Pankkeja kaatuu kuin heinää korjuuaikaan:
"Huonojen uutisten hyöky on iskenyt viikonlopun ja maanantain kuluessa Euroopan pankkeihin. Pankkiosakkeiden syöksylasku muistuttaa jo pakokauhua.
Euroopan pankkien tilanne näyttää heikentyneen jyrkästi viikonlopun ja maanantain kuluessa. Pankkien väliset rahoitusmarkkinat ovat kiristyneet entistä kireämmiksi ja osakemarkkinoilla Euroopan pankit laskevat jyrkkää syöksylaskua.
Viikonlopun ja maanantain kuluessa Euroopassa on kaatunut useita pankkeja viranomaisten syliin, muun muassa Suomessa toimiva islantilainen Glitnir on tänään joutunut turvautumaan Islannin valtion hätärahoitukseen.
Rahapula kaataa pankkeja
Yhdysvaltain edustajainhuoneen viikonloppuna sopima mittava pankkitukipaketti ei onnistunut vakauttamaan pankkijärjestelmää. Päin vastoin epäluottamus pankkien välisillä rahamarkkinoilla on maanantain kuluessa heikentynyt Euroopassa tuntuvasti.
Pankkien välisten rahamarkkinoiden hyytymistä kuvaa, että äkisti kärjistynyt pula lyhytaikaisesta rahoituksesta ajoi viikonloppuna suuren Belgiassa, Hollannissa ja Luxemburgissa toimivan Fortis-pankin viranomaisten haltuun. Saman koki brittipankki Bradford & Bingley.
Maanantaina Glitnirin lisäksi saksalainen Hypo Real Estate -kiinteistöpankki joutui turvautumaan valtion tukirahoitukseen. "
Ja USA:nkin tilanne menee jo viime vuonna ennustettua rataa:
"USA voi joutua pelastamaan 13 pankkia
Yhdysvalloissa on 117 ongelmapankkia, ja valtion pelastusapua näistä voi tarvita 13, arvioi Yhdysvaltain pankkiviranomainen."
Jep, ja kulutustalous alkaa yskiä:
"Amerikkalaisten kulutus jäätyi elokuussa
Luvut olivat pettymys ekonomisteille, jotka olivat odottaneet 0,2 prosentin kasvua. Talousluottamuksen rapautuminen näkyy ekonomistien mukaan elokuun kulutuskäyttäytymisessä. [...]
Yksityinen kulutus on elintärkeää Yhdysvaltain taloudelle, sillä se muodostaa kaksi kolmasosaa kansantuotteesta. Ekonomistien mukaan työttömyyden kasvu ja talousluottamuksen rapautuminen näkyivät elokuun kulutuskäyttäytymisessä."
Niinpä niin =/
1 kommentti:
http://mises.org/story/3131
Does the Fall in Stock Prices Cause an Economic Slump?
The proponents of government intervention maintain that one cannot allow the market to take charge since this will cause a drop in stock prices, which will be bad for the economy. Within the confines of this way of thinking, it is not surprising that Bernanke and Paulson panicked on September 18, once a large money-market mutual fund — the Reserve Primary Fund — was on the brink.
They argue that were it not for the Fed's injecting $105 billion and the subsequent announcement of the rescue package, the stock market would have had a massive fall. They also believe that the massive monetary injection prevented a run on money-market mutual funds and prevented a major disaster.
They further believe that if people had taken the money out of their money-market mutual funds, banks wouldn't be able to secure money to fund credit cards and various consumer and business loans. This in turn would have paralyzed the economy.
So let us think about this. Say that people take their money from the money-market mutual funds. What happens then? They will have placed it somewhere else, mostly likely with commercial banks. Hence money wouldn't disappear and banks could continue to fund activities as before.
If large money-market funds were to go under, some of their assets would be sold and the shareholders would suffer losses; this however, cannot provide justification for the Fed to pump money and to introduce a rescue package. Monetary expansion and a rescue package do not undo the bad investment decisions of the money-market-mutual-fund managers. Why should people who didn't risk investments in the fund pick up the tab?
A fall in asset prices, including stocks, and a run on financial institutions are just symptoms and not the cause of anything. The key factor behind the current difficulty in the credit markets is the lagged effect coming from the Fed's tighter stance between June 2004 and August 2007, when the federal-funds-rate target was raised from 1% to 5.25%.
The tighter stance started to undermine various bubble activities that had emerged from the previous loose stance. A tighter stance slowed the diversion of real savings from wealth generators towards bubble activities. Without an adequate supply of real funding, these activities started to crumble. Obviously, then, banks that have been providing support to these activities by providing loans have ended up holding a large amount of bad assets.
As a result, bank stock prices started to come under pressure. With a time lag, bubbles in the various other parts of the economy are also likely to come under pressure, and this again is going to hurt financial stocks. So the fall in economic activity is not the result of a fall in stock prices, but rather comes on account of the tighter Fed stance that throttled the supply of real savings to non-wealth-generating activities.
Would the stock market have come under pressure if the Fed had kept the interest rate at 1% for an indefinite period of time? A prolonged loose stance would have given rise to a much greater amount of nonproductive bubble activities. As a result, the pace of real wealth generation would have continued to slow, and consequently the growth momentum of profits would have come under pressure. In response to this, commercial banks would have become more cautious in their expansion of credit out of thin air.
All this in turn would have undermined the existence of bubble activities. Bubble activities cannot stand on their own feet; once the rate of growth of the money supply slows down, the pace of the diversion of real savings towards false activities follows suit. As a result, the survival of these activities is threatened.
From this we can infer that a fall in non-wealth-generating activities — also labeled an economic slump — is not due to a fall in the stock market as such but to the previous loose monetary policy that has weakened the pool of real savings.
The central-bank policies aimed at preventing a fall in the stock market cannot prevent a fall in the real economy. In fact, the real economy has already been damaged by the previous loose monetary stance. All that the fall in the stock market does is inform us about the true state of economic conditions. The fall in the price of stocks just puts things in a proper perspective. The fall in the stock price is just an acknowledgment of reality.
Lähetä kommentti