Sunday, November 30, 2008

Mega Bear Markets

Doug Short had a fascinating chart comparing the current bear market (using the S&P 500 as proxy), the Dow 1929 Bear Market, the Nikkei Bear market beginning in 1989, and the Nasdaq bear market beginning in 2000. http://dshort.com/charts/mega-bear-comparisons.html?mega-bear-duet



Saturday, November 29, 2008

What Barack Obama Needs to Know About Tim Geithner, the AIG Fiasco and Citigroup

I'm putting this blog post from Christopher Whalen up simply because I don't want to lose it. It's a terrific piece of writing from Mr. Whalen. Courtesy of Barry Ritzhold's Big Picture blog.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2008/11/what-obama-geithner-aig-fiasco/

What Barack Obama Needs to Know About Tim Geithner, the AIG Fiasco and Citigroup

Christopher Whalen is Managing Director of IRA. Chris has worked as an investment banker, research analyst and journalist for more than two decades. After graduating from Villanova University in 1981, Chris worked for the U.S. House of Representatives and then as a management trainee at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, where he worked in the bank supervision and foreign exchange departments. Chris subsequently worked in the fixed income department of Bear, Stearns & Co, in London. After moving back to the U.S. in 1988, Chris spent a decade providing risk management and loan workout services to multinational companies and government agencies. In 1997, Chris worked as an investment banker in the M&A Group of Bear, Stearns & Co.
~~~>

On Friday, the FDIC closed and facilitated the sale of two CA savings banks, Downey Savings and Loan, the bank unit of Downey Financial Corp (NYSE:DSL) and PFF Bank and Trust, Pomona, CA. All deposit accounts and all loans of both banks have been transferred to U.S. Bank, NA, lead bank unit of US Bancorp (NYSE:USB). All former Downey and PFF Bank branches reopen for business today as branches of U.S. Bank.

Earlier this year we wrote positively about Downey and the funding advantages it had over larger thrifts such as Washington Mutual due to the solid deposit base and strong capital. Indeed, as of Q3 2008, the bank’s Tier One leverage ratio was over 7.5%, more than two points over the minimum, and its charge offs had actually fallen compared with the gruesome 400 basis points of default reported in the previous period.

But since the September resolution of WaMu and Wachovia, the FDIC, it seems, is not willing to wait to resolve institutions, even banks that are apparently solvent and not below any of the traditional regulatory triggers for closure. The visible public metrics indicating soundness did not dissuade the Office of Thrift Supervision and FDIC from seizing both banks and selling them to USB.

The purchase of Downey and PFF is good news for the depositors and borrowers, who will all be offered the FDIC’s prepackaged IndyMac mortgage modification program as a condition of the USB acquisition. Bad news for the investors and creditors, who now see their already impaired investments wiped out.

The resolution of Downey illustrates both the best and the worst aspects of the government’s remediation efforts. On the one hand, we have argued that the government should be pushing bad banks into the arms of stronger banks to improve the overall condition of the system. The good people at the FDIC do that very well - when politics does not intervene.

In the case of Downey and PFF, it appears that the OTS and FDIC projected forward from the current above-peer loss rates and concluded that a prompt resolution was required. Reasonable people can argue whether this is the right call. But when we see the equity and debt holders of DSL, Washington Mutual or Lehman Brothers taking a total loss, we have to ask a basic question: why is it that the debt holders of Bear Stearns and AIG (NYSE:AIG) are granted salvation by the Federal Reserve Board and the US Treasury, but other investors are not?

If the rule of driving money to the strong banks (see “View from the Top: A Prime Solution to the US Banking Crisis”) safety and soundness is to be effective, it must be applied to all. And now you know why we have questions about the nomination of Tim Geithner to be the next Treasury Secretary. If you look at how the Fed and Treasury have handled the bailouts of Bear Stearns and AIG, a reasonable conclusion might be that the Paulson/Geithner model of political economy is rule by plutocrat. Facilitate a Fed bailout of the speculative elements of the financial world and their sponsors among the larger derivatives dealer banks, but leave the real economy to deal with the crisis via bankruptcy and liquidation. Thus Lehman, WaMu, Wachovia and Downey shareholders and creditors get the axe, but the bondholders and institutional counterparties of Bear and AIG do not.

