Obama Makes Safe Bet With Bernanke Reappointment

President Obama chose to go with the status quo and not shake things up at the Fed by reappointing Ben Bernanke. Despite widespread criticism, Obama praised Bernanke for helping the US avoid another Great Depression. Tim Iacono discusses how investors can be take advantage of from this latest development.

President Obama made it official this morning by nominating Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke to a second four-year term as reported by MarketWatch.

In a short statement in Martha's Vineyard with Bernanke standing at his side, Obama said Bernanke's background, temperament, courage and creativity helped to prevent another Great Depression.

"Ben approached a financial system on the verge of collapse with calm and wisdom; with bold action and outside-the-box thinking that has helped put the brakes on our economic free fall," Obama said.
...
In a brief statement, Bernanke said the goals of his second term at the central bank will be fostering stable economic conditions and financial markets. "We have been bold or deliberate as circumstances demanded, but our objective remains constant: to restore a more stable economic and financial environment in which opportunity can again flourish," Bernanke said.

"Mr. President, I commit today to you and to the American people that, if confirmed by the Senate, I will work to the utmost of my abilities -- with my colleagues at the Federal Reserve and alongside the Congress and the Administration -- to help provide a solid foundation for growth and prosperity in an environment of price stability."

While Bernanke may face some testy questioning during his confirmation hearings this fall, a result of last year's bait-and-switch bank rescue package and other questionable dealings with giant Wall Street firms while standing at the side of former Goldman Sachs CEO Hank Paulson at the Treasury Department, approval for a second term is a virtual lock.

This is good news for financial markets in general and will likely spur even higher prices for many commodities, one commodity in particular.

You see, Ben Bernanke has been a veritable one-man gold price appreciation machine.

References to the government's printing press earlier in the decade and his eagerness to use it as Fed chairman apparently have a way pushing the gold price higher.

Since his initial nomination in 2005, when gold was trading at only about $465 an ounce, the yellow metal has more than doubled, besting just about any other asset class during that time, so gold bugs should welcome today's news.

Let's just hope that the next four years are as good as the last four - $2,000 an ounce gold in the year 2013 when it comes time for his next re-nomination sounds about right to me.

This post has been republished from Tim Iacono's blog, The Mess That Greenspan Made.

Why Bernanke Is Campaining

With many Americans critical over the Fed's aggressive monetary policy and a pending bill to audit the Federal Reserve, Bernanke has begun a public relations offensive to clear his name. James Picerno, author of The Capital Spectator, discusses why this is baffling behavior for a Fed chairman.

Your conventionally minded editor isn't used to seeing a Federal Reserve chairman take his monetary policy show on the road. Then again, we're from the old school, and we're not used to seeing pigs fly either. But we're obviously out of touch in the 21st century.

Ours is a world where formality gives way to "transparency," which comes in an ever-widening rainbow of colors. Fed chairman Ben Bernanke's "publicity tour" is certainly something new in the bag of central banking tricks. We thought that participating in so-called town hall forums and taking questions from the audience was an art reserved for politicians and talk-show hosts. We're wrong. It's also now just another tool in the otherwise dull business of managing money supply.

The old veneer of banking ceremony is fading, giving way to a penchant for empathy and personality tours. Imagine our surprise when we discovered that Mr. Bernanke was "disgusted" by some of the Fed's recent actions, as he explained to an inquiring member of the audience in yesterday's PBS television episode. Speaking of the various bailouts last fall, the Fed head confessed: “Nothing made me more angry than having to intervene, particularly in a few cases where companies took wild bets." Perhaps he might have simply said that the devil made him do it. Personally, we'd have like to see some tears to make the confession more convincing.

In any case, at least we know our Fed chairman is now sympathetic to the working man. Sure, the central bank has made some tough decisions, but it also has a heart. Expressing compassion of a sort for the little guy when setting interest rates and engaging in other activity looks to be the new new thing. Big, impersonal banking institutions are out; warm and fuzzy I-feel-your-pain monetary policy is in.

Is any of this surprising in the media-infested 21st century? Perhaps not. Indeed, Mr. Bernanke, whose term is up next year, is running for re-election to the Fed and of course he's intent on pulling every lever available on his behalf. Of course, before we can decide if his campaign is worthy of support we'll need to see his monetary policy platform. If it's superior to the plans of the rival candidates vying to run the Fed, well, perhaps Ben deserves another term.

To get the word out, Mr. Bernanke may want to consider running television ads in key districts. Sure, it'll be hard to capture viewers' attention by proclaiming to have a better monetary policy than the other guy. Television, it seems, just wasn't made for dispensing the finer points of quantitative easing and the value of watching M1 vs. M2. But, hey, that's a minor obstacle. Ben needs to speak to the man on the street, especially in those swing-voter districts that could tip the balance in what promises to be a tight race.

Actually, there's a bigger problem. Fed chairman aren't popularly elected, at least not yet. And last we checked, there are no obvious rival candidates openly campaigning for the Ben's position, at least not yet. Instead, the Fed chief is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, or so we're told.

As a result, any resemblance between Mr. Bernanke's campaign for re-election—sorry, we meant reappointment—and a political campaign is merely coincidental.

This post has been republished from James Picerno's blog The Capital Spectator.

Photo from Wikipedia commons.

Should Obama Bring Bernanke Back?

There is widespread debate on whether Bernanke should be reappointed. While Bernanke receives his share of criticism, Economist Mark Thoma explains why it would be in the country's best interest for Obama to bring him back for a second term. See the following post from Economist's View to learn why.

Nouriel Roubini says:

Ben Bernanke ... deserves to be reappointed. Both the conventional and unconventional decisions made by this scholar of the Great Depression prevented the Great Recession of 2008-2009 from turning into the Great Depression 2.0.

Anna Schwartz has a different perspective:

As Federal Reserve chairman, Ben Bernanke has committed serious sins of commission and omission — and for those many sins, he does not deserve reappointment.

Here's how I see it. It's true that we failed to notice that the patient was getting sick. The signs of disease were there, but we either didn't see the signs or they were misdiagnosed. In fact, there's a case to be made that we saw some of the changes in the patient as signs of improving health. Had we made the correct diagnosis early enough, maybe we could have prevented the patient from getting sick (though it's not clear the patient would have taken our advice, so stronger measures than mere advice may have been required).

And once the patient showed up in the office and was clearly sick, we didn't get it right initially either. We thought the patient needed fluids - liquidity as they say - and the patient did need some of that, but we didn't immediately see that there were also some key nutrient deficiencies and chemical imbalances that were threatening to cause further problems.

Bu we kept at it with tests and other diagnostics, and eventually got a handle on the problem. Once we did, we began to administer the medicine the patient needed. The patient will get better, the deterioration was rapid and turning it around will be difficult - it won't happen fast enough to suit any of us - but what has been done prevented a complete collapse, and is helping to move the patient towards recovery.

So I'm with Nouriel, Bernanke should be reappointed. It's true that the progression of the underlying disease was largely missed, but that's pretty much true across the board, all the doctors missed it. It's also true that there was some dispute over how to interpret the initial symptoms and test results, and what to do to cure the patient. But again that was largely true across the board in the tumultuous period just after the patient began to exhibit clear and serious problems. It's not like everyone except the patient's doctors knew exactly what to do. The uncertainty in that initial period created fear, and the fear made the patient - who needed calm above all else - even worse off.

But as just noted, the doctors who were put in charge - Bernanke in particular - persevered and began to understand more precisely what was going wrong and what was needed, and that allowed them to save the patient from a much, much worse fate. They deserve credit for that. The patient will live, and that wasn't always so clear. In the initial confusion they did what you need to do - they administered wide spectrum drugs and other procedures that were known to abate the symptoms they were observing, and these did help, and that gave them time to find more targeted remedies. They used the time wisely to find and structure better remedies, and once those remedies were ready they used them to attack the various ways in which the disease was shutting down vital systems (not everything they tried worked, but the things that did work helped quite a bit).

There was one scary point, however, and that was when they thought the patient had become strong enough to go without the medicine, and they withdrew it too soon (the Lehman episode). The result was that they almost lost the patient completely, and only quick action saved the day. That's the one point where I think the doctors could have done better. I understand the concerns over the side effects of this medicine, but it was too soon and it created too much unnecessary uncertainty and fear.

But overall, they did the things that needed to be done to make sure the patient did not suffer an even worse, prolonged, debilitating collapse, and those efforts were successful. Failing to diagnose a disease is different from not knowing what to do once you figure it out. The disease was a difficult one to diagnose or it wouldn't have missed so widely, and it wasn't clear at first precisely what was wrong, but in every case, once they understood the problem, they took the proper course of action.

Here's the question I ask myself. If I were to suddenly come down with the same disease, would I want the current group with it's current leadership in charge of bringing me back to health, or would I want a different group led by someone new who thinks they know what to do, but has never actually been through it? I'd want this group, the one with experience. They're likely to have learned enough to spot the disease the next time and head it off all together, one hopes so. But if not and I get the disease, they are also likely to know just what to do - while avoiding the missteps they took the first time - to get me back on my feet as fast as possible (and please don't let politicians second guess them).

This post was originally published on Mark Thoma's blog, Economist's View.

Ben Bernanke's Plan To Prevent Inflation

Ben Bernanke outlined his plan to prevent inflation in an article in the Wall Street Journal. While this plan sounds good on paper, economist Mark Thoma from Economist's View warns that the Fed can not raise interest rates too soon and risk sending the economy back into recession. See the following post on this topic.

Ben Bernanke says that when the economy starts to recover, the Fed will take the steps needed to prevent an outbreak of inflation (the substance of the arguments can be found in the full version):

The Fed’s Exit Strategy, by Ben Bernanke, Commentary, WSJ: The depth and breadth of the global recession has required a highly accommodative monetary policy. Since the onset of the financial crisis nearly two years ago, the Federal Reserve has reduced the ... federal-funds rate ... nearly to zero. We have also greatly expanded the size of the Fed’s balance sheet through purchases of longer-term securities and through targeted lending programs aimed at restarting the flow of credit.

These actions have softened the economic impact of the financial crisis. They have also improved the functioning of key credit markets...

My colleagues and I believe that accommodative policies will likely be warranted for an extended period. At some point, however, as economic recovery takes hold, we will need to tighten monetary policy to prevent the emergence of an inflation problem... We are confident we have the necessary tools to withdraw policy accommodation, when that becomes appropriate, in a smooth and timely manner.

The exit strategy is closely tied to the management of the Federal Reserve balance sheet. When the Fed makes loans or acquires securities, the funds ... ultimately appear in the reserve accounts held at the Fed by banks and other depository institutions. These reserve balances now total about $800 billion, much more than normal. ...

But as the economy recovers, banks should find more opportunities to lend out their reserves. That would produce faster growth in broad money (for example, M1 or M2) and easier credit conditions, which could ultimately result in inflationary pressures—unless we adopt countervailing policy measures. When the time comes to tighten monetary policy, we must either eliminate these large reserve balances or, if they remain, neutralize any potential undesired effects on the economy. ...

[W]e have two broad means of tightening monetary policy at the appropriate time: paying interest on reserve balances and taking various actions that reduce the stock of reserves. We could use either of these approaches alone; however, to ensure effectiveness, we likely would use both in combination. ... [T]hese policies would help to raise short-term interest rates and limit the growth of broad measures of money and credit, thereby tightening monetary policy.

Overall, the Federal Reserve has many effective tools to tighten monetary policy when the economic outlook requires us to do so. As my colleagues and I have stated, however, economic conditions are not likely to warrant tighter monetary policy for an extended period. We will calibrate the timing and pace of any future tightening, together with the mix of tools to best foster our dual objectives of maximum employment and price stability.

As I've said many times, I'm not particularly worried about inflation, reserves can be removed or neutralized as described. The worry is not so much that they will be too slow at removing reserves, it's that they will get trigger happy and start raising interest too soon potentially stalling the recovery or perhaps even sending the economy back downward. The Fed will need to be sure that things are getting better before beginning to raise interest rates, that's why it's good to hear them use the phrase "extended period" twice when describing how long interest rates will stay low. But there are long lags associated with monetary policy, and by the time the Fed knows for sure that economy is heading solidly in the right direction, it won't have much time left to reverse course and begin removing reserves. Even so, they need to be patient and avoid the more serious mistake of raising interest rates too soon.

This post has been republished from Mark Thoma's blog, Economist's View.

Why Are Republicans Attacking The Republican Fed Chairman?

Why would Republican law makers want to attack Bernanke, a Republican appointed by President Bush? If Bernanke resigns, Obama could appoint a Democrat as Fed Chairman. Economist Mark Thoma from Economist's View, attempts to explain this counter-intuitive strategy.

The GOP is targeting Bernanke as "a champion of government intrusion and an ally of President Obama":

G.O.P. to Paint Bernanke as Ally of Big Government, by Edmund L. Andrews and Louise Story, NY Times: In a peculiar role reversal, Republican lawmakers are mounting a ferocious attack on the Republican chairman of the Federal Reserve, while Democrats are coming to his defense.

Ben S. Bernanke ... will be grilled on Thursday by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee about his role in orchestrating Bank of America’s controversial takeover of Merrill Lynch late last year.

The House investigation is heavily colored by partisanship. President Obama is proposing to give the Federal Reserve formidable new powers to regulate giant institutions, including Bank of America, that could pose risks to the financial system.

Republicans, along with some Democrats, argue that the Fed already has too much power.

Unhappy about the huge bank bailouts that the Fed arranged with the Treasury Department during the Bush administration, many Republicans are even more displeased that Mr. Bernanke is now working hand-in-glove with the Obama administration.

The result is a set of dueling narratives and agendas, all of which will be on full display when Mr. Bernanke testifies on Thursday. ...

Despite Mr. Bernanke’s Republican roots, and the fact that President Bush nominated him to be Fed chairman, the Republican memo prepared for the hearing on Thursday describes Mr. Bernanke as a champion of government intrusion and an ally of President Obama. ...

I don't think this is an attempt to negatively influence Obama's decision on Bernanke's reappointment as Fed chair as some have been hinting because that would not be in the GOP's best interest. There are open positions on the Federal Reserve Board, so even if Bernanke didn't resign as is customary in the event he was not reappointed - and nothing says he must - Obama would still be free to appoint a new Fed Chair from outside the present Board membership.

Obama would certainly appoint someone who shares his regulatory vision, and that person would likely be confirmed (e.g. someone like Janet Yellen would likely be confirmed even if there was lots of grumbling), so I don't see how the appointment of a new Fed chair would do anything but strengthen the support for the type of regulatory oversight the administration envisions. That's not what the GOP wants.

Instead, this looks much more like an attempt to by the GOP to maintain its usual anti-regulatory, anti-government stance by arguing that the Fed should not to be trusted with the powers envisioned in the proposed regulatory reform legislation. So the real goal is the Fed as an institution, Bernanke is simply the target being used to make that the point. E.g.:

The vast extent of the Fed’s actions in the past two years to commit trillions of dollars in government money to support the economy has raised significant concerns on Capitol Hill, some of which will be aired on Thursday when Bernanke testifies before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Congressional investigators have been looking into the Fed’s role in encouraging Bank of America to purchase Merrill Lynch... Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), ranking member on the Oversight Committee, said on Wednesday that the Fed engaged in a “cover-up” and hid details about the merger, completed in January 2009, from other federal agencies.

Meanwhile, lawmakers from both parties are raising questions about Obama’s proposal to grant the Fed broad new powers to prevent another crisis.

Those concerns could make the next confirmation process far more contentious than the six that have occurred in the last two decades.

And:

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) said, “It won’t be my decision whether he is held over or not, but right now I’m concerned that they have lost their independence and are too cozy with Treasury.”

It looks like we are going to get some version of a strategy that has the GOP saying that given what happened to the financial system, of course we need more oversight and regulation of the financial system. But any particular piece of legislation that is proposed will be fought tooth and nail by the GOP as being far too intrusive, granting the government too much power, and generally going far beyond what is needed to solve the problem. The fact that the will for reform will diminish with time works in their favor, and if they can string things out long enough with this strategy, the result will be that the legislation eventually passes in a much weaker form, or it won't ever pass at all.

