U.S. Economy May Suffer for ‘Long Time’

The U.S. economy will suffer from the effects of the global financial crisis for “a long time” as a slowdown in demand spreads to other countries, former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker said.

“We’re in the middle of a kind of massive economic crisis,” Volcker, who heads President Barack Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board, said today at a Columbia University conference in New York. “We’re going to hear the reverberations about this for a long time.”

Volcker characterized the downturn that started in December 2007 as “not like a typical recession in the U.S. or elsewhere.” He also cautioned that U.S. government and central bank efforts to revive credit markets should only be temporary to alleviate the risk of inflation.

Volcker said he is “shocked” by the international reach of the slowdown.

“The rest of the world has not held up,” making it harder for the U.S. to rely on strong export growth to emerge from its economic slump, he said.

“Industrial production in most countries is going down faster than in the United States,” Volcker said.

The U.S. economy will contract 2 percent this year, making it the deepest annual slump since 1946, according to a Bloomberg News survey of economists taken this month. Gross domestic product shrank at a 3.8 percent annual pace in the last three months of 2008, the Commerce Department said in January.

Volcker also discussed rising prices, saying even “a little inflation is bad.” The cost of living in the U.S. rose last month for the first time in six months as the consumer price index rose 0.3 percent, the Labor Department said today in Washington.

The Crisis Takes Hold
The first shoe to drop was the collapse in June 2007 of two hedge funds owned by Bear Stearns that had invested heavily in the subprime market. As the year went on, more banks found that securities they thought were safe were tainted with what came to be called toxic mortgages. At the same time, the rising number of foreclosures helped speed the fall of housing prices, and the number of prime mortgages in default began to increase.

The Federal Reserve took unprecedented steps to bolster Wall Street. But still the losses mounted, and in March 2008 the Fed staved off a Bear Stearns bankruptcy by assuming $30 billion in liabilities and engineering a sale to JPMorgan Chase for a price that was less than the worth of Bear’s Manhattan skyscraper.

A combination of higher food and utility bills, falling house prices

Many people have seen bills eat into their income
Households have less spare cash
Household finances have been squeezed by an "abrupt" change in circumstances in the past year, according to a survey for the Bank of England.

A combination of higher food and utility bills, falling house prices and scarcer credit have reduced household budgets and spending.

Nearly 2,500 households were interviewed for the survey in late September and early October.

Typically, they said they now had less spare cash either to spend or save.

"The typical household reported that the income it had available after meeting household bills had fallen over the past year and that it had saved less than it had expected," said the Bank.

Changing circumstances
The Bank's report said that, after a period of steady growth and low inflation, the last year had seen a sharp turnaround in the finances of British households.

More than half of those who took part in the survey had seen a decline in their available income after paying tax, debt repayments and utility bills.

A rise in mortgage costs for some borrowers earlier in the year, when they had come off fixed or discounted mortgage rates, had also played a part.

However, the financial situation of many households has changed since the survey was carried out in late September and early October.

About 40% of households have a mortgage and most of these will see their borrowing costs cut sharply because of the Bank of England's successive rate cuts in October, November and December.

These cuts have taken the official bank rate down from 5% to just 2%, with many economists expecting further reductions as the impending economic recession in the UK deepens.

£1.6 trillion debt
The Bank's survey reveals that total household debt in the UK has now reached £1.6 trillion, when mortgage debt is added to unsecured debt such as credit cards, overdrafts, hire purchase agreements and other personal loans.

And the survey has also found that more than 50% of all households now have some sort of unsecured debt.
The most exposed landlords were the 6% of landlords with high loan-to-value ratios on their main residence


However, the reluctance of banks and other lenders to extend much further credit, except at high rates of interest and to the most credit-worthy customers, is clearly contributing to the downturn in consumer spending.

In the survey, 16% of households said they were worried they might not be able to get any more credit, up from 12% who said this in 2007, and that this was causing them to defer their spending plans.