Few observers outside Wall Street understand that the hundreds of billions of dollars pumped into AIG by the Fed of NY and Treasury, funds used to keep the creditors from a default, has been used to fund the payout at face value of credit default swap contracts or “CDS,” insurance written by AIG against senior traunches of collateralized debt obligations or “CDOs.” The Paulson/Geithner model for dealing with troubled financial institutions such as AIG with net unfunded obligations to pay CDS contracts seems to be to simply provide the needed liquidity and hope for the best. Fed and AIG officials have even been attempting to purchase the CDOs insured by AIG in an attempt to tear up the CDS contracts. But these efforts only focus on a small part of AIG’s CDS book.

The Paulson/Geithner bailout model as manifest by the AIG situation is untenable and illustrates why President-elect Obama badly needs a new face at Treasury. A face with real financial credentials, somebody like Fannie Mae CEO Herb Allison. A banker with real world transactional experience, somebody who will know precisely how to deal with the last bubble that needs to be lanced - CDS.

Last Thursday, we gave a presentation to the New York Chapter of the Risk Management Association regarding the US banking sector and the long-term issues facing same. You can read a copy of the slides by clicking here.

As part of the presentation (Page 17-21), IRA co-founder Chris Whalen argued the case made by a reader of The IRA a week before (see “New Hope for Financial Economics: Interview with Bill Janeway,”) that until we rid the markets of CDS, there will be no restoring investor confidence in financial institutions. Here is how we presented the situation to about 200 finance and risk professionals in the auditorium of JPM last week. Of note, nobody in the audience argued.

1) Start with the $50 trillion or so in extant CDS.

2) Assume that as default rates for all types of collateral rise over next 24-36 months, 40% of the $50 trillion in CDS goes into the money. That is $20 trillion gross notional of CDS which must be funded.

3) Now assume a 25% recovery rate against that portion of all CDS that goes into the money.

4) That leaves you with a $15 trillion net amount that must be paid by providers of protection in CDS. And remember, a 40% in the money assumption for CDS is VERY conservative. The rise in loss rates for all type of collateral over the next 24 months could easily make the portion of CDS in the money grow to more like 60-70%. That is $40 plus trillion in notional payments vs. a recovery rate in single digits.

Q: Does anybody really believe that the global central banks and the politicians that stand behind them are going to provide the liquidity to fund $15 trillion or more in CDS payouts? Remember, only a small portion of these positions are actually hedging exposure in the form of the underlying securities. The rest are speculative, in some cases 10, 20 of 30 times the underlying basis. Yet the position taken by Treasury Secretary Paulson and implemented by Tim Geithner (and the Fed Board in Washington, to be fair) is that these leveraged wagers should be paid in full.

Our answer to this cowardly view is that AIG needs to be put into bankruptcy. As we wrote on TheBigPicture over the weekend, we’ll take our queue from NY State Insurance Commissioner Eric Dinalo and stipulate that we pay true hedge positions at face value, but the specs get pennies on the dollar of the face of CDS. And the specs should take the pennies gratefully and run before the crowd of angry citizens with the torches and pitchforks catch up to them.

President-elect Obama and the American people have a choice: embrace financial sanity and safety and soundness by deflating the last, biggest speculative bubble using the time-tested mechanism of insolvency. Or we can muddle along for the next decade or more, using the Paulson/Geithner model of financial rescue for the AIG CDS Ponzi scheme and embrace the Japanese model of economic stagnation.

And, yes, we can put AIG and the other providers of protection through a bankruptcy and force the CDS market into a quick and final extinction. Remember, when AIG goes bankrupt the insurance units are taken over by NY, WI and put into statutory receiverships. Only the rancid CDS positions and financial engineering unit of AIG end up in bankruptcy. And fortunately we have a fine example of just how to do it in the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers.