Just ignore them. Altering a few words:

The Republicans, with a few possible exceptions, have decided to do all they can to make the Obama administration a failure. Their role in the financial regulation debate is purely that of spoilers who keep shouting the old slogan — Government is always the problem, never the solution! — hoping that someone still cares.

This article was reposted from Mark Thoma's blog, Economist's View.

Can Obama Convince The World To Buy US Debt?

As the government plans to sell $65 billion in notes and bonds this week, we will see whether Obama, Geithner, and Bernanke were able to renew the confidence of overseas investors in America's ability to repay debt. Will countries like China and Saudi Arabia continue to buy US debt? Peter Schiff from Money Morning discusses this in the following post.

Just last week, Team Obama took its financial-crisis dog-and-pony show on the road. U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner went to China. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke visited Capitol Hill. And President Barack Obama, himself, embarked on a Mideast tour that started in Saudi Arabia.

This full-court press is not coincidental, and comes just as the federal government began unloading trillions of dollars in new U.S. Treasury obligations. The coordinated charm offensive is meant to assure the world-at-large that the United States can repay these obligations - without destroying the dollar.

Given the renewed weakness in the dollar and the recent expressions of concern from China-our largest creditor-about the safety of its current holdings, this is no easy sell. Not only must our leaders convince holders of our debt not to sell what they already own, U.S. officials must persuade these same foreign investors to back up the truck and buy a whole lot more. The hope is that a Dream Team - consisting of a charismatic politician, a skilled Wall Street banker with longstanding ties to China, and a respected Fed chairman - can close the deal. However, no matter how slick the sales pitch, no amount of lipstick can dress up this pig.

The most obvious fear the trio must address is that oversized deficits will persist indefinitely. Reading from a carefully scripted rebuttal book, all three proclaim that as soon as the stimulus revives our economy, the government will take all necessary steps to reign in the deficits that result. Bernanke’s testimony showcases this rhetorical shift. The Fed chairman claimed that catastrophe has been averted and that the recession is nearly over. As a result, he advised Congress to now focus on debt management. How he expects U.S. lawmakers to do that was left unexamined.

Setting aside the fact that the recession is far from over and that the stimulus will actually weaken the economy in the long run, Bernanke’s words were less a practical guide to Congress than a bromide for our foreign creditors. Meanwhile, President Obama carefully peppers his speeches with calls for Americans to live within their means, to save more and spend less, to produce more and consume less. But nothing in the government’s current fiscal or monetary policy will encourage such behavior. In fact, the objective of economic stimulus is to prevent such changes from taking place!

The laughter of Chinese students that greeted Secretary Geithner at Peking University shows how ridiculous this spiel sounds overseas. Actions speak louder than words, and the actions of the Obama administration are deafening. Multi-trillion-dollar deficits, bailouts, nationalizations, quantitative easing, and grandiose plans for government-provided healthcare, education, and alternative energy, render all of the administration’s claims of future prudence meaningless. If our leaders will not make tough choices now, why should anyone believe they will do so later, when those choices will be even harder to make?

Of course, it’s not just major holders - such as China and Saudi Arabia - that need to be convinced. Since the largest holders are already in so deep, they have the greatest short-term incentive to play ball. While throwing good money after bad is certainly a lousy investment strategy, it is politically expedient as it delays the need to officially acknowledge losses.

The spin is designed to keep all the smaller, more nimble holders from dumping their U.S. Treasury securities. The major holders can publicly pledge their commitment to Treasuries, while they privately planning their exit strategies, as long as they feel that the smaller holders won’t spook the market by front-running their trades.

However, once the psychology turns, there is no way to stop the rush for the exits. Remember how quickly the secondary market for subprime mortgages collapsed? One day, investors were lining up to buy; the next day, the stuff couldn’t be given away.

Make no mistake about it, we are issuing subprime paper and no amount of political spin can alter that reality. Bogus credit ratings aside, I think the world already knows this and it’s just a matter of time before someone admits it.

In the meantime, by continuing to lend, our creditors merely supply us the shovels to dig ourselves into an even deeper economic hole. Their credit enables our government to grow when it needs to shrink, finances bailouts of companies that should be allowed to fail, and enables a nation that should be saving and producing to continue borrowing and spending. As a result, the more money the world loans us, the less capable we are of paying it back. I really wish the world would stop doing us favors, as neither party can afford the consequences.

For a timely example, just look at California. With an unmanageable $20 billion deficit, California recently asked Washington for a bailout. With none immediately forthcoming, California was forced to make real and needed budget cuts. The hard choices, which will benefit California in the long run, would not have been made if federal funds had been committed. We all should be so lucky.

This article has been reposted from Money Morning. You can view the article on Money Morning's investment news website here.

Is The Obama Administration Covering Up What Really Happened In Treasury Meeting?

One watchdog group is accusing President Obama's administration of covering up what really went down during the major Treasury meeting that ended with 9 major banks selling equity stakes in their companies to the government for $250 billion. The Treasury originally stated that it had no documentation from the meeting, however, some documents were later obtained. The watchdog group insists some documents — potentially implicating current Treasury secretary Timothy Geitner — are being withheld. Who knows what is true and not in all this, but it will certainly be interesting to see how it all plays out. For more details about the meeting, along with what the watchdog group thinks happened, read the following article from Money Morning.

Despite promises of open government, the Obama administration tried to “cover up the very existence of smoking-gun documents” prepared for a meeting in which former U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson allegedly coerced major banks to allow the government to take equity stakes, according to conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch.

Judicial Watch said the Treasury initially said it had no records about the meeting. It didn’t release a transcript of discussions between government officials and bankers.

However, documents obtained under a Freedom of Information Act request confirm that Paulson and other Treasury officials gave nine major banks no options other than allowing the government to take $250 billion in equity.

Judicial Watch said on its Web site that after it made inquiries, the Treasury insisted on Feb. 4 it had no documents about the historic meeting.

Furthermore, “the cover-up continues, as the Obama administration protects Timothy Geithner by withholding a key document about his role in this infamous bankers meeting,” Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said in a statement.

The group says suggested edits of the “talking points” for the meeting by Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, then President of the New York Federal Reserve are being withheld by the Obama administration.

Saying the nine U.S. banks were “central to any solution” of the credit crisis, Paulson told their leaders in the meeting in Washington on October 13, 2008, to take the government aid voluntarily or be forced to by regulators.

“We don’t believe it is tenable to opt out because doing so would leave you vulnerable and exposed,” the document said, citing Paulson talking points. “If a capital infusion is not appealing, you should be aware your regulator will require it in any circumstance.”

Within four hours of the start of the meeting the CEOs wrote by hand the names of their institution and multibillion dollar amounts of “preferred shares” to be issued to the government, the documents show.

“These documents show our government exercising unrestrained power over the private sector,” Fitton said in a statement.

The banks were represented by Vikram Pandit of Citigroup Inc. (NYSE: C), Kenneth Lewis of Bank of America Corp. (NYSE: BAC), John Thain of Merrill Lynch & Co., now part of BofA, Jaime Dimon of JP Morgan & Co. (NYSE: JPM), Richard Kovacevich of Wells Fargo (NYSE: WFC), John Mack of Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS), Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (NYSE: GS), Robert Kelly of Bank of New York Mellon Corp (NYSE: BK), and Ronald Logue of State Street Corp. (NYSE: STT).

A spokesman for the Treasury, Andrew Williams, didn’t return calls seeking comment from Bloomberg News.

The Treasury has invested $199.1 billion in the bank-preferred share program, with $1.2 billion since returned by 12 institutions, according to government data, Bloomberg reported.

Despite his heavy-handed nature, Paulson succeeded at stabilizing the financial services industry, J.P. O’Sullivan, an SNL Financial bank analyst in Charlottesville, Va., told Bloomberg.

“It was a calming mechanism,” O’Sullivan said.

This isn’t the first time Paulson has been accused of strong-arming bankers to bend to his will.

As previously reported in Money Morning, Bank of America CEO Kenneth Lewis said in testimony before New York’s attorney general that Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke pressured him not only to move ahead with a merger with Merrill Lynch despite reservations, but also to stay quiet about the mounting losses at the crumbling investment bank.

Lewis went on to testify that he felt Paulson threatened him with losing his job if he didn’t go along with completing the Merrill Lynch deal.

“I can’t recall if he said, ‘We would remove the board and management if you called it [off]‘ or if he said ‘we would do it if you intended to.’ I don’t remember which one it was,” Mr. Lewis said.

This article can also be viewed on moneymorning.com.

So What Is The Fed's Next Move?

With the growing number of positive economic reports coming out, many people are questioning whether the economy has turned a corner. Have we really turned a corner, though, or are we seeing a temporary upswing? The Federal Reserve is playing a difficult game right now. If they leave rates low too long we could be faced with inflation, but if they raise them too quickly it could hamper the recovery. With this in mind, the Fed has some challenging decisions ahead of them. How are they going to respond? Mark Thoma looks at a recent article from Tim Duy that addresses this in his blog post below.

Turning Which Corner, by Tim Duy: Is the economy turning a corner? And, if so, which corner is it turning? In my view, economic activity has been influenced by two separate trends since 2007. One is the structural response to an over-leveraged household sector that pushed the US economy into what was initially a mild recession. The second trend is the sharp cyclical recession that began in earnest in the second half of 2008 as the commodity price shock decimated already weakened households and the deepening credit crunch cut financing for a broad swath of firms. Excess capacity emerged throughout the economy, triggering the familiar phenomenon of rising unemployment. Difficult though they may be, the cyclical dynamics do not last indefinitely - generally speaking, output declines stop well short of zero GDP and unemployment will not rise to 100%. Market participants are rightly anticipating the economy is turning the corner on the cyclical trend. But I suspect we have a long path ahead of us on the structural challenge poised by overleveraged households - suggesting that the green shoots we hear so much about will yield little more than stunted growth. This is why Bernanke and Co. are more likely to fertilize the fields than plan for the next harvest.

If there is one picture that sums up the cyclical story of the past year, it is the path of real consumption:

The sharp deceleration has come to an end, of that there can be little doubt. Nor should there be much surprise. The collapse in commodity prices, lower interest rates to allow mortgage refinancing for those homeowners still above water, and tax cuts all joined to provide powerful support for household budgets allowing consumption to stabilize despite the massive job losses experienced in recent months. The stabilization in consumer demand will eventually slow the pace of job cuts. Indeed, this is already evident in the data - analysts have pointed topeak of initial claims as a key hurdle in the race to recovery. To be sure, it is difficult if not impossible to characterize the data flow as "good." But it is certainly less "bad." The path to Great Depression II has hit something of a speedbump. And seeing that, market participants have priced out some of the most cataclysmic scenarios, supporting equities and commodities while pushing bond yields higher.

There will be more opportunities for euphoria - do not underestimate the power of pent-up demand to trigger bursts of positive data. There is a portion of the population who are not credit constrained, biding their time for the perfect moment to buy a new car or schedule a vacation. Indeed, such bursts of data are more likely than not following a sharp decline in activity (the 2.2% gain in consumption spending in 1Q09 is such an example). I believe, however, that those bursts of data will not be sustainable. Far from it - at a minimum, the ability of households to carry activity forward is at its end, which by itself would leave the economy floundering .

I think it is difficult to ignore the implications of the growth of consumer dominance in defining patterns of economic activity:

The story of the last 25 years has been an increasing role for household spending, rising to perhaps a peak of conspicuous consumption, with the motto "a filet mignon in every stainless steel oven, a RV in every garage." Patterns of economic development - more to the point, capital formation - have favored taking advantage of this trend. Countless business plans are based on the expectation that this trend will continue. The baby boomers have endless wealth (not so anymore, if it ever was), there is a never ending supply of equity rich Californians to support our [insert locality] housing market, etc. Those plans will be stressed, to say the least, if the trend stalls. The implications for a reversal are even more significant. And for those that believe reversal is necessary, note that the reversal has really not even begun. What took 25 years to build may take another 25 years to destroy.

How sure are we that the trend is at an end? My thought is that the factors that supported the trend - a steady march down in the saving rate to zero and a steady march up in household debt, coupled with monetary policy that had room to go from 15% short rates to zero over nearly three decades, are at an end. Even if you believe that savings rates will not rise to 12%, the inability to sustain below zero rates puts a limit on household spending growth (as well as debt accumulation). And with underwriting conditions tightening - a permanent tightening, given the changing regulatory environment - the role of debt financing in the life of the consumer is sure to stagnate.

The challenge then is to transition the economy away from the debt-supported consumption trend that looks no longer viable to a trend more reliant on investment and external spending. This, however, is easier said then done. How quickly can 25 years of growth directed at consumer spending be reversed? And reversed to what, especially if the rest of the world continues to struggle? I see little hope of an "immaculate conception" of a fresh, sustainable pattern of economic activity. Until the transition path reveals itself, fiscal policy will be necessary to fill the economic hole likely to exist if the savings proclivities of households continue to exceed the investment intentions of firms.

Ironically, the "best" road to growth is also the riskiest from a policy perspective - a rapid expansion of emerging market activity. Such an expansion, however, would once again place the US in competition for global resources, and threaten a reversal of the commodity and interest rate trends that have been so important to supporting US consumers. Indeed, just the whiff of recovery has supported oil prices, promising an abrupt end to one of the factors supporting US consumers. In the worst case scenario, a flight of capital away from the Dollar (in response to more promising investments abroad) would generate an inflationary and structural shock that would leave the Fed juggling between renewed recession and higher inflation. In short, the optimal external shock would be one only partially supportive; anything more would push the globe to a revisiting of the commodity price surge of early 2008. Looking for a decoupling story now, however, seems like almost a naïve dream.

What is the Fed's next move? One email crossed my inbox after the April employment report suggested some thinking that the Fed could hike rates as early as November. Such a scenario (absent a stability threatening run on the Dollar) must come from a spectacularly optimistic take on incoming data. Data, I might add, that is a reflection of the massive crutch provided by the Federal Reserve and US Treasury, not necessarily a sea change in the underlying economic environment. Look too how quickly bond rates began to climb after the Fed declined to expand Treasury purchases at the last FOMC meeting. More generally, consider this tidbit on Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke's thinking back in 2003:

The 2003 FOMC transcripts showed then-Governor Ben Bernanke very tuned into financial markets as he pressed for earlier release of Fed forecasts and a willingness to lower interest rates to zero.
From the June 2003 FOMC meeting, when the Fed lowered the target fed funds rate to 1%:

“I wonder if you might give some thought to whether or not it would make sense tactically to say publicly that we are willing to lower the federal funds rate to zero if necessary…I think it would have a beneficial effect on expectations in that there would no longer be a feeling in the market that we had reached the end of our rope.”

“It’s extremely important that we do what we can to maintain the supportive configuration in financial markets. That means continuing our easy monetary policy and, even more important, using our statement to signal our willingness to keep policy easy so long as there is a risk of further disinflation and continuing economic weakness."

A year and a half after the end of the 2001 recession, Bernanke was looking at the possibility of lowering rates to zero in order to maintain support for financial markets. And comparatively, financial markets were leaps and bounds healthier in 2003 than now. Is a rate hike really feasible this year - or even next - given the current state of dependence of the financial system on government largess? Moreover, consider the disinflation worries in 2003 and fast forward to last week:

Even after a recovery gets under way, the rate of growth of real economic activity is likely to remain below its longer-run potential for a while, implying that the current slack in resource utilization will increase further. We expect that the recovery will only gradually gain momentum and that economic slack will diminish slowly. In particular, businesses are likely to be cautious about hiring, implying that the unemployment rate could remain high for a time, even after economic growth resumes.

In this environment, we anticipate that inflation will remain low. Indeed, given the sizable margin of slack in resource utilization and diminished cost pressures from oil and other commodities, inflation is likely to move down some over the next year relative to its pace in 2008. However, inflation expectations, as measured by various household and business surveys, appear to have remained relatively stable, which should limit further declines in inflation.

