The New York Times has an interesting chart showing that retail stores of liquor, restaurant expenditures and computers are up, and almost everything else is down.
Why liquor? I believe liquor always goes up during a financial crash (as do things like Pepto Bismal, which treat stomach jitters).
Why computers? Well, during the Great Depression, the sale of movie tickets skyrocketed, as movies provided cheap entertainment and escape from the economic misery.
Movies are now fairly expensive, but there is alot of free entertainment on the web. So - in addition to any business reasons for buying new computers - I think computers will be the escape of choice during this downturn.
Why restaurants? Many families are opting for "staycations" (vacations in one's own town instead of traveling).
My guess is that many families are saving a lot of money by skipping vacations away from home, but are eating out a little more as their big splurge. In other words, they may be saving thousands by staying home on vacations, and spending an extra hundred of dollars or so on meals out - to make vacationing at home seem a little less mundane.
Similarly, instead of buying that bigger house or that new car, my guess is that many families are staying with what they've already got, but splurging on meals out.
John Williams (Shadow Government Statistics) raises an interesting issue I had not considered: He contends that the Household Survey is more reliable than the Establishment Survey, and I wonder if he isn’t on to something.
Some years ago, I would have argued against it. The more stay-at-home, self-described independent contractors you survey, the more inaccurate your results are going to be. I do not know a single person who lost thier job over the past 3 years who, when asked, did not describe themselves in that manner. It is a matter of pride.
But Williams argues the Household survey sampling is now fairly well established and, significantly, the unadjusted raw data are not revised.
Consider this: In the pre-Bush years, the Establishment Survey (CES) actually measured employment via real paychecks that were actual wages. The B/D adjustment was tiny. But since 2003, the CES is no longer a pure measure; rather, it is only part measurement, and part conjecture, working off of new state incorporation filings.
The Birth/Death Model is now the tail that wags the dog.
Here’s Williams via Abelson:
“John Williams dismisses the consensus outlook and hype from Wall Street and Washington about improving economic conditions as “irrationally optimistic.” And he feels that “with the constraints on broad systemic liquidity still tightening, unhappy surprises are likely in that area as well.”
It seems like forever that we’ve been delivering a monthly rant occasioned by the release of the data of the so-called birth/death model, launched during the Bush administration and extended by the current one, that is supposed to capture the employment additions of new firms and the subtractions of those that go belly up. As it happens, the model is a bust during recessions (as a modest example, it created 34,000 mythical jobs last month).
Comes now the preliminary revision of the March 2009 benchmark, and it turns out that, in fact, courtesy of the birth/death model, that month’s payrolls were overstated by a mere 824,000. As Philippa Dunne and Doug Henwood, proprietors of the Liscio Report note, since job losses in the first quarter of this year were already reported at 2.1 million, “adding the better part of a million to that suggests a truly savage bloodletting in early 2009.”
They also point out that September was the 21st month in a row of shrinking employment, the longest losing streak since the monthly numbers started being published back in 1939. It’s also the worst decline — even without the benchmark revision — since the post-World War II demobilization. The sorry consequence of the severe damage wrought by the recession, combined with the weakness of the 2002-07 expansion, is that private employment is now 2.6% below where it was at its December 2000 peak.
And (you can almost hear them sigh) as Philippa and Doug observe, “We’ve never seen anything remotely like that kind of long-term carnage” in poring over 70 years’ worth of monthly stats.
Yeah, yeah, we know, employment is a lagging indicator. Not this time, buddy.”
The problem with “lagging indicators” is every idiot in the world seems to use that as an excuse when making their early, incorrect call that the cycle has turned. Just because something is lagging — and is still poor — doesn’t mean the economic cycle has turned yet.
As Rosie likes to point out, this wasn’t your run of the mill manufacturing recession; it was a full blown credit collapse/housing bust/bank failure cycle. Comparisons to earlier manufacturing recessions will yield parallels that are utterly inappropriate . . .
>
Source: Downright Scary
ALAN ABELSON
Barron’s October 5, 2009
http://online.barrons.com/article/SB125452481422260689.html
Last week continued the pullback from the momentum highs noted in the previous indicator review. We can see from the Cumulative Demand/Supply Index (top chart), a cumulated measure of upside and downside momentum, that we are at oversold levels. These levels are close to those that have typified intermediate-term bottoms since 2007.
Note that we've broken down in the 20-day new highs/lows (middle chart), with many more stocks registering intermediate-term lows than highs. Indeed, the number of 65-day lows on Friday was greater than any level posted since the July bottom.
Finally, we see from the excellent (bottom) chart from Decision Point, that the advance-decline line specific to the S&P 500 stocks is approaching its lows from July and August. These levels, both in the A/D line and the new highs/lows, should represent meaningful support if the longer-term uptrend is to remain intact. Taking out those summer levels would suggest a more significant, longer-term corrective process.
At this juncture, I expect those summer levels to hold, placing us at the very least in a broad trading range and setting us up for an eventual test of the bull highs. The indicator readings, however, are losing strength--not bottoming out--so I am not in the mode of catching falling knives. Should we see evidence of diminished selling pressure and downside momentum this coming week, I will likely be nibbling at the long side. .
FDIC estimates that the DIF balance as of September 30, 2009 will be negative.
However the DIF reserves against future losses, and the DIF still has cash to pay for bank closures - but I show the DIF balance as zero on the following graph:
Click on graph for larger image in new window.
The graph shows the cumulative estimated losses to the FDIC Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF) and the quarterly assets of the DIF (as reported by the FDIC). Note that the FDIC takes reserves against future losses in the DIF, and collects fees and special assessments - so you can't just subtract estimated losses from assets to determine the assets remaining in the DIF.
The cumulative estimated losses for the DIF, since early 2007, is now over $44.5 billion.
Regulators closed three more banks on Friday, and that brings the total FDIC insured bank failures to 98 in 2009. Although regulators have slowed down in recent weeks, they are still on pace to close over 130 banks this year - the most since 1992.
Failed Bank List
Deposits, assets and estimated losses are all in thousands of dollars.
Losses for failed banks in 2009 are the initial FDIC estimates. The percent losses are as a percent of assets. Note that losses for the Irwin banks were combined by the FDIC, so one of the banks shows up as zero percent in the table.
See description below table for Class and Cert (and a link to FDIC ID system).
The table is wide - use scroll bars to see all information!
The FDIC assigns classification codes indicating an institution's charter type (commercial bank, savings bank, or savings association), its chartering agent (state or federal government), its Federal Reserve membership status (member or nonmember), and its primary federal regulator (state-chartered institutions are subject to both federal and state supervision). These codes are:
N National chartered commercial bank supervised by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
SM State charter Fed member commercial bank supervised by the Federal Reserve
NM State charter Fed nonmember commercial bank supervised by the FDIC
SA State or federal charter savings association supervised by the Office of Thrift Supervision
SB State charter savings bank supervised by the FDIC
Cert: This is the certificate number assigned by the FDIC used to identify institutions and for the issuance of insurance certificates. You can click on the number and see "the last demographic and financial data filed by the selected institution".