Our friends at Katten Muchin Rosenman in Chicago wrote last week in their excellent Client Advisory: “On November 13, 2008, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and its U.S. affiliates in bankruptcy, including Lehman Brothers Special Financing and Lehman Brothers Commercial Paper (collectively, “Lehman”) filed a motion asking that certain expedited procedures be put in place to allow Lehman to assume, assign or terminate the thousands of executory derivative contracts to which they are a party. If Lehman’s motion is granted, counterparties to transactions that have not been terminated will have very little time to react and will likely find themselves with new counterparties and no further recourse to Lehman because, by assigning contracts to third parties, Lehman will effectively receive, by normal operation of the Bankruptcy Code, a novation.”

The bankruptcy court process also allows for parties to terminate or “rip up” CDS contracts, something that has also been fully enabled by the DTCC. The bankruptcy can dispose and the DTCC will confirm.

BTW, while you folks in the Big Media churned out hundreds of thousands of words last week waxing euphoric about the prospect for enhanced back office clearing of CDS contracts, the real issue is the festering credit situation in the front office. Truth is that the DTCC and the other dealers, working at the behest of Mr. Geithner, Gerry Corrigan and many others, have largely fixed the operational issues dogging the CDS markets. The danger of CDS is not a systemic blowup - though that will come soon enough. It is the normal operation of the now electronically enabled CDS market wherein lies the threat to the entire global financial system, this via the huge drain in liquidity illustrated above as CDS contracts are triggered by default events.

The only way to deal with this ridiculous Ponzi scheme is bankruptcy. The way to start that healing process, in our view, is by the Fed emulating the FDIC’s treatment of DSL, withdrawing financial support for AIG and pushing the company into the arms of the bankruptcy court. The eager buyers for the AIG insurance units, cleansed of liability via a receivership, will stretch around the block.

By embracing Geithner, President-elect Barack Obama is endorsing the ill-advised scheme to support AIG directed by Hank Paulson et al at Goldman Sachs and executed by Tim Geithner and Ben Bernanke. News reports have already documented the ties between GS and AIG, and the backroom machinations by Paulson to get the deal done. This scheme to stay AIG’s resolution cannot possibly work and when it does collapse, Barak Obama and his administration will wear the blame due through their endorsement of Tim Geithner.

The bailout of AIG represents the last desperate rearguard action by the CDS dealers and the happy squirrels at ISDA, the keepers of the flame of Wall Street financial engineering. Hopefully somebody will pull President-elect Obama aside and give him the facts on this mess before reality bites us all in the collective arse with, say, a bankruptcy filing by GM (NYSE:GM).

You see, there are trillions of dollars in outstanding CDS contracts for the Big Three automakers, their suppliers and financing vehicles. A filing by GM is not only going to put the real economy into cardiac arrest but will also start a chain reaction meltdown in the CDS markets as other automakers, vendors and finance units like GMAC are also sucked into the quicksand of bankruptcy. You knew when the vendor insurers pulled back from GM a few weeks ago that the jig was up.

And many of these CDS contracts were written two, three and four years ago, at annual spreads and upfront fees far smaller than the 90 plus percent payouts that will likely be required upon a GM default. That’s the dirty little secret we peripherally discussed in our interview last week with Bill Janeway, namely that most of these CDS contracts were never priced correctly to reflect the true probability of default. In a true insurance market with capital and reserve requirements, the spreads on CDS would be multiples of those demanded today for such highly correlated risks. Or to put it in fair value accounting terms, pricing CDS vs. the current yield on the underlying basis is a fool’s game. Truth is not beauty, price is not value.

If you assume a recovery value of say 20% against all of the CDS tied to the auto industry, directly and indirectly, that is a really big number. The spreads on GM today suggest recovery rates in single digits, making the potential cash payout on the CDS even larger.

As Bloomberg News reported in August: “A default by one of the automakers would trigger writedowns and losses in the $1.2 trillion market for collateralized debt obligations that pool derivatives linked to corporate debt… Credit-default swaps on GM and Ford were included in more than 80 percent of CDOs created before they lost their investment-grade debt rankings in 2005, according to data compiled by Standard & Poor’s.”

