at home/office/ lawyer-doctor office. Pretend an emergency is coming, because it may be.”

…and from that December 13 post:

Among other interesting ideas raised by Schultz in his intense, somewhat terrifying introduction: recession, possibly depression; bank failures; exchange controls; housing prices down by 50%; credit card company failures; money market fund dangers; tripling of U.S. jobless numbers; federal bail-outs for Fannie Mae.

Note the bailout prediction for Fannie Mae.

Fast forward to Schultz’s latest forecast. Brimelow wrote:

Schultz suggests just two alternative scenarios, both equally appalling:

“If Bush bails them all out, the die would be cast for inflation unseen in the West since 1923 Germany. If no bail: Hello, 1929.”

Gee, thanks.

Brimelow talked about what Schultz thought was going to happen next, and what those hoping to be one step ahead of the herd should do about it. He wrote:

In his latest issue, Schultz summarizes:

“Widespread stagflation will probably now build more inflation than stagnation, then gradually morph into more stagnation than inflation. Then, deflation takes over, and ultimately, depression. All this over next 9 years.”

“For the moment, seal off major wipe-out risks. Exit all money funds and currency time deposits, step up gold & oil positions, move into 1-2 year government bonds (non-US $) in First World nations. Swiss first choice. Think not of yield; think of an ark’s life preserver around your neck.”

Schultz, notes Brimelow, is currently negative on the U.S. stock market. But, the Swiss-based investment adviser predicts an upside target of $1,600 an ounce for gold as he believes its recent plummet in price is merely a correction.

Source:

“Unraveling according to schedule”
Peter Brimelow
MarketWatch, September 8, 2008

Goldman Sachs, Once Again, Warns Crude Oil Will Reach $149 By End Of Year

Global investment bank and securities firm Goldman Sachs is once again predicting the price of crude oil will climb to $149 a barrel by the end of 2008. Back on August 19, Goldman Sachs analysts issued a year-end price forecast of $149 a barrel. U.S. crude oil prices hit an all-time high of $147.27 a barrel back on July 11.

According to the CNBC website today:

The price of oil will spike back to $149 a barrel by the end of the year, despite its current slump and negative sentiment regarding demand for oil, Goldman Sachs wrote in a market report on Wednesday.

Chinese oil import data for August are expected to be weak as the country relied on existing inventories during the Olympic Games, but this is likely to change, the analysts said.

“We continue to expect that strong Chinese buying will return to the market as China restocks after the Games,” Goldman Sachs wrote. “For oil we continue to believe this will require (West Texas intermediate) crude oil prices to move back to $149/barrel by year end.”

Why believe Goldman Sachs analysts, as opposed to the “experts” now appearing on financial news channels claiming that the oil “bubble” has popped? Back on December 12 of last year I wrote:

Nauman Barakat, senior vice president of global energy futures at Macquarie Futures USA Inc. in New York, told Bloomberg today that, “Goldman has credibility because they were the first to predict that crude would spike to $100. A sharp increase in their forecast catches everyone’s attention.” Arjun Murti, a New York-based Goldman Sachs analyst who covers oil producers and refiners, roiled markets in March 2005 when he reported that oil prices could touch $105 a barrel during a “super spike” because demand was stronger than anticipated.

Source:

“Goldman Sticks with $149 Oil Forecast”
CNBC, September 3, 2008

Tropical Storm Gustav: Anyone Worried?

4,000 active oil and gas platforms in northern Gulf of Mexico
Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Tropical Storm Gustav
5-Day Track Forecast Cone (as of Tuesday night)
Source: National Weather Service

Jitters, anyone?

Farmers’ Almanac Predicts Cold Winter

Worried about high heating bills this coming winter? Maybe you should be. From The New York Times this Sunday:

People worried about the high cost of keeping warm this winter will draw little comfort from the Farmers’ Almanac, which predicts below-average temperatures for most of the U.S.

“Numb’s the word,” says the 192-year-old publication, which claims an accuracy rate of 80 to 85 percent for its forecasts that are prepared two years in advance.

The almanac’s 2009 edition, which goes on sale Tuesday, says at least two-thirds of the country can expect colder-than-average temperatures this winter, with only the Far West and Southeast in line for near-normal readings.

“This is going to be catastrophic for millions of people,” said almanac editor Peter Geiger.

Carsicles

The Almanac broke their forecast down by region. From the article:

The almanac predicts above-normal snowfall for the Great Lakes and Midwest, especially during January and February, and above-normal precipitation for the Southwest in December and for the Southeast in January and February. The Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions will likely have an unusually wet or snowy February, the almanac said.

In contrast, the usually wet Pacific Northwest could be a bit drier than normal in February.

