“Words from the Wise” this week comes to you in a shortened format as I do not have access to my normal research resources while on the road in Europe (also see my post “Gone A.W.O.L. - to Slovenia and Switzerland“). Although very little commentary is provided, a full dose of excerpts from interesting news items and quotes from market commentators is included.

While investors’ hopes of an economic recovery might have got ahead of reality, the cartoonists continually reminded us of worrisome issues …

Source: Signe Wilkinson, Washington Post,  June 18, 2009.

The past week’s performance of the major asset classes is summarized by the chart below - a mixed bag so to speak.

Source: StockCharts.com

A summary of

...

The following are some thought-provoking articles I have read over the past few days that readers may also find of interest:

• John Hussman (Hussman Funds): Banks pass stress test - regulators fail ethics test, May 11, 2009. In short, these bailouts are emphatically not neutral to society as a whole, because they damage incentives and divert productive resources into hands that have proven themselves to be reckless and incapable. To believe that the bailouts are just money we owe to ourselves is to overlook serious ethical implications, as well as distributional and incentive effects.

• Ambrose Evans-Pritchard (Telegraph): Enjoy the rally while it lasts - but expect to take a sucker punch, May 10, 2009. Our delicious spring rally is nearing the limits. The 40% rise on global bourses since March assumes that central banks have conjured away the debt

...

By Michael McKee and Matthew Benjamin

April 17 (Bloomberg) — The Obama administration’s bank- rescue efforts will probably fail because the programs have been designed to help Wall Street rather than create a viable financial system, Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz said.

“All the ingredients they have so far are weak, and there are several missing ingredients,” Stiglitz said in an interview yesterday. The people who designed the plans are “either in the pocket of the banks or they’re incompetent.”

The Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, isn’t large enough to recapitalize the banking system, and the administration hasn’t been direct in addressing that shortfall, he said. Stiglitz said there are conflicts of interest at the White House because some of Obama’s advisers have close ties to Wall Street.

“We don’t have enough money, they don’t want to go back to Congress, and they don’t want to do it in an open way and

...

Notes from the Investment Underground Friday, April 17, 2009 Palermo Viejo, Buenos Aires, Argentina

Here comes subprime II… 3 toxic time bombs to come… The Richebächer legacy lives on… “Scamonomics” explored… Goldman bites the hand that feeds it… TARP loses 75% of taxpayers’ money… How to get $4,201 in your pocket by June 4… Banks’ top 4 accounting gimmicks… Short squeeze pushes market higher… John O’Neill on government’s deceit… James Dale Davidson: How to grab 19% yields on Treasurys (if you’ve got government connections)…  And more!

*** Rob Parenteau, the editor of the reincarnated Richebächer Letter, warns that we are in for the second wave of these toxic mortgages ahead. The first time subprime mortgages reset at a higher rate was in 2008 and the subsequent flurry of defaults sent banks into a tailspin.

Well, get ready, warns Rob. We still have “Option ARM” and “Alt-A” loan resets

...

The IMF Senior Regional Representative For Central Europe and the Baltics, Christoph Rosenberg, recently a href="http://www.rgemonitor.com/euro-monitor/254975/why_the_imf_supports_the_latvian_currency_peg"took me to task on RGE Monitor about my Latvian devaluation proposal/a (as did a href="http://www.rgemonitor.com/economonitor-monitor/254905/devaluation_in_latvia_why_not"RGE's own Mary Stokes/a), and I would like now to take a closer look at some of the points they raise.br /br /In the first place, I would like to say that I obviously regard both Chrisoph and Mary as excellent economists, and I was in no way refering to them when I said that arguing in favour of sticking to the present currency peg constitutes trying to justify “virtually the unjustifiable” according to “the implicit consensus among thinking economists.” I do still hold that the consensus is with me, but that certainly does not mean I regard those who differ from me as "unthinking", and certainly hope I didn't give the impression that I was. And with that little ...