At some point, Washington is going to be forced to accept that bankruptcy and liquidation, the harsh medicine used with other financial insolvencies, are the best ways to deal with the last, greatest bubble, namely the CDS market. When the end comes, it will effect some of the largest financial institutions in the world, chief among them Citigroup (NYSE:C), JPMorganChase (NYSE:JPM), GS and MS, as well as some large Euroland banks.

The impending blowback from a CDS unwind at less than face amount is one of the reasons that the financial markets have been pummeling the equity values of the larger banks last week. Any bank with a large derivatives trading book is likely to be mortally wounded as the CDS markets finally collapse. We don’t see problems with interest rate or currency contracts, by the way, only the great CDS Ponzi scheme is at issue - hopefully, if authorities around the world act with purpose on rendering extinct CDS contracts as they exist today. Call it a Christmas present to the entire world.

Indeed, as this issue of The IRA goes to press, news reports indicate that C is in talks with the Treasury for further financial support under the TARP, including a “bad bank” option to offload assets. [EDITOR: Already approved by Treasury and the Fed]. A bad bank approach may be a good model for applying the principle of receivership to the too-big-too fail mega institutions, but the cost is government control of these banks.

Q: Does a “bad bank” bailout for C by Treasury and FDIC qualify as a default under the ISDA protocols!?

We’ve been predicting that Treasury will eventually be in charge of C. On the day the government formally takes control, we say that Treasury should and hire FDIC to start selling branches and assets. Thus does the liquidation continue and we get closer to the bottom of the great unwind. Stay tuned.

Case-Shiller Home Price Index Fell Further Through September

The Case-Shiller Home Price Index fell further - the September 2008 data, released on Tuesday, shows a year over year drop of 17.4% for the national index.

The most alarming aspect of these numbers is that they go through September, given what we know about sudden and dramatic slowdown in the economy in October and November, there is virtually no doubt that the housing price free-fall is going to continue for at least the next two reports.

David Blitzer Discusses Case-Shiller Index

















Seattle Market Not As Bad - Down 9.8% Year over Year, Down 10.1% From Peak


Thursday, November 27, 2008

Happy Thanksgiving 2008

Happy Thanksgiving to all.

In the midst of this unprecidented financial turmoil, we have much to be thankful for.

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

Fast Money Interview With Laura D'Andrea Tyson November 24, 2008


Transcripts:
Fast Money Interview: Laura D’Andrea Tyson
Date: November 24, 2008

Dylan Radigan: We are joined now by a member of his (Obama) advisory community, Laura Tyson, former member of the Clinton Administration, joins us now from Berkeley California, where she is a professor at their school of business. And professor, we welcome you to the program.

Laura D’Andrea Tyson: Thanks a lot.

Dylan Radigan: What justifies in your mind the treatment of Citigroup today? In other words…maybe I shouldn’t ask the question that way. What is your opinion of the Citigroup deal today, knowing that, again, this is not your world, necessarily, that you’re not in charge of policy at this point, but you’re obviously an observer.

Laura D’Andrea Tyson: Right, right… Well, as an observer of policy, I think it’s very important to say that we are in an unprecedented, historic capital market crisis. That in such a crisis, and I heard some of the conversation just preceding on your program, uh, it’s not clear at all that market fundamentals are at play, there’s a lot of fear and panic at play. When there’s fear and panic at play, one of the things that must happen is that the large government balance sheet must be used to save institutions at risk, if those institutions are important to the system’s functioning. Citigroup is important to the system’s functioning, both in the United States and around the world. And we have to do whatever is necessary to bring the capital market system back into some normalcy of functioning. And that’s how I interpret what was done, announced over the weekend.