Now consider the output gap over the last decade:

The current gap already far exceeds that of the last disinflationary scare, and Bernanke expects it to continue to expand further, and then diminish only gradually. As long as the gap continues to expand, Bernanke's bias will be in favor of additional easing. The only question is whether he remains content to allow TALF funds to slowly trickle into the economy, or speeds the pace of policy with expansions of longer dated Treasury purchases. Given Bernanke's past behavior, expecting patience on his part seems unrealistic. Moreover, the last jobs report provides less room for optimism than observers suggest. Importantly, Jim Hamilton notes the decline in hours worked appears unabated; threat of a currency collapse aside, there will be no policy tightening, only easing, until hours worked moves unquestionably and sustainably in a positive trajectory.

Bottom Line: The economy looks to be turning a corner relative to the downward cyclical force of last year. But this is only a partial victory, as the factors that that started us down this path - namely, a debt-supported consumer spending dynamic - remain in play, and will likely remain in play for years, arguing for a long period of slow growth, punctuated by short-lived bursts of positive data. In such an environment, and considering the importance of government support to sustain financial stability, the odds favor continued policy easing. Those looking for a more positive scenario are pinning their hopes on either an unlikely rapid return to past patterns of consumer behavior, an unlikely rapid evolution in patterns of economic activity that are not consumer dependent, or a decoupling of emerging market economic activity from the US (which could pose a different set of policy challenges).

This post can also be viewed on economistsview.typepad.com.

How The European Central Bank Is Different

The European Central Bank (ECB) made several important announcements today, and the reaction from currency traders was much different than how they have reacted to similar moves from other central banks. Currency expert Kathy Lien looks closer at the recent announcements, and talks a bit about what sets the ECB apart from the Bank of England and Federal Reserve, in her blog post below.

Both the European Central Bank and the Bank of England announced asset purchases today, but the Euro skyrocketed while the British pound fell, leading many currency traders to wonder What Sets the ECB Apart from Fed and BoE?

Read Boris’ take on the Bank of England Rate Decision

Before talking about why the euro recovered, here are the 4 key announcements made by the ECB today:

1. Cut Repo Rate from 1.25 to 1.00%
2. Narrow Rate Corridor by 50bp (Marginal Lending Rate Cut by 50bp to 1.75%)
3. Extend maturity of refinancings to 12 months
4. Announced purchases of up to EU60 billion in euro-denominated covered bonds

There is no question that these are unprecedented measures for the European Central Bank. Everyone expected the quarter point rate cut to a record low of 1.00 percent, the decision to increase the maturity of refinancings to 12 months and also the narrowing of the rate corridor by 50bp, but the chance of purchasing euro-denominated covered bonds was low.

Nonetheless, Trichet has resorted to what many consider Quantitative Easing (even though he explicitly denied that this is QE) and rather than punishing the euro, currency traders are applauding the ECB for being flexible and realizing that there is no longer a stigma attached to asset purchases. Also, the amount of bonds that the ECB is purchasing is nominal compared to the rest of the central banks. The ECB plans on buying up to EU60 billion, which is less than half of the BoE’s Quantitative Easing program. More importantly however, Trichet suggested that they may sterilize the liquidity impact of bond purchases, which would limit the impact on the money supply and the pressure on the euro. The Fed and the BoE’s purchases are unsterilized. Finally, this is only an initial announcement. Further details on the bond plan will be released in June. Although rates are appropriate for the current time, the central bank could still take interest rates below 1 percent based upon Trichet’s comment that they have decided if rates have hit their lowest point.

This post can also be viewed on kathylien.com.

How Is The Economic Medicine Working?

The government has been injecting trillions of dollars into the economy, but how has it been working so far? James Picerno looks at recent events and attempts to answer that question in his blog post below. In addition Picerno takes a look at what lies ahead for the U.S. economy, and offers some words of wisdom for investors.

In late-March, we asked: Is the medicine working? By medicine we meant the massive injection of liquidity into the economy as a cure for fending off deflation and laying the groundwork for recovery. At the time, we were mildly encouraged, in part due to the rising inflation forecast as derived from the spread between the nominal and inflation-indexed 10-year Treasuries.

More than a month later, there's still reason for optimism, perhaps more so, thanks to the so-called green shoots that suggest better days ahead. Yet the rate spread, which is to say the market's inflation outlook, hasn't changed much since late-March. The current forecast is for inflation of 1.4% for the next 10 years, just barely up from around 1.3% from the end of the first quarter. In both cases, that's a healthy change from expecting flat pricing, as was the case at the end of 2008. Low inflation as far as the eye can see would be nice, but is that a reasonable expectation?

In the months ahead there will be a thin line between a healthy rise in inflation expectations and the potential for burdensome pricing pressures later on. Deflation is a hazard to be avoided for a number of reasons. Although we can't quite shut the book on the danger, the odds look increasingly in favor of mild inflation for the foreseeable future, as the chart above suggests. Behind this reasoning is the growing sentiment that the recession is at or near a bottom. Is it time for the Fed to begin tightening? Or are the green shoots still too tentative?

"We're seeing more indications of perhaps a bottoming in the economy," Bill O'Neill of LOGIC Advisors tells Dow Jones. "So there is an increasing—and it will continue to increase—concern surrounding inflation potential."

Gold, the perennial inflation hedge, seems to be considering the possibility, although this market hasn't quite made up its mind. The price of the metal has been hovering around $900 for much of this year, just below its all-time high of $1,033, set back in March 2008. The 10-year Treasury yield, meanwhile, has been climbing, recently bumping up against 3.2% on renewed worries that inflation may now be the bigger risk. Even so, a 10-year yield of 3.2% is still quite low.

None of the inflation anxiety is worrying the stock market, which has now reversed the selloff in the first quarter. Indeed, the S&P 500 is now marginally up on the year, as of last night's close, on expectations that by the end of this year the economy will be sitting up and prepared to get out of bed.

The big question is whether all the renewed hope that the worst is over is really just the byproduct of a bear market bounce in markets and inflation expectations? Given the extreme waves of selling last year and into March, a rebound was all but assured if the world economy didn't collapse. As we now know, it didn't. There are still lots of problems, but we'll all be here next year and so it was time to reprice assets upwards to reflect a humbled but otherwise enduring economic climate.

Investors have cheered the signs that the U.S. economy no longer seems to be contracting at an accelerating pace. Given the fears of what could have happened, that's certainly a reasonable response. Deciding that you're not going to fall into the abyss is always encouraging. But that's still a long way from arguing that growth is imminent, or that the economy won't tread water for a year or two.

The first phase of the post-apocalyptic visions that prevailed six months ago may be over. If so, now we're faced with the more difficult chore of deciding how to repair and rebuild the economy to foster growth while containing inflation. The hardest days are yet to come. Unless you're expecting a seamless transition, keeping some cash at the ready still makes sense, albeit less so than in past months. Volatility isn't banished, it's only hibernating, which suggests another round of value-oriented pricing opportunities in the major asset classes.

This post can also be viewed on capitalspectator.com.

Fed Delays Release Of Bank Stress Test Results

The Federal Reserve has decided to delay the release of results from its recent stress test on banks. It appears that the Fed is trying to limit damage to the banks who will appear weak based on the results, and allow them more time to figure out how they will raise the necessary funds. It will no doubt be interesting to see how investors react to the information provided by the stress test. For more on this, read the following article from Money Morning.

The results of the bank stress tests are in, but instead of releasing them today (Monday), the U.S. Federal Reserve is holding them close to its chest until after the markets close Thursday.

The amount of information awaiting disclosure seems to have grown, as have the reasons to postpone the potentially damaging data.

Not only will the government unveil which banks require more capital, it will also disclose potential loss estimates for certain loan categories and the banks’ ability to “absorb those losses” assuming economic conditions worsen through 2010, a government official told The Wall Street Journal.

Negative results could deal a huge blow to both the banks and government, as a sub-par grade may be viewed as an indictment not only of the failed management of the banks, but the government’s decision to loan them billions of taxpayer money. The banks also are concerned that anything but a tactful release of the results will cause internal and investor panic.

Government and banking industry officials told Bloomberg that both sides needed the extra time to debate preliminary results, as well as plans regarding how banks can recover capital.

On April 24, the government showed the tests’ preliminary results to the 19 U.S. firms it reviewed – from behemoth banks like Bank of America Corp. (NYSE: BAC) and Citigroup Inc. (NYSE: C) to the smaller GMAC LLC (NYSE: GMA) and MetLife Inc. (NYSE: MET). The banks involved in the stress tests hold more than half the loans in the U.S. banking system and two-thirds of the assets.

“Everybody understands they’ve got a tiger by the tail here,” Mark Tenhundfeld, a senior vice president at the American Bankers’ Association in Washington, told Bloomberg. “If they don’t let him go gently, there will be a lot of mauling going on.”

Already, reports have leaked that two specific banks need more capital, and reaction hasn’t been pleasant.

After showing Bank of America and Citigroup test results, the government told the banks to raise more capital despite receiving a combined total of $95 billion in bailout loans.

At least three more banks need more capital, either from converting common shares to equity and/or receiving more government cash, sources told Bloomberg.

Sensing blowback from Congress, as well as the public, Federal Reserve chairman Ben S. Bernanke said that banks requiring more capital will have to attempt to raise it on their own before receiving another lifeline loan from the government.

Confusion On Evaluation’s Methodology

Debate over the results isn’t the only reason for the postponement. Disputes and confusion over the Fed’s methodology has also erupted.

According to a Fed’s test criterion, common shareholder equity should be the “dominant” portion of Tier 1 capital. Officials favor tangible common equity of about 4% of a bank’s assets and Tier 1 capital worth hovering around 6%.

But The Wall Street Journal reported last week that some bank executives got mixed signals during a meeting with regulators.

The regulators are asking “a million questions” and it’s “very unclear what they’re aiming at,” a senior executive told The Journal. “We can’t discern a pattern.”

Citigroup officials argued that regulators haven’t given the bank enough credit for its efforts to offload large asset chunks, such as Smith Barney and its Japanese brokerage arm Nikko Cordial Securities.

On Friday, Citigroup agreed to sell Nikko Cordial Securities, its Japanese brokerage arm to Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group (OTC: SMFJY) for about $5.5 billion. The deal, which is to be completed by Oct. 1, also includes a transfer of about $2 billion in excess cash from Nikko Cordial to Citigroup.

The deal will boost the bank’s Tier-1 capital ratio by approximately 27 basis points.

Individual Result Releases

One insider told Reuters that the government is leaning toward releasing individual results for each bank involved in the stress test – a move away from issuing a summary of results.

The source said the plan “is not very far along,” and that regulators also aim to disclose a lot of confidential supervisory information about the banks.

One analyst says that test results could be so specific to a bank’s portfolio that it’s not wise to use them as a litmus test for the overall health of the banking sector.

“Once you try to take that information and extrapolate it, it gets very complicated and it’s dangerous," Kevin Petrasic, who served at the Office of Thrift Supervision from 1989 to 2008 and is now an attorney at law firm Paul Hastings in Washington, told Reuters.

Whatever the results – or how they are disclosed – Money Morning’s Shah Gilani, a former Wall Street hedge fund manager, said the evaluation process has several flaws.

“What’s missing, unfortunately, is an assumption of how much additional capital would be necessary to facilitate credit expansion – which, in turn, would serve to fuel economic growth. That, after all, should be the ultimate stress-test objective,” he wrote.

And the end result is more stress added to an already stressed banking sector, as too much information and/or misinformation only makes a sound assessment more difficult.

Money Morning’s Stress Test

The government’s pushback of stress test results only made the public more hungry for the their release. But you don’t have to wait until Thursday to know which of the 13 biggest U.S. banks are diamonds or duds.

Last week in “Money Morning’s Bank Stress Test,” Martin Hutchinson highlighted the four secrets that will let you separate the winners from the losers in the U.S. banking system

• Banks that made profits in the very difficult fourth quarter of 2008 and first quarter of 2009 are probably in good shape, especially if their loan-loss provisions exceeded their charge-offs (the amount actually lost.)
• Banks that lost money in the fourth quarter and first quarter may or may not be in terminal trouble; it depends on the amount of those losses and whether the red ink is expected to continue to flow going forward.
• With the run-up in bank stocks in recent weeks, there’s been an accompanying rise in the ratio of share price to book value (stock price per share/book value per share). If that ratio is still below 30% - even after the recent price increases - the market lacks confidence in the bank’s ability to solve its own problems. Unfortunately, the market currently appears to be overly optimistic about some of the banks that still have considerable ongoing problems.
• Management’s dividend policy is less of an indicator than it was just a few short months ago; several banks have sharply cut their dividends in order to repay the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) capital they got in late 2008. Reasonably, profitable banks don’t want the government meddling in their business or compensation structures

Hutchinson also gave an individual analysis of each bank, highlighting their strengths and pulling a curtain on their weaknesses.

This article can also be found on moneymorning.com.

Fed Holds Steady...For Now...

Earlier this week the Fed decided to hold steady with their previous policies, however, it is still likely that they will need to provide additional easing in the months ahead. Mark Thoma looks at an article from Tim Duy, in his blog post below, that talks more about the economy and what's likely in store for Fed policy.

Despite Green Shoots, Odds Favor More Easing, by Tim Duy: The Fed took an interesting risk by holding policy steady on Wednesday.With green shoots all the rage, policymakers are ready to step to the sidelines as they monitor the progress of their many programs. And clearly, they must have known that the 3% level on 10-year Treasuries was dependent on the expectation that policymakers would expand the pace of outright purchases of those assets, but are betting that economic conditions will remain sufficiently weak to prevent a crippling increase in rates. Still, given that policymakers still see the economy in decline, albeit at a slower rate, the odds favor additional easing in the months ahead, especially considering expectations of a widening output gap. Recall that labor markets, and the threat of deflation, kept the Fed easing well past the end of the recession in 2001.

Short of an outbreak of inflation, or a unexpected and unlikely surge of growth, there is little reason to think that the Fed is ready to bring policy to a sustained pause. And an imminent rise in inflation remains an outside risk for the Fed; the focus remains consistently on disinflation or, worse yet, outright deflation. A key paragraph is:

In light of increasing economic slack here and abroad, the Committee expects that inflation will remain subdued. Moreover, the Committee sees some risk that inflation could persist for a time below rates that best foster economic growth and price stability in the longer term.

Policymakers are counting on a rising output gap (both here and abroad) and lags in the price setting process to keep inflation at bay. Indeed, this must be the case, as some of the current numbers are really not all that comforting. I am not inclined to place too much focus on headline inflation - oil prices appear to have found a bottom around $50 a barrel, and sustained hints of a firming of global economic activity would promise to send prices higher, thus offsetting the strong disinflationary impact of falling energy prices since the middle of 2008. In contrast to low year-over-year headline numbers, the personal income and outlays report for March revealed that core PCE prices gained by 0.2% in each of the past three months, pushing the annualized three month trend back above 2%:

And note that near-term inflation expectations have climbed back up into a normal range:

From this perspective, policymakers have done a good job anchoring inflation expectations against the possibility of deflation. Is this enough, however, to unsettle FOMC members? Despite these inflationary hints, it is simply unlikely that the Fed would ignore the disinflationary implications of the output gap. One way to ignore the gap is to argue that the US will revert to an emerging market inflation dynamic. I think such an argument requires a steady depreciation of the Dollar to hold - which could happen, but a Dollar crisis looks, for the moment, unlikely given relative global weakness. One could also argue that estimates of potential output are optimistic and don't reflect the importance of structural change in the economy. This is the issue that Nick Rowe at the Worthwhile Canadian Initiative attempts to tackle:

Even in the short run a good banking and financial system will be important in re-allocating capital between growing and declining sectors, if there are shifts in relative demand. If people want fewer cars and more restaurant meals, but banks cannot shift loans from car manufacturers to restaurants, the Short Run Aggregate Supply curve may shift left, because the restaurants won't be able to expand to meet demand, and car manufacturers' prices or wages may be sticky downwards.

If you see the financial crisis as causing the recession by shifting the SRAS curve left, then monetary and fiscal policies, which shift the AD curve right, are not the appropriate cure. Even if you see leftward shifts of the SRAS curve as only part of the story, you will see limits on what monetary and fiscal policy can achieve. When expansionary monetary and fiscal policies start to cause excessive inflation, before output and employment have returned fully to normal, you will know that purely AD policies have reached the limit of what can be expected from them.

