I would say the chance of a depression in the next 5 years is very unlikely. The last 2 years have been full of bad economic news but a depression is still not likely, in my opinion. However, much of the public, seems to think it is likely – Poll: 60% say depression ‘likely’
* 25% unemployment rate
* Widespread bank failures
* Millions of Americans homeless and unable to feed their families
In response, 21% of those polled say that a depression is very likely and another 38% say it is somewhat likely. The poll also found that 29% feel a depression is not very likely, while 13% believe it is not likely at all.
…
The economists surveyed by CNNMoney.com said they saw a drop of 2% to 4% in a worst case scenario.
I must say I don’t think those polled don’t really hold their belief very firmly. If you actually see a depression as likely you have to take drastic steps with your finances. I really doubt many of them are and instead think they are casually saying they think it is likely without really thinking about what that would mean.
I don’t see it as likely and don’t see any need to change significantly what made good personal financial sense 2 years ago. The biggest change I see (over the last couple of months) is the importance of taking smart person finance actions has increased dramatically. The smart moves are pretty much the same but the risks to failing to create an emergency fund, abusing your credit card, losing a job… have increased dramatically.
Related: Uncertain Economic Times – Personal Finance Basics: Health Insurance – Financial Illiteracy Credit Trap
Warren Buffett quotes from the interview:
|
- “AIG would be doing fine today if they never heard of derivatives… I said they were possibly financial weapons of mass destruction and they have been, I mean they destroyed AIG, they certainly contributed to the destruction of Bear Stearns and Lehman”
- The biggest single cause was that we had an incredible residential real estate bubble.
- [on consuming more than we are producing] I don’t think it is the most pressing problem at all. We are trading away a little bit of our country all the time for the excess consumption that we have, over what we produce. That is not good. I think it is terrible over time.
Related: Warren Buffett related posts – Credit Crisis Continues – Credit Crisis (August 2007)
The FDIC limit has been raised to $250,000 which is a good thing. The increased limit is only a temporary measure (through Dec 31, 2009) but hopefully it will be extended before it expires. I don’t see anything magical about $250,000 but something like $200,000 (or more) seems reasonable to me. The coverage level was increased to $100,000 in 1980.
What does federal deposit insurance cover?
FDIC insurance covers funds in deposit accounts, including checking and savings accounts, money market deposit accounts and certificates of deposit (CDs). FDIC insurance does not, however, cover other financial products and services that insured banks may offer, such as stocks, bonds, mutual fund shares, life insurance policies, annuities or municipal securities.
Joint accounts are covered for $250,000 per co-owner. The limit is per person, per institution, so all your accounts at one institution are added together. If you have $200,000 in CDs and $100,000 in savings you would have $50,000 that is not covered.
FDIC is an excellent example of good government in action. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) was created in 1933 and serves to stabilize banking by eliminating the need to get ahead of any panic about whether the bank you have funds in is in trouble (which then leads to people creating a run on the bank…)
From an FDIC September 25 2008 news release: the current FDIC balance is $45 billion (that is after a decrease of $7.6 billion in the second quarter). The FDIC is 100% paid for by fees on banks. The FDIC can raise the fees charged banks if the insurance fund needs to get increased funds.
Read more
Anyone involved in finance should understand mania in the markets. It is not a shock that financial markets do irrational things. They do so very frequently. Anyone who has not read, Manias, Panics, and Crashes: A History of Financial Crises, should do so. Leverage often is a catalyst that turns bad investments into panics that damage the economy. A previous post on this topic: Misuse of Statistics – Mania in Financial Markets.
Enron was the pit canary, but its death went unheeded
As for the lessons we’ve forgotten, how about this one: financial statements aren’t supposed to be fairytales.
…
when all was booming, Wall Streeters said they deserved their pay because the market said they were worth it. But now things are falling apart, they say the market doesn’t work, and we need to stop short-selling, and taxpayers need to pony up. If there is a tiny bit of good in all this, it’s that Wall Street, although it was complicit in the Enron mess, managed to walk away relatively unscathed. This time, Wall Street has brought itself down.
I think the odds that Wall Street has brought itself down is very low. Even that the ludicrous excesses of Wall Street are at risk is very unlikely. Perhaps for a few years their might be some restraints put on excesses. But most likely politicians will respond to huge payments by arranging favors for those that want to bring excesses back. If this can be prevented that would be great, but I doubt it will.
Related: Investing books – Tilting at Ludicrous CEO Pay – Losses Covered Up to Protect Bonuses
I give more credence to Warren Buffett’s thoughts on this than anyone else, though, of course, he could be wrong. Buffett: My fix for the economy
Buffett, the chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A), called the problems facing world markets “unprecedented” and warned of a “disaster” if Congress does not move faster to shore up the economy.
…
Under Buffett’s plan, Treasury would lend hedge funds, Wall Street firms or any other investors 80% of the price for distressed assets. Investors would benefit from borrowing at lower rates available to the Treasury. But the government would get first claim on the sale of those assets, which means it would get its loan back plus interest and possibly turn a profit. Only then would investors see a penny.
“Now you have someone with 20% skin in the game,” explained Buffett. “Believe me, I won’t be overpaying if I’m buying with that kind of leverage. And you have someone [the investors] to manage the assets to the extent they need to be managed.”
Buffett also noted that the presence of the government in the transactions would raise the price of assets above the absolute firesale levels for which they could now be sold. That would benefit the banks trying to unload them.
It is a mess. And politicians should be held accountable for eliminating regulation (through law changes, political appointees that were chosen specifically to not enforce regulations, restricting money for enforcement…) to reward those that paid them a lot of money. But they won’t be, so there you go. I would love to be wrong about that but I don’t think I will.
Related: 2005 annual meeting with Buffett and Munger – Misuse of Statistics, Mania in Financial Markets – General Air Travel Taxes Subsidizing Private Plane Airports – Central Bank Intervention Unprecedented in scale and Scope (March 2008)