Source:

“Winter weather? Almanac says ‘Numb’s the word!’”
Associated Press, August 24, 2008

Goldman Sachs Predicts Oil Will Reach $149 A Barrel By Year End

Just when almost everyone was proclaiming the energy “bubble” had popped, global investment bank and securities firm Goldman Sachs comes along and rains on the parade. According to a Reuters piece earlier today:

Goldman Sachs reiterated on Wednesday its year-end price forecast of $149 a barrel for U.S. crude oil, and said strong fundamentals were a more important factor than a strengthening dollar.

U.S. crude oil prices hit an all-time high of $147.27 a barrel back on July 11.

The price forecast came in a research note dated August 19. Reuters reported:

“Although the recent correlation in dollar and oil prices is clear, it is important to emphasize that each of these assets are driven by multiple, varying factors… Put differently, there is more to oil than the U.S. dollar and vice versa,” the Goldman Sachs energy team said in the note…

Goldman Sachs said that despite the recent negative correlation between the U.S. dollar and oil prices, there was “very little correlation between oil prices and the U.S. dollar over the longer term.”

The Manhattan-based financial services firm said that it sees the crude oil market supported in the short-term by limited OECD oil stocks, a possible recovery in U.S. oil demand, near 10% growth in Chinese oil demand year-on-year in July, and a drop in non-OPEC production.

Reuters also noted that:

Earlier this year, Goldman Sachs equity analyst Arjun Murti predicted oil prices would spike to between $150-$200 before the end of 2009 due to his view of rising global demand and faltering supply.

The forecast for $149 oil comes at the same time a Reuters/Zogby poll was released showing most Americans think the worst is over for prices at the pump. From a different Reuters piece today:

Most Americans think that the worst of the fuel price spike that pushed gasoline above $4 per gallon has passed… according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released Wednesday…

The poll of 1,089 likely voters found that just under 13 percent thought gasoline prices would rise a lot between now and the end of the year. About one quarter thought prices would rise a little, while 18 percent said they would stay about the same.

Sources:

“Goldman Stands By Forecast of $149 For Oil”
Reuters, August 20, 2008

“Optimism About Oil, But Not Housing in Poll”
Reuters, August 20, 2008

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

Prominent Think Tank Says Oil Supply Crunch Coming

Think high crude oil prices are history? Maybe not. In fact, one prominent European think tank is forecasting $200 a barrel within the next few years. From the BBC News (UK) website Friday:

A serious oil supply crisis is looming, which could push prices above $200 a barrel, a think tank has warned.

A “supply crunch” will affect the world market within the next five to 10 years, the Chatham House report said.

While there is plenty of oil in the ground, companies and governments were failing to invest enough to ensure production, it added.

Only a collapse in demand can stave off the looming crisis, report author Professor Paul Stevens said.

“In reality, the only possibility of avoiding such a crunch appears to be if a major recession reduces demand - and even then such an outcome may only postpone the problem,” he said in The Coming Oil Supply Crunch.

Professor Stevens, who is the Senior Research Fellow, Energy, Environment and Development Programme, at Chatham House, added:

While the forecast is controversial and extremely bullish, even allowing for some increase in capacity over the next few years, a supply crunch appears likely around 2013.

Source:

“Oil ‘could hit $200 within years’”
BBC News (UK), August 8, 2008

Wall Street Takes A Vacation (From Reality)

From the Wall Street Journal’s MarketBeat Blog this afternoon:

With the Federal Reserve meeting out of the way, along with most of the important earnings reports, many participants are ready to take a bit of time for vacation, and they leave with a smile on their face after the dollar rebounded, oil prices slumped, and the Dow industrials put together a 300-point rally to close out the week. All major indexes gained at least 2%, led by the chipmakers, banks, retailers and cyclical stocks.

The following saying by Mark Twain comes to mind:

All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure.

Enjoy your time off, Wall Streeters. Methinks there will be hell to pay in future days.

Talking Heads, “Road To Nowhere” (1985)
YouTube Video Link

Source:

“Four at Four: No Worries”
David Gaffen
Wall Street Journal (MarketBeat Blog), August 8, 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

When All Else Fails, Re-Invent The Economics

I know CNBC has the reputation of being a cheerleader for stocks, but really now. The following appeared on the CNBC website this morning:

U.S. crude oil inventories fell much more than expected last week, keeping downward pressure on already weak oil prices.

Crude inventories fell by 1.6 million barrels for the week ended July 19, the Energy Information Administration reported… On average, analysts were predicting crude inventories to have fallen by 700,000 barrels.

So, when did declining supply ever put “downward pressure” on the price of oil, or any other commodity?

To be fair, I can’t directly fault CNBC for this. Their source for the material was Reuters.

Probably just a typo then, right. Right?

Source:

“Oil Hovers Near $126 after Big Drop in Crude Inventories”
CNBC/Reuters, July 23, 2008

How Politicians Make Themselves Look Stupid, Part 2

Yesterday, I noted in part 1 that Senate Democrats, led by Senators Byron Dorgan and Harry Reid, rolled out the “Stop Excessive Speculation Act” Tuesday morning to scare off crude oil speculators, who they blame for high prices.