Nick is slapped down by Brad DeLong:

But if bad banks have shifted the AS curve inward, then right now we should have stagflation: depression and inflation, as output falls and prices rise. We don't. The argument that fiscal and monetary policies won't reduce unemployment to normal levels because we have a supply side problem is completely incoherent in an AS-AD framework.

Brad is correct that in a traditional AS-AD framework, bad banks are demand shocks, not supply shocks. There is still something about Nick's argument that is important - the financial system redirected capital investment into housing and consumption related activities. Presumably, potential output includes the ability to build and sell as many houses the US economy produced at the height of the housing bubble. But what good is that output if we don’t want to build and sell that many houses in the future? How do we redirect capital away from those sectors? And how long does it take? Arguably, the narrowing of the US trade deficit is pushing that adjustment forward, as the US economy can't focus entirely on producing nontradable goods. Recall Brad DeLong from 2005:

There is an alternative scenario, one in which foreigners'--including foreign central banks'--desired holdings of dollar-denominated assets shortly hit the wall, and the asset price shifts that result from desired holdings' hitting the wall reduce, or do not increase, confidence in the dollar.

In this alternative scenario, the U.S. has to move about ten million workers out of currently-favored sectors--construction, home-equity-credit financed consumer expenditures, and so on--into export and import-competing manufactures. How much structural unemployment does such a sectoral shift require, and how long does the structural unemployment last? Other countries have to shift up to forty million workers out of export manufactures into other industries, and to generate demand for the products of those industries (without destabilizing their own monetary systems and asset prices, as Japan appears to have done at the end of the 1980s). The U.S. Federal Reserve would have to cope with whatever inflationary pressures are generated by rising import prices. Foreign central banks would have to cope with whatever stresses on their own asset prices are created by enormous losses of value in the stocks and bonds of their exporting companies.

If structural unemployment is rising - not because banks are currently bad, but engaged in bad behavior in the past - attempts to reduce unemployment back to pre-recession levels will yield higher inflation. This problem is minimized if labor resources can be quickly redirected into other sectors, a process that Nick above is implying is hampered by the existence now of bad banks. But, as Brad suggested in 2005, getting to inflation in the current environment seems to require a Dollar collapse - a story that for now is difficult to tell.

All of which is interesting, but even if you believe that structural unemployment is rising, I don't think anyone believes it is near the 8.5% rate for March (not to mention the underemployment rate of 15.6%). Nor does anyone expect that recent green shoots are sufficient to keep unemployment from rising further. Moreover, note that the Employment Costs Index released today reveals the continued slide in employee compensation costs - consistent with the FOMC's concerns about economic slack. Indeed, the ECI highlights the risks of the Fed's move to hold steady policy: Declining wage growth, coupled with higher interest rates, would play havoc with household efforts to reduce balance sheets and intensify the need to boost saving rates. Hence why the risks still favor additional policy easing - especially if programs such as TALF and PPIP are less successful than imagined.

In short, the shoots are much too green and the output gap much too wide to stimulate much discussion on Constitution Avenue that the end of easing has conclusively been reached. A pause to assess, yes. But Fed officials will be looking for clear and convincing evidence that economic activity is both self sustaining (not likely to fade after the initial burst of federal stimulus moves through the pipeline) and sufficient to substantially reduce the output gap before they sound the all clear signal. An end to the rapid pace of job loss is very different from a return to steady job growth. Again, recall the sustained pattern of easing in the wake of the 2001 recession - we need to go a long way up from -6% GDP growth before the job engine is started. To be sure, there should be some lingering concern that the Fed will act quickly (or at least the markets will act quickly), if there is a perceived need to withdraw monetary accommodation. But the data are well short of what would be necessary to justify such a shift in policy in the near future.

This post can also be viewed on economistsview.typepad.com.

We Need A Root-And-Branch Reorganization Of The Financial System

Some people are open to the government handing over trillions of dollars to the banks, but no taxpayers want the money handed over without proper controls in place that will ensure it goes to good use. This has been one of the biggest issues the public has had with the bailout efforts thus far. For that reason Steve Waldman is calling for a root-and-branch reorganization of the financial system. For more on this, read the following blog post from Mark Thoma.

Steve Waldman says "we need a root-and-branch reorganization of the financial system":

Value for value, Steve Waldman: Would it have been better if Timothy Geithner had had the power to guarantee all bank debt early on? As James Surowiecki reminds us, that was part of the Swedish solution. Justin Fox plausibly suggests that we might have avoided a lot of pain with a fast, full guarantee.

But that's not the point. The question isn't whether we could have avoided this crisis, if only we had cut a big check. We could have, and that was not lost to any of us debating these issues more than a year ago. (See e.g. me or Mark Thoma.) Had we done so, the near-to-medium term fiscal costs might have been less than they probably will be now. So, with 20/20 hindsight, would it have been a good idea?

How you answer that question depends upon how you view the crisis. Is it an aberration, a shock to a basically sound financial system, or is it a painful symptom of an even more dangerous condition? ...

If you think that our financial system just needs some tweaks, some consolidation of regulators' organizational charts and sterner supervision, then you should prefer that we had just cut a check, passed Sarbanes/Oxley Book II, and moved on. But that is not what I, or most proponents of temporary receivership for insolvent banks, believe.

If you believe, as I do, that we need a root-and-branch reorganization of the financial system, which must necessarily involve the dismemberment and intrusive restraint of deeply entrenched institutions, does that mean pain is the only way forward, "the worse the better" in the old revolutionary cliché? It need not mean that. But it does mean that palliative measures, like giving the banks money, would have to be attached to curative measures, like enacting capital requirements and imposing regulatory burdens that would force financial behemoths to break themselves up or become boring narrow banks. For almost two years, policymakers at the Fed and the Treasury, including Secretary Geithner, have offered bail-out after bail-out and asked for nothing serious in return.

Do I regret that Henry Paulson was not empowered to issue a blanket guarantee of bank assets early on, as the Swedes did? No, I don't regret that at all. Why not? Because I think that "Hank the Tank" was a crappy negotiator... He would have offered the financial system sugar without requiring it to make the medicine go down. He may believe, quite sincerely, that a cure would be worse than the disease. He may believe that, but he is wrong. ...

You may believe that we have learned our lesson, that if we can just get some stability and comfort for a while we are prepared to do what must be done. That's a respectable position. But I don't share it, and neither do the majority of Americans who are unwilling to allow their representatives to sign off on any more expensive aspirin. We want value for value, an ironclad commitment of root and branch reform in exchange for the unimaginable sums of money we are being asked to hand over. ... Congress would, because the public would, support large, explicit transfers, if they were attached to reforms sufficiently radical to prevent a recurrence, and suitably punitive towards the people who managed the system that brought us here. Value for value. ...

I ... would be willing to hold my nose and tolerate a Swedish-style guarantee of bank creditors. I'd acquiesce to that even without formal nationalization. Nationalization is ... a means to an end, and the desired end is a world in which too big to fail is too big to exist for any financial institution that originates or holds credit risk in any form. Secretary Geithner could send a bill to Congress today that would put all banks with a balance sheet of over $50B into run-off mode... I'd fax my Congressman and support a $2T on-budget buyout of bank creditors as part of that bill, as long as it had teeth. ("Teeth" would imply making sure that off-balance-sheet and derivative exposures were included in the size cap, etc.)

It's not that us pitchfork-totin' populists are unwilling to pay the bill. It's that we want to know that in exchange for writing a very, very large check, the people that we are paying will actually deliver the goods. Given the behavior of bankers before the crisis and of shifty policymakers during, we have every reason to watch warily and to insist upon every precaution while we hand over suitcase after suitcase of freshly printed Federal Reserve notes.

This post can also be found on economistsview.typepad.com.

Hong Kong Set To Take Off Thanks To Bernanke

Thanks to the chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve — Ben Bernanke — Hong Kong is about to take off. It might seem a little weird that Bernanke could impact Hong Kong so drastically, but because Hong Kong's currency is so closely linked to the U.S. dollar they are forced to follow the Fed's every move. That — coupled with the fact Hong Kong's stocks are undervalued — is creating a perfect storm for Hong Kong's market. For more on this, read the following article from Dr. Steve Sjuggerud at Daily Wealth.

Ben Bernanke has cut short-term interest rates in the U.S. to essentially zero... the lowest rate we've ever seen.

He's doing this, of course, to "juice" the economy – to give it a jumpstart. He doesn't know (or care, actually) that this action will inadvertently (but undoubtedly) cause one particular stock market to go absolutely nuts.

This stock market I'm talking about is Hong Kong. Today, we have the ultimate recipe for stocks in Hong Kong to skyrocket. The Fed has cut interest rates to essentially zero (causing Hong Kong rates to be next to zero in its unique money system). And yet Hong Kong stocks are incredibly cheap. They bottomed a month ago at a single-digit price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio.

We've seen this before:

• In 1992-1993, the Hang Seng Index shot from 5,500 to 12,000. At that time, the Fed had cut interest rates below the rate of inflation. So "real" interest rates were below zero.
• The Fed did it again from 2003-2005. And in that time, the Hang Seng Index jumped nearly 7,000 points, from a low of 8,600 to 15,500. (It continued to rise... peaking over 30,000 in 2007. That's four times your money from 2003 to 2007.)

And it's happening again, right now... The Fed has cut interest rates to zero, and the uptrend in Hong Kong has arrived. It's time to get in.

While Ben Bernanke is trying to help the U.S., he's unwittingly creating havoc on the other side of the globe...

Hong Kong is quite an incredible place... With no natural resources, the standard of living has gone from subsistence wages to one of the highest in the world in just a few decades.

I believe two things contributed to Hong Kong's boom... 1) Hong Kong has been for decades one of the "freest" markets in the world, allowing entrepreneurs to succeed or fail. And 2) Hong Kong has had a stable currency, thanks to its unique currency system. For the last 25 years, the Hong Kong dollar has been worth about US$7.80, give or take a few pennies.

Hong Kong's unique currency system is called a currency board. A country that has a true currency board has one U.S. dollar in the bank for every dollar of its own currency that it prints. How does it keep the exchange rate equal? Through interest rates...

Interest rates in Hong Kong dollars are always higher than in the U.S. Depositors are willing to "take the risk" on the Hong Kong dollar for the slightly higher yield.

As a result, Bernanke essentially controls interest rates in Hong Kong. Whether Hong Kong is in a boom or a bust, he doesn't care. So Bernanke could be raising or cutting interest rates at precisely the wrong time in Hong Kong's business cycle.

Therefore, Hong Kong's stock market is subject to wild booms and busts, based on what the U.S. Fed is doing with interest rates.

As I said, today we have the ultimate recipe for stocks to skyrocket in Hong Kong. Interest rates are next to zero. And Hong Kong stocks are cheap, hitting single-digit P/E ratios a month ago.

I have two nearly guaranteed "rules" for making money in Hong Kong...

First is the "Hong Kong Can't Help It Rule." That's when the U.S. Fed cuts interest rates below the "market" rate. This means "real" interest rates are below zero. When this happens, buy Hong Kong... It can't help it. It soars.

The second rule is the "20/10 Rule." In short, you want to be a buyer of stocks in Hong Kong when the P/E ratio falls below 10. And you want to be a seller when the ratio rises above 20.

Hong Kong stocks often soar by hundreds of percent after they fall below a P/E of 10. And often they lose half their value soon after they rise above a P/E of 20.

Right now is an extraordinary moment... both rules are in play... AND we have an uptrend in Hong Kong stocks that started last month.

You should consider buying Hong Kong shares now... Triple-digit gains are possible... and you can limit your downside risk by using a trailing stop. Those are my kind of odds!

Dailywealth.com offers a free daily investment newsletter which focuses on contrarian investment opportunities.

Depression Looms Without More Stimulus

Do we really need more economic stimulus? We have already spent trillions of dollars attacking this financial crisis, and unfortunately we also have seen billions apparently wasted by poor policy decisions and implementation. All that aside, according to famed economist Robert Shiller, we need more economic stimulus or else we are likely facing another depression. For more on this, read the following blog post from Mark Thoma.

Robert Shiller says we need to continue with the monetary and fiscal policies we are pursuing, but both efforts need to be larger:

Depression Lurks Unless There’s More Stimulus, by Robert Shiller, Commentary, Bloomberg: In the Great Depression ... the U.S. government had a great deal of trouble maintaining its commitment to economic stimulus. “Pump- priming” was talked about and tried, but not consistently. The Depression could have been mostly prevented, but wasn’t. ...

In the face of a similar Depression-era psychology today, we are in need of massive pump-priming again. We appear to be in a much better situation due to the stronger efforts to date. Still, there is a danger that, because of a combination of faulty economic theory and inadequate appreciation of human psychology, as well as deep public anger, we will not continue with such stimulus on a high enough level. ...

In our analysis of the current economic crisis, we conclude that the government should have two targets. One would be a joint fiscal-monetary policy target. The same kind of expansionary policies embodied in the government expenditure stimulus and tax cuts that are already being tried have to be done on a big enough scale and for a long enough time in the future. ...

The government should also have a credit target. Once again, we are calling for more of the same kinds of existing policies... Achieving this requires new approaches, like those announced by the Bernanke Fed and the Obama administration, but on a continuing and even larger scale. ...

In this crisis, acceptance of these measures is being replaced with outrage. It is increasing the blood pressure of the public, and that can’t continue without damage to our system. ... It is time to face up to what needs to be done. The sticker shock involved will be large, but the costs in terms of lost output of not meeting either the credit target or the aggregate demand target will be yet larger.

It would be a shame if we are so overwhelmed by anger at the unfairness of it all that we do not take the positive measures needed to restore us to full employment. That would not just be unfair to the U.S. taxpayer. That would be unfair to those who are living in Hoovervilles...; it would be unfair to those who are being evicted from their homes, and can’t find new ones because they can’t find jobs. That would be unfair to those who have to drop out of school because they, or their parents, can’t find jobs.

It is now time to keep our eye on the ball and set clear targets to fix a system that broke when our animal spirits got out of bounds.

This post can also be viewed on economistsview.typepad.com.

Treasury Yield: What Does The Future Have In Store?

A lot of people have been turning to Treasuries as the investment of choice in these unpredictable and rough economic times, but will it ultimately prove to be a good move? While widely considered "risk free" investments, that is far from the truth. There are many things that perspective Treasury investors need to keep in mind when weighing their investment options. The following blog post from James Picerno offers some insight into what is going on right now in the Treasury market, and hopefully will help investors make an a better informed decision.

It's hard to dismiss the ongoing news about China's anxiety over its massive holdings of American debt. What's worrisome for China is ultimately a concern for the U.S., with fallout that may come sooner than we think.

“We have lent a huge amount of money to the U.S. Of course we are concerned about the safety of our assets. To be honest, I am definitely a little worried," Chinese prime minister, Wen Jiabao, said last month. It was a rare public admission of apprehension by a high-ranking Chinese official on the delicate and increasingly precarious lender-borrower relationship that describes the U.S. and China.

Yesterday came word that China's purchases of U.S. bonds slowed in the first two months of this year, according to new data from China's central bank, The New York Times reports. "Chinese reserves fell a record $32.6 billion in January and $1.4 billion more in February before rising $41.7 billion in March, according to figures released by the People’s Bank over the weekend," the Times notes. The trend may now be reversing, although the notion that a pivotal point in the U.S.-China financial relationship may be near remains intact.

The fear is that China will slow (cease?) buying new Treasuries, a decision that's likely to force up interest rates in the U.S. For the moment, there's no reason to dismiss that scenario, at least when it comes to the recent trend in the yield on the benchmark 10-year Treasury Note. As the chart below shows, the march upward to the 3% mark is alive and well.

What makes the rising yield in the 10-year so striking is that it comes in the wake of the Federal Reserve's announcement last month that it would directly target lowering rates on long Treasuries. The market's initial reaction was to buy Treasuries, which resulted in one of the biggest one-day drops in interest rates on record. For a time it looked like Bernanke and company had struck gold. But confidence that the central bank has complete control over the long end of the curve has been evaporating in recent weeks.

As the above chart shows, the 10-year yield collapsed by around 50 basis points on March 18, down to around 2.5%. As of April 9, the 10-year's yield had climbed by to roughly 2.9%, just under the level where when the Fed made its bombshell announcement last month.