"Some households had been put off spending by tighter credit conditions, and more households were finding their debts to be a burden than in similar surveys carried out since the mid-1990s," the Bank said.

Banks can legally take from current accounts to cover credit card debts

Banks are departure people not capable to pay mortgages by taking money from their current accounts to cover credit card and loan debts, a charity has claimed.
Citizens Advice is calling on banks to scrap the practice, which allows them to transfer funds without permission.

It says it has seen a 25% rise in the number of such cases in each of the past two years.

The British Bankers' Association says the onus is on customers to talk to their banks if they are in difficulty.

In most cases, companies can only force someone to pay a debt by taking them to court.

However, as BBC Radio 4's Money Box discovered, the Right of Set Off allows banks to legally transfer cash to pay credit card or loan arrears without account holders' permission.

Citizens Advice says there have been cases of people having benefit payments removed from accounts, leaving them unable to meet "priority debts" like mortgages and council tax.

The British Bankers' Association says cases where money has been removed "inappropriately" are regrettable but that banks take their responsibilities under the banking code seriously

Wall Street banks have taken billions of taxpayer dollars

A number of Banks Want to go back Government Money..

Wall Street banks have taken billions of taxpayer dollars. Now some of them are starting to wonder if they should give the money back.

Even before the government announced its latest efforts to fix the troubled banking industry on Tuesday, executives at Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley said they wanted to repay the money quickly. Both banks received $10 billion under the first rescue plan last fall.
Paying back all those funds would be difficult in this tough economic environment. But banking executives worry that the government may intrude further into their businesses as long as they are beholden to Washington.
“We just think that operating our business without the government capital would be an easier thing to do,” said David A. Viniar, the chief financial officer of Goldman. “We’d be under less scrutiny, and under less pressure. Not that we’d be out of the public eye; we’re still going to be in the public eye.”

The issue is likely to draw close scrutiny on Wednesday, when executives from eight banks are scheduled to testify on Capitol Hill. The efforts to break free of government support reflects a growing trepidation among Wall Street’s largest players about their independence and the new rules that may be imposed on them because they accepted federal capital.
In recent weeks, the Obama administration has announced that banks will have to disclose more information about their spending and cap executive pay at $500,000. Several lawmakers have gone further with proposed measures about compensation for all bank employees as well as halting certain types of immigration visas for companies that received government money.
Industry groups say the new rules are unfair.
“The contract says that Congress can change the law, and we were obviously concerned,” said Scott Talbott, senior vice president for government affairs for the Financial Services Roundtable. “But we didn’t think they would tip the scales this far. The more of these retroactive rules they place on institutions, the more institutions will look for an exit strategy.”
But the banks are likely to find that escape is a distant hope, analysts said. The government required banks to replace taxpayer money with new equity — in the form of common stock or preferred shares — before any repayment. And the markets for raising capital are all but dead, especially for financial companies.
Banks are not allowed to repay the government money out of their earnings for three years, though some bank executives are privately saying they think the government may reverse that rule for banks if they start earning money again. After all, bank executives said, it may be beneficial for the government to show taxpayers that some banks are regaining their financial strength.
Still, it is unclear that it would make sense for banks to repay the government money, given the uncertain outlook for their businesses, analysts said. One chief executive of a major bank said last week that he feared returning the money first would leave his bank as “the only one in the water without shark repellent.”
And, in a market of quickly shifting fortunes, any bank that returned capital could find itself in need again months later. Bank of America, for instance, was among the companies that appeared to be in a stronger position last fall when regulators met with chiefs of the eight banks. But at the end of the year, as the outlook for its merger with Merrill Lynch soured, the bank returned to the government for a second round of assistance. Citigroup has also received a second bailout.
And government funds are cheap with interest payments of only 5 percent and a few percentage points more for related warrants. Banks are unlikely to find other parties that would offer them such low rates, analysts said.
“I don’t think anyone should be in a hurry to pay it back,” said Jeffery Harte, a banking analyst at Sandler O’Neill. “But if you could prove able to pay it back, especially when other institutions are coming back for a second or third helping, it would send a pretty strong message to the market.”
Many banks have also issued new debt in recent months backed by the government. The program, run by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, has received far less attention than the capital injections, but it represents another subsidy to banks, which otherwise would have found issuing debt more expensive, or impossible. Banks that repay taxpayer money may still be beholden to the government if they issued these government-backed bonds.