A recurring theme on Zero Hedge over the past few months has been the inordinate (and seemingly inexplicable if one takes at face value the arguments for an improving economy) amount of insider selling of corporate shares, which has reached a staggering ratio of 30-1 of sales to buys (if not much more). A back of the envelope calculation indicates that insiders may have sold well over $10 billion worth of their own company's shares in the last quarter alone. Aside from what implications this activity has for claims of the recession being over, as those best familiar with their businesses can not wait to offload their holdings, a larger question is one of propriety, and whether insiders are abusing inside information loopholes, particularly if they are aware of material, non-public information when selling their stock.
In this environment of unprecedented insider selling, it makes sense to refamiliarize readers with JP Morgan's confidential presentation, "Hedging and Monetization" from February 2007, first presented by Wikileaks, which focuses exclusively on providing company insiders with mechanisms to circumvent not just regulatory curbs on insider selling, but to obfuscate market signals typically associated (but definitely not in this market environment) with an insider dumping boatloads of his or her own stock. In particular, JP Morgan latches on to the biggest regulatory loophole, courtesy of the SEC, namely Rule 10b5-1, which is a tacit understanding by the SEC that insiders can do whatever the hell they want, including trading purely on inside information, while providing affirmative defense in the case lawsuit(s) are brought up against them.
Examples of insider trading cases that have been brought by the SEC are cases against:
Corporate officers, directors, and employees who traded the corporation's securities after learning of significant, confidential corporate developments;
Friends, business associates, family members, and other "tippees" of such officers, directors, and employees, who traded the securities after receiving such information;
Employees of law, banking, brokerage and printing firms who were given such information to provide services to the corporation whose securities they traded;
Government employees who learned of such information because of their employment by the government; and
Other persons who misappropriated, and took advantage of, confidential information from their employers.
Because insider trading undermines investor confidence in the fairness and integrity of the securities markets, the SEC has treated the detection and prosecution of insider trading violations as one of its enforcement priorities.[ZH: this is where the Raucous Laughter cue card goes up for the live studio audience]
The SEC adopted new Rules 10b5-1 and 10b5-2 to resolve two insider trading issues where the courts have disagreed. Rule 10b5-1 provides that a person trades on the basis of material nonpublic information if a trader is "aware" of the material nonpublic information when making the purchase or sale. The rule also sets forth several affirmative defenses or exceptions to liability. The rule permits persons to trade in certain specified circumstances where it is clear that the information they are aware of is not a factor in the decision to trade, such as pursuant to a pre-existing plan, contract, or instruction that was made in good faith.
In other words, insider trading is not really insider trading, if the person perpetrating the insider trading had full intention of committing this fraud, and in fact prepared for it, via apriori (paid) arrangements with specific counterparties.
Enter JP Morgan.
In a Strictly Confidential presentation, in which every page had the following "we may or may not be breaking the law by telling you this" disclaimer: "Assuming exempt to Section 16 and in compliance with company policy. For illustrative purposes only" JP Morgan was providing advice to corporate insiders on how to not only circumvent Rule 10b5-1, but to do so in a way that has the least possible stock price impact, or as JPM puts it "minimize negative market signal." And, of course, to take benefit of this, insiders would have to pay JPM for its PrISM product. After all, spending long hours finding out how best to breach the SEC's open loopholes and to facilitate insider transactions is expensive work. Invoices tend to come quite a few zeroes.
And here, in exquisite detail, is the guideline for why insider trading proceedings will not be initiated against a corporate person, if they have taken advantage of JPM's wonderful PrISM product.
[Rule 10b5-1] establishes “affirmative defense” – no liability if, before becoming aware of the material nonpublic information, insider: – entered into a binding contract to buy or sell, or – gave instructions to another person to buy or sell for the insider’s account, or – adopted a written plan for selling securities
JP Morgan is happy to provide insiders with a peace of mind each and every time they decided to sell their stock, "for whatever reason," as long said insiders are paying their tithe to the SEC-Wall Street establishment.
And here are the broad guidelines for how insiders should be well on their way to shareholder funded, "information asymmetric" riches. After all, you have to love the "protection" provided by that bastion of integrity, JP Morgan, whose "dedicated team provides additional distance between insider and execution of trades, reducing appearance of impropriety."
Yet while the appearance may indeed be reduced, the impropriety sure as heck is still there.
So can anyone use this plan? Why yes, with the only caveat that at PrISM inception time, the insider has no material, non-public info. If subsequent to plan initiation, inside information is obtained and stock is sold (automatically, of course) nobody is the wiser.
Enter into a plan only when insider is not aware of material nonpublic information
Corporation must acknowledge the selling program by signing the sales plan
Lastly, just in case there is any confusion that JPM is merely the messenger here (for the SEC no less), the ultimate responsibility to prove lack of malfeasance lies with the insider, bringing numerous questions at to the ultimate legality of all such 10b5-1 plans.
The insider has the burden to prove compliance with the rule
We realize that the SEC is neck deep in enhancing its incompetence on so many different fronts, that to propose it should do something about evaluating its stance on 10b5-1 in a time of historic insider selling (and, as a corollary, the peddling of such products as PrISM by "reputable" investment banks who provide the benefit of "Protection" to insiders who nonetheless have the burden of proof in rule compliance) is simply presumptuous. After all, we are well aware that with its untrained and amateur staff and record budget, the SEC can only do one thing at a time, whether it is continuing its incompetence at catching the next Madoff, or rerequesting public opinion on such an issue as Flash, and, speaking of failed first attempts at public feedback on completely flawed initiatives, we do hope that in the not too distant future the SEC will also do a repeat public opinion survey on the much more relevant issue of the Supplemental Liquidity Provider NYSE initiative, where numerous disagreements seem to have slipped between the "cracks" of the SEC's highly trained professionals; don't worry SEC we are on top of this, and will shortly remind you much more vocally about the imminent need for SLP public opinion resolicitation.
In the meantime, corporate insiders should sleep soundly, knowing full well that the SEC and JP Morgan have their backs when they are selling billions worth of their own shares, whether it involved extensive knowledge of material, non-public information, or not. After all, the administration, the Wall Street complex, and the regulators are the first to smile upon such activities.
The McClellan Oscillator is deeply oversold, however, we know that when the market is trending, the concepts of “overbought” and “oversold” are hazardous to your trading health.
So, is the market done trending? I don’t know, but Friday’s action struck me as weakish. While all of the major ETF’s were able to bounce up and fill their down-gaps after the disappointing jobs report, the ES was not able to do so. The 4:15pm close on Thursday was 1027.25, and Friday’s high was 1026.25, so there is a 1-point un-filled gap there. That will be an important level to watch in the futures tonight. If the futures can’t tag 1026.25, the bulls will have cause to fret about Monday’s prospects.
