#1 – If you were advising President Obama, what would your #1 economic action item be? Ignore political viability, if possible.

On a “big picture” basis I would set an agenda that was clearly moving in a direction of unwinding many/all of the emergency measures that were introduced in 08. For confidence to be restored we have to get the sense that the crisis is behind us. There is nothing that can be done “tomorrow” that can magically restore home values and reduce unemployment. Bernanke will try to save the day with QE-2, but it will not work any better than QE-1 did. A short term benefit at most. Same with fiscal policy. We can have another stimulus and borrow another $1 trillion. That would give us a few quarters more of anemic growth. But after that we would fall off the shelf when the life support ends. Our policies appear to me to be a bridge to no-where. A smooth ride till the end of the ramp and then a crash.

I think the Europeans have it closer to “right” than we do. They are moving in the direction that I think is better if one is looking out five years and asking, “What do we want to look like?” We are headed in the direction of Japan. We will have 1% growth (disaster) and debt to GDP of 150% (death).

But you asked a narrow question. What would I do?

I think we do need a stimulus. But it has to be different this time. We need the private sector to pick up the slack. So let’s give them a chance. I want a one year (18 months?) Payroll tax holiday. That tax is currently 12.4%. For 2011 that tax will be equal to about $700 billion. A very big drag. I want to cut SS by 60% during the holiday. I want the reduction to be shared by workers and and their employers. I would have a ratio of 60% for the workers and 40% for the employers. I want to put $400b in the hands of the private sector. This is money that does not even get collected by D.C.. So the government can’t spend it. I believe that the 150 million American workers will make the best use of that extra $240B. They will spend some of it and they will save some of it. The companies that get a break will also spend it. I would require that the savings that the employers get have to be re-invested.

BUT. This has to be PayGo. This can be done. I estimate that a ~4 year cut of SS benefits for those who are getting checks now but also have taxable income in excess of ~$200k PA is required. I call this the Bill Gates/Warren Buffet tax. These guys do not need the extra 1500 a month SS is paying them. This is a means test. It taxes wealth. I do not like that, but it is necessary. We have to raise revenue.

The percentage of people that this would affect is small. Therefore it is politically “sale-able”. It is a significant change of the rules of SS. But those changes would be temporary. To attempt to make this “fairer” I would give those that lost benefits a tax credit. That tax credit would be available to offset (dollar for dollar) any federal estate taxes that would be due at death. What would this do? It would put more “wealth” back into the hands of the next generation. Everything we do robs from the next generation. This has the opposite impact. It puts more in the hands of our children.

Some would object to this. But my guess is that Bill and Warren and many others who would lose benefits would be happy to do so. Those that would be impacted by this have a great stake in America. These are the ones who have the most to lose if we fall into a debt spiral or a depression. They are getting the money, but only after they are dead.

Trust me. A $400b reduction in PR taxes would be a very effective stimulus. It would work. The economy would stabilize. But it must be paid for. If we just borrow and spend we will have accomplished nothing. Making it PayGo would instill confidence.If confidence is restored markets will improve and interest rates will return to more normal levels. Those that lost SS benefits would rejoice at that result.

Disclosure: I would lose my benefits if this plan were implemented.

#2 – You have written extensively about Social Security. Which aspect of this program do you feel is most misunderstood? How much of a threat are baby-boomers to entitlement programs?

Hmmm. Most misunderstood? There are so many aspect of this that are misunderstood.

The $2,500,000,000 Trust Fund has to be at the top of the list. I typed all the zeros to show just how big the number is. $2.5 Trillion. Hard to think of.

Some say there is no money or assets in the TF. That it was robbed by some prior administration. Many refer to it as a ponzi scheme. Just a fictional accounting scam.

Those on the extreme other side look at this as massive pile of AAA Treasury bonds that will mature and be available to pay scheduled benefits for the next 25 years or so. They think that SS is sound and nothing need be done about it.

Both of these views are wrong in my opinion. The bonds in the TF will be paid on time. They are legally just as sound as those held by the Chinese central bank. We exclude these debts when evaluating our current Debt/GDP ratios.  We are doing ourselves a disservice, this is real money that is owed.

But to honor these debts means that the Debt Held By the Public will increase $ for $. That can’t and will not happen. Yes there are real assets, and no they can’t be used without a (my word) disastrous consequence to the bond market. There is a limit to what can be sold. I think we are dangerously close to that limit today. Adding in another 2.5t will make us lose our AAA and our financing cost will go up. We will become Greece.