Crude for August delivery, scheduled to expire Tuesday, dropped $3.09, or 2.3%, to settle at $127.95 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange, the lowest close since June 5.

Ironically, later in the day a task force chaired by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (the agency assigned with investigating/punishing speculators in the bill) found that fundamental supply-and-demand factors, rather than speculators (as the politicians claimed), were most likely to blame for the high prices.

CNN Money picked up on the findings, which you can watch here. The segment lasts 1 minute 46 seconds.

Source:

“CFTC: No oil market manipulation”
Video
CNN Money, July 23, 2008

Washington’s Bear Hunt

From all the action coming out of the nation’s capital today, you’d almost think the various government entities in Washington coordinated efforts against the oil, dollar, and housing bears. Almost.

First, it was crude oil. Senate Democrats, led by Senators Byron Dorgan and Harry Reid, rolled out the “Stop Excessive Speculation Act” to scare off oil speculators, who they blame for high prices.

Crude for August delivery, scheduled to expire Tuesday, dropped $3.09, or 2.3%, to settle at $127.95 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange, the lowest close since June 5.

Ironically, later in the day a task force chaired by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (the agency assigned with investigating/punishing speculators in the bill) found that fundamental supply-and-demand factors, rather than speculators (as the politicians claimed), were most likely to blame for the high prices. Doh!

Next, dollar bears were targeted. Reuters reported:

The dollar rallied Tuesday, after a Federal Reserve official suggested that U.S. rates may have to rise to stem inflation and a top Treasury official repeated that a strong currency is in the interest of the country.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson reiterated on Tuesday that a strong dollar is important to U.S. interests and the underlying strength of the economy, as well as policies aimed at shoring up confidence, would be reflected in currency markets. At the same time, Philadelphia Fed President Charles Plosser said rising inflation could force the Fed to start raising interest rates even before labor and financial markets recover.

Gold for August delivery dropped $15.20 to end at $948.50 an ounce on the New York Mercantile Exchange.

Rising interest rates? Strong dollar policy? Looks a lot like jawboning to me. But don’t take my word for it. On July 15, Reuters ran a piece about legendary investor George Soros. From the interview:

All told, Soros said Ben Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve, is in a bind.

“When he recognized the seriousness of the credit crisis, he acted very radically lowering interest rates and he used the tools that are at his disposal,” Soros said. However, now the “armory” is depleted, he said adding that Bernanke can’t lower interest rates because of the effect it would have on the dollar and he can’t raise interest rates because of the looming recession. Soros said.

“Therefore, his options are limited — he is boxed in.”

And how many times have we heard about this supposed “strong dollar policy” of ours? Actions speak louder than words, right? Back on March 17, Soros’ former partner, Jim Rogers, said during a Bloomberg Television interview:

Now, please, do we even bother reporting that anymore? Poor Hank Paulson, had a reasonable education, and a reasonably-good career, head of Goldman Sachs, now he goes around the world making a fool out of himself. Goes around saying we want a strong dollar, the next day he goes to China and says we want a weak dollar, and then he goes to Japan and says we want a weak dollar. I mean, you have to feel sorry for the guy. At least, I do.

Finally, it was housing naysayers who fell under the gun. From the CNBC website this afternoon:

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said America’s housing market could turn a corner and begin recovering within months, but it will take longer to resolve all housing-related problems.

“Obviously, it will go on beyond months with some of the issues in the housing market, but I believe we can get to the point within months where we turn the corner on housing,” Paulson said in a televised interview with Fox Business Network.

Sound familiar to anyone? From my post “Paulson Weighs In On Housing” from July 2, 2007:

Today, U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson spoke to Reuters about a number of economic issues, including housing. Paulson said the U.S. economy is healthy, despite problems with the subprime mortgage sector. The former chairman of Goldman Sachs stated that the downturn in the housing market is “at or near the bottom. It’s had a significant impact on the economy. No one is forecasting when, with any degree of clarity, that the upturn is going to come other than it’s at or near the bottom.” Beyond subprime mortgage woes, Paulson declared that the financial markets looked sound. He said, “Markets are volatile. I haven’t seen a single thing that surprises me – it’s hard to surprise me.”

DJIA down 1,933 points since then, S&P 500 down 243 points, global credit crunch, $453 billion of write-downs, Bear Stearns, IndyMac, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac… surprise!

Sources:

“Dollar Jumps on Paulson, Plosser Comments”
Reuters, July 22, 2008

“Soros says Fannie, Freddie crisis not the last”
Jennifer Ablan
Reuters, July 15, 2008

Jim Rogers Interview
Bloomberg News Video
Bloomberg, March 17, 2008

“Paulson: Housing Market Could Turn Corner Soon”
CNBC, July 22, 2008