For three hours on Friday afternoon, the SPX struggled to recapture the 1029 level, which is one of my Fibonacci levels in the Box of Bulls. The fact that it failed and rolled over into the close suggests that a test of the next level down at 1014 may be in the cards. There was also a note of panic in the drop into the close, though perhaps that was the last whiff of it in this correction since the market was able to close above the intra-day low.
I noticed some other signs of weakness too, though I don’t have time to go into them. Basically, I saw some things that smelled of distribution.
In any case, bulls can take solace in the fact that earnings season is coming soon and high unemployment equals high corporate profits. That, after all, is THE PLAN, and has been official economic policy as far back as NAFTA: outsource as many US jobs as possible, replace expensive American workers with cheap foreign workers, foreign lands boom while Corporate Amerika’s CEO’s buy private jets. So bulls, just collect your dividends and be happy, but make sure to use some of the proceeds to purchase weaponry to protect your self from the masses of unemployed as they turn to street crime. THE PLAN does have a few flaws…
We’ve just interviewed Janet Tavakoli for our first episode of The Keiser Report. If you don’t know her, you should. She wrote a fantastic book, Dear Mr. Buffett. Max and I are on our second read of it. You really must get this book if you want to understand derivatives from one of the foremost experts on it who writes in plain English about how these financial tools became instruments for widespread fraud that then led to financial crisis. She also gives loads of positive advice and insight.
Here is a summary she provided for MaxKeiser.com on where she thinks we are today two years since the crisis began:
"Regarding the outlook, my analysis is grim. I am not a doomsayer, I follow the cash, and so far, I’ve been correct, and the government has been wrong. Here’s the situation. We are at greater risk of a total meltdown due to a deflationary collapse than we were in 2007. After the greatest Ponzi scheme in the history of the capital markets, we’ve seen history’s greatest fiscal and monetary expansion, but it hasn’t worked. Debt levels of consumers and business exceed the capacity to repay."
Travakoli makes six points about deflation. I concur with all of them. Here are three of them.
Our fundamental financial and economic problems, i.e. overleveraging, lack of transparency, have not been solved.
Since 2008, capacity utilization has plummeted; businesses have no pricing power; U.S. lost 6.7 million jobs but numbers are underreported; personal income tax receipts are down 21%; corporate tax receipts are down 58%; U.S. deficit will exceed $1.8 trillion; govt. spending is now 185% of tax receipts; 13% of mortgages are seriously delinquent and/or in foreclosure; huge decrease in personal net worth; 15 million mortgages exceed the home value. We’re on a massive debt spending spree.
Income on all levels is not sufficient to make debt payments.
Inquiring minds will certainly want to play the videos where she also addresses the role of derivatives.
Janet Tavakoli Part 1
Janet Tavakoli Part 2
By the way, the reason we are worse off than in 2007 is because of the Fed's, response, the Treasury's response, the Obama Administration's response, and the Congressional response.
That's quite a lethal combination.
None of the structural problems regarding consumer debt, excess capacity, or malinvestments have been addressed. Instead the government's solution is to pile on more debt and bail out failed institutions at taxpayer expense.
One cannot cure a debt problem by going further in debt. It's as simple as that.
"At its core," Tavakoli observes, "the mortgage crisis is no more sophisticated than a schoolyard swindle, and the SEC is the principal." She effectively contrasts the imprudent use of leverage across investment banks, government sponsored enterprises, and hedge funds with the value investing philosophy of Warren Buffet, driving home the point that much of our recent economic activity has been destructive of wealth. "Price is what you pay," Buffett explained, "Value is what you get." Our recent financial system, Tavakoli asserts, has paid high prices for little value.
Her book is an excellent, readable overview and explanation of what's gone wrong and also a warning about what may be to come. She explains:
"As long as Wall Street enhances revenues with leverage to prop up kingly bonuses, as long as there are few personal consequences for CEOs (and board members and other top executives) for shoddy risk management, as long as CEOs are allowed to walk away with millions, nothing will change. The fact that shareholders are wiped out is no deterrent, and moral hazard will live on (p. 206)."
I have not yet read the book but I respect the opinion of Brett Steenbarger greatly. I am going to order a copy of Dear Mr. Buffett and read it. Meanwhile, I am adding that book to my recommended reading list, the first on my list that I have not read before placing it there.
One final thought: If you are a trader or have plans to be a trader, do yourself a favor and bookmark Brett Steenbarger's blog. He is a psychologist and discusses something no one else does, the Psychology of Trading. His book has been on my recommended reading list for some time.
I am hopelessly addicted to Beatles Rockband. This is the last thing I need - something which sucks my time away - but it's just a blast.
I've been a huge Beatles fan all my life, and even though I've never played one of these Rockband games, I've quickly become fairly adept at it. (Ahem - I scored a 99% on vocals; thank you very much). Anyway, if you're at all into the Beatles, you really should check it out. It's a sheet cake of awesome.
The short but inaccurate answer is Class of ‘83. But in my junior year, I switched from applied mathematics/physics to poli sci/philosophy, which meant I was on the 5 year plan. So I got to I hang around til ‘84.
At the time, I never physically received my diploma; On graduation day, a few friends got together and, um, well, let’s just say we had our own graduation ceremony.
No pomp, lots of circumstance.
I simply assumed I graduated. I had a ton of credits courtesy of the 5 year plan meant — something like 136 total, when I only needed 120 credits needed to get my BA. When I went off to law school 2 years later, I never gave it a second thought.
Perhaps I should have.
Funny thing: Because I was on the equestrian team (really) I ended up with P/E credits. Many, many way P/E credits. In fact, too many. It turns out there was a cap on gym classes; back out the excess, and I had only 118 credits left to apply towards matriculation.
I only discovered this deep in my 3rd year of law school, when they had to certify that I was qualified to sit for the Bar Exam in NY. As it turns out, one of the qualifications was having a college degree. Which, as it turned out, I didn’t have.
I scrambled to take an undergraduate class, but it was late. I went to Hunter College during the class sign up day, but students there had mostly pre-registered, and I couldn’t get into any undergrad courses. I scrambled, calling other local schools — NYU, Fordham, City College — Sorry, it was too late.
One ray of hope: Hunter said I could take graduate level history or Pol Sci courses. So I call Stony Brook to see what the rules were about grad level course, majors, etc. It turns out you are allowed to take 12 GRADUATE credits (and I had only taken 6) towards matriculation.
But which courses? Can you take anything?
It turns out you can. A little more digging, and I discovered a loophole (Perhaps 3 years of law school weren’t wasted) It didn’t seem to matter what classes you took (but not gym!) It could be dental school, medical school, and clever SOB that I am — even Law School.
So, I transferred 2 credits from Law School to college — that’s right, double counting. It took a few weeks to process (I was getting nervous as the Bar Exam study time approached).
