• Goldman Sachs sees recession in 2008
    Posted by on January 10th, 2008 at 11:04 am

    From Reuters:

    Goldman Sachs on Wednesday said it expects the U.S. economy to drop into recession this year, prompting the Federal Reserve to slash benchmark lending rates to 2.5 percent by the third quarter.
    In a note to clients, Goldman said real gross domestic product would contract by 1 percent on an annualized basis in both the second and third quarters. For all of 2008, the investment bank said GDP would rise by 0.8 percent.
    The unemployment rate will rise to 6.5 percent in 2009 from the current 5 percent, it said.
    The weakening economy will force the Fed to lower policy rates by an additional 1.75 percentage points from the current 4.25 percent. Starting in September, the Fed cut rates at the last three meetings of the Federal Open Market Committee, reducing the target rate on loans between banks by 1 percentage point from 5.25 percent.

    I think that might be right.

  • AFLAC Hits New High
    Posted by on January 10th, 2008 at 11:00 am

    Financial stocks may not be doing well, but AFLAC (AFL) continues to rally.
    image581.png

  • Bennie and the Feds
    Posted by on January 9th, 2008 at 11:46 pm

  • Hey European Central Bank: STFU!
    Posted by on January 9th, 2008 at 11:17 pm

    bundchen1.jpg

    Bundchen Denies She Only Accepts Euros
    RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil (AP) — Euros? Dollars? Pounds? Gisele Bundchen insists she’s perfectly happy with them all, again denying reports that the Brazilian supermodel is shunning the weak U.S. dollar in favor of European currency.
    Bundchen — known to U.S. sports fans as the girlfriend of quarterback Tom Brady — has been struggling for months to knock down recurring reports that she insists on being paid in euros, which have been rising against the dollar.
    “The story of the euro is a lie,” she told the Brazilian newspaper O Globo in comments published Wednesday. “I work with many international companies, I earn salaries in different currencies, that’s all.”

  • 10 Tips on How to Clear Your Credit Report
    Posted by on January 9th, 2008 at 11:09 pm

    From MSNBC. Here’s a sample:

    1. Reflect on the ways errors can creep in. Sometimes automated processes take over and creditors send inaccurate information about people’s bill-paying habits to one of the major credit bureaus. In other cases, people’s identities accidentally get mixed up at the credit bureau when a staffer enters a Social Security number incorrectly. And sometimes people with fabulous credit histories become victims of blatant identity theft.
    2. Check out your credit report. You can examine your credit report carefully all on your own without paying a dime. Order free annual reports from the three major credit bureaus (Equifax, Experian and TransUnion) by visiting AnnualCreditReport.com or calling 1-877-322-8228. (Note: This is the only place where you can get free credit reports once a year without any strings attached. The “free” credit reports advertised by other sources aren’t really free!)
    3. Contact the credit bureau first. If you find mistakes in your report, take the matter up with the credit-reporting agency immediately. Rather than dispute the mistake via an online form, send a letter that includes your complete name and address, a description of each item you dispute, an explanation of why you dispute it and a request for deletion or correction of the information.
    4. Keep good records. Along with your letter, enclose copies (NOT originals) of documents that support your position, as well as a photocopy of your credit report with the items in question circled. Send the letter and enclosures by certified mail, return receipt requested, so you can document what the credit bureau received. Keep copies of all correspondence, and jot down and save notes about each phone conversation you have.

  • The Nasdaq’s Losing Streak
    Posted by on January 9th, 2008 at 3:32 pm

    The Nasdaq Composite (^IXIC) looks to snap its eight-session losing streak today.
    The Dow’s record is 12 straight down days which happened twice, once in 1941:
    28-Jul-41 130.06
    29-Jul-41 129.19
    30-Jul-41 128.95
    31-Jul-41 128.79
    1-Aug-41 128.22
    4-Aug-41 128.17
    5-Aug-41 128.14
    6-Aug-41 128.10
    7-Aug-41 128.09
    8-Aug-41 127.48
    11-Aug-41 126.01
    12-Aug-41 125.81
    13-Aug-41 125.65
    And another in 1968:
    8-Jan-68 908.92
    9-Jan-68 908.29
    10-Jan-68 903.95
    11-Jan-68 899.79
    12-Jan-68 898.98
    15-Jan-68 892.74
    16-Jan-68 887.14
    17-Jan-68 883.78
    18-Jan-68 882.80
    19-Jan-68 880.32
    22-Jan-68 871.71
    23-Jan-68 864.77
    24-Jan-68 862.23
    Strange. Today is the 40th anniversary of the second one.

