Strong investor demand for junk bonds has pushed the average price on such corporate debt to its highest level since June 2007, when companies could borrow with ease at the height of the credit boom, the Financial Times reports.
The Big Picture blogger is outraged that we think Fannie and Freddie played a central role in causing the financial crisis.
Money is flowing faster into bonds at this stage than did with the dotcom bubble of the late 1990s. But that might not be bad for Treasury investors.
It seems to me that the debate about the pending expiration of the Bush tax cuts boils down to a very difficult choice between two bad outcomes. Despite what some politicians would have us believe, extending the cuts will adversely affect a very bad deficit situation.
You can argue the deficit battle must wait until the economy is on more solid footing, but you cannot argue that the tax debate does not have significant impact on the deficit.
“In the late summer of 2008, as Lehman Brothers teetered at the edge, a bell tolled for Wall Street,” so writes Roger Lowenstein in his book, "THE END OF WALL STREET." The bell may have sounded, in 2008, but for those who were really listening, there were warning signs of a financial crisis long before the summer of 2008.
While tax rates might have some impact at the margin, I think hiring is driven primarily by the state of business. If a businessperson sees growing demand for his/her products or services and if that growing demand can only be satisfied by the addition of employees, then the businessperson will hire more employees. To not do so would allow the business to stagnate or would allow more aggressive competitors to take market share.
It's a bad time to repeal the Bush tax cuts. I used to agree, but now I’m not so sure. I’m not saying I disagree, just that I’m not so sure. I started to think about it more when I readthat Alan Greenspan supports the complete expiration of the Bush tax cuts.
Mr. Greenspan is wading into the most fierce economic policy debate in Washington — what to do with the tax cuts adopted, in large part because of his implicit backing, under President George W. Bush — with a position not only contrary to Republican orthodoxy, but decidedly to the left of President Obama.
The US economy is in the middle of a pause in a modest recovery that feels like a "quasi-recession," Alan Greenspan, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve, said Sunday.
Wall Street’s focus this week turns to second-quarter earnings announcements, and I can tell you that my contacts on the Street are worried.
Today and tomorrow, Maria Bartiromo will host CNBC’s Closing Bell live from Aspen Ideas Festival. Over the last 50 years, this gathering has become the place for global leaders to come and gather at the one of the world's most beautiful spots to discuss the most innovative ideas and the most pressing issues.
Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said the recent stock market decline is “typical” of a recovery, and that international instability has more to do with the selloff than problems in the US.
When Ben Bernanke testified a couple of days ago before the House Budget Committee, he gave a fairly upbeat forecast of 3.5 percent growth this year, and somewhat stronger growth in 2011. Okay, fine.
As the House and Senate begin merging their separate bills into a single bill, they still have a chance to make some important improvements. Here are four issues to watch in coming weeks. The NYT explains.
Before we blame Greenspan for the past bubble and bust, it is worth reiterating that of course there was a lot of blame to go around in this area.
Ask almost anybody in the money business, including the bulk of the investor class, and they will tell you that budget deficits drive up interest rates. I’m here to tell you that is wrong. It may seem reasonable, but it’s still wrong.
The system is projected to pay out more in benefits this year than it receives in taxes, a tipping point toward insolvency that was not expected before 2016.
In his most detailed examination of the causes of the financial crisis, Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman, acknowledges that the Fed failed to grasp the magnitude of the housing bubble but argued that its policy of low interest rates from 2002 to 2005 did not cause the bubble.
I was a bit surprised to read an excerpt from former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's new book, that depicted Lockhart as "nervous" in those crucial few days leading up to the takeover of Fannie and Freddie and very reluctant to put the two into conservatorship. Paulson called the FHFA a "weak regulator," and seemed to imply the same of Lockhart.