On the Boomers. They have been the problem for decades. This demographic bulge is probably our most significant medium term challenge. When the boomers were born they created a housing boom. That has not stopped until 2007. 2008 is the first year of the boomers getting to 65 folks. That is not a coincidence. The mcmansions, second and third homes are coming up for sale now. The boomers are downsizing. This will go on for many years.

While the boomers did pay a lot of taxes and funded the surpluses in SS they are now going to start costing us big time. The aging of our population is accelerating. We still have a decade to peak.

If the economy were growing by 4-5% we could afford this transition. But that is the least likely thing to happen. Because of the boomers, we will be lucky to grow at 1.5%. Should that be the case the boomers will sink the economy.

Resources are are scarce. Allocations will have to be made. It will not be pretty. We have the risk of “age warfare”. We may be faced with the choice, “Who do we protect?” The health and education of people 25 and younger, or the health and well being of those over 80. If we are faced with triage we will have to support the former over the latter.

Socially, we may be looking at a bad end for the boomers.

I am a boomer.

#3 – Reports of under-funded pensions at corporate, state, and federal levels are widespread. Are you concerned?

Not my area of expertise.  I read the reports as you do. I am certain they are right. We are on a train wreck with this. The problem is that there was an assumption about how quickly assets would grow (8%) and and how big future contributions will be. Both are wrong. The lines are crossing in public and private PFs all over the country.

Cuts will have to be made. But these were promises that were made in ink, so it will not be easy. To a very significant extent this is another boomer problem. I will repeat from above:

Socially, we may be looking at a bad end for the boomers.

#4 – Could you briefly sum up your thoughts on U.S. equities?

Briefly? What a tough assignment.

There are today some excellent investment opportunities in the capital markets. That will be the case every day for the next ten years. But I don’t know what they are and if I did I would not share them. Those that “share” are just selling their book. I am convinced of one thing:

THE “BUY AND HOLD” IS DEAD. DEAD. DEAD….

Thanks to Bruce for taking the time. He’s one of the more level-headed and knowledgeable finance bloggers out there, and has the real-world experience many of us lack.

This documentary was no small production. It’s a Sony Pictures Classics documentary. Matt Damon narrates.

And judging by the trailer, this doc looks more daring than previous examinations of the crisis. TBTF was good, but I got the feeling Mr. Sorkin had to bite his tongue on several issues, in order to ensure access to key figures. Not his fault, it’s how the system works.

Film opens Oct 8 in NY and Oct 15 in LA. When it opens here, I’ll be there. Mini corn-dogs and Cherry Coke in hand. My annual trip to the movie theater.

Hat tip to reader jail time.

Exhibit A:

The gold chart below was included in a recent post by John Ameriks of Vanguard. It shows gold prices over the last 139 years (1871-2010), adjusted for inflation.

The intent behind these types of charts is clear. It makes gold look very bubbly indeed.

Mr. Ameriks furthers his bearish gold argument thusly:

Bottom line: Any value that gold has as an investment appears, historically, to have accrued to investors who had a position prior to certain episodes of economic or financial distress. And to generate truly eye-popping returns from a gold-based strategy, you’d have needed to be selling at the peaks of these past price spikes, not buying.

The basis for making an investment in gold now is a conviction that the worst is yet to come. I’m not saying it can’t happen. But looking at how far these prices have come already, and thinking about the kinds of truly disastrous events that are included in this 140-year period, I’m skeptical.

First off — Yes, of course the worst is yet to come. Have you heard about the state of state governments? The double dip is getting rolling, and QE 2.0 is right around the corner. For more on that see this must-read piece from DoctorHousing Bubble.

And regarding the use of long-term charts to predict future prices, it is folly. In 1472 the inflation adjusted price of silver is around $800/ounce.  Is it headed back there any time soon? No, though I would welcome the move.

I did a more thorough writeup on why gold bears are wrong over at WealthDaily.com.

Born had all the experience one could ask for in such a post. She was the first female president of the Stanford Law Review.

She worked as a lawyer specializing in derivatives at her former-firm. Yet, ultimately her campaign to regulate these contracts was denied by Robert Rubin, Larry Summers, and Alan Greenspan.

We know that unregulated derivatives played a key role in the crisis. They’re at the heart of the TBTF problem.Watch PBS’s excellent documentary The Warning for more.

