Media Appearance: Fox Business News
Good morning.
I have a date today with the lovely Alexis Glick, discussing the Fed, the markets reaction to it, and what it might mean for the future. Sometime between 9:00 am and 9:30, we'll have a short chat.
This is my first visit to Fox Business News.
It should be interesting . . .
~~~
UPDATE: January 31, 2008 9:58am
(Videos below)
That was interesting. The FBN crew seems to be rather aware of the economic problems -- much more so than my last visit.
My favorite part of doing these shows is not the 5 minutes I get to spit out to sentences, but rather, the people I bump into in the Green Room. Today, it was Charles Payne, and of Liz McDonald of Forbes.
Video: The Big Picture
Video: How Low Can the Fed Go?
Thursday, January 31, 2008 | 08:45 AM | Permalink
| Comments (28)
| TrackBack (0)
add to de.li.cious | 
digg this! | 
add to technorati | 
email this post
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/763/25661780
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Media Appearance: Fox Business News:
Comments
I know you have to play the sane role, but don't be too easy on them...
Posted by: Justin | Jan 31, 2008 8:52:00 AM
Tell it like it is.
Posted by: Lars | Jan 31, 2008 9:07:07 AM
Now you'll be able to tell us whether the Fox newsreaders come packaged in plastic clam shells from the factory! Just don't touch the big blonde hair.
Posted by: Ragnar | Jan 31, 2008 9:23:42 AM
Keep the transporter locked on you, in case you need to beam back to reality in a hurry.
Posted by: ottnott | Jan 31, 2008 9:27:52 AM
In all fairness to Mr Bernanke, being at the helm of the Fed means you are always exposed to the heat. On the other hand, nobody forced him to get in the kitchen...
To make a long story short, I believe Mr Bernanke is obsessed by the 1929-1937 period. He also knows that the market knows and the market lately has been be mutating into a different animal each week. One day it looks like a teddy bear, a week later it's a grizzly.
So afraid is Mr Bernanke that the economy might fall victim of another great depression that he's prone to panic. He shoots 125 base points in the dark without aiming, at the slightest market movement. The problem is at this rate, if the big bad bear really shows-up, he won't have any ammo left.
But what would anybody else do given the current situation? I wonder. Maybe Mr Bernanke is right in thinking that we might be on the verge of a meltdown. If he looks at the same data as I am, maybe he has every reason to panic...
Posted by: Steelduck | Jan 31, 2008 9:31:27 AM
Barry,
Will they ever allow you back on CNBC after this??
Posted by: Indian | Jan 31, 2008 9:33:06 AM
Fox Business WHAT?
Posted by: cinefoz | Jan 31, 2008 9:33:13 AM
enjoy the make up!
Posted by: UrbanDigs | Jan 31, 2008 9:46:48 AM
I don't get Fox Biz, so to entertain myself for the interium, anybody have any unique insights to "Bank Reserves Go Negative" that were not covered in Mish's post? http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2008/01/bank-reserves-go-negative.html
Posted by: dukeb | Jan 31, 2008 9:58:48 AM
Barry,
Make sure to have snappy response ready for when they ask you to comment on the Defeatocrats evil plan to destory Bushs tax cuts and destroy America.
Posted by: Northern Observer | Jan 31, 2008 10:04:20 AM
What Steelduck said.
Sure hope Barry's realism goes over with the 23 people watching Fox Business. Movers and shakers all, plus Neil Cavuto.
Posted by: dark1p | Jan 31, 2008 10:21:20 AM
Now they are pumping a bank stock on CNBC... This is getting to be more and more like Dot-com crash territory.
Posted by: Justin | Jan 31, 2008 10:31:46 AM
And where is "The Sweater"? Hrrrmph.
Posted by: MarkM | Jan 31, 2008 10:43:58 AM
Fox Business News? What happens to this site if you turn into a pillar of salt?
Posted by: The Dirty Mac | Jan 31, 2008 10:44:05 AM
I give up...white flag. 100% cash. I am too nervous to short an index. I like to sleep at night.
What will it take to get the market moving up? Corporate earnings haven't been all that bad (excluding financials). Jobs were horrible. GDP was horrible. Housing prices continue to go down.
But, what good news do we need to see in order to break this down trend? What will be the catalyst?
Posted by: mike e. | Jan 31, 2008 10:54:28 AM
Mike.. You're going to need a load a patience. Fundamentals aren't good enough to take us up, sentiment is too bearish to go lower. We grind sideways, wearing bulls and bears out. Maybe a good environment to sell premium on options.
Posted by: SteveC. | Jan 31, 2008 11:03:54 AM
I missed it
Were you bullish on America?
Did you back McCain for Pres? Back waterboarding?
Posted by: Scot | Jan 31, 2008 11:23:25 AM
Barry,
Wasn't the last ratings report leaked onto the net?
As I recall, Fox Business News had something like an average of 6,300 viewers per day, which was a huge disapointment to the mgmt. CNBC has like 4,000% more viewers on ave per day.