High interest rates in the U.S. necessarily make the dollar more attractive, at least for a time. No wonder, then, that the buck's value is rising in forex markets in recent weeks, in sympathy with higher interest rates on the 10-year. The U.S. Dollar Index is just about at the highest level since the Fed's March 18 disclosure, a news event that had initially sent the buck tumbling. Meanwhile, commodity prices generally have been inching higher as well, as per the CRB Index. Commodities are generally priced in dollars, so it's no surprise that a strong dollar equates with higher commodity prices.

Higher interest rates are almost surely the path of least resistance in the years ahead, in part because the U.S. deficits are sure to be large in the wake of all the monetary and fiscal stimulus of late. The problem is that the arrival higher interest rates now, this week, next month, next quarter come at an especially inopportune time: before the economy has sufficiently recovered. The Fed surely seeks to keep long rates below 3% for the rest of the year, or so one might speculate. But it's not clear that the markets are willing to go along for the ride.

In the old days, the Fed's powers were such that it had more control over keeping interest rates low and thereby providing the economy with ample monetary stimulus until the forces of growth rose anew. Engineering that scenario this time may be tougher, much tougher. One reason is that much of the control over future rates has been transferred to foreigners, courtesy of holding large quantities of U.S. debt. That may not be fate that rates will rise. Indeed, China surely wants to keep U.S. rates low in order to boost growth here, which will promote imports of Chinese goods. But no one really knows how these forces will play out.

Perhaps the cycle will be salvaged if the economy rebounds quicker than the crowd expects. Alternatively, the Chinese and other foreigners decide to buy large quantities of Treasuries in the months and quarters ahead. There are solutions to the current dilemma, but no one should expect that they're a forgone conclusion.

This post can also be viewed on capitalspectator.com.

The Fed Is Running A "Laboratory Experiment" On What Drives Inflation

A former Fed governor says the Fed is basically running a laboratory experiment on what drives inflation. Of course that terminology probably doesn't sit well with most Americans, who are looking to the government to fix our economy, it is close to the truth. Beyond the laboratory experiment, though, there is a potentially bigger problem with the Fed. It is looking more and more like the Fed's independence is being squandered...again. There is a reason why the Fed was made independent, and it wasn't to succumb to every whim of the Federal government. For more on this, read the following article from Tim Iacono.

With growing optimism that the worst may now be behind it for the U.S. economy, a growing number of observers are starting to look at what sort of an economic landscape might take shape should the optimists be right, given all the money creation over the last year or so to bailout financial firms and effectively nationalize the mortgage lending industry.

According to Allan Meltzer, one of the world's foremost experts on U.S. monetary policy, the outlook is not good and it has much to do with the historical role of the Federal Reserve as an independent organization as described in this report at Bloomberg.

Meltzer says political pressure will prevent Bernanke, 55, and fellow policy makers from withdrawing liquidity quickly enough as the economy recovers. That’s similar to the pattern that occurred back in the 1970s, he says. Then-Chairman Arthur Burns allowed excessive money-supply growth because he was unable or unwilling to resist pressure from President Richard Nixon’s White House to hold down unemployment, leading to the “great inflation” of that era, he says.

Now, Bernanke and fellow policy makers have “squandered their independence” by becoming involved in bailouts of financial firms and by taking long-term and illiquid assets onto their balance sheet, Meltzer says. “They don’t have the political ability to control inflation.”

It really is too bad for the central bankers of the world that the labor market is a lagging indicator. During the latter stages of a recession, when other economic statistics begin pointing unambiguously upward, job losses generally continue at a healthy pace and this can make reining in easy money an exceedingly difficult task.

That's one of the most important reasons why the Federal Reserve was created as an independent organization - to do what's best for the economy in the long-term regardless of the political whims and wishes in Washington.

[Note: Yes, the most important reason for the Fed's independence is its unholy relationship with big New York banks, but that's an entirely different discussion.]

Anyway, with many now seeing "green shoots" all over the landscape, the inflation/deflation debate looks set to heat up once again, and Fed policy is right in the thick of things.

“All that money is going to find a home,” says Ken Mayland, president of ClearView Economics LLC in Pepper Pike, Ohio. He sees oil prices increasing to “$80, $90, $100 before the end of next year” from $52 a barrel now.

Commodity prices may be more prone to rise as the world economy recovers because tight credit and volatile pricing will discourage investment in new supplies, says Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Economy.com, in West Chester, Pennsylvania.
...
Some Fed policy makers seem more worried about deflation than they do about inflation. A sustained fall in prices can debilitate the economy by causing consumers and businesses to postpone purchases.

“For some time to come, disinflation, and even deflation, will represent greater risks than inflation,” San Francisco Fed President Janet Yellen said in a speech on March 25.

At the root of that concern is substantial and growing slack in the economy, which, according to White House chief economist Christina Romer, is operating 5 percent to 10 percent below potential. That means the economy will have to grow a percentage point above trend -- reckoned by the administration to be about 2.5 percent annually -- for five or more years before the slack is used up.

The Phillips curve -- developed by economist A.W. Phillips using Keynesian concepts -- posits that such excess will reduce inflation as firms stuck with idle capacity cut prices and workers facing layoffs accept smaller wage hikes.

Not everyone at the Fed buys into that argument. Noting that some economists forecast substantial slack will keep inflation low for several years, Richmond Fed President Jeffrey Lacker said in a March 26 speech that he would be “cautious about relying on this correlation.”

The Fed is “running a laboratory experiment” on what drives inflation: the money supply or the output gap, says Laurence Meyer, a former Fed governor and now vice chairman of St. Louis-based Macroeconomic Advisers

“How it turns out will do a lot to influence the economic debate,” he says, adding that his money is on Bernanke.

How it turns out will also do a lot to influence whether the Federal Reserve continues to exist in its current form and whether there are major revisions to current economic theory.

If the amount of inflation bears any resemblance to the size of recent asset bubbles or the volume of money printing deemed necessary to combat their bursting, there may be a wholesale rethinking of what a central bank is and what economists do.

This post can also be viewed on themessthatgreenspanmade.blogspot.com.

Why Dropping "Mark to Market" Rules Won't Solve Anything

In an effort to shore up the balance sheets of banks the government decided to drop the "mark to market" rules that have been causing so much trouble in the financial industry. As Peter Schiff points out in his article, though, this won't solve anything. The rule was created in order to give investors a better idea of the true value of bank assets — basing the valuations on market activity rather than arbitrary assessments by the bank's accountants. Letting the banks decide how much their assets are worth, rather than the market, is a recipe for deception and ultimate failure. Read about what Schiff has to say in the article below from Money Morning.

When elementary school kids want to escape the confines of their circumstances, they pretend to be pirates, princesses and Jedi knights. Now, with the relaxation of "mark to market" valuation rules announced by the accounting trade’s self-regulatory body, our bankrupt financial institutions can escape their own reality by pretending to be solvent.

The unraveling of our fairytale economy over the last few months has not yet convinced us that the time has come to put away childish things. The applause that greeted the Financial Accounting Standards Board’s (FASB) ruling on Wall Street is a clear sign that we still have some growing up to do.

The imaginative conceit that lies behind the accounting change is that the toxic assets polluting bank balance sheets are not really toxic at all. They are in fact highly valuable assets that for some irrational reason no one wants to buy.

Using the "mark to market" accounting method, mortgage-backed securities were valued relative to the latest prices fetched by the sale of similar assets on the open market. Currently, those bonds are being sold at deep discounts to their original value. By "marking" their unsold bonds down to those prices, the insolvency of our financial institutions had been laid bare. But the new accounting changes will allow the nervous owners to assign more "appropriate" (i.e. higher) values. Problem solved.

It is important to note that the FASB made its rule modifications only after both Washington and Wall Street applied intense pressure. In their heart of hearts, I can’t imagine that there are too many bean counters happy with the outcome.

The banks and the government have argued that the assets should be valued based solely on current cash flow. Most mortgages, after all, are not delinquent. Therefore, a few bad apples should not spoil the whole bunch, and those that are not yet delinquent should be valued at par. This method assumes we have no ability to look into the future and make assumptions about what is likely to happen, which is presumably what the market is already doing by valuing the assets lower than the banks wish.

All kinds of bonds (corporate, government and municipal, etc.) that are not in default frequently trade at discounts. In fact, the reason agencies such as Moody’s Corp. (MCO) and Standard & Poor’s rate bonds is to assess the probability of default. The higher that probability, the lower the value placed on the bonds, regardless of their current cash flow.

For example, General Motors Corp.’s (GM) 10-year bonds currently trade for only 8 to 10 cents on the dollar, despite the fact that GM is current on all interest payments. The 90% discount reflects investor awareness that GM will likely default long before the bonds mature. By the new logic, financial institutions with GM bonds on their balance sheets should be able to ignore the market and value these bonds at par.

Some argue that the comparison is invalid because GM’s bonds are liquid while mortgage-backed securities are not. However, if sellers of GM bonds were holding out for 70 or 80 cents on the dollar, those bonds would be illiquid too. The reason GM bonds are trading is that sellers are realistic.

The same should apply to bonds backed by mortgages. To assume that a 30-year, $500,000 mortgage on a house that has declined in value to $300,000 has a high probability of remaining current to maturity is ridiculous. The borrower could lose his job, his adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM) might reset higher, or he may simply tire of paying an expensive mortgage for a house that is unlikely to be sold at a profit.

Any bond investor with half a brain will factor in these probabilities and look for deep discounts. The only way to accurately assess a real present value is to let the market discover the price.

Despite the pleas from bankers and politicians, mortgages are not plagued by a lack of liquidity but a lack of value. If sellers would be more negotiable, there would be plenty of liquidity. Who knows, at the right price I might even buy a few. The problem is that putting a market price on these assets would render most financial institutions insolvent, which is precisely why they do not want to let that happen.

Simply pretending that all these mortgages will be repaid does not solve the underlying problems. It may keep some banks alive longer, but when they ultimately do fail, the losses will be that much greater. In the meantime, solvent institutions are deprived of capital as more funds are funneled into insolvent "too big to fail" institutions - hiding their toxic assets behind rosy assumptions and phony marks.

Going from the sublime to the completely ridiculous, in a speech at the just-concluded Group 20 summit in London, President Barack Obama urged Americans not to let their fears crimp their spending. It would be unwise, he argued, for Americans to let the fear of job loss, lack of savings, unpaid bills, credit card debt or student loans deter them from making major purchases.

According to the president, "we must spend now as an investment for the future." So in this land of imagination (where subprime mortgages are valued at par), instead of saving for the future, we must spend for the future.

I guess Ben Franklin had it wrong too – apparently a penny spent is a penny earned.

This post can also be viewed on moneymorning.com.

America's Tarnished Reputation Threatens Global Response To Financial Crisis

One of the biggest casualties from the financial crisis — and our handling of it — has been the loss of America's reputation on financial matters. As far as most of the world can tell we are the ones who started this financial mess — which is enveloping much of the world — and even worse we have appeared incompetent to fix it. Why then would the rest of the world listen to us when we try to piece together an effective global response? As Paul Krugman points out in his recent article, America quite possibly could have lost one of its most valuable assets — its reputation — right when they — and the world — need it most. For more on this, read the following blog post from Mark Thoma.

The financial crisis has damaged our global authority, credibility, and leadership, and that will make it much harder for the world to accomplish the essential task of coordinating a common response:

America the Tarnished, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: Ten years ago the cover of Time magazine featured Robert Rubin,... Alan Greenspan,... and Lawrence Summers... Time dubbed the three “the committee to save the world,” crediting them with leading the global financial system through a crisis..., although it was a small blip compared with what we’re going through now.

All the men on that cover were Americans, but nobody considered that odd. After all, in 1999 the United States was the unquestioned leader of the global crisis response. ... The United States, everyone thought, was the country that knew how to do finance right.

How times have changed..., ... our claims of financial soundness — claims often invoked as we lectured other countries on the need to change their ways — have proved hollow.

Indeed, these days America is looking like the Bernie Madoff of economies: for many years it was held in respect, even awe, but it turns out to have been a fraud all along. ...

Simon Johnson..., who served as the chief economist at the IMF..., declares that America’s current difficulties are “shockingly reminiscent” of crises in places like Russia and Argentina — including the key role played by crony capitalists.

In America as in the third world, he writes, “elite business interests — financiers, in the case of the U.S. — played a central role in creating the crisis, making ever-larger gambles, with the implicit backing of the government, until the inevitable collapse. More alarming, they are now using their influence to prevent precisely the sorts of reforms that are needed, and fast, to pull the economy out of its nosedive.”

It’s no wonder, then, that an article in yesterday’s Times about the response President Obama will receive in Europe was titled “English-Speaking Capitalism on Trial.”

Now, in fairness ... the United States was far from being the only nation in which banks ran wild. Many European leaders are still in denial about the continent’s economic and financial troubles, which arguably run as deep as our own... Still, it’s a fact that the crisis has cost America much of its credibility, and with it much of its ability to lead.

And that’s a very bad thing... I’ve been revisiting the Great Depression,... one thing that stands out ... is the extent to which the world’s response to crisis was crippled by the inability of the world’s major economies to cooperate.

The details of our current crisis are very different, but the need for cooperation is no less. President Obama got it exactly right last week when he declared: “All of us are going to have to take steps in order to lift the economy. We don’t want a situation in which some countries are making extraordinary efforts and other countries aren’t.”

Yet that is exactly the situation we’re in. I don’t believe that even America’s economic efforts are adequate, but they’re far more than most other wealthy countries have been willing to undertake. And by rights this week’s G-20 summit ought to be an occasion for Mr. Obama to chide and chivy European leaders, in particular, into pulling their weight.

But these days foreign leaders are in no mood to be lectured by American officials, even when — as in this case — the Americans are right.

The financial crisis has had many costs. And one of those costs is the damage to America’s reputation, an asset we’ve lost just when we, and the world, need it most.

This post can also be viewed on economistsview.typepad.com.

Fed Ups Balance Sheet $1.2 Trillion: Irresponsible, Or Just What The Economy Needs?

With the recent announcement that the Federal Reserve plans to buy up $1.2 trillion in mortgage backed securities and other financial instruments, there has been a economic divide created. On one side Americans will benefit from reduced mortgage rates, however, opponents to the decision argue that this will lead to major inflation and devalue the savings of responsible Americans. It seems that anyone "responsible" is getting victimized in all these stimulus measures. Furthermore there is always the worry that the foreign buyers of our debt will be turned off by our actions and decide to stop buying these assets, or even worse sell off what they already own. For more on this, read the following blog post from Tony Straka.

Word has probably spread around by now that the Federal Reserve is going to buy everything in America that's not nailed down, throwing another $1,150,000,000,000 lifeline at markets. (Click here to see what a trillion looks like.)

The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) yesterday informed the public that it will expand its dominating position in the MBS market, throwing an additional $750 billion there. The buying spree does not end there. Having arrived at zero interest rate policy 3 months earlier the Fed now hopes to control interest rates by monetizing US Treasuries equalling $300 billion. Stirring still more Bourbon in the punch bowl the Fed will also up its portfolio of agency debt by another $100 billion.

Markets rallied on the news with Treasuries shedding up to 51 basis points. Gold outshone everything and spurted more than $50 on the FOMC's news that will ultimately lead to higher inflation rates despite the FOMC statement that said,

In light of increasing economic slack here and abroad, the Committee expects that inflation will remain subdued.

Surprisingly chairman Ben Bernanke and his troops are more worried about possible deflation despite the Fed's balloning balance sheet that will pass the $3 trillion mark this year.

Moreover, the Committee sees some risk that inflation could persist for a time below rates that best foster economic growth and price stability in the longer term.

Latest CPI figures show a different picture. Inflation rose to 0.5% (January: 0,4%) or 6% annualized in February.

GRAPH: Gold reacted with the biggest jump seen in decades, rising more than $50 after the Fed released more measures that are designed to fuel monetary inflation. Chart courtesy of kitco.com

Economists were up in arms about the Fed's measures. Stephen Stanley of RBS Greenwich Capital said via the WSJ blogs:

The agency MBS market is close to $4 trillion, so the Fed will end up owning almost one-third of the agency mortgage market. If this was a “rigged market” (to quote one of my learned colleagues on the mortgage desk) before, what should we call it now?! … $50 billion per month in Treasuries pales in comparison to new supply. Just to flesh that point out, we project that auctions of 2’s, 3’s, 5’s, 7’s, and 10’s will total $150 billion in March. In essence, even if all the purchases are limited to 2’s to 10’s, the Fed’s program will merely be a third of the new supply (and far short of one-third of the total market, as is the case for agency MBS).