US senators be in agreement economy bill

There have been a series of meetings to try to find a compromise position

The American people want us to work together - they don't want to see us dividing along partisan lines on the most serious crisis confronting our country

Senators in Washington say they have reached agreement on a huge economic stimulus package designed to revitalise the US economy.
Senior Democrats say they will back a plan worth $780bn (£534bn), instead of the $900bn sought by the president, in order to gain vital Republican support.
President Barack Obama denounced delays to the legislation, which mixes big spending plans and tax cuts.
The Senate is now due to hold a vote in the coming days.
President Obama has spoken of "an urgent and growing crisis" and said further Senate delays would be "inexcusable and irresponsible" and lead to "a catastrophe".
His comments came as the latest unemployment figures showed that the US had had its single worst month for job losses for 35 years.
Almost 600,000 people lost their jobs in January alone - figures Mr Obama described as devastating.

Rough water
President Obama is desperate to pass the package, the BBC's Adam Brookes in Washington says.

This is the president's first big legislative initiative since he took office, and it has hit some very rough water, our correspondent says.
The new $780bn plan is composed of 42% tax cuts and 58% new government spending, Democratic Senator John Kerry said, according to Reuters news agency.
Other details of the slimmed-down package are sketchy, but one Democrat told Reuters that the homebuyer tax credit and car tax credit were still in the bill.
The Democrats need to persuade two Republicans to vote in favour of the bill for it to gain the necessary 60 Senate votes.
Although Democrats hold a 58-41 majority, 60 votes are required to ensure the Republicans cannot block the bill with a filibuster.
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus said that at least three or four Republicans would vote for the bill.
"The American people want us to work together," said Senator Susan Collins, a Republican who will vote in favour.
"They don't want to see us dividing along partisan lines on the most serious crisis confronting our country."
However, the Senate minority leader, Republican Senator Mitch McConnell, said that "most of us are deeply sceptical that this will work".
And his Republican colleague, John McCain, defeated by Mr Obama in last year's presidential election said: "You can call it a lot of things but bipartisan isn't one of them."
'Echo chamber'
Mr Obama described as "devastating" the news that nearly 600,000 Americans lost their jobs in January.
"The situation could not be more serious. These numbers demand action," he said.

'Echo chamber'
Mr Obama described as "devastating" the news that nearly 600,000 Americans lost their jobs in January.
"The situation could not be more serious. These numbers demand action," he said.

Mr Obama's remarks came as he unveiled a new board of economic advisers, chaired by Paul Volcker, former chairman of the Federal Reserve.
"I created this board to enlist voices that come from beyond the echo chamber of Washington DC," said Mr Obama, "and to ensure that no stone is unturned as we work to put people back to work and to get our economy moving."
Republicans and some centrist Democrats are keen to reduce the number of spending commitments in the bill, and without their support the bill may not have enough votes to pass in the Senate.
The House of Representatives approved its version of the package last week, worth $825bn, without any Republican support.
If the Senate gives its approval to the bill, the two different versions will then have to be reconciled in a joint House-Senate committee before facing a final vote.
President Obama has said he wants the passage of the bill to be completed by 16 February.

Are you in the US? Are you in favour of the stimulus bill? Is President Obama right to urge swift action on the measures? You can send us your comments

The Obama administration is about to face its first significant financial test.

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner is preparing to announce his comprehensive financial stability plan.

The long-awaited Obama administration plan to shore up the banking system is due Monday. Here's what the government should be doing.