When I got the call in frickin’ late May that the credits were ready to be transferred, I literally ran to the Law School from my apartment on 27th and Lexington to get the physical copy of my transcript. I bounced from Manhattan to Stony Brook with that piece of paper like I was carrying a donated kidney. I got to the SUSB registrar on campus, while the surgical team went to work on the lifesaving transplant organ (i.e., processing the paperwork). The donated tissue was not rejected, and after a brief period of convalescence (~60 minutes), I got my diploma.
That’s right, my undergraduate school turned out to be, 10 years later, a one hour diploma mill. I then raced back to law school — and got that diploma, and was certified to take the bar.
That is the bizarre footnote to my academic career: I graduated Law School about 3 hours after I graduated College — same day, same year.
Those of you considering similar career paths, I can only say this: I don’t recommend it . . .
Ex post, it is obvious that the Fed was way too tight in the second half of 2008. To be sure, the FOMC was actively engaged in its standard easing policies; however, the Fed got the Treasury to aid in its sterilization efforts, and later the Fed fast-tracked the interest on reserves (IOR) program (originally set for an October 1, 2011 start). The Fed was misguided in its sterilization efforts, as aggregate demand was already collapsing.
Below is a table with the results in annualized values (Click to enlarge):
This table confirms what we saw in the levels: a sharp decline in velocity appears to be the main contributor to the collapse in nominal spending in late 2008 and early 2009 as changes in the monetary base and the money multiplier largely offset each other.
... (And a little later)
Unfortunately, though, it appears the Fed was so focused on preventing its credit easing program from destabilizing the money supply that it overlooked, or least underestimated, developments with real money demand (i.e. velocity). As a consequence, nominal spending crashed.
This line research essentially posits that the Fed got it terribly wrong in the second half of 2008. As David shows in the table above, the velocity of money was dropping with households clinging to cash under heightened economic uncertainty.
If this theory is true, then one could view the $300 billion Treasury buyback program (see the NY Fed's Q&A here) as the Fed's equivalent of "calling a mulligan" in an attempt to take back its sterilization efforts in 2008.
The $300 billion buyback of Treasuries will restock about 75% of the Fed's Treasury holdings (focused in notes and bonds rather than bills, but there is a contemporaneous objective to pull long rates down) that dwindled previous to the onset of the SFP account. Unfortunately, though, it was already too late.
(The Treasury issued short-term notes and deposited the proceeds with the Fed in order to aid in the Fed's sterilization efforts - see an old post of mine for a more thorough explanation of the SFP, or the Supplementary Financing Program.) Another event recently occurred that would support the view that the FOMC is backpedaling: the Treasury's Supplementary Financing Program (SFP) is going bye bye.
The Treasury started this week to unwind its account with the Fed (the SFP listed on the liabilities side of the Fed balance sheet). This is almost surely going to end up as excess reserve balances in the banking institution, as the Fed is unlikely to sterilize these flows. (Note that one could see if the Fed was sterilizing the flows if its Treasury holdings started to fall again.)
I guess that the real question is: where would we be now if the Fed had pushed harder on the money supply in 2008? I imagine that Angry Bear readers have many thoughts on this.
If you click on the Social Security link in the upper left sidebar you are sent to an index page on my website which in turn links back to an extended series of posts here at Angry Bear starting in May of 2008. Something that apparently a reader did this morning leaving the following comment:
Larry said... I'd greatly appreciate an update, given the latest revenue numbers, which show outlays exceeding income at least for the time being.
Well I left an extended reply there but thought I would supplement it with a brief version here. (Well it didn't turn out brief, sorry.)
It is quite possible that 2009 and 2010 will see Social Security go cash flow negative in that they will take in a little less in cash via payroll tax and tax on benefits than they will pay out in benefits. Whether this is a problem or not depends on your views about the Social Security Trust Fund. Legally Social Security has roughly $2.5 trillion dollars in assets which in turn represent about 20% of total U.S. Public Debt. Under the law Social Security is on an equal standing with all other creditors who have lent money to the U.S. and expect to get it back based on Full Faith and Credit of the United States. Now there are some valid questions about whether the U.S. can sustain a Public Debt load that is as of last Friday $11,920,519,164,319.42 and projected to grow at $1 trillion a year for the next 10 years. On the other hand people who are using legalisms to tell you that somehow the $2.5 trillion of that $11.9 trillion that is owed to current workers and retirees is in a junior debt position to the $800.5 billion owed to China are blowing smoke. Legally, morally and even more important electorally the claims of American workers and retirees are if anything better than those of the Chinese Central Bank.
There are people who will make earnest claims that one branch of government cannot owe money to another branch. There is no legal basis for that claim, it is a simple exercise in logical hair splitting. The reality is this. A major part of total American income has been tapped to pay out retirement benefits to workers and to build up a reserve to continue those pay outs for future retirees. The excess dollars have been borrowed on behalf of all Americans including those who gain their income from sources not exposed to this particular source of taxation. Those people, whose incomes range from the lower six to the upper eight digits, by and large don't want to pay those dollars back and have hired people to manufacture reasons to convince people making five digit incomes or less that America as a whole simply can't afford to pay that money back and that the lower 95% or so of Americans just have to lump it and accept that as a lost cost. Well we don't have to lump it and have at our disposal democratic means that ensure that the the six to eight digit people pay back their fair share of the money that we all borrowed. Unless of course we fall for the spin being presented by the paid spinners at the Concord Coalition, Cato, and American Enterprise Institute. (And those were not chosen at random, they are the collective headquarters of the War on Social Security).
So my answer to Larry is: We have $2.5 trillion dollars backed by the Full Faith and Credit of the United States in the Social Security Trust Funds. Those dollars are currently earning around $110 billion in interest this year which is more than enough to cover what may be a $5 billion or so shortfall in tax income this year and potentially more next. Social Security is still running large surpluses and Trust Fund balances will continue to increase until around 2022 and then start shrinking until they fall under a 100% reserve around 2026 en route to running out totally by 2037. If we want to maintain full scheduled benefits after 2037 we need to make minor changes in revenue either starting immediately or when Social Security falls out of Short Term Actuarial Balance (which the Trustees define as not having a 100% reserve in each of the next 10 years). But unless you simply discount that $2.5 trillion dollar balance and the interest it earns to zero a cash flow shortfall representing less than 1% of total outlays for Social Security is absolutely nothing to worry about. And those who earnestly tell you different are liars, thieves or people deceived by the liars and thieves.
(BTW some of the liars are some of the nicest people you will meet. Just as people who are paid to represent rapists and murderers may be nice people in person. That doesn't mean that their goals are benign. So feel free to substitute 'paid advocate' for 'liar' if you like, it doesn't change the substance.)
Investor sentiment changed little as the 3rd quarter came to an end. The "smart money" continues to sit tight and has yet to tip its hand. The "dumb money" or retail investor (sorry, no offense meant to those who have been right for the last 3 months) continues to buy the dips aggressively. Company insiders continue to sell in record numbers. In the end, it is the same story as "the trend is your friend until it ends".