Dylan Radigan: If you look at the sidebar to it, however, which is the cost of capital being attractive to them, and in effect a subsidy many would argue for them, and that many executives including Bob Rubin, who’s one of your colleagues advising Barrack Obama, have managed to make hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars benefitting from this system of credit creation that now is coming out of the taxpayer’s hide. What is your view of that aspect of it?

Laura D’Andrea Tyson: I don’t think it’s appropriate to think about this as coming out of the taxpayer’s hide. I think what we have to say here, and this was said by President-elect Obama this morning. The interests of Wall Street and Main Street are one in this kind of crisis situation. Homeowners can’t get mortgages, students can’t get loans, people can’t get car loans, businesses can’t get loans to run. We need a Wall Street that is functioning…

Dylan Radigan: No one disputes that…

Laura D’Andrea Tyson: We need to look at…we need to look at this as a systemic bailout, I don’t even like the term bailout, an effort to restore normalcy to the system. When we look around the world at previous economic crisis, capital market crisis of this significance, and there are very few, it is normally the case that at some point the government balance sheet has to come in to back up the balance sheets of private institutions, and that’s how we should see this…


Dylan Radigan: Right, and but…my question, understood, and I don’t think…and I don’t contest any of that. What I was asking though, is that the individuals that helped create the structure that created the crisis paid themselves hundreds of millions of dollars, and now have come to the taxpayer for capital.

Laura D’Andrea Tyson: The point is, they haven’t come to the taxpayers for capital.


Dylan Radigan: No, they just created a system that forced their successors to do so.


Laura D’Andrea Tyson: The system… Look, there was a system in which everyone believed that housing prices would never go down. There was a system which allowed people to hedge their risk so that no one believed they had any risk. So you had a system creating an outcome. And I think it’s a mistake, I really think it’s a mistake, to look at individuals or individual institutions and say “there, that’s where the blame lies.”

Dylan Radigan: It’s not about the blame.


Laura D’Andrea Tyson: There is a systemic failure…


Dylan Radigan: no, it’s not about blame. Let me be clear though. It’s not about blame. Just the same as if I buy a house that I can’t afford inside of the system that you describe, the system is set up to remove that house from me because I actually never could afford that house, probably didn’t belong in it…

Laura D’Andrea Tyson: {interrupts} but you see

Dylan Radigan: let me finish, please. The same system allowed me to bonus myself a few hundred million dollars creating 40 Trillion dollars worth of credit for every Trillion that I had, and I really didn’t make that money either.

Laura D’Andrea Tyson: Here’s what I would say, here’s what I would say…It is very important right now, for the United States of America, for the President-elect, for the new Congress, for everyone on Main Street, to solve the problem we face. There is plenty of time in the future to try to un…to piece together how we got here… If we start focusing on that now, and take our eye off the ball of the stimulus package that needs to be passed..

Dylan Radigan: agreed…no contest

Laura D’Andrea Tyson: or of other possible…so…I don’t think the focus should be on individuals and their past compensation, I just don’t think that’s the focus…

Karen Finerman: Miss Tyson, it’s Karen Finerman…

Laura D’Andrea Tyson: I think the focus is the stimulus. Let’s talk about the stimulus, I mean how big should it be?

Karen Finerman: I’d like to talk about the stimulus…Can you tell me about…I’ve seen a bunch of different numbers, about whether it’s $500 Billion, $700 Billion. Can you give me a little more clarity, on what kind of stimulus, whether it’ll be a check right away like they did in May which seemed to have very short-lived results, will it be more of a long-term infrastructure type stimulus that requires a lot of planning to sort of, gear-up, some of both, is it a one-year or two-year package. What are you thinking?

Laura D’Andrea Tyson: Well I think, first of all, as we know the depth of the crisis and challenge we face, uh, is becoming more apparent. So that whereas just a few weeks ago, forecasters may have been predicting a first quarter where GDP, private demand, was down by 2%, now they’re predicting things like private demand is down by 4%. So what’s happening is the estimates of the size of a stimulus that could really make up for the absolute dramatic decline in private demand, the size of the stimulus is rising. People have been marking up the estimates from two to three to four; uh, I saw a recent report by a Goldman Sachs economist saying we should get up to six.