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner is expected to lay out the government's strategy for reviving the banking system in a speech Monday.
Since taking office last month, top Obama administration officials have promised to present a comprehensive plan to address the problems in the financial system, which has been struggling with losses on bad loans and souring mortgage-related securities.
Fixing the problems at the banks won't be simple or cheap. Economists say it will likely take more than the $350 billion remaining under the Troubled Asset Relief Program to fund the next round of federal programs.
One senior administration official told CNN the package being put together by Geithner and other top economic advisers to the President would "be an overhaul of the whole program."
Whatever shape the plan takes, it's crucial that officials reassure investors worried about the health of financial institutions and their capacity to extend credit to consumers and businesses.
Bank stocks have fallen sharply again this year, deepening a plunge that started in late 2007. Some fear that a plan the market deems insubstantial or ill-advised could lead to another leg down.
"We have to repair the banking system," said George Kaufman, an economics professor at Loyola University Chicago. "You have to do that first before you can address any other problems."
A number of options have been under discussion in Washington, notably a government-funded bad bank that would remove toxic assets from bank balance sheets as well as a taxpayer-funded insurance plan to cover losses on troubled bank investments.
Skepticism growing about bad bank idea
The bad bank idea has gotten the lion's share of the attention, with officials including Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. chief Sheila Bair speaking out in favor of a variation of the plan. Proponents say the nation's banks won't be able to lend aggressively and support economic growth until troubled assets like illiquid trading securities are removed from their balance sheets.
Recently, though, there has been some talk of a shift toward a program that focuses more on the asset guarantee approach.
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said earlier this week that the upfront cost of a bad bank approach -- projected by some observers to run into the trillions of dollars -- was among the factors leading legislators and administration officials to turn increasing attention to the guarantee concept. The government has already guaranteed some troubled assets held by Citigroup (C, Fortune 500) and Bank of America (BAC, Fortune 500).
Whatever their merits, the bad bank and guarantee approaches share a common Achilles heel: They would commit hundreds of billions of additional taxpayer dollars at a time when Americans are wondering if aiding well-paid bank employees is the best use for their money.
Many taxpayers are up in arms about the gobs of money being made by employees of failing financial firms, despite President Obama's proposed new rules to cap compensation at banks requiring federal assistance.
Meanwhile, U.S. workers are losing their jobs at a sobering clip, and states and municipalities are cutting back on services as tax receipts plunge.
"The bad bank idea is just ridiculous," said Len Blum, a managing director at New York investment bank Westwood Capital. "The problem with these sorts of approaches is that for the government to help the institutions, it has to overpay -- which is bad for taxpayers and adds to this lack of transparency."
Having the government provide financing for private-sector purchases of troubled assets is another idea that may come into play.
This approach, in which private investors could commit funds and then borrow from the Fed or other government bodies to expand their buying power, could accomplish two important objectives. It could draw new capital into the markets, and help establish market prices for securities that have traded only infrequently and at deeply distressed prices in recent months.
One question mark hanging over this concept is how willing the banks will be to sell toxic assets at the market prices.
If the newly established market prices are below the prices at which the banks have marked the assets on their balance sheets, the banks could face more writedowns -- which could force the government to pour in even more capital.
Shouldn't some banks be allowed to fail?
Whatever the government does, there is a rising call to get taxpayers more than they got in return for the first round of TARP funding under former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.
"There has been a reticence on the part of the government to give out capital with appropriate restrictions," said Blum. "The problem with that approach is that it is bad for taxpayers and adds to the lack of transparency."
Estimates by the Congressional Budget Office and the Congressional Oversight Panel put the federal overpayments in the first half of TARP -- which focused on buying preferred stock from both troubled and healthy institutions -- in the range of $64 billion to $78 billion.
With questions about how taxpayer funds are being used growing, some observers say the best answer is to stop trying to prop up troubled institutions and instead resolve failing banks through the existing FDIC process - essentially letting banks fail and finding new buyers for them after the FDIC has taken them over.
The advantage to this approach, said Garett Jones, an economics professor at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., is that it would help to spread the losses in the financial system to shareholders and bank creditors, instead of leaving the whole tab with taxpayers.
He said the government should force debt-for-equity swaps at institutions needing assistance. Existing shareholders would be wiped out and current creditors would give up some of their debt claims in exchange for ownership of the restructured firm.
In addition to being fairer, Jones said, swapping debt for equity would reduce the amount of debt weighing on the economy. That's a crucial concern at a time when the amount of domestic nonfinancial debt outstanding more than doubles gross domestic product, according to Ned Davis Research data - a ratio that's well above its long-run average.
"Why should taxpayers be bailing out firms when debtholders have plenty of skin in the game?" Jones said. "In the current bailout, what you're really doing is converting the debt of these problem banks to government debt -- and that's not what you need to do."