The "Dumb Money" indicator is shown in figure 1. The "Dumb Money" indicator looks for extremes in the data from 4 different groups of investors who historically have been wrong on the market: 1) Investor Intelligence; 2) Market Vane; 3) American Association of Individual Investors; and 4) the put call ratio. The "Dumb Money" indicator remains extremely bullish, and it actually ticked up this past week.
Figure 1. "Dumb Money" Indicator/ weekly
The "Smart Money" indicator is shown in figure 2. The "smart money" indicator is a composite of the following data: 1) public to specialist short ratio; 2) specialist short to total short ratio; 3) SP100 option traders. The "smart money" is neutral.
Figure 2. "Smart Money" Indicator/ weekly
Company insiders continue to sell shares to an extreme degree. See figure 3, a weekly chart of the S&P500 with the Insider Score "entire market" value in the lower panel. Although the actual value ticked up, according to the InsideScore report: "transaction volume was constrained as trading windows closed ahead of the end of the quarter....This was the most bearish quarter in terms of insider sentiment in more than two years....Companies with selling still outnumbered companies with buying by a 13-to-1 margin. Baring a last minute buying binge, insiders in the S&P 500 bought less than $2M in shares in September and more than 65% of inflows came from one, lonely director."
Figure 3. InsiderScore Entire Market/ weekly
Figure 4 is a daily chart of the S&P500 with the amount of assets in the Rydexbullish and leveraged funds versus the amount of assets in the leveraged and bearish funds. Not only do we get to see what direction these market timers think the market will go, but we also get to see how much conviction (i.e., leverage) they have in their beliefs. Typically, we want to bet against the Rydex market timer even though they only represent a small sample of the overall market. As of Friday's close, the assets in the bullish and leveraged funds were greater than the bearish and leveraged by a ratio of 1.95 to 1; referring to figure 4, this would put the green line greater than red line.
Figure 4. Rydex Bullish and Leveraged v. Bearish and Leveraged/ daily
There is no doubt that this past week's sell off brought out both the dip buyers (i.e., the bulls) and the bears. With the S&P500 down 2.45% on increasing trading volume on Thursday, there was much angst in the bullish camp; the dip buyers were doing their thing all week, but the instant gratification of seeing the market higher several hours later didn't come. The bears can point to Friday's employment report where bad economic news was actually was met with selling. Maybe after a 50% plus price appreciation over 6 months in the S&P500, investors' expectations might be changing as they demand to see real improvement and not just hope in the numbers. The news hasn't changed, but maybe the reaction to the news has.
Earnings season is upon us, and there will be plenty of news. So it will be important to gauge the reaction to that news. Last reporting season, companies were given a free pass on the paltry revenue growth, which was primarily due to cost cutting measures. Earnings comparisons easily beat the low bar that had been set. Will investors be more discerning in the weeks ahead?
Regardless, the S&P500 remains within a clearly defined up trend channel, and last week's selling on Thursday, which was only the 8th worst day since the March 9th bottom, did little to damper the bullish enthusiasm that has persisted for the past 3 months. The up tick in the "Dumb Money" indicator and the extremes seen in the Rydex asset data would suggest continued buying on the dips. The upward bias in prices remains until the extremes in bullish sentiment are unwound.
"I own some gold and I am optimistic about the price of gold but I don’t think I would buy it either. The gold is near its all-time high, I think I would rather buy silver for instance if I had to buy a precious metal. However, I am not buying either at the moment."
Q: If there were to be a snap back, how powerful do you think it might be, are we talking about a big pullback for the dollar considering how much it sold off these past few months?
A: That I doubt because the Federal Reserve and the US government pursue policies that are not conducive to a strong US dollar. But as I said we are very oversold and could see some rebound, maybe around 10% or so. But I would not expect the US dollar to be structurally a strong currency in the next few years - quite on the contrary I think the US dollar will continue to lose its purchasing power.
Marc Faber is an international investor known for his uncanny predictions of the stock market and futures markets around the world. Dr. Doom also trades currencies and commodity futures like Gold and Oil.
Canadians feel intuitively that trade restrictions between the US and Canada are different from those between the US and Mexico and other low-wage nations. It's not just that Canadians want to protect their own interests, though of course we do. Perhaps this paper can expand the discussion.
"...We then ask whether falling manufacturing employment and rising wage inequality are related to trends in offshoring activities and international trade. One measure of the increase in offshoring activities for US companies is the number of workers employed “offshore” by US multinationals (firms which account for most of US manufacturing employment). Figure 3 shows that the number of workers employed by US multinationals in low-income countries nearly doubled over the last 25 years, while such employment in high-income countries remained roughly constant. One implication is that any employment costs at home of offshoring activities abroad are likely to be concentrated in low-income countries (a result our research confirms)..."
"...Policies (such as those proposed by the Obama administration) designed to curb the negative effects of offshoring on US jobs need to distinguish between offshoring to rich and poor countries. Since the negative effects are restricted to lowincome destinations, any policies which discourage offshoring in high-income regions (such as Ireland or France) will have the unintended effect of hurting the very workers they are designed to protect..."
Paris. Das französische Staatsdefizit wird in diesem Jahr mit 8,2 Prozent des Bruttoinlandsproduktes (BIP) nach jüngsten Berechnungen um mindestens 0,7 Prozentpunkte höher ausfallen als bisher erwartet.
Der Maastrichter EU-Stabilitätspakt sieht eine Begrenzung auf maximal 3,0 Prozent vor. Die Neuverschuldung erreiche 140 Milliarden Euro, sagte Premierminister Francois Fillon der Sonntagszeitung „Le Journal du Dimanche“.
2010 will Fillon das Staatsdefizit auf 115 Milliarden Euro begrenzen. Dazu sollen unter anderem 33.000 Stellen im Staatsdienst abgebaut werden. Der zentrale Staatshaushalt werde weniger Neuverschuldung nötig haben, doch gleichzeitig würden die Defizite der Sozialversicherungen steigen. Schätzungen zufolge könnten die Defizite der Sozialhaushalte in diesem Jahr 20 Milliarden und 2010 sogar 30 Milliarden Euro erreichen.
Die französische Wirtschaft wird Fillon zufolge in diesem Jahr mit 2,25 Prozent weniger stark schrumpfen als ursprünglich erwartet (drei Prozent). 2010 werde die Wirtschaft wieder um 0,75 Prozent wachsen, sagte Fillon. Doch die Arbeitslosigkeit werde im ersten Halbjahr weiter steigen und höhere Sozialausgaben erfordern. Er plane ein Gesetz, dass eine Senkung der Staatsausgaben über mehrere Jahre festlege. (dpa)
Hamburg. Thyssen-Krupp wird sich aus dem Bau ziviler Containerschiffe zurückziehen und auf den Marineschiffbau konzentrieren.
