Food Crisis Not Over Yet

From the Des Moines Register….

Assuming the government’s latest crop forecast is right and this fall’s corn and soybean harvests are sufficient to meet demand, stocks of corn and soybeans are still expected to fall to historically low levels. That’s even as biofuel production and global grain consumption are likely to keep growing.

Corn supplies are projected to fall by one-third to just more that 1 billion bushels, or about one month’s consumption, when harvest starts next fall. Supplies could be even tighter; many analysts think the latest production forecast is overly optimistic.

The scary thing is the first comment on the story. I hope there are not to many farmers who think like him.

If this is true, the government has no idea of what is going on at all.

From the Financial Times….

US regulators have underestimated potential bank losses on preferred stock issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the American Bankers Association said on Monday.

Nearly a third of US banks hold preferred stock issued by the two mortgage financiers that were taken into conservatorship this month, according to an industry survey conducted by the ABA. The average bank exposure to such securities relative to core equity capital was 11 per cent.

“The negative impact on banks – particularly Main Street community banks – is far greater than regulators first thought,” wrote Edward Yingling, chief executive of the ABA in a letter to the Treasury, the Federal Reserve and other banking regulators.

The government takeover of Fannie and Freddie all but wiped out the value of $36bn of their preferred shares. This would force exposed banks to take writedowns at the end of the third quarter that could impede future lending, the ABA warned.

“When the actions were contemplated to reduce dividends on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac preferred stock, the bank regulators estimated that only a dozen banks would be affected by it,” Mr Yingling said.

Fact can be inconvenient

From the Washington Post….

It is the first time social scientists have produced evidence that large numbers of men might be victims of gender-related income disparities. The study raises the provocative possibility that a substantial part of the widely discussed gap in income between men and women who do the same work is really a gap between men with a traditional outlook and everyone else.

The differences found in the study were substantial. Men with traditional attitudes about gender roles earned $11,930 more a year than men with egalitarian views and $14,404 more than women with traditional attitudes. The comparisons were based on men and women working in the same kinds of jobs with the same levels of education and putting in the same number of hours per week.

My first thought when I saw the headline was that they did not account for age. But they did. In fact they followed the same group of people from the time when they where children.

All the guys I know who have traditional ideas of gender roles are more ethical (taken as group there are exceptions) then the men who do not have traditional ideas of gender roles (again, granting there are exceptions). But working in a union environment where everyone with the same job is paid the same amount, it never occurred to me that this could lead to higher pay.

That may be wrong explanation based on my limited circle of acquaintances. It may also be possible that men with traditional attitudes towards gender roles may have higher testosterone levels on average. Testosterone generally helps/drives you to become top dog in any situation.

And last but not least, family background does not seem to have been taken into account. It is likely that the people who had more traditional attitudes towards gender came from more stable families then people who did not have have traditional attitudes towards family. Coming from a more stable back ground may have enabled them to be more successful even when they had the same job as other people.

I am not sure which if any of my explanations are correct. But they are both better then the explanations that the authors of the study came up with. They seemed designed to maintain a PC orthodoxy in the face of inconvenient facts.

Also, it seems that the authors of this study consider people with in similar jobs, working similar hours, and with similar education as being equal. I suspect that the did not account for how long people spent in the same job as opposed to moving around.

If this is true it would explain why traditionally minded woman make so much less the other categories even when doing the same work. On paper they might have the same qualifications, but I doubt they stay in the same field for as long.

The Bang That Started the Stampede

From Megan McArdle…..

What happened last week is that one money market firm advertised its entire portfolio, including a large chunk of Lehman paper worth slightly less than 2% of the total fund assets. Spooked investors, who did not want to lose out if the fund “broke the buck” started withdrawing as fast as their little fingers could punch the buttons on their phones. Now, this money market fund had tens of billions worth of assets; if it started dumping them on the market, it would drive the price down, leaving them even less money to hand back to their shareholders. But there’s a reason investors herd in a bank run: the first people out get all their money back. The rest get trampled in the stampede. The fund–incidentally, the same company that founded the money market industry–“broke the buck”; that is, its shares became worth less than a dollar. It’s as if the value of your bank account suddenly dropped below the amount you’d put in.

This, by the way, is probably not the only fund this happened to, but it was the only fund that a) advertised its holdings and b) was not attached to an institution large enough to easily make good the loss.

Thus was touched off a general run on money market funds that held money for institutions–the kind that require buy ins of a couple million or more. Institutional managers have a strong incentive to do stupid, destructive things, as long as everyone else is doing them. It’s the same reason that IT managers used to buy IBM–not because it was necessarily the best solution, but because as long as you did it, no one could blame you when things went south. “I bought IBM!” troubled CTOs would say when the server crashed. “The whole market is down!” cry money managers when the financial system crashes.

The other shoe is about to drop…

From Bloomberg.com….

General Motors Corp., burning through cash after three years of losses, will tap the remaining $3.5 billion of a revolving credit line as the crisis on Wall Street threatens to crimp companies’ ability to borrow.

The balance of the $4.5 billion line will go to help cover restructuring costs, GM said in a statement late yesterday. The Detroit-based automaker said it also completed a $322 million debt-to-equity exchange.

Time for another bail out.

Are you scared yet?

I think this story from the New York Post is meant to scare middle income Americans in to supporting at bail out of Wall Street. Since most middle income Americans own stocks now a days, the prospect of a stock market meltdown hits them where it hurts. From the Post…

The market was 500 trades away from Armageddon on Thursday, traders inside two large custodial banks tell The Post.

Had the Treasury and Fed not quickly stepped into the fray that morning with a quick $105 billion injection of liquidity, the Dow could have collapsed to the 8,300-level – a 22 percent decline! – while the clang of the opening bell was still echoing around the cavernous exchange floor.

According to traders, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, money market funds were inundated with $500 billion in sell orders prior to the opening. The total money-market capitalization was roughly $4 trillion that morning.

Its a scam

From the New York Times…

Virtually every career employee — as many as 97 percent in one recent year — applies for and gets disability payments soon after retirement, a computer analysis of federal records by The New York Times has found. Since 2000, those records show, about a quarter of a billion dollars in federal disability money has gone to former L.I.R.R. employees, including about 2,000 who retired during that time.

The L.I.R.R.’s disability rate suggests it is one of the nation’s most dangerous places to work. Yet in four of the last five years, the railroad has won national awards for improving worker safety.

If you read the whole article, you will find that is only the tip of the iceberg.