We’ve survived the tech bubble and the housing bubble, but are we headed for something more catastrophic than either of those? Some experts are beginning to fear the worst.

Let’s review recent financial events. The meltdown in the global financial markets created a wave of panic and a surge of money has poured into what has always been considered safe—short-term U.S. Treasury securities. This basically means that investors are willing to put faith in and lend money to the government. Primarily because, even though our national debt stands at staggering $10.59 trillion, and is still growing, the U.S. has never failed to meet a debt payment. This sudden appetite for Treasuries has driven yields down to their lowest levels since the Great Depression.

Over the past couple of months, the Feds have funneled massive amounts into bailout packages upsetting the government’s balance sheet. When you add a soaring U.S. deficit into the mix, you get a situation that’s causing sleepless nights for anyone that’s paying attention.

How Low Can They Go?

We’ve been waiting to see just how low interest rates on Treasury securities could go before the rapid stream of investments would dry up. It now appears that even zero is not too low. One day during the second week of December, the annualized yield on three-month T-bills in the secondary market hit the minus zero level, down to negative 0.01%, then later that same day it rose to positive 0.01%.

This means that investors are so fearful of the markets, but still have enough faith that the U.S. government, they are willing to risk getting less money upon maturity than they originally invested, and earn no interest along the way.

The Treasury hasn’t had to auction new T-bills at a negative rate yet, but on December 8, they actually sold $30 billion in four-week T-bills at a yield of exactly zero. Anyone who bought those can sell them in four weeks, but not for one penny more than they paid for them. At that rate, you could have just as easily stuffed a fistful of $100 bills into a coffee can and buried it in the back yard.

You might be wondering who would be willing to buy Treasury debt for little or no return? It turns out that there were plenty lined up to buy—some who probably no longer have back yards—so many in fact that the Feds reportedly could have sold up to four times as much as they did. Actually, while there are plenty of individual investors, it’s the big institutional investors like pension funds, and international central banks that are the biggest players in the market for Treasury securities.

How Long Can it Last?

There is so much money shifting into Treasuries, it can’t last forever. Investors seem to be pouring money into government securities with the same fervor that they did during the housing surge and the dotcom mania. U.S. government debt has always been considered the safest investment in the world. But now some fear the Treasury market is venturing into bubble territory.

The big question becomes, “How long can it last?” Were a bubble of this size to implode, there wouldn’t be enough sand bags in the world to stop the flood of money that would come gushing out. When the torrent was over, there would be so little left in the Treasury coffers, the government would be forced to pay higher rates on their burgeoning debt.

Our Foreign Debt Holders If such a day of reckoning is coming, it would be a devastating blow to the economy, and the dollar. At the first sign of the stock market entering a sustained period of recovery, investors would shy away from low-yield Treasuries. The Fed could then be forced to monetize Treasury securities, or else boost the rates higher.

But China and other foreign countries hold a major chunk of U.S. debt. In fact, about half of the nation’s $5.3 trillion in publicly traded debt is held by countries like Japan and China. That means a significant down shift in Treasury prices would lead to the decline of the US dollar, a threat of hyper-inflation and finally, a depression.

And yet, even though the U.S. has the dubious distinction of having kicked off the firestorm of global economic meltdown, our government bonds are still considered the safest investments in the world.

What’s in Store?

Just like we all thought that the price of homes could only go up, we now know that it’s that kind of irrational exuberance that blind us what’s coming. Jim Grant of Grant’s Interest Rate Observer recently commented on CNBC, “There’s more risk in things people think are inherently safe, including cash and Treasuries, vs. the things people perceive as risky.”

It appears that even though Treasury yields are at an all time low, even institutional investors are more concerned about preserving capital than they are in getting higher returns. Treasury interest rates are already at or near zero.

If things get worse, and they slip further into negative return territory, would investors actually be willing to pay the government to hold their money for safe keeping? So far, there is no indication that things will get that dire. Although, since none of the rules we’ve lived by these past few decades seem to apply anymore, we can’t speculate on the future.

We think that Treasury interest rates will probably remain low until some time mid-2009, or at least until the recession begins to lighten up. If the skittish market keeps the fear factor alive, people will keep moving money into the Treasury for safekeeping, low interest rates or not.

Jose Roncal
http://www.articlesbase.com/finance-articles/treasuries-the-next-bubble-686511.html

Dear Ms. Luger,

After reading your letter dated January 6, 2009 which was sent to the Independent Business News Network (IBNN), it is apparent that the General Mills Foundation doesn’t really understand, nor truly comprehend the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s writings or mission, which includes one of his last goals for the African-American community, a goal that he outlined in a book published before he was shot and killed, which highlighted the key to success in poor communities was economic development.

Actually, few people have heard of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s last book titled, Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community?” released in 1967, but applicable in 2009 as a way to examine the grant giving practices of the General Mills Foundation.  Dr. King Jr. writes the following:

“In the treatment of poverty nationally, one fact stands out: there are twice as many white poor as Negro poor in the United States. Therefore I will not dwell on the experiences of poverty that derive from racial discrimination, but will discuss the poverty that affects white and Negro alike.

Up to recently we have proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils: lack of education restricting job opportunities; poor housing which stultified home life and suppressed initiative; fragile family relationships which distorted personality development. The logic of this approach suggested that each of these causes be attacked one by one. Hence a housing program to transform living conditions, improved educational facilities to furnish tools for better job opportunities, and family counseling to create better personal adjustments were designed. In combination these measures were intended to remove the causes of poverty.