Das hat der Aufsichtsrat der Thyssen-Krupp Marine Systems (TKMS) beschlossen, wie die IG Metall berichtet. Eine Mehrheit kam erst zustande, weil der Aufsichtsratsvorsitzende und Thyssen-Vorstand Olaf Berlien sein Doppelstimmrecht nutzte.
Der Werftenverbund, der 5000 Menschen direkt und mehr als 20.000 indirekt beschäftigt, reagiert auf die Unterauslastung mit einer Neustrukturierung. Der Vorstand will die Fertigung der Nordseewerke Emden an die Siag Schaaf Industrie übertragen. Die 300 Ingenieure im U-Boot-Bau bleiben wohl bei TKMS an Bord.
Siag will in Emden fortan schwere Stahlbaukomponenten für Offshore-Windräder produzieren und dazu auf die Schiffbauer zurückgreifen. Professor Stefan Krüger hält dies für realistisch: „Das ist ein Job, den Schiffbauer am besten können“, sagt der Schiffbauexperte der TU Hamburg-Harburg. Für den zivilen Teil der HDW in Kiel sucht Thyssen-Krupp einen Partner. Die Geschäftsleitung will laut IG Metall 180 Entlassungen durchsetzen.
Thyssen-Krupp unterhält in Deutschland drei Werftstandorte: Emden (Nordseewerke), Kiel (HDW) und Hamburg (Blohm + Voss). An allen drei baut der Konzern sowohl militärische als auch zivile Schiffe. Vor allem Containerschiffe sind für TKMS, wie für andere Werften auch, im Zuge der Weltwirtschaftskrise aber zu einem großen Problem geworden.
Marktexperten gehen derzeit weltweit von mehr als 500 beschäftigungslosen Containerschiffen aus. Da bleiben Neubestellungen aus und alte Order werden storniert.
Die Schlussfolgerung, die TKMS-Vorstand Herbert Aly zieht: „Schiffbau in Deutschland hat Zukunft, aber nicht auf dem Kapazitätsniveau, das wir heute haben.“ Aly erwartet, dass die Hälfte der deutschen Werftkapazitäten nicht überleben wird.
TKMS leidet unter hausgemachten Problemen. Der Vorstand hat im Boom zu stark auf technologisch anspruchslose Containerschiffe gesetzt statt auf 500 Millionen Euro teure Kreuzfahrtschiffe oder komplizierte Offshore-Versorger für Windparks im Meer. Außerdem leidet TKMS unter Qualitätsproblemen, jedenfalls nach Auffassung der griechischen Regierung. Sie verweigert die Abnahme von vier U-Booten zum Preis von 2,2 Milliarden Euro. Und auch die Deutsche Marine beklagt Schwachstellen an fünf neuen Korvetten.
Nach den aktuellen Plänen würde TKMS fast vollständig auf den lukrativen Bau von U-Booten mit Brennstoffzellen (Kiel und Emden) und Überwasserkampfschiffen (Hamburg) setzen. Die Traditionswerft Blohm + Voss würde zudem Yachten, wie die 163 Meter lange „Eclipse“ für den russischen Milliardär Roman Abramowitsch bauen und Kreuzfahrtschiffe reparieren.
Die IG Metall sorgt sich nicht allein um die gefährdeten Arbeitsplätze. Bezirksleiterin Jutta Blankau: „Mit den Beschlüssen ist TKMS ein reiner Rüstungskonzern.“ Auslastungslücken im militärischen Bereich ließen sich künftig nicht mehr ausgleichen und „die Politik wird durch die Monostruktur des Konzerns erpressbar“, warnte Blankau.
Erst im Jahr 2005 war der Werftenverbund TKMS integriert worden. Damals wurde mit starker politischer Unterstützung der Bundesregierung von Kanzler Gerhard Schröder unter dem Dach des Stahlkonzerns Thyssen-Krupp aus Düsseldorf und Essen ein deutscher Werftenriese geformt, und damit der US-amerikanische Investor One Equity Partners ausgebootet. Seither gibt es Pläne, die Thyssen-Werften vor allem mit den französischen Staatswerften zu einer europäischen Superwerft zusammenzuschmieden. Vorbild für solche Pläne ist der deutsch-französischen Luft- und Raumfahrtkonzern EADS/Airbus.
When you drive a Porsche- you’re driving what the company is pinning as the purest, most evolved sports car experience available anywhere. Two seats, four wheels with a steering wheel and gear lever thrown-in, all made to go very, very fast. The notions of practical were never really in the cards when Dr. Ferdinand Porsche debuted the first car in 1948, but times have obviously changed the Stuttgart-based Porsche AG. They’re making their budget Boxster/Cayman lineup of roadsters, the classic 911-derived sports cars as well as the Cayenne SUVs. To the Porschephile purist- hell has already frozen over with the water-cooled engine; but it just got quite a bit colder with the 2010 Porsche Panamera- the all-new, four-door sedan from Porsche.
Ever since man has twisted the left-handed ignition key of a Porsche- he’s said “they should make one of these in a four-door…” and indeed they have- they were called Audi, BMW and Mercedes-Benz sports sedans- and while not classically Porsches- they were just about as close to one as you’d get in terms of German street performance, style and build quality.
The 928, 989 & the 500E
The genesis of the first Porsche sedan harks back to the mid-1980’s with the rising popularity of the Porsche 928- then designated as Porsche’s flagship and future successor to the iconic 911. (You may know it as the Porsche in movie Risky Business.) Porsche began to re-think the possibilities the powerful V8 front-engine, rear-wheel-drive 928 platform could bring to the market- producing a luxury sports sedan, bettering those from Mercedes-Benz and BMW. The four-door sports sedan concept was internally known as the Porsche 989.
By the late-80’s, Porsche, barely profitable as a modern company producing labor-intensive, hand-made, two-door sports cars scrapped the 989 plans, but sedans were not totally lost at Porsche. By the very early 1990s Porsche had partnered with their Stuttgart neighbors Mercedes-Benz and engineered, designed and built what is actually the very first four-door Porsche- the 1991-1994 Mercedes-Benz 500E/E500 sports sedan. While many will contest they’re not really Porsches- Porsche did engineer, design and produce the original Mercedes-Benz 500E in their factory, with Mercedes-Benz just supplying the parts and paint- in a back-and-fourth production process that took the better part of three weeks for one car. The Mercedes-Benz 500E was the first production four-door Porsche sedan.
The 2010 Panamera
For 2010 the much anticipated, all-new Panamera- a four-seat, four-door sedan debuts from Porsche. At first impression, the car seems a longer, fatter 997-type 911 with hints of the Cayenne thrown-in, but on closer look- it’s totally different. The Panamera’s appearance is low, big and wide, with massive alloys pushed to the very corners. It’s not a traditional “three-box” sedan, but rather a four-door, four-seat sports/fastback design. Think of it like a really fancy hatchback. Its name, Panamera, is derived from the famed long-distance, high-endurance Carrera Panamericana race held in Mexico.