Fox has been trying to keep the disapointing ratings under wraps.
Posted by: Christopher Laudani | Jan 31, 2008 11:41:32 AM
Hey, weren't Annette and Frankie into waterboarding?
Mike E.--give it a week or two and see if we aren't higher at that point. Then consider putting some of your dough into a bear index fund and park it for the long-ish haul. It's easier on your psyche if you treat going short like an investment. Short-term gyrations are less stressful. And over the next couple of years, you'll probably do very well.
Just a thought.
Posted by: dark1p | Jan 31, 2008 11:42:56 AM
@dukeb
I've been looking at the same data and talking with some monetary economists. They tend to say it's just a question of labels. Repurchasing agreements outstanding were lowered as the Term Auction Facility was created. The net free category seemed like the most alarming one because it was so steady for so long and it factors in required reserves. Economists tell me it was steady because borrowed reserves were low and now they're up because of the TAF, and the same banks, or their close friends, that get repos are getting TAF loans. The difference is that the Fed is taking CMOs and even some CDOs as collateral for TAF loans instead of more liquid collateral. But the question of low reserves and low levels of vault cash troubles me. I'm not an expert and economists tell this is no big deal. There was a change in the 1990s having to do with sweep accounts and reserves were lowered. The bottom line, I'm told, is not to count on reserves but the FDIC and banking regulations to protect deposits. The charts from the St. Louis Fed are only updated on a monthly basis. Last time I looked at the H.3, the net free category was negative more than $39 billion. Is it just a question of labels? Have bank reserves turned negative as Mish says? Or were reserves always negative or nearly so and the fact obscured because repurchasing agreements were categorized as nonborrowed? My personal opinion is that there was a significant qualitative shift from nonborrowed to borrowed reserves.
Posted by: lenny | Jan 31, 2008 11:50:32 AM
Lenny: Thanks for that perspective...appreciated. My gut feeling when reading Mish's post and the lack of alarm elsewhere, was that it's probably looking under one shell in a 3-shell game that the house likely wins more often than not. But who knows for sure. (Not me.)
Posted by: dukeb | Jan 31, 2008 11:58:55 AM
The bottom line, I'm told, is not to count on reserves but the FDIC and banking regulations to protect deposits.
At the end of 2006 the FDIC had ~50 billion in reserves on 4+ Trillion in insured deposits.
As far as for regulations....what regulations? Glass-Steagall was officially killed in 1999 after it was systematically dismantled over the previous 66 years.
Better come up with a plan B.
Posted by: Kp | Jan 31, 2008 1:18:16 PM
"Today, it was Charles Payne, and of Liz McDonald of Forbes."
And there you are hob-knobbing with the rich and famous. You lucky devil.
Please inform FBN that their Saturday block sucks. Thank you.
Posted by: Pat Gorup | Jan 31, 2008 2:05:00 PM
Good lord Barry just how old are you? Bumping into Alexis Glick has to be the highlight of the day no matter how many Charles Payne's and Liz McDonald's are in the Green Room
Posted by: Michael Donnelly | Jan 31, 2008 3:33:22 PM
Agreed. Alexis is a sweetie. I wish I was able to get FBN, but alas, I cannot. I have to believe its better than Cramer.
Posted by: Mike | Jan 31, 2008 5:19:24 PM
Initial Claims totaled a much higher than expected 375k, 56k more than the consensus and the highest since Feb '04 not including after Katrina in Sept '05. This is now what the Fed is fighting, a potential deterioration in the labor market and it's this # that the S&P futures are responding to. The Labor Dept did say the MLK holiday distorted seasonal adjustments. The 4 week avg rose to 326k from 316k. Continuing Claims rose by 47k. The Q4 Employment Cost Index rose .8%, in line. Dec Income rose .5% and Spending rose .2%, both .1% more than expected and the PCE core deflator rose .2%, in line. Headline PCE also rose .2%, so Real Spending for Dec was flat.
Posted by: Peter Boockvar | Jan 31, 2008 5:23:34 PM
Barry,
I can't believe the Fox channel is either "News" or honest - beware when they start touting stocks not because they are good investments, but because the CEO is a huge Republican fundraiser.
It's sad to see you appearing there.
Posted by: Nikkt | Jan 31, 2008 7:01:38 PM
Oh yes. Fox Business News, what a bastion of journalistic integrity that must be ! It's very enlightening watching the pathetic Fox Saturday morning business shows when the market was melting down in early January, and their shows were barely covering the reasons for it. I think they were blaming Hillary's crying in New Hampshire for the stock market annihilation. Subprime slime, anyone? Barely got a mention.
Oh and Barry, when you see Charles Payne can you ask about his bullish views on housing stocks back in October? Amazing how ya get invited back again and again with such astoundingly bad stock suggestions.
Posted by: Todd | Jan 31, 2008 9:14:42 PM
