Top

This Game Of Financial Russian Roulette Could Ruin Our Life Savings

US markets surge, but the credit crisis problems still remain. Whatever happens, we all have a heavy price to pay, whether we like it or not. And that may include losing your house.

So now we know.

We know how the US stock market reacted the day after the night before. The Dow Jones Industrial Average jumped 485 points or 4.7%, with the Nasdaq showing similar percentage gains.

Not surprisingly, the markets gained on the hope and expectation that an amended US$700 billion bank rescue package would head back to Congress as early as this week for approval.

As I said yesterday, there is no choice for US politicians but to pass the rescue bill. The consequences for ordinary citizens around the globe of not passing the bill were plain for all to see - a 777 point fall in the Dow Jones Industrial Average, the biggest one-day point fall since the great crash of October 1987.

An Unpopular Bail Out

I fully realise this bail-out is not universally popular. There are many smart people who think it would be best to do nothing.

Jim Rogers, Chairman of Rogers Holdings and the man who famously predicted the current commodities boom, said on Bloomberg TV yesterday, doing nothing would cause "A sharp correction in the stock market and the economy, we would hit bottom, we would clean out the system, and we would start over (again)."

Jim Rogers has been bearish on the US economy for some time now, and he's been right, so his opinions should hold some weight.

Then there's the ordinary American citizens who have lost, are in the process of losing, or will lose their homes. You can understand why they are unhappy with the prospect of a Wall Street bail out when they are being left hung out to dry.

It's House Prices, Stupid

Unfortunately, there are no easy solutions. The Jim Rogers "do nothing" solution fails to address what happens to depositors when banks fail, what happens when the crisis goes global, and what happens to the value of pension and retirement accounts, amongst other things. And it still doesn't address the root cause of the problem - house prices, and people's ability to service their humungous mortgages.

There are two realistic things government can do to address people's ability to pay their mortgages.

1. Stabilise the economy as much as possible, including injecting some much needed confidence in the banking system. Falling interest rates will ease some of the mortgage burden. It won't save everyone, and it won't stop a recession, including rising unemployment. As money is pumped into the system, inflation will rise, in the short-term at least. There remains a heavy price to pay for the debt fuelled excesses of the last few years.

2. Introduce some sort of tax credit for people on low incomes with high mortgage commitments. But this solution is practically unworkable. What about people who have high incomes and high mortgage commitments? What about people who are renting? Why should people who didn't take on large mortgages and lived within their means subsidise the more profligate?

Winners & Losers Of The Last Bubble

I can't think of any other solutions. With the bursting of each bubble, there are many losers and few winners.

The dot com bubble was effectively a pyramid sales scheme. Buoyed by the success of some early dot coms, like Ebay (Nasdaq: EBAY), Amazon (Nasdaq: AMZN) and Cisco (LSE: CSCO) in the US and Autonomy (LSE: AU.) and ARM Holdings (LSE: ARM) here in the UK, private money poured into venture capital funds.

As share prices rose, private investors were lured into the market. This pushed share prices even higher, encouraged venture capitalists to invest seed capital in more and more dot coms, and the bubble blew bigger and bigger. By the time it started deflating, the smart people had already sold out of the pyramid scheme, leaving the Johnny-come-lately's holding worthless share certificates.

Lose Your House, Job Or Lifestyle - We All Must Pay

This house price bubble is different.

It affects far more people than the dot com bubble. Crucially, it involves large amounts of debt, magnifying the bubble more than it would have otherwise. It is global. Whether we benefited directly or not from the bubble, whether we are in serious financial trouble or not, we all have to pay.

Some people will lose their houses. Some will lose their jobs. Some will lose serious amounts of money in the stock market. Most will see the value of their pensions plummet. Unfortunately, there is little that can be done.

With the bail out bill, market forces will still largely play out.

Without the bill, we'd be playing a game of Russian Roulette, not knowing which financial institution was going to be the next to fail, and when.

Buffett's Last Word

I'll leave the last word to my favourite investor and one of the richest and smartest people on the planet, Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE: BRK.A) Chairman Warren Buffett, who in an interview on CNBC last week said.