The Panamera features full comfort for four only, with a wide center consol/tunnel going through the cabin- as it would in an exotic sports car. In typical Porsche fashion- leather with leatherette trim seats are standard, with full, multi-tone sport leather seats as an option. Full touch-screen, interactive instrumentation is standard, as well as a slew of niceties you’ve come to expect from Porsche. A unique feature is the hatchback, with the rear-seats down you have a vast rear interior space not too far from that of an SUV. Perfect for that once a year you need to haul something bulky from Best Buy or Home Depot.
The new Porsche is unsurprisingly fast, with a top-speed bettering 180 mph in Turbo form. It’s also quick- with a zero-to-sixty around four-seconds, nearer to five seconds with the normally aspired V8. Regardless of model- the Panamera is outright quick, rivaling or bettering it’s competition- which includes the Maserati Quattroporte, and Mercedes-Benz CLS 6.3 AMG, not to mention newcomers to the ultra-high-performance sports sedan/four-door coupe segment featuring the Aston Martin Rapide and Lamborghini Estoque. So while the Porsche-traditionalist may mock the idea of a four-door Porsche- it certainly runs in an expanding market segment.
The Panamera is offered in three different trims, much like a Cayenne and 911. The Panamera S is the standard base model with rear-wheel-drive and a normally aspired 4.8-liter aluminum V8 engine putting out 400 horsepower and about 370 pound-feet of torque. The Panamera 4S adds all-wheel-drive and a standard seven-speed PDK semi-automatic transmission. The top-of-the-line Panamera Turbo further adds a twin-turbocharged 500-horse V8 engine. Base prices range from about $90,000 for the Panamera S, $94,000 for the 4S and $133,000 for the Turbo, but like everything else out of Stuttgart- there are dozens of special options to choose from. Figure an additional $10,000 to $15,000 over the base even if you add only a few options.
The Panamera is a longtime coming and while I wouldn’t expect it to be discrete of its performance, much like a Mercedes-Benz or BMW would be, its certainly the right car for the driver who must have some form of four-seater practicality all while having to drive a Porsche. After all, “there is no substitute,” right?
Porsche sales, while down some 30% in these trying times, hopes to improve come the fall when the Panamera should be hitting the order books full swing. Porsche plans to build some 20,000 Panameras, while, according to Porsche marketing, about 60,000 enthusiasts worldwide have expressed interest.
The Panamera adds yet another degree of practicality away from the purity of Porsche- but what can I say? Times have changed. Rumor has it, Porsche is also working on a two-door version of the Panamera- in an effort to bring-back the (now classic) Porsche 928. Further proof- that though times change- some things, come full circle (yes, even at Porsche).
Maybe the 928 will come in time for a Risky Business re-make, with a then fifty-something, graying, Ray-Ban wearing Tom Cruise as Joel Goodson, stalling-out of the garage? Then again, lets hope not.
All right, it's Sunday morning, and it's pitch black outside, so I'm entitled to one completely banal post. The video has been posted on my YouTube Favorites page, but I bet a lot of you haven't seen it yet.
Autumn is a good time for gold. Every single C wave since 03 has started in mid to late summer and peaked between December and late spring.
I'm amazed that we can still see so much bearish sentiment on gold despite such a bullish chart. It seems like everyone is expecting gold to fall, some modestly to the $900 range and quite a few expecting sub $700.
All while gold has stealthily put in the strongest A wave advance of the entire bull market.
All while gold has gone thru the weakest B wave decline of the entire bull market.
All while gold consolidated in a huge triangle that recently broke out on heavy volume.
All while gold has closed three out of the last 4 weeks above $1000.
And finally, the bearish sentiment flourishes while the Dow:gold ratio has broken down out of the recent crawling pattern and is rapidly accelerating to the downside.
As far as I can see this C wave has done absolutely nothing wrong and is set up to breakout during the same time that every C wave has broken out.
I guess until it hits you over the head most people just can't see the big picture.
This looks like a pretty cool “green” design idea:
“This is a floating waterwheel that can generate electricity when suspended over a river or other flowing water regardless of the depth and speed of flow.
The unique chevron shaped paddle treads give the barrel the ability to rotate about its horizontal axis in fast flowing water, entering the water smoothly and re-surfacing without lifting water.
The merit of this design is the significant reduction of any down force and the elimination of the bow wave in front of the barrel as it rotates at the same speed as the flow of water, thus increasing the efficiency of the machine. This would be an ideal product for todays demands for cheap re-newable energy and would be a cost effective product for the pico hydroelectric or micro hydroelectric energy market.”
It also can work with tidal actions:
The HEB could be used to produce both wave energy and energy from tidal current at the same time. The barrel rolls on the waves, rising and falling to drive both hub and linear permanent magnet generators. Energy could be produced simultaneously by the tidal current rotating the barrel.
In this way the HEB would provide a more constant energy output being dormant only at slack tide when the surface is flat calm.
One of our favorite bugaboos is finally getting its due: The horrifically misleading Birth Death adjustment.
It is finally being recognized in the mainstream as the massive data distorter that it is. The latest BLS analysis and data revision shows that during 2008, the Birth Death adjustment caused NFP payrolls to be significantly under reported.
NYT’s Floyd Norris:
“It now appears that during the first half of 2008, when the recession was getting under way, job losses averaged 146,000 per month. That is nearly three times the average of 49,000 jobs shown in the initial estimates.
How did the government get it so wrong?
The official job numbers are based on a monthly survey of employers, augmented by something called the “birth-death model,” which factors in jobs assumed to have been created by employers who are too new to have been included in the survey, and subtracts jobs from employers assumed to have failed and therefore not responded to the latest survey.” (emphasis added)
Triple the job losses than reported, and right at a crucial part of the economic cycle! Is it any wonder policy response from central bankers and pols was so off? At the most crucial time, they failed to see the oncoming headlights, because they were lost in a fog of data so massaged as to have it completely and totally misrepresent reality.
About time this nionsense was recognized for the bullshit it is. We need to have BLS needs to toss out the 2003 modification to the B/D. We should get back to actually counting, rather than imagining, jobs.
As noted in Bailout Nation, this fundamental reliance on garbage data led to one of the world’s greatest economic catastrophes of all time.
Auftragsmangel Glasofenbauer kündigt Mitarbeitern aus verschiedenen Abteilungen überraschend und schickt sie kurz darauf aus dem Betrieb
Lohr „Herzlich willkommen bei der Sorg-Gruppe. Wir sind gleich persönlich für Sie da“, werden Anrufer bei der bekannten Lohrer Spezialfirma für Glasofen- und Anlagenbau an der Stoltestraße freundlich begrüßt. Doch dann tutet es, und es geht niemand ran. So als hätten die am Freitag ausgesprochenen betriebsbedingten Kündigungen auch die Telefonzentrale erwischt.