How is this a great investment plan?

Diversifying won't totally protect you from losses, but it can boost your returns by limited your risk.

Spread your money around

Answer: There have always been a lot of misconceptions and erroneous expectations when it comes to the benefits of diversification.Back in the go-go '90s I remember having lunch with a financial planner who sarcastically referred to diversification as "di-worse-ification." His contention was that it made no sense to diversify into different asset classes. Stocks clearly offered the highest returns over long periods, so it was foolhardy for anyone investing for the long-term to put their money in anything but stocks. You were just lowering your potential return. Funny thing is, back then, this "hooray, hooray, stocks all the way" approach wasn't that uncommon.Today, many people are having second thoughts about diversification because they feel that diversifying didn't offer their portfolio the protection they thought it should. For example, all but a handful of Morningstar's 69 fund categories were down in 2008. So even if you spread your money around quite liberally, you still might have eked out only a paltry return or suffered significant losses last year.Looked at from these two vantage points, it's easy to see why you and others would question the value of diversifying. If it holds you back in bull markets and doesn't offer much shelter during bears, what's the point?In fact, there is a real benefit to diversifying. But in order to make reasonable investing choices and set a coherent investment strategy, it's important to understand what its advantages are, as opposed to what we might think they are or wish they were. Otherwise, you may be investing on the basis of false hopes, which is a good recipe for disappointment.What diversification can do for youThe first thing you should know is that it can't guarantee you the highest possible return. In fact, it guarantees you won't earn the highest possible return. By spreading your money around you assure that you will have at least some of your money in lagging investments, which will reduce your portfolio's potential return.By the same token, diversification can't totally immunize you from losses. To do that, you would have to do the opposite of diversifying -- i.e., plow all your money into the most secure investments, such as Treasury bills or short-term bank CDs.What diversification can do for you, though, is give you a shot at higher returns than you will get in the most secure investments while limiting your risk somewhat.Notice I said "somewhat." Fact is, if you want the value of your money to grow more than it will in T-bills and the like, you've got to invest in asset classes that have the potential for higher long-term returns, such as stocks and bonds. But those higher returns come with more risk. In the investment world, that risk can take several forms, but generally the riskier an investment, the more volatile it is, the more its value will jump around from year to year.You can't eliminate that risk. But by investing your money in a mix of secure and more volatile assets, you can reduce the potential downside in a given year. For example, if you'd had all your money in a diversified portfolio of U.S. stocks last year, you'd have lost just under 40%. If, on the other hand, you'd had 60% of your money in stocks, 30% in a broad bond index fund and 10% in cash last year, you would have lost roughly half that amount, or around 20%.(See'>http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=7564789355139535583#Note">See editor's note.)That kind of cushion is important for a couple of reasons. For one thing, it makes you less likely to panic in a bad year and sell off riskier investments with higher long-term return potential at what may be the worst possible time. A less volatile portfolio is also less likely to take a devastating hit that may be difficult to recover from. That's an especially important consideration when you're dealing with 401(k)s or other retirement accounts and you're nearing retirement age or are already retired and withdrawing money from such accounts.So the key to getting the benefit of diversification is settling on a mix that's right for you.Ideally, your mix should consist of assets that don't all move in sync with each other or, to put it in investing terms, that aren't too highly correlated with each other.It's okay for gains in some investments to offset losses in others in some years. But on balance your gains should outweigh losses most years. And, while down years are inevitable with growth-oriented investments, whatever assets you're investing in should have a positive long-term return. Diversification isn't a magic formula that can turn recurring sizeable losses in your investments or your portfolio overall into long-term wealth.What diversification can't do for youBut as big an advocate as I am of diversifying among a variety of asset classes, I also feel that the concept has been stretched out of shape over the years, in some cases even beyond recognition.Specifically, I think the benefits of diversifying have been oversold by some advisers who seem intent on making themselves come off like investment wizards capable of creating all-upside-no-downside portfolios. But I'm wary of these supposedly more sophisticated portfolios.So I suggest keeping things simple. Start with a realistic sense of how much risk you can handle and then build a diversified portfolio of stocks, bonds and cash. If you want to get more fancy, you can throw in some foreign stock funds and maybe some REITs or real estate-related mutual funds. But don't go overboard. The more complicated your portfolio is and the more wide-flung your holdings, the more attention and care it will need.Finally, remember that to get the full benefit of diversifying you ought to rebalance periodically to restore your portfolio to its proper proportions.For guidance on how to divvy up your money given your goals and risk tolerance, you can use our asset allocator tool. And if you want to see how different combos of assets might perform, check out the asset allocator tool on T. Rowe Price's site.Of course, you can always take the other route you suggest and just buy CDs. But unless you have so much money that you can accumulate a large enough nest egg despite their low yields, I'm not sure that you can do this and also not worry.Editor's note: An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated that a theoretical portfolio of 60% stocks, 10% broad bond index fund and 10% cash would have lost around 20% last year. The correct example is 60% stocks, 30% broad bond index fund and 10% cash.