Geithner plays the role of Rubin

Now Tim Geithner, Rubin’s protege, is trying to block the appointment of Elizabeth Warren as head of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Coincidence warning: Warren’s competitors for the job include another Bob Rubin protege, Michael S. Barr. He served as special assistant to the Mr. Rubin, and as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Treasury.

Huffington Post broke the story on Geithner’s opposition to Warren. Their source is reportedly “familiar with Geithner’s views”. Excerpt:

Warren’s persistent oversight is part of the reason for Geithner’s opposition, according to the source

We shouldn’t be surprised to learn that Geithner fears a regulator who “persistently oversees”. The horror.

The Agency Warren Should Lead

Elizabeth Warren should be the clear front runner to head the CFPB. In 2007 she wrote a paper titled Unsafe at Any Rate, which strongly influenced to new agency’s creation. She’s the most knowledgeable, honest, and motivated candidate we have.

Yet Geithner, sworn to serve the American people as Treasury Sec. doesn’t want her in the post? Some guesses as to why:

1. She’s a lawyer who understands the complex issues at hand.
2. She seems determined to enact real change in America’s broken TBTF banking system.
3. She’s smarter than him.
4. She asks questions that make Tim squirm, as seen below:

Denying Mrs. Warren this chance  would be a historic mistake.

She knows what needs fixing in our broken financial system, especially as it relates to TBTF banks. Banks that are massively subsidized by ultra-low interest rates, lax capital requirement, and guarantees both implied and explicit.

The new agency will exist under the Fed. Obviously, that’s not ideal. But it’s all we have at this point. Having Warren in there to keep an eye on the boys would be a huge step.

I got the chance to see Elizabeth Warren speak at last year’s Buttonwood conference. She is sharp as a tack and asks all the right questions. Unlike most other speakers, she didn’t shy away from criticizing banks. Here are a few quotes:

The reason banks lost confidence in each other is because they looked at their own books. (in reply to a question about cross-exposure among banks).

What we have confidence in is the fact that big institutions will be bailed out. (in reply to a question about the importance of economic confidence).

At the time (Oct ’09), I wrote:

Unfortunately, Mrs. Warren’s position is toothless; her role has no enforcement authority, after all.

This would prove to be a recurring theme throughout the conference. The speakers with the best ideas were usually in no position to act on them. Power-players like Summers and Geithner said little of substance, dodging the best questions.

Let’s not allow Elizabeth Warren to become the next Brooksley Born. If you want to get involved, contact your local representative and let them know you support the nomination of Elizabeth Warren as head of the CFPB .

More:

• Naked Capitalism
• WaPo
• WSJ

hat tip Shahien Nasiripour @ HuffPo

• He has little confidence in new cap and relief wells
• ‘We know the formation is destroyed, they destroyed it while drilling’
• ‘You cannot seal a blownout formation from the top or bottom’
• ‘Can’t seal a tire with 50 holes in it through the valve stem’
• Recommends drilling 8 total relief wells to relieve pressure

I don’t pretend to possess the expertise necessary to judge Mr. Landau’s claims. For me, his commentary is food for thought, and provides some balance against the rose-tinted views presented by BP and Wall Street analysts.

We should welcome outside perspectives on the Macondo well blowout. After all, official oil flow-rate estimate were still 5,000 bpd when NPR investigations suggested 50-100k bpd. We know now that the BP/govt numbers were likely underestimating flow by 10x. Whether this lowballing was intentional is secondary to the fact that it may have hampered response efforts.

We need input from independent experts. When they’re wrong, it will be refuted. If they’re right, it may assist response and containment efforts.

Here’s the interview with Mr. Landau. It’s worth a watch, plus it has some of the better leak footage I’ve seen so far. My advice: Consume with salt, but consider.

I did some quick research on Mr. Landau to make sure he is at least quasi-legit, and am happy to report he passed a quick PH test. He’s an oil & gas geologist with drilling experience, and has some rather unorthodox theories outside of the Macondo well.

I checked out a few of his peer-reviewed papers. And they’re quite intriguing. Chris is a proponent of Inorganic Oil Theory (inorganic, as opposed to fossil). Some of his peer-reviewed work on that can be found in PDF form here on page 94 and here on page 17. It’s a little chemistry-heavy, but there’s some good meat there.

Inorganic oil is an intriguing prospect. It’s not as if fossil fuels would be the first ubiquitous knowledge to be debunked.

Disclosure: I own BP puts

Jan ’12 BP LEAP puts expire 566 days from today (7/14/2010). That’s a lot of time for something to go wrong.