Dylan Radigan: no, and we understand…sorry to interrupt you, but we’re running a clock here. But I think the question everybody wants answered…on the stimulus…we know that there are many variables, and lots of things we do not know. These traders live it every day; we all live it every day.

Laura D’Andrea Tyson: Yes they do.

Dylan Radigan: So, we don’t need that information, quite honestly.

Laura D’Andrea Tyson: Ok, what information would you like?

Dylan Radigan: We would like the mathematical formula or set of principles you are utilizing to try to determine how much money you want to spend on our economy, understanding that it is changeable based on the dynamic nature of the data set.

Laura D’Andrea Tyson: I think we want to, I think my advice would be, we want a size in stimulus, uh, that basically is making up for the shortfall in domestic demand. So between two and four percent, between 300 and 600 billion dollars, would be my personal advice.

Now, what should it be?

President-elect Obama, who was one of the first to call for a second economic stimulus during the campaign, made it very clear what his priorities are, and he said them today. We need to make sure that we can invest in infrastructure. I disagree with the point made that we cannot roll out significant spending on infrastructure quickly. Look around at every local and state government in the country that is being forced to close down projects that are underway. You can keep those projects going, keep people employed.
So, that’s number one.

Number two, is energy, alternative energy. We really can do a lot with households, with businesses, to improve energy efficiency. There’s lots of things one can do with refurbishing buildings, refurbishing households, that cost money, it keeps people employed…
Fed Unveils Plan to Support Mortgages, Consumer Credit
Reuters and CNBC.com 25 Nov 2008 08:27 AM ET

The U.S. Federal Reserve, in another massive life-support intervention for the U.S. financial system, Tuesday announced a $600 billion program to buy mortgage-related debt and securities and a $200 billion facility to buy consumer debt securities.

The U.S. central bank said it would buy up to $100 billion in debt issued by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks, the government-sponsored mortgage finance enterprises.

The Fed also said it would buy up to $500 billion in mortgage-backed securities backed by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Ginnie Mae.

The move is intended to strike at the heart of U.S. economic woes, the collapsed housing market.

"This action is being taken to reduce the cost and increase the availability of credit for the purchase of houses, which in turn should support housing markets and foster improved financial conditions more generally," the Fed said in a statement.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/27906891

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

FOMC Minutes From October 28-29


Big revisions coming from the FOMC regarding economic projections.
The Fed moves incrementally most of the time, so the real news isn't necessarily the projections they're making, as there are probably more revisions to their projections upcoming, but the size of this revision is very large. The Fed essentially shaved 1 to 1.3% off of GDP projections for 2008, and anywhere from 1.7% to 2.2% off of 2009 GDP projections from the June 2008 projection. That is a huge miss. Huge.




Saturday, November 8, 2008

Obama's First 100 Days


Interesting video from CNBC's Fast Money
Transcript of Introduction: Voiceover by Dylan Radigan

1:50 Introduction:
January 20th, 2009. It’s your first day as President of the United States of America. And the briefing from your economic advisors sounds something like this:

The economy is contracting, both at home and abroad
People are losing their homes, at a record rate
The deficit stands at about a trillion dollars
And the capitalist system still in it’s worse shape since the Great Depression

And, by the way, there are two wars going on.

The expectations for President Obama’s solutions are as high as the challenges themselves. The first task will be what he does in the first hundred days. Many expect a speedy FDR-type game plan, in which Roosevelt passed fifteen major bills right off the bat aimed at jump starting the economy, regulating Wall Street, and creating jobs.

But Obama’s first moves may not be so sweeping, as spending will be hamstrung by a ballooning deficit. From Wall Street to Main Street, the eyes of the world are on Washington, D.C. right now. Fast Money has come here to find out what we can expect in Obama’s first hundred days.

