2008 What’s next

The

If you’re watching the and scratching your wondering what bomb hit the , you’re certainly alone. It’s rough out there. are losing their jobs, dreams are going up in smoke and is plummeting. Here’s why it’s happening and what it all means.

How did we get here?

By now you likely know that the in the is the culmination of years of reckless and dealmaking. It’s the final gasp of the burst . But how exactly did this happen?

To the root cause of ’s woes, you have to go to the collapse of a different - . In 2001, after the dotcom craze ended and the began, the started aggressively slashing short- rates to stave off . By eventually reducing rates to a low 1%, reinflated the . But this cheap sparked a wave of taking.

Homeowners, armed with easy , snapped up as if they were playing Monopoly. As prices soared, buyers were able to afford ever-larger only by taking out risky that lenders were happily approving with or .

At the same , banks got a brilliant : bundle the riskiest of these , then slice and dice these portfolios into tradable bonds to be sold to other banks and . Amazingly, bond-rating agencies slapped their highest ratings on the “best” of this .

This of cards came when subprime borrowers began defaulting on their . That sent prices tumbling, unleashing a domino effect on -backed securities. Banks and brokerages that had borrowed to boost the of those had to race to raise .

Some, like Merrill , were forced to sell. Others, like Lehman Brothers, weren’ so lucky. “What we always tell is beware of too much in a ,” says Brian Rogers, and for . Rowe . “ is the enemy of the .”

Sure, from Fed to your friends and neighbors played a role in stoking this casino . But troubled banks and brokerages can’ pass the blame. “These firms closed their eyes and made very bad bets on risky securities that they didn’ truly understand,” says Jeremy Siegel, professor at the of ’s Wharton . “ that they did have to led to their demise.”

How bad could the get?

Before the meltdown, economists fell into two camps: those who thought the had already slipped into and those who thought a could still be avoided.

While forecasters still differ on the timing and severity of a downturn, “the consensus is that we’re headed for and will be in until next ,” says Mark Zandi, chief for Moody’s ..

Corporate profits are already on the verge of falling for a fifth straight quarter, according to Thomson . The next shoe to will be spending. “Two years ago, were using their homes as ATMs, pumping out ,” says Arnott, of the Affiliates in Pasadena. “As banks continue to tighten their , that spending is disappearing.”

But softer profits and slower spending haven’ translated into widespread layoffs yet. “This is the strongest recessionary in 40 years,” says James Paulsen, chief strategist of Wells . A in unemployment could still be coming, especially given and failures and mergers. But outside of and , much of the of the is strong, he says.

The weak is boosting demand for our goods abroad, and lower prices are making Americans feel more flush. Add in the that has been hosing into the and we are bound to in 2009. “If all this stimulus has no effect on the , that would be a rarity indeed,” says Paulsen.

Standard &; Poor’s chief David Wyss expects a mild that ends next spring. “Gradually we will regain confidence in the . Lower prices and a falling trade deficit will help,” he says. “This is a panic, an .”

Of , that could if the panic abate soon. If banks remain too scared or broke to lend, would-be buyers will be frozen out of the . If that happens, values could fall even more, crimping confidence and putting the brakes on the ’s greatest engine: the .

Does all this mean I’ll pay higher ?

Yes. “ will rise regardless of who wins the Presidency,” predicts Greg Valliere, chief strategist for Stanford Co.

It’s impossible to say what the final bill for rescuing will be. Even before the bill to buy $700 billion of unwanted -backed , the had already signed on for nearly $365 billion in guarantees and other costs.

The eventual tag will depend in on the . If it recovers by 2010, the of -backed securities could rise, minimizing the tab for taxpayers, says Brian Bethune, chief U.S. for Global Insight.

“On the other ,” Bethune adds, “if the continues to into a deeper , dragging the along with it, then the costs to the taxpayers easily could escalate to several hundred billions of dollars.”

Under Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’s original -buyback proposal, some economists predicted the deficit could soar to $900 billion in 2009. Even without a , the was expected to hit $482 billion next . If aid pads that by $200 billion, the deficit will be to where it stood in the 1980s - around 5% of GDP. At the very least, that will it hard for a to keep -cut promises.


You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Comments are closed.