Monday, May 18, 2009

How we can overcome deflation...

Thinking about some of my past posts - calling out for allowing deflation to occur - it occurred to me that I might have missed one aspect - loan contracts. So I did some more thinking and here's what I came up with...

Nearly ever economist will tell you that deflation is bad. Yet (as much as they want to ignore it) it is a part of a healthy economy. However, our economy structures loans in a bad way - one that always assumes inflation. This is most evident both in the Great Depression between 1929 and 1944 as well as in our present economic climate where the housing market literally forces people to give up their homes because the market value is lower than the mortgage and they either (a) have to sell for some reason in the immediate or near term, or (b) they simply cannot afford to pay the mortgage any longer due to financial troubles.

So the question becomes - how can we allow for deflation while at the same time not undermining our current system?

The solution may be simpler than one thinks - allow for deflation in the loan contracts through some relatively simple clauses:

i. All the contracts have interest rates. Apply the growth in the interest during inflationary periods.
ii. When in a deflationary period, the interest rate drops sufficiently to account for the difference in value due the deflation.
iii. Any lost inflation per #ii is not counted against the borrower by the lender.

Basically - if inflation is 5%, then the loan contract's interest rate applies. However, if deflation kicks in, then the 5% interest rate might either change or go away entirely. (While one might like it to drop below zero, it would probably be hard to get buy in from lenders if it did, unless it was a dramatic deflation. And by dramatic I mean something like 15% or greater deflation, not simply 1-2%.)

Now why does this work? Valuation of the currency. The lender is still receiving more value back than what they paid out. For example, if a lender lent out $100 at a 5% interest rate, that would net them $105 if paid. If deflation kicks in at %5, then the $100 is only worth $105.26 ( 100*100/95) just because of the deflation. If the borrower paid back the $100 without any interest, they would have still made their %5 back due to an increased value in the currency. However, if they continue to charge the 5%, then they would receive $110.53 (105*100/95) - e.g. 11%, thus making the loan unaffordable to the borrower as it ends up charging 6% more than it should have.

Some will say "well tough luck you took a gamble with the loan - that's life". True, you did take a gamble but so did the whole financial institution, based on a flawed assumption - that deflation will never exist. Why not involve deflation in the assumption - that it will exist because it does in real life - and adjust the gamble based on that?

This little change - of prorating the interest rates for deflation during the life of the loan - will allow deflation to occur in a safe and harmless manner for loan providers and borrowers.

Ultimately this benefits both lenders and borrowers. For lenders, it will mean less people having to walk away from a loan when deflation occurs. For borrowers, it means having a better financial stability to continue paying the bills in a deflationary period.

Lenders can start by including language for this in new loan contracts. Borrowers can start by pushing for this kind of language in new loan contracts. For both, it means less time spent in bankruptcy courts during those deflationary periods. And either Lenders could extend this to existing contracts, or the gov't could mandate it for all existing contracts.

Aside: My guess is that this would only really need to apply to large loans (e.g. card, houses, commercial, etc.) that are required for the economy to continue. Small loans (e.g. credit card, etc.) should probably be able to do without this, though likely would get it too just to make things fair overall.

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Main driver in this recession?

I don't know why, but for some reason people seem to think that the main driver in this recession is housing (

Meanwhile, the main driver of the recession -- the collapsing housing market -- has yet to turn around. RealtyTrac data said April's foreclosures were up 32 percent from a year ago, and up slightly from March. It was the second straight month that more than 340,000 U.S. households received a foreclosure filing.

The collapse of the housing market is really only one of the symptoms of the driver of this recession. What is the real main driver of this recession? DEBT.

How do we know that DEBT is the main driver? Because as credit tightens, one of the main factors is the debt-to-income ratio. If your income is not high enough in proportion to your debt (i.e. you have a high debt to low income), then the loan is denied. If, on the other hand, you have a low debt to high income then you are a safe bet for a loan, and they'll do whatever it takes to get you a loan. (There's a few other factors to, but that's a primary one.)

What can we do to stop the main driver? Start paying down the debt.


South Carolina's Governor Sanford has it right - pay down debt.

And Obama's continuing plan to try to spend our way out of this is only going to make it worse - far worse - as we'll have to take on yet more debt (as a nation) to pay back the interest on the existing debt. Instead of trying to push money out every where else, Obama, the Fed, the Treasury, and Congress should be looking at what they can do to pay down the Federal debt. Until they do, we're in for an eventual collapse - we might (and I stress might) get away this time, but you can't run from it forever, as many are now finding out in their personal and work lives.

Monday, February 09, 2009

Obama needs to get off the air...

What's really funny right now, is that Obama is tripping over his words as he speaks to the American public. It's really embarrassing too. In answering questions, he's basically going back to only a couple points (e.g. can't just do tax cuts), and tripping over most everything else. What's more - it's very funny to watch him as he back-pedals over his stances on Iraq and Afganistan as he has to match up with reality.

That said, it's also very evident from the conference that he has no clue what caused the financial problem. He seems to be putting the blame squarely on the banks, though he did at least recognize the overspending of the American public - probably only because it was an answer directly related to the overspending of the American public.

True, the banks played a large role in the financial problem. But they also didn't cause people to overspend. They didn't cause people to put money no credit cards for stuff when they didn't have money to pay for it. They didn't cause people to need pay-day-loans to make rent. They also didn't cause businesses to go to pure JIT (just-in-time) manfacturing and move away from inventories to getting it as close to when the buyer buys and minimizing any overhead.

So what does this mean?

Well, since businesses are using a lot of JIT that their cuts due to loss of demand are more immediately felt across the various sectors. It also means that their increases will be more immediately felt across those same sectors when the time comes. It's really a double edged sword.

However, the bigger issue is that we are use to spending more than a dollar for every dollar we bring in. Businesses got use to it, and now that is no longer happening. Businesses and the world need to adjust. And we're not going to spend our way out of it.

In order to get out of this, then we have to create new, steady, long-term sources of jobs. New companies that will turn into long term companies. We need to get Wall Street to stop looking at only the 1 year, 2 year, or 5 year plans; and look at the 20, 30, 40, 50 year plans.

Tightening up capital will help. It will also help to loosen that capital where it needs to go - start-ups and SMB's. In other words, the only company's that should qualify for the major capital going out should be the ones that have less than 500 or 1000 employees, and (preferably) within their first 10 years of business. All others should be on a secondary or tertiary list to get what's left over. Why? Those are the majority of the companies that will create new jobs and spend money like no one else. They mostly have nothing to lose, and they are always the ones to drive us through booms. But we also need to do it in a way so as to prevent a bust when the money closes down.