3:06 Dylan Radigan: And joining us now, fresh out of that meeting in Chicago with Obama’s transition team, William Daley, former Secretary of Commerce, a long list of accomplishments for you Mr. Daley. I’m curious from an advisory standpoint how you are counseling the President elect. In other words, are you advising him to focus on stimulating infrastructure? Are you advising him to stimulate directly as the Bush Administration has? And what is your view on deficit spending as a mechanism to accomplish it?

3:41 William Daley: I think what you heard today at the meeting, what you heard from President elect Obama, is a commitment, only after only 72 hours of being President-elect, to making sure that this transition goes smoothly. Obviously, we have one Administration, we have one President until January 20th, and what President-elect Obama’s statement today indicates is a desire to make sure that the markets know, and the world knows, that the American economy will come back. He is strongly believing that we need a stimulus, as he said, sooner rather than later. If it doesn’t get done in lame-duck, it will get done first thing after he’s President, January 20th.

4:21 Dylan Radigan: Yeah, understood. But philosophically, as a member of that team, where do you come down on a view on stimulus, and a view on deficit spending.

4:33 William Daley: There’s no question that you’ve got to get stimulus moving, that’s a combination of short term and long term. If you believe that we are early in this recession, infrastructure stimulus is a good thing to do.

We listened to Mayor Villaraigosa today talk about the need for infrastructures, both cities and states are talking about. That’s longer term. But, short term, we’re going to need to do something about unemployment and other items, and I think the President elect is going to be very specific over not just during the transition, but more importantly as he prepares for the Presidency on January 20th.

5:08 Dylan Radigan: Yeah. Specifically, what is your view on tax policy, and how would you counsel the President-elect to view the use of taxes in the first hundred days.

5:20 William Daley: As the President elect said today, the tax cut for the middle class, and a very broad one, is an important part of his agenda, and an important part of stimulating the economy next year. Ah, he’s committed to it, and he’s prepared to make sure that that happens for the vast majority of people next year.

5:40 Dylan Radigan: What about taxes on capital. Both capital gains and otherwise. In other words, taxes on businesses, things that affect the flow of capital in the economy; capital that could indeed flow into alternative energy, flow into healthcare, all those sorts of things.

5:55 William Daley: Everyone wants to know the specifics for his Administration that starts in January. They’re not going to be laid out until he’s President. He’s been strong about the need to stimulate the economy, do that now; and prepare for an Administration, prepare for a program that begins to change these difficult…it took us a long time to get into these difficult times, and I think it will take us a while to get out. We all know it. We all know we have to go through a recession. The government’s got to be committed to making sure that this recession is not as deep as some predict it may be; but, no one can stop the difficulties that are coming. It’s just trying to slow them down, make ‘em not as deep, and shorten it. And those are steps that will be taken after January 20th.

6:39 Dylan Radigan: Understood, do you have a view as to how many jobs you think are at risk in this country?

6:44 William Daley: I think we’re going to continue as most of the people probably today predicting after today’s numbers, that this, that the numbers for the last month may not be the high point by any stretch. So I think we’re going to continue to see difficulties. But, this economy as we know, has gone through difficulties before; we will come out of this. The President-elect was very optimistic not only in the meeting today, about the American economy, and the opportunities that will present themselves; but we will go through some difficult times, no doubt about it. The numbers that we heard today, and the re-adjustment for last month, which may be as upsetting as the actual numbers this month, probably are not the low point for a while.

7:26 Dylan Radigan: And my last question for you: What is your view on how the U.S. Government should deal with the automakers?

7:31 William Daley: Well, I think the President-elect was very, also, very sympathetic today, to the difficulties of the auto companies. He has stated before, that he wants to see the auto companies and the autos of the future help us break the dependency on the oil that we’ve been on for all these years. And so he has been also very emphatic about the need to retool Detroit and make sure that the industry not only survives, but grows, and grows with the new energy needs of the country, not the old ones. So, I, I think you will see action by Congress, whether it passes or not, it remains to be seen.
8:12 Dylan Radigan: Alright, Mr. Secretary. I understand that you used to work out with Pete Najarian, so you must be a rather strong man. Ah, we appreciate your time with us today…