Morgan Stanleys David Greenlaw said,

Even with energy prices having flattened The Fed’s Treasury purchases will absorb a very significant portion of the amount of gross issuance that we anticipate to occur over the next six months… The Fed’s announcement signals a clear intent to continue to drive mortgage rates lower and we expect them to meet this objective. This could represent a powerful source of stimulus for the household sector of the economy. In 2008, the average mortgage rate on the outstanding stock of loans was about 6.50%. So, if the Fed brings 30-yr fixed rate mortgages down to 4.50% and all homeowners are able refi, the aggregate permanent cash flow savings would be on the order of $200 billion per year.

Bloomberg summed it up in the lead of their coverage:

By committing to buy Treasuries and double his purchases of mortgage debt, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke signaled his determination to avoid a repeat of the Great Depression and his willingness to pump as much cash into the economy as needed to end the current crisis.

I conclude nothing has changed in the Fed's perception that new fiat money will also solve this crisis. Taking gold's reaction as the canary in the coal mine markets will recognize that the Fed is on the way towards hyper inflation. As in the Weimar republic the US central bank spins up the presses to monetize the debt. At the end of the Weimar republic one percent of government income came from taxes and 99% came fresh from the printing presses.

President Barack Obama may have no other choice than to take this route as foreign investors grow wary about the capability of the USA to serve its debts and we may see less participation in Treasury auctions also for the reason that sovereign wealth funds will spend a bigger portion domestically as nearly every nation is confronted with the economic downturn. For the time being gold investments may turn out again to be the safest asset to hold.

UPDATE: Mint.com says one trillion greenbacks could fund an inflation-adjusted New Deal twice over. Check out their way of visualizing what one trillion can buy and be in for a dose of reality.

I especially liked this one. Do you still say this crisis is manageable? Illustration courtesy of Mint.com.

This post can also be viewed on prudentinvestor.blogspot.com.

We Avoided Deflation Again: Soon Inflation Could Be Problem

The latest CPI reports showed that we once again avoided the dreaded "D" word — deflation. But as James Picerno points out while we are worried about deflation now, at some point here we are going to have to unwind all the policies that have been enacted to boost the economy. Since policy makers tend to be a little behind on the unwinding side in all likelihood we will experience hefty inflationary pressure before things balance out again. So while we are worried about deflation now, soon our concern needs to move to controlling inflation off the backend. For more on this, read the blog post below from James Picerno.

Today’s report on consumer price inflation (CPI) for February confirms yesterday’s news on wholesale prices for last month: deflation is on the run. For the moment, anyway.

That’s good news, but if it’s true, then monetary policy becomes increasingly tricky in the months ahead. We say if it’s true because it’s hard to make definitive conclusions on just a few months of data. At the moment, the case for arguing that deflation has been banished rests on January and February numbers. Deciding if that’s a trend with legs remains speculative, albeit less so than in the past several months. Only once it's clear that the economy is past its worst point in the current downturn will it be obvious that deflation is no longer a threat. Where and when that point lies, alas, isn't yet obvious, at least to this observer.

Meanwhile, the Labor Department reports this morning that consumer prices rose 0.4% last month on a seasonally adjusted basis. That’s up from January’s 0.3% and both numbers stand in sharp contrast to the previous three months (Oct through Dec), when CPI dropped sharply.

Core inflation (excluding food and energy) was up 0.2%, as it was in January, suggesting that overall prices, as defined by the Federal Reserve, are more or less stable. For the year through February, core CPI advanced 1.8%, roughly in line with where the Fed would like to see it remain through time.

Does this mean the all-clear sign for deflation worries is past? Perhaps, but it’s still too soon to say. There was never any doubt that a determined central bank can engineer inflation. Indeed, that’s the natural order of economic behavior and many a central bank has unwittingly fostered higher inflation without necessarily trying. The fact that the Fed has been working over time to generate higher inflation as an antidote to elevated deflationary risks should surprise no one when the effort bears fruit.

One clue that the reflation efforts are more than noise comes by noting that CPI’s major subcategories all posted higher prices last month save for food and beverages. The same was true for January, a month when food prices climbed as well. That’s a big and productive shift from 2008’s fourth quarter, when price declines were running hard. At the time, the fear was that the negative price momentum would build a head of steam and, left unchecked, would develop into sustained deflation.

As we write, there’s reason to think the Fed’s policy of nipping deflation in the bud is working. Is it time to pull the plug on the massive liquidity injections? No, not yet. There's still a strong, negative headwind blowing in the economy, starting with the labor market. Until we learn more about how the current business cycle is unfolding, the case for keeping Fed funds just above zero is compelling. One metric to watch closely in the coming weeks is initial jobless claims, which is one of several critical components for estimating the current state of the business cycle, as we’ve discussed.

Meantime, Bernanke and company begin their two-day gab fest today at the Fed. As we write, the Fed funds futures market is expecting more of the same: leaving the Fed funds rate unchanged at just over zero. For the moment, that’s prudent, but it may not be so for much longer. When it’s clear that deflation is no longer a clear and present danger, it’ll be time to start raising interest rates to keep the inflationary medicine from bubbling over down the road. That’s not going to be easy in an economy that, even in the best of scenarios, is likely to be struggling for the foreseeable future.

In short, we may be nearing the end of the heightened risk for deflation. That suggests that a new era for monetary policy is coming, and it promises to be a difficult one, which is to say that the risk of error will be quite high. As inflationary pressures return, albeit slowly and tenuously, the central bank will have to navigate a fine line of keeping prices under control without creating excessive drag for economic growth. The previous run of monetary policy decisions look like child’s play by comparison.

This post can also be viewed on capitalspectator.com.

Jon Stewart Goes After Jim Cramer

In the much anticipated interview with Jim Cramer from CNBC's Mad Money show, Jon Stewart — host of The Daily Show — went after Cramer. Stewart was critical of Cramer's role in concealing the truth on certain financial matters from viewers of his show, and the American public. Tim Iacono breaks down the interview further in his blog post below.

The online media is loaded with coverage this morning of last night's appearance by Jim Cramer on The Daily Show and for good reason. While some may have been disappointed in the showdown, as is usually the case, Jon Stewart asked at least a few questions that never even occur to most people and helped to shed some light on what is wrong with CNBC.

The videos are in three parts below with the juiciest excerpt in between.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Jim Cramer Pt. 1

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things w/ Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Jim Cramer

Apparently (and understandably) Comedy Central is getting all the ad revenue they can out of this event, that first clip above barely longer than the commercial... Hmm... or maybe not... it looks like the 30 second commercials don't get cued up when they're embedded...

Here's part two and a transcript of the last minute or so is provided further below.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Jim Cramer Pt. 2

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things w/ Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Jim Cramer

This is the exchange that made the biggest impression on me:

Jon Stewart: Honest or not, in what world is 35-to-1 leveraged position sane?

Jim Cramer: The world that made you 30 percent a year for year after year beginning from 1999 to 2007 and it became very easy to play.

Stewart: But, isn't that part of the problem? Selling this idea that you don't have to do anything. Anytime you sell people the idea that, "Sit back and you'll get 10 to 20 percent on your money" - don't you always know that that's going to be a lie? When are we going to realize in this country that our wealth is work - that we're workers - and by selling this idea of "Hey man, I'll teach you how to be rich" - how is that different from an infomercial?

Cramer: Well, I think that your goal should always be to try to expose that there is no easy money - I mean, I wish I had found Madoff.

Stewart: But the show is called "Fast Money".

Cramer: I think that people ... there's a market for it and we give it to them.

Stewart: There's a market for cocaine and hookers!

And here's the last minute or so.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Jim Cramer Pt. 3

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things w/ Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Jim Cramer

All-in-all, it was well worth the wait.

This post can also be viewed on themessthatgreenspanmade.blogspot.com.

How Did The Financial Crisis Happen?

So, how did we let this whole financial crisis happen? Ask 10 people and you are likely to get an array of answers, none of them necessarily wrong. After all, with so many glaring problems with the US and other economies of the world, it is hard to say for certain what the exact cause of the huge mess we are in actually was. If anyone would know the answer, though, Paul Krugman would probably be at the top of the list. Mark Thoma looks at a recent article from Krugman that attempts to answer this question in his blog post below:

[From Revenge of the Glut, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times.] You must hate getting asked this all the time, but how did the financial crisis happen?

The answer, I’d suggest, can be found in a speech Ben Bernanke ... gave four years ago. ... The speech,... “The Global Saving Glut and the U.S. Current Account Deficit,” offered a novel explanation for the rapid rise of the U.S. trade deficit in the early 21st century. The causes, argued Mr. Bernanke, lay not in America but in Asia.

What was so novel about his explanation?

In the mid-1990s, he pointed out, the emerging economies of Asia had been major importers of capital, borrowing abroad to finance their development. But after the Asian financial crisis of 1997-98..., these countries began protecting themselves by amassing huge war chests of foreign assets, in effect exporting capital to the rest of the world. The result was a world awash in cheap money, looking for somewhere to go.

That sounds like a good thing. Small countries are wealthier and looking for productive places to invest their money. Where did they invest the money? In their own countries?

Most of that money went to the United States — hence our giant trade deficit... But ... money surged into other nations as well. In particular, a number of smaller European economies experienced capital inflows that ... were ... large... compared with the size of their economies.

So most of the money came here? That seems backwards given all the needs that developing countries have, that's why we call them "developing." Why did that happen?

Mr. Bernanke cited “the depth and sophistication of the country’s financial markets (which, among other things, have allowed households easy access to housing wealth).” Depth, yes. But sophistication? Well, you could say that American bankers, empowered by a quarter-century of deregulatory zeal, led the world in finding sophisticated ways to enrich themselves by hiding risk and fooling investors.

You could, and did, passionately too I might add. Sorry -- go on.

And wide-open, loosely regulated financial systems characterized many of the other recipients of large capital inflows. This may explain the almost eerie correlation between conservative praise two or three years ago and economic disaster today. “Reforms have made Iceland a Nordic tiger,” declared a paper from the Cato Institute. “How Ireland Became the Celtic Tiger” was the title of one Heritage Foundation article; “The Estonian Economic Miracle” was the title of another. All three nations are in deep crisis now.

You mean the flat tax didn't save Estonia? John Stossel will be so disappointed. So what burst Stossel's bubble economy?

For a while, the inrush of capital created the illusion of wealth..., just as it did for American homeowners: asset prices were rising, currencies were strong, and everything looked fine. But bubbles always burst sooner or later, and yesterday’s miracle economies have become today’s basket cases...

Here in the U.S., shouldn't the fact that the bubble was located mostly in the zoned zone have protected flatlanders? Why is the recession so widespread?

In America, the housing bubble mainly took place along the coasts, but when the bubble burst, demand for manufactured goods, especially cars, collapsed — and that has taken a terrible toll on the industrial heartland. Similarly, Europe’s bubbles were mainly around the continent’s periphery, yet industrial production in Germany — which never had a financial bubble but is Europe’s manufacturing core — is falling rapidly, thanks to a plunge in exports.

Did you know that, according to one survey, one third of the people are losing sleep over the economy? Is there a simple way to explain to them how this happened?

If you want to know where the global crisis came from, then, think of it this way: we’re looking at the revenge of the glut.

And the saving glut is still out there. In fact, it’s bigger than ever, now that suddenly impoverished consumers have rediscovered the virtues of thrift and the worldwide property boom, which provided an outlet for all those excess savings, has turned into a worldwide bust.

I don't think you're helping anyone's sleep. Should they just pull pillows over their heads until this is over? How long do they have to wait for morning in America?

One way to look at the international situation right now is that we’re suffering from a global paradox of thrift: around the world, desired saving exceeds the amount businesses are willing to invest. And the result is a global slump that leaves everyone worse off.

So that’s how we got into this mess. And we’re still looking for the way out.

Thanks. We'll all sleep so much better now, especially when we remember how capable policymakers have proved themselves to be up to this point.

This post can also be viewed on economistsview.typepad.com.

Currency Market Update: Look To The Australian Dollar

Yesterday's market rally got a lot of investors excited, but the rally was short lived. Currency expert Kathy Lien points out 3 reasons why investors should have been suspicious of the rally in her blog post below. In addition Lien offers some insight into the future of currencies, and suggests that the Australian Dollar might be a great investment opportunity right now.

The currency and equity markets are turning lower after a strong rally on Tuesday. In my Daily Currency Focus, I talked about the 3 reasons why the currency market rally was suspicious. None of the reasons for Tuesday’s jump delivered real solutions. The market only rallied because Bernanke delivered no surprises. President Obama’s attempt at reassuring Americans also failed to comfort investors.

Instead we are faced with a weakening economy that is only confirmed by this morning’s plunge in existing home sales. Sales of existing homes plunged 5.3 percent to a 12 year low in the month of January. The housing market remains the Achilles heel of the US economy as prices fall and demand wanes. The median price of a home sold dropped 14.8 percent compared to the year prior. Such disappointing numbers are not much of a surprise given the big decline in housing starts and building permits. With banks and mortgage lenders reluctant to lend, even potential homeowners with sufficient capital have found difficulty attaining loans.

The British pound has been hit the most because Bank of England member Barker said that the weak sterling is helpful. UK officials have taken every opportunity to talk down the currency.

USD/JPY on the other hand remains an animal. Despite weak economic data and a turn in equities, the currency pair continues to rise.

My favorite is still the Australian dollar because of strong M&A flow, higher gold prices and the prospect of the country remaining recession free. The AUD/USD is also prime for a breakout.

This post can also be viewed on kathylien.com.

Nationalizing Banks Will Harm The US Dollar

The buzz in the financial industry right now is whether or not the government is preparing to nationalize Citigroup and Bank of America, the two largest US banks. The government denied that they are even considering this measure, however, we wouldn't expect them to say anything else. The amount of liabilities that these banks have is staggering, and as Kathy Lien explains in her blog post below, a nationalization of these banks will have a dramatic impact on the US dollar.

I want to share my piece on How Nationalization of Citigroup and Bank of America could impact the US dollar if you haven’t caught it already (so I’m am posting his before I head to the NY Traders Expo).

The rally in gold prices tells us one thing and one thing only, which is that the fear has returned to the market. There is currently a lot of speculation that Citigroup and Bank of America could be nationalized by the US government. Although this would drive equities lower, it could also trigger capital flight out of the US dollar.

When Northern Rock was nationalized by the UK government in February of 2008, the British pound fell from 1.9638 to a low of 1.9363 over the course of 3 trading days. Although the dollar initially rallied on the news that the US government was taking over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in September 2008, it quickly gave back those gains to end the week lower against the Japanese Yen.

Nationalization will ultimately be negative for the US dollar because it increases the debt and liabilities of the US Federal Reserve and hence taxpayers. Nationalization is by no means a foregone conclusion especially since it is not a part of the US Treasury’s Financial Stability Plan. Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd floated the idea of short term nationalization around but it will probably be the last option for the US government if the Financial Stability Plan fails to work quickly. In fact, the rebound in US equities was triggered by speculation that the Treasury could release more details regarding their plan to rescue the financial system next week. Also keep an eye on Bernanke’s Humphrey Hawkins Testimony on the US economy and Monetary Policy.

This post can also be viewed on kathylien.com.

Should We Create Government Sponsored Shadow Banks?

According to Paul McCulley from Pimco, to revive the economy the government simply needs to create government sponsored shadow banks. Naturally this idea is a little controversial, especially considering the recent demise of this type of system. Tim Iacono from The Mess That Greenspan Made looks at an article written by McCulley in his blog post below:

Paul McCulley of Pimco thinks the new kind of shadow banking system is just swell:

The United States government now has both the tools and the will to save the private banking system, and more importantly, the real economy, from its own debt-deflationary pathologies. Not that it will be easy. But it can be done, notwithstanding the catcalls that greeted Secretary Geithner last week.