Private Equity Firm Buys Real Money Trade Website

Even in these bad economic times the RMT business is still going strong. Considered a recession proof industry, money is still flowing strong in this market.
Santa Monica, CA (PRWEB) January 29, 2009 -- Web site MyMMOShop.com has been acquired by My MMO Inc. for $10 million. MyMMOShop.com sells in-game currency, for some of the most popular Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games (MMORPGs) such as World of Warcraft Gold, Final Fantasy XI Gil and EverQuest II Platinum.

Considered the #3 Real Money Trading (RMT) site in overall sales, MyMMOShop.com is known for its focus on customer service. MyMMOShop.com's Customer Support Department is accessible 24 hours a day, 7 days a week via Live Chat. The company has tenacious privacy and anti-fraud initiatives in place, requiring voice authorization for every new order.

"MyMMOShop.com appealed to us because of its strong reputation for providing optimal customer service," says Hunter Crowell, My MMO Inc.'s Media Relations Agent. "That focus will continue with our purchase."

RMT in online gaming had suspect beginnings. Purchasing virtual currency rather than earning it by playing the games successfully seemed, at first, unfair to those who put in the actual playing time to earn the currency themselves. Beginners could often have unfairly large accounts when compared to veteran gamers. But it caught on. People began spending thousands of dollars to fund and equip their gaming characters. Using real world money to purchase in-game money got a further boost in validity when Sony created its own RMT site, Station Cash in 2008. Now a $2 billion industry in the U.S., RMT is rapidly growing. In fact, gaming may well be a recession proof industry.

"This is a risky time for any kind of traditional investing," says Crowell. "People are staying home more and choosing less expensive forms of entertainment, like playing video games."

Applying money trading basics to virtual economies yields tremendous growth potential, even in a volatile time. In-game currency is a highly desirable product with a pandemic customer base that is increasing at viral rates.

Technorati : Private Equity Firm, Real Money, Trade, Website, bank, business, money websites, moneynews, world, worldmoney