For example, there will be two hurricane seasons between then and now. Just one poorly-placed hurricane could push millions of gallons of crude further into sensitive areas along the Gulf Coast, multiplying the eventual bill for BP. Warm water conditions mean NOAA is forecasting an abnormally high 13-23 named storms in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010.

Potential Profit from BP Puts

Let’s use Jan ’12 $2.50 BP puts as an example. They closed with an ask price of $0.16 today. One hundred contracts at that price would cost $1600 + commission. Each put gives its holder the right to sell 100 shares of BP stock at $2.50 on date of expiration (Jan 21 2012 in this case).

If BP shares are wiped out, the maximum potential profit on 100 $2.50 puts would be $23,138 (assuming a $.02 share price at option expiration). Max loss is the initial cost of the puts, $1600 + commission.

So the max ROI would be 1446%, or around 14x the initial investment. BP filing for bankruptcy is still a highly hypothetical scenario, but I think the risk/reward ratio is good here.

The fact that you can make 14x your money on these options means investors are essentially betting on a 1 in 14 chance of BP going bust by the expiration date, Jan 21 2012. I think there’s more like 1 in 4 chance of bankruptcy, hence the bet.

Buying the $2.50 puts is an aggressive strategy. It’s betting on total disaster. A more conservative strategy use puts closer to the money ($15, $25, etc). The potential upside would be less, but it’s a little bit safer. I own a few different 2012 strikes, including some $2.50s.

BP is an international giant with deep pockets and political clout to match. But its risks are high too. The litigation costs alone will be staggering. Other potential potholes include legislation, reputation, well casing degradation, environmental devastation, and other “ations” we have yet to fully grasp.

On the legislation front,  today the U.S. House Natural Resources Committee passed an amendment which could effectively ban BP from future offshore drilling leases. More on that over at Bloomberg BusinessWeek.

For BP, it all adds up to unknown liabilities, slower growth, and higher drilling costs going forward (no more shortcuts, hopefully). That’s why I think that even a behemoth like BP could buckle under the weight of this mess.

Bankruptcy Scenario

One big question that would emerge from a BP bankruptcy is how claim seniority is handled. Would bondholders and other creditors retain seniority over economic and environmental claims?

I’m guessing common shareholders would be wiped. But a Bear Stearns-esque buyout, with Exxon or Shell reprising the role of J.P. Morgan and U.K. gov’t subbing in for the Yanks is certainly possible. We won’t know until the situation plays out and the full extent of the damage is known.

Further harm to BP investors would be unfortunate. It’s a staple of retirement funds and the demise would have widespread financial impact. However, if it comes down to a lack of funds at some point, it would be an even greater tragedy to punish innocent parties adversely affected by the spill, and shortchange cleanup efforts in favor of investors. An investment comes with risks, always. If someone has to suffer, it’s gotta be stakeholders of the at-fault party.

But that probably won’t happen based on what I’ve read. In the fallout from asbestos/mesothelioma bankruptcies, creditors were placed above victims in most cases (as I understand it). More on that here.

Disclosure: Long BP puts including Jan 2012 $2.50s.
Note: This is NOT financial advice. It is provided for informational purposes only.

Anyone else got ideas? This market is obnoxious.

I’ve never traded futures, but this does seem pretty sketchy. I’ve followed Karl for a while, and he is a smart dude. Any other explanations for those bids appearing like that? You gotta assume huge bids like that could mess with the lesser algos, at least.

NYT’s homepage highlights BP CEO Tony Heyward’s yachting trip (taken 6/20/2010 3:50pm EST, crude MS paint additions in red are mine):

London’s Sunday Times fires back with “Obama’s Golf Days Fuel BP Row” (requires login) on their homepage (SS taken on 6/20/2010 around 4:00pm. Once again, the crude MS paint additions are mine.)

Both are bone-headed moves. Everyone should be focused on this disaster, especially considering what we’ve learned over the past few weeks. 100,000 barrels per day and possible well casing failures dictate that.

Watching this situation play out will be both fascinating and nauseating. One of the biggest questions going forward may prove to be:  Is BP too dangerous to exist? I’m starting to think so. Their safety record is horrific.

BP continued to cut corners even after recent disasters, as the NYT points out here. In contrast, after the Valdez incident, Exxon transformed their culture into one where OCD-level safety concern is encouraged. I’m starting to think BP shouldn’t even be entrusted with the relief wells and a head-role in the cleanup efforts.

Disclosure: I am short BP and own long-dated, out of the money puts).