  • Meanwhile, Back on Planet Wall Street
    Posted by on January 9th, 2008 at 1:53 pm

    The 10-year T-bond yield (^TNX) is at a 46-month low. This brings us to Elfenbein’s Rule of Financial Journalism #11587: You will never hear the words and “bonds” and “bubble” used in apposition in any financial media anywhere at anytime. The bond market is always assumed to be right.
    image580.png
    The headline CPI rose 4.31% from November 2006 to November 2007 (the most recent data). That’s over 50 basis points above the current 10-year yield.

  • Hillary and Single Women
    Posted by on January 9th, 2008 at 12:10 pm

    One of my goals with this blog is to address the misinterpretation of data, so I apologize for this tangent into polling data.
    One of the themes coming out of the New Hampshire primary is Hillary Clinton’s base support among single women. I can already see three Maureen Dowd columns coming. The problem is that it’s partially correct and not the whole story.
    Going by yesterday’s exit poll, Senator Clinton’s support is really with all women, especially older women and very especially, older white women. That’s where the gap really opens up. Younger men simply don’t vote for her. Put it this way, more than two-thirds of Hillary’s support came from women. Hillary’s win wasn’t based on the power of the Sex and the City/Hear me Roar crowd, it was the power of the granny vote. And that’s a powerful voting bloc. I think a reasonable estimate is that one in four Hillary votes came from a grandmother.
    In the Democratic primary, the median age of voters is close to 50 and there were over 30% more women participating. Women are older, they vote more and they like Hillary. Among voters over 65, Hillary creamed Obama, 48% to 32%. Plus, Hillary had a 12-point lead among women. Still, even though Obama ost the women’s vote badly, a majority of his votes were also from women. That’s how large the gender disparity is. Combine the age and gender effect and you can see how Hillary pulled it off.
    The voting gap between single and married people was relatively small. Hillary won both, singles 40% to 39%, and married 38% to 33%.
    It’s true that single women were stronger Hillary supporters than married women (51% of single women were for here compared with 45% of married women), but not as much as the gap that single men were for Obama over married men (50% of single men supported him compared with 34% of married men). Both gender’s singles were simply more in favor of their gender’s choice.
    But here’s the point being missed. A portion of “single women” must also include widows. The presence of so many older women voters must make that group somewhat large. As you can see in the data, pollsters use the phrase “unmarried” not “never married.”
    The pollsters also compare “mothers” with “women with no children.” Again, this can be misinterpreted. The category is mothers with children under 18. A women without children is often a women with adult children. Probably 20% of the voters were women over the age of 55. I think a fair amount would fall into the category of “women with no children.”
    Of course, if there were more grandmothers working in the media, and fewer single women, the story coming out of New Hampshire might be a little different.

  • Erin Burnett: Opium Head
    Posted by on January 9th, 2008 at 9:45 am

  • Did the Futures Markets Fail?
    Posted by on January 9th, 2008 at 12:41 am

    I just wrote about this a few days ago, but here it is again. Daniel Gross asks: “Why were the political futures markets so wrong about Obama and Clinton?”
    The answer is that they weren’t wrong. They’re not predictions markets, they’re odds-setting markets. There’s a big difference.
    Going on the little evidence it had, the futures market declared Hillary a longshot, and she beat the odds. That’s not a market failure. That’s…beating the odds.
    That’s like saying Google’s IPO was a failure because the stock has climbed so much since then.