"Last week we were at the brink of something that would have made anything that's happened in financial history look pale. We were very, very close to a system that was totally dysfunctional and would have not only gummed up the financial markets, but gummed up the economy in a way that would take us years and years to repair. We've got enough problems to deal with anyway. I'm not saying the Paulson plan eliminates those problems. But it was absolutely, and is absolutely necessary, in my view, to really avoid going over the precipice."

> See what thousands of other fellow investors are saying about the credit crisis by checking out the Motley Fool's vibrant discussion boards. Click here to go to the very popular Banking Sector discussion board.

> Of the companies mentioned in this article, Bruce Jackson has a beneficial interest in Berkshire Hathaway B shares.

> Compare financial products via Fool.co.uk

Most Recent


Comments



  • 02 October 2008

    thanks gordonbanks I see the logic in your economic analysis ie "effective demand" being different to simple "want one" but if the demographics plus cheap money was responsible for the boom and a lack of supply of money has significantly reducing buying, if the demographic dynamics have remained then I would expect renting to have increased proportionately, if not where are these people (who would have bought)living? (I do not know if demographic factors have remained by the way, not sure if anyone has the figures)

    REPORT This comment has been reported.
    0

  • 02 October 2008

    supasap: "demand coninues to outstrip supply". Well it does and it doesn't. In emotional terms, there is a lot of demand - people who haven't got houses want them. In economic terms there is very weak demand because in order to count as "demand" in economic terms, you have to be able and willing to pay the current market rate or more. Lots of people aren't able (because they need to borrow and can't) and others aren't willing (because they expect to be able to buy at lower prices in the foreseeable future).[br/][br/]It costs money to turn derelict houses or sites into liveable ones. At the moment, developers can't borrow the money it would take to do that. And even if they could, it would be a very brave developer indeed who did, in reliance on the current queue of would-be buyers not to back out due to unforeseen unemployment or the wait-and-see factor caused by the falls that have already happened. (If I buy now I'll have to pay this much. If I wait a few months, I might get it for less).[br/][br/]From the point of view of the supply side, the best thing is to restrict supply as much as possible in order to slow the falls and/or bring prices back up.[br/][br/]Sad, but true.

    REPORT This comment has been reported.
    0

  • 02 October 2008

    thanks deeply blue, I appreciate your explanation of the rise in house prices but in the context of this why are there so many boarded up properties if the demand continues to outstrip supply? Also have the reasons you cite (largely demographic and social) disappeared and if not then house prices should not be falling..... if demand is the same then the would be buyers who can't get a mortgage because of the "credit crunch" would rent and therefore the value of a property via its rental potential would be preserved....

    REPORT This comment has been reported.
    0

Do you want to comment on this article? You need to be signed in for this feature

Most Popular

Copyright © lovemoney.com All rights reserved.

 

loveMONEY.com Financial Services Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) with Firm Reference Number (FRN): 479153.

loveMONEY.com is a company registered in England & Wales (Company Number: 7406028) with its registered address at First Floor Ridgeland House, 15 Carfax, Horsham, West Sussex, RH12 1DY, United Kingdom. loveMONEY.com Limited operates under the trading name of loveMONEY.com Financial Services Limited. We operate as a credit broker for consumer credit and do not lend directly. Our company maintains relationships with various affiliates and lenders, which we may promote within our editorial content in emails and on featured partner pages through affiliate links. Please note, that we may receive commission payments from some of the product and service providers featured on our website. In line with Consumer Duty regulations, we assess our partners to ensure they offer fair value, are transparent, and cater to the needs of all customers, including vulnerable groups. We continuously review our practices to ensure compliance with these standards. While we make every effort to ensure the accuracy and currency of our editorial content, users should independently verify information with their chosen product or service provider. This can be done by reviewing the product landing page information and the terms and conditions associated with the product. If you are uncertain whether a product is suitable, we strongly recommend seeking advice from a regulated independent financial advisor before applying for the products.