And the essential game plan is clear: use the power of the Fed, the FDIC and the Treasury to create government-sponsored shadow banks, such as the Term Asset-Backed Securities Lending Facility (the TALF) and the Public-Private Investment Fund (the P-PIF).

The formula? Take a small dollop of the Treasury’s free-to-spend taxpayer money (there is still $350 billion left) to serve as the equity in a government sponsored shadow bank, and then lever the daylights out of it with loans from the Federal Reserve, funded with the printing press.
...
Yes, there will be subsidies involved, sometimes huge ones. And yes, the process will seem arbitrary and capricious at times, reeking of inequities. Such is the nature of government rescue schemes for broken banking systems, while maintaining them as privately owned.

You might not like it. I don’t like it, because regulators should never have let bankers, both conventional bankers and shadow bankers, run amok. But they did.

So it’s now time to hold the nose and do what must be done, however stinky it smells, not because it’s pleasant but because it is necessary.

Pragmatism takes on a whole new meaning at Pimco.

This post can also be viewed on themessthatgreenspanmade.blogspot.com.

Why The Government Can’t Fix The Housing Crisis

It appears the government is ready and willing to do whatever it takes to fix the housing crisis, but there is one little problem: They can’t. As part of the new stimulus package, there will likely be a $15,000 homebuyer tax credit, and not just for first-time homebuyers, but for all homebuyers purchasing a primary residence. In addition, the government will likely attempt to drive mortgage rates down to around 4.5 percent and work particularly hard to modify troubled loans to keep homeowners out of foreclosure. With these new measures in place the housing market will surely recover…right?

The answer to that question depends on your definition of recovery. Will it be enough to stop prices from falling, and possibly even help them start going up again? It’s definitely possible, but the problem won’t be fixed even if prices do turn around. Artificially inflated prices caused the housing crisis in the first place. Homeownership became an attractive option for more people than ever before through financing options that were cheap and widely available—a little too widely available, we are now discovering. ARMs, interest-only and other creative loan programs kept monthly payments low, and people could suddenly afford a more expensive house—or so it appeared. When interest rates started rising and ARMs reset, housing values stopped climbing and all hell broke loose.

So why would we believe that artificially boosting housing values will be sustainable this time? What do we think will happen when mortgage rates rise again and the tax credits expire? We won’t have to worry about ARMs resetting this time around because they are now shunned by banks for the most part, but the fundamental problem remains that housing is just too expensive compared to income. Interest rates can’t stay this low forever, and the tax credit will expire after the end of the year. Then homebuyers will only have their personal income to rely on to pay for their homes. This is how it has always been (minus government intervention), and it is how it should be. People making $50,000 a year shouldn’t be living in a $400,000 house—It’s that simple. People need to live within their means, but the government doesn’t seem to grasp this and keeps pushing measures to modify home loans. We can try to modify people’s loans all day long, but if they can’t afford their homes, then they can’t afford their homes. According to the Wall Street Journal, over 40 percent of borrowers were at least 60 days past due eight months after their loan was modified. It seems to me that these loan modifications are just delaying the inevitable and costing banks and taxpayers more money.

Before the housing crisis can truly end, housing prices must come into balance with incomes. When this happens, the problem will solve itself. When buying a home starts to make more sense than renting, people will start buying again. It isn’t that hard to figure out. Spending taxpayer money to prop up housing is not only a waste, but an unethical perpetuation of the problem. It is completely unfair to renters as well as our youth. Unfortunately, those groups represent the minority, so their voice isn’t likely to be heard. If these measures are passed, expect to pay handsomely for it and to see another bubble burst a few years from now. At least this time no one should be able to use the excuse that they didn’t see it coming.

Brits Blame Greenspan For Global Financial Crisis

Everyone is looking for the person responsible for the economic mess the world is in, or at least a fall guy we can blame everything on. According to a recent web poll, Brits believe that former Fed chief, Alan Greenspan, is the man. Truth is no one person is solely responsible for all our economic problems, however, it is still interesting to see who people think the biggest culprits are. Tim Iacono from The Mess That Greenspan Made looks closer at this poll and adds some thoughts of his own, in the blog post below.

It is not at all clear what, if any, significance the survey results attached to this story in the U.K.'s Times Online hold but, when asked which of ten individuals to blame for the current financial mess, fingers were pointed squarely across the Atlantic Ocean at the guy who ran the Federal Reserve for almost two decades.

Are the British that attuned to monetary policy in the U.S. or are they, perhaps, more willing to look overseas for a culprit rather than on their own soil?

(BTW - that little radio button thingy is my vote, just in case anyone was wondering.)

The much better known local boy, Gordon Brown, comes in a distant second (for very good reason, actually) and George W. Bush is even further back in third place.

Interestingly, the three individuals who were probably more responsible than any politician in the world - Fuld, Paulson, and Mozilo - filled the next three spots.

As for the other four, the British are probably about as familiar with the name Hank Greenberg as Americans are with Sants, Goodwin, and Corbert, though, after reading the descriptions provided, these three clearly deserved more votes than they received.

Here's what they had to say about former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan:

Alan Greenspan was feted for his management of the US economy while he stood in charge of the US Treasury, but has since been put under the spotlight. He was responsible for cutting interest rates to near zero in the US in the aftermath of September 11, flooding the world with cheap and easily available money. Did this pave the way for a “once-in-a-century credit tsunami"? In October last year he said: “I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interest of organisations, specifically banks and others, was such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders.”

Allan Meltzer is a professor of political economy at the Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, said: “Alan Greenspan was much too afraid of a slowdown or other recession…he allowed the credit to expand too rapidly."

The confusion about the Fed chairman heading up the U.S. Treasury Department may be understandable as we Americans are often confused by the British position of Chancellor of the Exchequer which we'd be just as likely to say headed up the Bank of England.

This post can also be viewed on themessthatgreenspanmade.blogspot.com.

How To Prevent Another Depression

We are no where near a depression yet, but many people are worrying that we are heading for one. So what can the government do to prevent another depression? According to Brad DeLong we have 4 options. Mark Thoma from The Economist's View looks at DeLong's 4 options in his blog post below.

What can governments do to try to keep the economy out of a depression?:

Depression economics: Four options, by J. Bradford DeLong, Commentary, Project Syndicate: When an economy falls into a depression, governments can try four things... Call them fiscal policy, credit policy, monetary policy, and inflation.

Inflation is the most straightforward to explain: The government prints lots of banknotes and spends them. The extra cash in the economy raises prices. As prices rise, people don't want to hold cash... - its value is melting away every day - so they step up the pace at which they spend... This spending pulls people out of unemployment..., and pushes ... production up to 'potential' levels.

But sane people would rather avoid inflation. It is a very dangerous expedient, one that undermines standards of value, renders economic calculation virtually impossible, and redistributes wealth at random. ... But governments will resort to inflation before they will allow another Great Depression. We just would very much rather not go there, if there is any alternative...

The standard way to fight incipient depressions is through monetary policy. ... The problem with monetary policy is that ... the ... nominal interest rate on government securities is zero. ... And this is too bad, for if we could prevent a depression with monetary policy alone, we would do so, as it is the policy tool for ... stabilisation that we know best and that carries the least risk of disruptive side effects.

The third tool is credit policy. We would like to boost spending immediately by getting businesses to invest... Risky projects are at a steep discount today... No one is willing to buy assets and take on additional uncertainty... Although the world's central banks and finance ministries have been devising many ingenious and innovative policies to stimulate credit, so far they have not had much success.

This brings us to the fourth tool: fiscal policy. Have the government borrow and spend, thereby pulling people out of unemployment and pushing up capacity utilisation to normal levels. There are drawbacks: the subsequent dead-weight loss of financing all the extra government debt..., and the fear that too rapid a run-up in debt may discourage private investors from building physical assets...

But when you have only two tools left, neither of which is perfect for the job - credit policy and fiscal policy - the rational thing is to try both, at the same time. That is what the Obama administration ... and other governments are attempting to do right now.

This post can also be viewed on economistsview.typepad.com.

What Will The Fed Do To Stimulate The Economy Now?

Bernanke and the Fed already played their last interest rate card, so if they can't lower rates what else can they do to get the economy back on track? There is a lot of speculation going around right now about what they might do, but we shall find out for ourselves later today. James Picerno from The Capital Spectator talks about the Fed meeting and the economy in general, adding some valuable input in his blog post below.

The press release that follows the Fed's FOMC meeting today may offer clues about how the central bank will proceed now that it's out of conventional monetary policy ammunition. Then again, maybe not. We're all trapped in gray zone of trial and error about what to do next and the Federal Reserve is also now faced with grasping at straws.

Typically, an afternoon FOMC press release attracts interest for an update on where short-term interest rates are headed. Today, and probably for some time to come, everyone already knows the answer. The Fed controls short rates, starting with the all-powerful Fed funds, but with the effective Fed funds at roughly 0.16%, the mystery about what comes next is, like the price of money, virtually nil.

Yet Bernanke and company may yet surprise us by dropping fresh clues about how the Fed plans to practice unconventional monetary policy from here on out—quantitative easing, to use the phrase of the dismal science. The details are a work in progress, although the immediate goal is still clear: stabilize general price levels.

We won't belabor the issue of deflation today, in part because we've discussed it often in recent months, including here and here. Let's just say that the D risk is still very much with us, and so the Fed has a fair amount of work to do in the months ahead.

The market appears to understand this, at least by way of monitoring Fed funds futures. For the year ahead, all the contracts are expecting Fed funds to remain under 60 basis points, and quite a bit lower for the immediate future.

Long rates remain in a holding pattern as well. The yield on the benchmark 10-year Treasury Note is in the 2.5% range and it may go lower yet, depending on what the next round of inflation reports reveal, although those won't arrive for several weeks.

Meantime, there's plenty of guesswork about what the Fed's next move. "With rates going nowhere for some time, the market's focus will be on whether the Fed will be looking to buy government (or corporate) securities in the near future," Sacha Tihanyi, an analyst at Scotia Capital, opines via AFP.

John Authers in today's FT argues that the critical variable is housing prices. What can the central bank do on that front? "The Fed can give details on quantitative easing— the ugly phrase for the art of buying bonds so as to push down the yields they pay, and stimulate the economy with lower rates, especially for mortgages," he writes. "If there is a single key variable to determine when the crisis in the US banking system can be brought under control, it is house prices. The further they fall, the higher the likely default rate on the mortgage-backed securities that banks now hold on their balance sheets."

Unfortunately, the news on housing prices is still discouraging, even after several years of a falling market. One of the latest bits of housing data shows that prices fell again last month even as sales perked up. Existing home sales rose 6.5% in December, albeit driven by distressed sales at bargain prices, the National Association of Realtors reports. Nonetheless, the median national price of existing homes in the U.S. still dropped by a hefty 15.3% last month.

Even if the Fed is successful in fending off deflation, which we expect it will be, that by itself isn't a cure for what ails the economy. "Ben Bernanke is rightly concerned about deflation right now," Desmond Lachman of the American Enterprise Institute explains in The Christian Science Monitor. But that's merely step one in a multi-step recovery program. "Getting inflation back into the system … is not going to be sufficient," Lachman notes.

Convincing banks to lend and consumers and businesses to borrow is arguably the next big step beyond containing the deflation risk. Solving the latter will be easy by comparison. The real challenge will come later this year in trying to promote growth. But first things first, and so we await today's Fed commentary.

This post can also be viewed on capitalspectator.com.

Welcome President Obama: Now About The Economy...

Yesterday was basically one big party, everyone it seemed was excited to welcome in our new President. Now the party is over and it is time for Obama to get to work, and he had better act fast. The economy is struggling mightily and Americans expect, albeit a tad unfairly, that Obama's administration is going to be able to fix the problem. James Picerno from The Capital Spectator paints a dreary picture for the economy over the coming months, while holding out some hope for a recovery, in his blog post below.

Today is the first full day of President Barack Obama's administration and, as everyone knows, the new commander in chief has his work cut out for him. With a fresh start before us in Washington the question on the home front remains: What's up (or down) with the economy?

In broad terms, the answer is obvious, and the numbers only lend statistical support. Clearly, tough times lie ahead, with the next 6 months or so looking set to be the toughest. But how does that square with our proprietary measure of U.S. economic activity (CS Economic Index), which bounced sharply higher in November, the last month with the full compliment of data pieces for calculating this benchmark? What's more, based on preliminary data for December, the November bounce looks set to hold.

Alas, the rise is something of an illusion for the time being since only two factors out of the 17 in our economic index are driving the bounce skyward. Granted, the pair is on steroids trying to bring aid and comfort to the ailing economy. Statistically, the changes in those two factors are enough to push the entire index upward. Even so, those two lone bullish factors alone, unfortunately, aren't likely to spark a recovery of any substance for the foreseeable future. Looking out later in the year offers some hope, but first let's talk about the immediate future.

The two factors doing all the heavy lifting in our economic index are money supply and the interest rate spread. Both were in overdrive in November in terms of generating pro-recovery fuel to an otherwise shrinking economy. The rate spread was particularly bullish, although the growth-oriented bounce from money supply was robust too. Collectively, the pair overwhelmed the negative energy elsewhere in the economy, at least when measured on an average basis.

By rate spread we're talking of the difference between the yield on the 10-year Treasury Note less the effective Fed funds. Thanks primarily to the dramatic fall in Fed funds in November, which continued in December, the rate spread widened sharply and thereby moving definitively into positive territory, which generally is a bullish signal for the economy. Why? Because a positive sloping yield curve—rates are higher as bond maturities lengthen—historically accompanies economic growth. By contrast, a negatively sloping yield curve—rates fall as maturities lengthen—is a sign of distress/economic contraction.

Based on the rate spread, this measure went negative in July 2006 and stayed negative until February 2008, when the spread moved back into positive territory. Looking back, it turns out that the recession warning posed by the arrival of a negative yield curve in mid-2006 was an accurate forecast of an approaching recession, which officially began in December 2007.

Fast forward to November 2008 and the rate spread is telling us that it's now in high gear as an economic stimulus. That is, short rates are extremely low relative to long rates—despite the fact that long rates are also bouncing around at historically low absolute levels. Based on this measure alone, one might be bullish on the immediate future, assuming this was a normal cycle. But as we know, the times are anything but normal and so even the unusually bullish stimulants coming from the money supply and interest rate factors aren't yet dispensing their usually pro-growth influence. The reason is that the negative drag from everything else is, for the moment, still too much to overcome. Indeed, the lagging and coincident factors in our broad economic index are either flat lining or still declining.

The good news is that at some point all the monetary stimulus will take root and promote expansion. All the money has to go somewhere and eventually it'll go into corners of the economy other than banks accounts and T-bills. Banks will one day lend and businesses will borrow. In addition, now that the Obama administration is at the helm, we expect a fresh round of fiscal stimulus to compliment the monetary efforts now running at full speed.

Guessing when all this will produce some measurably positive change in the economy proper is the great question. Given the depth and magnitude of the economic headwind, we're not expecting much for the first half of this year, perhaps longer. Even when signs of growth, or at least stabilization emerge, they're likely to be tenuous, slipping temporarily back into negative territory and keeping everyone on pins and needles.

Recovery worth the name is going to take time, and perhaps a fair degree more time than we've come to expect over the past generation, when growth returned fairly quickly after a downturn.

As such, strategic-minded investors should pace themselves and use the next several quarters productively to restructure their portfolios for the day when the storm passes. As we'll discuss in more detail in the February issue of The Beta Investment Report, the ongoing economic and financial turmoil is wrenching but it also offers substantial opportunities for dynamic asset allocation strategies.

That said, the next several months are undoubtedly going to be rough, replete with surprises, false starts and lots of noise in the markets. Economically speaking, there are still a number of big unknowns lurking in the near-term future too. Investors should brace themselves for more volatility, and at the same time prepare to take advantage of it.

Risk management, in other words, has never been more important, or potentially more rewarding.

This post can also be viewed on capitalspectator.com.

They Better Use This $350 Billion Better Than The Last $350 Billion

Many people are bitter about the way the first $350 billion in TARP funds was used. Some feel that Paulson flat out lied and deceived them. The money wasn't used for what he said it was going to be used for, and now it appears as if we have little if anything to show for it. So why do we want to give them another $350 billion to waste? Mark Thoma takes a look at a recent article by John Berry which looks to address this very question in his blog post below.

