The 20th of January 2009 is notable in a couple of ways. Firstly, it marks the inauguration of Barrack. H. Obama, the first black president, in the history of the United States. It also marks the worst inauguration-day decline by the Dow Jones Industrial Index.

So, on the one hand, we have a fresh change of leadership, a renewed vigor at the helm of the world's largest, but deeply troubled, economy. Rising unemployment, a parlous financial system, under-capitalized banks, and a morbid lending environment, are but a few of the host of challenges that the Obama Administration has promised "will be met".

Certainly the moving elocution by Mr. Obama, did wonders to lift the spirits of the gathered multitudes. But alas, the verdict meted out by the financial markets on Mr.Obama's inauguration, was anything but positive, going by the dismal performance.

One wonders as to the reason behind this dichotomy in sentiment. It is often said that the financial market is a leading indicator of the real economy. Is the stock market's disconsolate inaugural day performance a harbinger of more doom and gloom in the near future? Or was it simply a knee-jerk reaction to a speech that actually portends better things ahead?

I for one, have no doubt as to Mr. Obama's qualities of leadership. And his promised reforms are bold, by any standard. But whether they advance beyond mere rhetoric is another question.

The current economic malaise is unprecedented, in a number of ways. The Obama Administation is faced with a multiplicity of complex problems, on a number of fronts. Take the banking system, for example. Citigroup received a grand total of US$50 billion in Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) funds. As of Jan 27th, Citigroup's total market value stood at about US$20 billion. That marks an evaporation of $25 billion in bailout fund value in less than 3 months. So one wonders how effective the bailout plan is in boosting investor confidence, and reducing the perceived risk within the banks. The US government has already used up US$350 billion of the (TARP) bailout fund., under the Bush administration. The remaining US$350 billion has already been delegated, to the newly-appointed Obama-led administration., and there is speculation that Mr. Obama may petition congress for more bailout money, given the intractable difficulties, the US economy is currently mired in.

According to data from Bloomberg, the largest U.S. financial firms cut lending, after receiving TARP, at a bigger rate than smaller competitors who didn't take Treasury funds. Fifty-one lenders who got TARP money reduced total loans by $92.9 billion, or 2.5 percent, in the fourth quarter from the prior quarter. Their many more, smaller peers who didn't apply for capital or declined cash infusions curtailed lending by $1.87 billion, or 1.3 percent. This is an indicator that credit-lending standards have increased, that in turn, have led to tighter loan applications, and consequently, a greater degree of rejections. This raises a red flag over one of the explicit aims of the stimulus package to spur lending to credit-starved businesses. So what happens when the economic stimuli fail to fulfill its objective? Will the Fed continue to print US dollars to prop up the ailing financial institutions, even in the face of apparent investor indifference? And given that a large part of the banking system is now government owned, will the Obama administration have to nationalize the entire financial system, for confidence to return?

Interestingly, according to Chinese geomancers, the Year 2009, which is the Year of the Ox in the Chinese Lunar calendar, is an inauspicious time for those born in the Year of the Ox. Guess what is Obama's Chinese zodiac sign? You guessed it. An Ox.

An astrologer was quoted in Today, Singapore's daily freesheet newspaper, dated 24th January, as saying "His (Obama's) chart lacks water, which means he does not have much compatibility with money."

Does this mean that there are supernatural forces beyond the realm of economic reason that will influence the success and/or failure of Mr. Obama in addressing the financial crisis? Or that the policy direction proffered by his marquee team of economic advisers, comprising some of the most gifted minds in the financial world, may come undone due to elements of a paranormal nature?

Only time will tell. What is certain is that addressing this crisis will require a whole new paradigm of thought, policy, process and systems.

Interestingly enough, one of the best remedies advocated by the astrologer is charity, which is supposedly one of the best luck changing agents. So perhaps Mr. Obama should take the fortune-teller's advice and perform some good deeds this year. It might just be the elixir that will jump-start the economy, and may prove more successful than what the economic rescue package has achieved thus far.

Is this the right thing to do? In this Year of the Ox, Obama should simply take the bull by the horns.