While none of these remedies in itself is unsound, all have a fatal disadvantage. The programs have never proceeded on a coordinated basis or at a similar rate of development. Housing measures have fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies. They have been piecemeal and pygmy. Educational reforms have been even more sluggish and entangled in bureaucratic stalling and economy-dominated decisions. Family assistance stagnated in neglect and then suddenly was discovered to be the central issue on the basis of hasty and superficial studies. At no time has a total, coordinated and fully adequate program been conceived. As a consequence, fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.

In addition to the absence of coordination and sufficiency, the programs of the past all have another common failing — they are indirect. Each seeks to solve poverty by first solving something else.”

We are likely to find that the problems of housing and education, instead of preceding the elimination of poverty, will themselves be affected if poverty is first abolished. The poor transformed into purchasers will do a great deal on their own to alter housing decay. Negroes, who have a double disability, will have a greater effect on discrimination when they have the additional weapon of cash to use in their struggle.”

To celebrate the legacy and life of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr is to focus on the last piece of his legacy — economic development. Black people are not happy just sit at the lunch counter; today, we want to own the lunch counter!

The General Mills Foundation’s practice of  “perpetual” grant giving is a feeble attempt to solve problems from the top down in north Minneapolis (rather than applying sound business practices from the bottom up). For 14 years, communities in north Minneapolis have seen virtually no change in the socio-economic status of the people, a majority who are of African-American descent, living day-to-day within in this underserved region of Minneapolis. The fact that no significant and recognizable social or economic advancement has occurred in the north Minneapolis communities is most evident in the Minneapolis Public School System where the failure rate for Black youth exceeds the combined totals for Mississippi, Kentucky and Alabama.

If giving grants to organizations that focus on education and the success of the youth of Minneapolis, how could this academic failure occur? A wise man once said: “You can’t just water the tree; you also must take care of the roots.” The General Mills Foundation has been simply watering the tree, without tending to the roots. In other words, the Foundation has been comfortable granting dollars to the same individuals and the same organizations year after year, rather than taking the time to speak with the true stakeholders in north Minneapolis. As a result, nothing identifiable with change has taken place in 14 years. And if the process doesn’t change, this lack of change will perpetuate.   

The current trend in north Minneapolis reveals a community in demise — social, economic and educational demise. Examples of the community’s demise: in 2007, five elementary schools in north Minneapolis were closed; more than 1700 home foreclosures occurred in 2007 and 2008. In 2009, the City of Minneapolis will close additional parks besides Bethune and Willard, the two parks scheduled to close in 2009.  If the Foundation was more strategically focused on how its “grant dollars” were disseminated, these types of devastating occurrences, which ultimately reduce the social worth and economic value of a community, could be avoided. By working to prevent such demise, the General Mills Foundation would be able to pinpoint tangible examples of what the Foundation has done to rehabilitate blighted communities in north Minneapolis.  The headline could have read, “General Mills Foundation Saves Inner-City Park from Closure!” Instead, there is another headline, “More Silence in North Minneapolis with the Closing of Inner City Parks.”

On Thursday, January 8, 2009 at the Hawthorn Huddle, you presented three very effective examples of community engagement organizations that partner with several other entities to achieve their missions. My advice to you and the General Mills Foundation is to meet with north Minneapolis stakeholders and work from the bottom up with those who are truly interested in solving the challenges that face north Minneapolis. (Dog and pony shows are only exciting at the state fair).

Regarding your statement that the General Mills Foundation contributed nearly $15 million to programs focusing on communities of color in 2008, I am unsure if you meant in Minneapolis

or the United States. What I do know is that the General Mills Foundation gives to the Susan G. Koman Foundation’s Walk for the Cure, which in turn grants money to Planned Parenthood, a group that is helping inadvertently to kill many black children. Secondly, I know the General Foundation’s media spending for diverse audiences is lacking in the Minneapolis/St. Paul market. You respond to the Foundation’s media spending by saying: “…for competitive reasons, I cannot disclose the amounts.”  I reply to your comment by saying the following: “If there is no level playing field, there can never be any competition.”

The fact that the General Mills Foundation refuses to consider local radio, print and TV that are minority-ethnic owned, or a radio station that is White-owned but plays music targeted to an African-American audience is evidence that General Mills, Inc. and the General Mills Foundation have opted to ignore solid reach and frequency solely because of the “color” of a format.

In closing, this is the time of the year we celebrate the birthday of one of the world’s great leaders — the Revered Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.  In keeping with his sprit and goals, I like to refresh your memory of Dr. King’s objective in Memphis, Tennessee at the time he was assassinated. His objective was to secure better wages and working conditions for garbage workers. I emphasize the words GARBAGE WORKERS to highlight the fact that he was fighting for and died for the “Least of Thee”.  

Dr. King states in his “I Have A Dream” speech that “…America has given the (Blacks) people a bad check, a check which has come back marked “insufficient funds.” 

I refuse to believe that General Mills, Inc. or the General Mills Foundation is providing our community a check marked “insufficient funds.”  My parents were happy sitting at the lunch counter; today, my generation wants to own the lunch counter.

Very best regards,

Donald W.R. Allen, II

Donald W.R. Allen,II
http://www.articlesbase.com/causes-and-organizations-articles/open-letter-to-the-general-mills-foundation-from-the-independent-business-news-network-722195.html