Jedenfalls sah sich das Unternehmen gezwungen, Ende letzter Woche seine Kapazitäten der schlechten Beschäftigungsanlage anzupassen. „Von dieser einmaligen Maßnahme sind eine niedrige zweistellige Anzahl Mitarbeiter am Standort Lohr betroffen“, bestätigte der Leiter Finanzen und Personal, Dirk-Olaf Petersen, gestern schriftlich. Aber er weigerte sich auf telefonische Nachfragen beharrlich, eine genaue Zahl zu nennen. Die in einer anderen Veröffentlichung angeführte Zahl von 14 Betroffenen stimme nicht, dementierte er. Was sich am letzten Freitag in dem Lohrer Traditionsunternehmen im Gewerbegebiet Nägelsee-Nord in Lohr abspielte, muss Mitarbeiter in der insgesamt 340 Leute zählenden Firmengruppe dennoch erschüttert haben. Die Stimmung soll der bei einer Beerdigung ähneln, wird aus dem Unternehmen berichtet.
Die pressescheue Nikolaus Sorg GmbH & Co. KG hat offenbar die seit der weltweiten Wirtschafts- und Finanzkrise selbst in der heimischen Industrie üblichen Auftragseinbrüche desaströs zu spüren bekommen. „Die weltwirtschaftliche Entwicklung hat auch bei der Nikolaus Sorg GmbH & Co. KG Spuren hinterlassen. So sind die Auftragseingänge gegenüber dem Vorjahr deutlich zurückgegangen. Wir gehen davon aus, dass die vergangenen Jahre Boomjahre waren, deren Niveau mittelfristig nicht wieder erreicht wird“, heißt es in der Pressemitteilung des Unternehmens.
Vom Arbeiter bis zum Ingenieur
Sorg, früher einer der besten Gewerbesteuerzahler der Stadt und Weltmarktführer mit seiner Nischenproduktion, traf es anscheinend so hart, dass die Reaktion gegenüber Mitarbeitern aus verschiedenen Abteilungen – vom Arbeiter bis zum Ingenieur – heftig ausfiel. Wie aus heiterem Himmel kündigte das Unternehmen über ein Dutzend Leute betriebsbedingt, ließ sie gerade noch ein paar private Habseligkeiten vom Arbeitsplatz holen und dann wie Menschen, die silberne Löffel gestohlen haben, zum Werkstor bringen. „Unwahr“ sei, dass er Mitarbeiter zum Werkstor begleitet habe, stellte Personal- und Finanzchef Dirk-Olaf Petersen gestern gegenüber dem Lohrer Echo fest.Der ungewöhnliche und für Sorg bisher unübliche Abschied sprach sich herum, und bei Mitarbeitern konnte der Eindruck entstehen: Undank ist der Firma Lohn. Petersen räumte gestern ein: „Wir haben Verständnis dafür, dass die betroffenen Mitarbeiter ihre Kündigung anders empfinden.“
Dabei hatte das jahrelang boomende Unternehmen bis letztes Jahr mit Wachstumsraten glänzend dagestanden. Während aber andere renommierte Unternehmen in Lohr heuer ihre Stammbelegschaft mit Kurzarbeit über die Krise retten, sah sich Sorg jetzt zu rigorosen Einschnitten gezwungen. In der betriebsratslosen Firma sollen zwar bei den Kündigungen Grundsätze einer korrekten Sozialauswahl eingehalten worden sein, ließ Personalchef Dirk-Olaf Petersen durchblicken. „Wir haben die Auswahl nach den vorgeschriebenen sozialen Kriterien unter Berücksichtigung betrieblicher Notwendigkeiten vorgenommen. Die von der Kündigung betroffenen Mitarbeiter wurden also nicht aufgrund ihrer persönlichen Leistung ausgewählt“, heißt es in der Stellungnahme der Firma, zu der aber keine ergänzenden Auskünfte erteilt wurden.
Mit sofortiger Wirkung
Die Betroffenen wurden jedenfalls mit sofortiger Wirkung für den Rest ihrer Kündigungsfrist von der Arbeit freigestellt. Wie Hohn sollen sie den Satz empfunden haben: „Wir bedanken uns bei diesen Damen und Herren für die erfolgreiche Zusammenarbeit und hoffen, dass sie ihren Fähigkeiten gemäß bald einen anderen Arbeitgeber finden.“ Um Rechtsschutz hatte bis gestern morgen aber noch keiner der Betroffenen bei Gewerkschaftsbüros in Aschaffenburg, Schweinfurt oder Würzburg nachgesucht. Die Sorg-Belegschaft, zu der vor allem teils weltweit eingesetzte Montageleute und Entwicklungsexperten gehören, war schon immer nur schwach gewerkschaftlich organisiert. Zuständig für den Bereich der Feuerfest-Industrie wäre die Abteilung Steine und Erden der Industriegewerkschaft Bau. Verunsicherte Mitarbeiter werden sich ein bisher nicht für notwendig gehaltenes Engagement nun sicherlich überlegen.
Denn die Geschäftsführung der nach wie vor markt- und finanzstarken Glasofen- und -anlagenbaufirma, die nur jeden fünften Euro im Inland umsetzte, glaubt offenbar nicht an eine Rückkehr zu alter Stärke und Größe in den nächsten Jahren. Wörtlich heißt es in der Pressemitteilung dazu: „Unsere Marktposition ist unverändert stark, die finanzielle Situation weiterhin sehr solide. Dennoch müssen wir unsere Kostensituation an die weltwirtschaftliche Entwicklung anpassen. Wir sind sicher, mit dieser Maßnahme eine gute Grundlage für die weitere positive Entwicklung der Nikolaus Sorg GmbH & Co. KG geschaffen zu haben und den verbleibenden Mitarbeitern eine tragfähige Perspektive bieten zu können.“
Gerätselt werden darf bei den zuletzt rund 180 Lohrer Beschäftigten unter anderem, warum Kolleginnen und Kollegen so rüde rausgeworfen wurden, ob sich Sorg damit seiner Sorgen wirklich entledigt hat und warum die Firma nach außen so mauert. Günter Weislogel
This graph shows the historical light vehicle sales (seasonally adjusted annual rate) from the BEA (blue) and an estimate for September (red, light vehicle sales of 9.22 million SAAR from AutoData Corp).
About 25% to 30% of modifications fail in the first three months. For Q1 and Q2 2008, about 55% of borrowers have re-defaulted. Q3 2008 will probably be worse, and Q4 2008 and Q1 2009 about the same.
The graph compares the job losses from the start of the employment recession in percentage terms (as opposed to the number of jobs lost).
The dashed line is an estimate of the impact of the large benchmark revision (824 thousand more jobs lost).
Instead of 7.2 million net jobs lost since December 2007, the preliminary benchmark estimate suggests the U.S. has lost over 8.0 million net jobs during that period.