John Berry isn't sure that politicians will be willing to provide additional help if the $700 billion in TARP money falls short of what is needed to stabilize the banking system:

Bernanke Tells It Like It Is, Some Don’t Listen, by John M. Berry, Commentary, Bloomberg: This may be as close as we’re going to get to a Fed chairman labeling some in Congress as irresponsible.

Sure, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke was typically careful with his wording in a Jan. 13 speech in London. ... After explaining how the world economy “is critically dependent on the free flow of credit,” Bernanke issued his challenge: “Responsible policy makers must therefore do what they can to communicate to their constituencies why financial stabilization is essential for economic recovery and is therefore in the broader public interest.”

Three days after that speech, 33 of 39 Republican senators ignored Bernanke’s warning and voted against releasing the remaining $350 billion in Troubled Asset Relief Program money. (So did eight Democrats...) Fortunately, that left enough supporters, mostly Democrats, to clear the release of the much-needed money.

Too many senators shrugged their shoulders at Bernanke’s wise words. OK, perhaps they didn’t like the way Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson had jerked them around... Or maybe they didn’t like something else about the program.

And of course many of their constituents, who have their own financial and job worries as the economy falls deeper into recession, indeed are furious that banks that created the crisis are getting help when it seems ordinary people aren’t.

They aren’t going to be any happier... In all probability, $700 billion won’t be enough. ... At some point, politicians are going to have to stop pandering to their constituents and show leadership by explaining why the economy can’t survive without a banking system.

If more is needed, they are going to have to do more than that, this time they need to articulate a plan that makes sense. Because if they are going to do what Paulson did with the first round and never really explain how the plan is supposed to work, jump back and forth between plans, say a plan are dead and then revive it - maybe - and act haphazardly when banks are in trouble so that nobody knows quite what to expect, then there are better uses for the money.

This post can also be viewed on economistsview.typepad.com.

Why The "Bad Bank" Is A Bad Idea

There is a lot of momentum gaining right now behind the idea to create a so called, "Bad Bank." This bank would be set up by the government and would be used to take toxic debt off of the balance sheet of the banks like Citigroup and Bank of America. Paul Krugman thinks this "Bad bank" is simply a bad idea. Economics Professor Mark Thoma revisits Krugman's article in his blog post below.

Are policymakers about to take another wrong turn?:

Wall Street Voodoo, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: Old-fashioned voodoo economics — the belief in tax-cut magic — has been banished from civilized discourse. The supply-side cult has shrunk to the point that it contains only cranks, charlatans, and Republicans.

But recent news reports suggest that many influential people, including Federal Reserve officials, bank regulators, and, possibly, members of the incoming Obama administration, have become devotees of a new kind of voodoo: the belief that by performing elaborate financial rituals we can keep dead banks walking.

To explain..., let me describe ... a hypothetical bank that I’ll call Gothamgroup, or Gotham for short.

On paper, Gotham has $2 trillion in assets and $1.9 trillion in liabilities, so that it has a net worth of $100 billion. But a substantial fraction of its assets — say, $400 billion worth — are mortgage-backed securities and other toxic waste. If the bank tried to sell these assets, it would get no more than $200 billion.

So Gotham is a zombie bank: it’s still operating, but the reality is that it has already gone bust. Its stock isn’t totally worthless — it still has a market capitalization of $20 billion — but that value is entirely based on the hope ...[of] a government bailout.

Why would the government bail Gotham out? Because it plays a central role in the financial system. ... Gotham has to be kept functioning. But how can that be done?

Well, the government could simply give Gotham a couple of hundred billion dollars... A better approach would be to do what the government did with zombie savings and loans at the end of the 1980s: it seized the defunct banks, cleaning out the shareholders. Then it transferred their bad assets to ... the Resolution Trust Corporation; paid off enough of the banks’ debts to make them solvent; and sold the fixed-up banks to new owners.

The current buzz suggests ... policy makers aren’t willing to take either of these approaches. Instead, they’re reportedly gravitating toward ... moving toxic waste from private banks’ balance sheets to a publicly owned “bad bank” or “aggregator bank” ... “The aggregator bank would buy the assets at fair value.” But what does “fair value” mean?

In my example, Gothamgroup is insolvent... The only way a government purchase of that toxic waste can make Gotham solvent again is if the government pays much more than private buyers are willing to offer.

Now, maybe private buyers aren’t willing to pay what toxic waste is really worth... But should the government be in the business of declaring that it knows better than the market what assets are worth? And is ... paying “fair value,” whatever that means,... enough to make Gotham solvent again?

What I suspect is that policy makers — possibly without realizing it — are gearing up to attempt a bait-and-switch: a policy that looks like the cleanup of the savings and loans, but in practice amounts to making huge gifts to bank shareholders at taxpayer expense...

Why go through these contortions? The answer seems to be that Washington remains deathly afraid of the N-word — nationalization. ...Gothamgroup and its sister institutions are already ... utterly dependent on taxpayer support; but nobody wants to recognize that fact and implement the obvious solution: an explicit, though temporary, government takeover. Hence the popularity of the new voodoo, which claims, as I said, that elaborate financial rituals can reanimate dead banks.

Unfortunately, the price of this retreat into superstition may be high. I hope I’m wrong, but I suspect that taxpayers are about to get another raw deal — and that we’re about to get another financial rescue plan that fails to do the job.

This post can also be viewed at economistsview.typepad.com.

Division Mounts Among Fed Officials

The swelling balance sheet at the Federal Reserve is causing problems in more ways than one. One Fed official, Philadelphia Fed bank president Charles Plosser, recently went public with his objections against current Fed policies. Plosser’s main objections concern the ballooning balance sheet and the apparent endlessness to the madness. Fed chief Ben Bernanke doesn’t think that the balance sheet is a problem, but Plosser does, and he is ready to take his argument to whoever will listen. The following are excerpts from a MarketWatch article that detail some of Plosser’s concerns:

“Plosser said that the growth of the Fed's balance sheet was a key metric. ‘It is not appropriate to ignore quantitative metrics in this new policy environment,’ Plosser said.”

“Fed officials who pay attention to the money supply believe that the Fed's current policy of printing money never ends well and the danger of inflation is very high. They believe the Fed must withdraw the stimulus before there is any sign of inflation or it is too late.”

“Plosser also argued that the Fed has put its independence at risk by buying long-term assets. He worried that some "interest groups" will try to use political persuasion to stop the Fed from selling these longer-term assets even if the central bank has decided it makes sense.”

“‘We will need to have the political fortitude to make some difficult decisions about when our policies must be reversed or unwound,’ Plosser said. Bernanke said that he would watch this situation closely but didn't expect it to be a ‘significant problem.’"

Plosser isn’t the only one expressing concerns. William Poole, who recently left his position as president of the St. Louis Fed, has also been outspoken about issues with current Fed policies. The following are experts from a MarketWatch article:

“Poole said the expansion of the Fed's balance sheet is unprecedented and research suggests that a surge of inflation is sure to follow. ‘I would say if the policy is not reversed, there is a high probability that the unpleasant risk (of inflation) materializes,’ Poole said in an interview.”

“‘I believe that the Fed should set a hard number—a target that they take seriously for the overall size of the balance sheet,’ he said.”

“Poole said he was very concerned that the Fed could simply lend money to anyone, without constraint.”

“In the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe during the Cold War era, economies were inefficient because they had a soft-budget constraint. If a firm got into trouble, the banking system would give them more money, Poole said. The current situation at the Fed seems eerily similar, he said.”

"’What is discipline—where are the hard choices—when does Fed say our resources are exhausted?’ Poole asked.”

Bernanke seems content to continue on the current path, but it should at least be a little concerning that the opposition inside the Fed is becoming more vocal. I would venture to guess that there are others that oppose Bernanke, but they do not have the guts to stand up publicly against him. If things continue to worsen, it will be at least interesting to see how much the opposition ranks swell.

Risk Strategy In Uncertain Times

You always hear people quoting the great Warren Buffet, "Buy when there is blood in the streets." But today's investment climate seems to be different than anything we have ever seen before. Should we still be buying, or is now the time to go ultra-conservative? What about something in between? At this point who honestly knows? There are a lot of smart people out there that have entirely different views about which direction the economy is heading, and ultimately about how things will turn out. This is beyond a doubt a difficult time to be a successful investors, but one thing we do know for certain is that when all is said and done there will be winners and losers in the investment world. James Picerno from The Capital Spectator dialogs about a recent roundtable discussion between some investment bellwethers, and helps us evaluate some of the current investment risks in his blog post below.

The future is always unclear, and therein lies the chief source of risk in the investment challenge. The degree of risk isn't continuously steady. It ebbs and flows, like market prices and the careers of Hollywood actors.

The fact that risk levels are dynamic suggests a connection. But our ability to model the connection and draw lessons is limited. In fact, at some points the relationship between risk and expected return is especially foggy.

This is one of those times, a state of affairs that creates unusually large opportunities and equally above-average risk. As such, all the usual caveats, and then some apply. Yet recognizing this condition is the first step toward exploiting the opportunity and/or defending oneself against the higher risk.

Macroeconomically speaking, a major risk overhanging the capital and commodity markets relates to the question of deflation and inflation. That is, which one will prevail? Moreover, will one dominate only to give way to the other? And if so, what will the timing be? Being on the wrong side of this uncertainty will be painful, perhaps financially fatal, and so it's the rare investor who can afford to make an all-or-nothing bet. Regardless of your view, a bit of hedging never looked better—just in case.

Certainly there are strong arguments for each possibility, including deflation first, then inflation, which happens to be your editor's bias. But others argue that deflation will linger for a lengthy stretch and so the practical risks of inflation are virtually nil for the foreseeable future. Still others forecast that inflation remains the imminent risk, even if it's not obvious in current data. The chief evidence for this outlook comes from the massive surge in the Federal Reserve's balance sheet, i.e., the printing of money on a scale rarely seen in order to combat the current economic slowdown/contraction.

The fact that intelligent analysts and economists can debate the future on such starkly different terms only highlights the higher levels of risk of late. That's in sharp contrast to debates of the recent past, when dismal scientists were arguing if the economy was set to grow by 2.0% vs. 2.3%.

A telling example comes in the current issue of Barron's and its roundtable discussion. Consider this exchange between Fred Hickey (High-Tech Strategist); Mario Gabelli (Gamco Investors); Marc Faber (Marc Faber Ltd.); Oscar Schafer (O.S.S. Capital Management); and Bill Gross (Pimco):

Hickey: It's hard to predict the market when you don't know what the Fed will do. The Fed has tripled the size of its balance sheet and is plowing ground we have never seen before. Here are my facsimiles of deutsche marks from Weimar Germany [holds up sheaf of papers]. They collapsed in value when Germany started printing money after World War I. It happened very quickly and it can happen again.
The Germans were successful at reflating. But they weren't successful in saving their economy. [Federal Reserve Chairman Ben] Bernanke is on record saying, "I will not make the mistakes of the 1930s. I will not make the mistakes of Japan in the 1990s." He is pushing the limit right now.

Gabelli: So you're saying he's going to make the mistake of the Weimar Republic?
Hickey: There is a possibility of that. Every month that there is a horrible employment, report the government prints more money.

Gabelli: It took Weimar Germany a brief time.
Faber: The worse the economy, the more they will print. It is like in Zimbabwe now, and Latin America in the 1980s. They had large deficits and printed money, and in local currency everything went up. But the currency collapsed.

Schafer: Isn't the federal government increasing its balance sheet to offset the private sector?

Gross: Exactly. The situation isn't similar. The Weimar Republic basically reflated to get out from under its wartime debts. Zimbabwe is a situation unto itself. In the U.S. there has been asset destruction in the trillions of dollars that has to be repaired. To say the Fed's balance sheet has expanded by a few trillion dollars and that this will create hyperinflation is a miscalculation.

Faber: I'm prepared to bet Bill that in 10 years the U.S. has very high inflation. With growing fiscal deficits that may reach as high as $2 trillion next year, it will be hard for the Fed to lift interest rates in real terms. Once they push up rates again, there will be another disaster.

Gross: Marc, you're smarter than that. You know that credit creation is at the heart of economic growth, and to the extent that credit creation has been thwarted, stultified, basically cut by 10% or 20%, economies can't grow.

Faber: The U.S. economy is credit-addicted. In a sound economy, debt growth doesn't exceed nominal GDP growth. Would you agree with that, or do you think debt should always grow at a faster pace than nominal GDP?
Gross: I'm with you there.

Faber: We come at this from different perspectives. You run a company that manages money, and I'm an outside observer of the U.S. financial scene, though I have to admit I bought some U.S. stocks for the first time in 30 years.

The fact that smart people can see such wildly divergent possibilities on inflation and deflation reminds that the potential for instability is alive and kicking. As Abby Joseph Cohen, senior investment strategist at Goldman Sachs, explained in the roundtable talk, "It is important to recognize that we are not starting from a point of equilibrium, where the economy and the credit markets are working properly. Instead, the Federal Reserve is acting aggressively to provide liquidity not just to the U.S. economy but the global economy." She added: "In many ways, the Fed is acting as the central bank to the global economy."

It doesn't take a genius to recognize that the Fed's not designed for such a broad increase in its mandate. Yes, to a certain extent the U.S. central bank has, for some time, been dispensing monetary medicine for the globe. That's one thing, when the global economy was humming along nicely; it's something else in a time of severe asset deflation and recession, the likes of which we haven't seen in decades.

So, yes, there are huge opportunities in the current climate, but those are tempered with huge risks. As such, a prudent risk management strategy is essential. For strategic-minded investors, that begins with taking advantage of sharp discounts on price at those times when available. In fact, the discounts were unusually large about a month ago. Prices have since popped. Did you take advantage of the pessimism? Or are you inclined to jump on the bandwagon now?

The macroeconomic risks are unusually large these days, but the biggest threat to investment success remains a familiar monster that dwells inside each of us: emotion that favors running with the crowd for, say, asset allocation decisions. Taming that beast is still the greatest challenge.

This post can also be viewed on capitalspectator.com.

The Media Shouldn't Be Blamed For The Financial Crisis

With retirement accounts shrinking across the country, everyone is trying to determine who is to blame for the financial crisis. After all, if we can place blame on somebody we can then burn them at the stake, and it will make us feel so much better, right? Recently the New York Times published a controversial piece that basically blamed the entire financial crisis on President Bush. Several publications have disputed this piece, including Newsbusters, and of course the White House. Surely President Bush had a hand in the economic carnage of 2008, but to say that he was solely responsible for it is pretty ridiculous. There are so many people that have a hand in economic matters of this country, and while the President is the figurehead, he most certainly is not the only one to whom blame is due. So what other names are being thrown out? Greenspan, Bernanke and Paulson are all likely candidates, but according to a recent survey by Opinion Research most Americans think a large portion of the blame falls on the media.

According to the poll 77 percent of Americans believe the media is to blame for stoking the financial crisis by spreading fear among consumers. My first reaction to this was a big, WOW. Yes, the media has spread a bit of fear and panic, and the stories of doom and gloom are certainly helping to sell more papers, but there is another reason why all you see are negative stories: Positive news is next to impossible to come by if you don’t just make it up. If the media had more positive news to cover, you can bet that they would do it.

Americans who wish to bury their heads in the sand can feel free to do so, but personally I want to know what is going on in the financial world and I want the truth, not some lame story meant to make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. People hoarding their money out of fear fostered by what they have heard from the media may be making matters worse, but it is hard to blame reporters for doing their jobs and reporting the truth. It is falsifying information or misleading readers in some other way that we should scorn. Yet things are getting so bad that in the press release issued by Opinion Research, national expert on corporate liability and white collar crime issues Richard L. Scheff warns that members of the media could potentially be exposed to liability despite apparent constitutional protections.

This is of course absolutely ridiculous. What we are saying is that instead of the hard truth we want our media to report sugar-coated stories to make us feel good about the economy. If you want a bubble, that is one great formula right there: Get the public to buy into a bunch of hype so they can feel confident buying up overpriced assets, ignoring that the bubble will inevitably pop, bankrupting those who believed that everything was coming up roses when the market was really pushing up daisies. The media should be sued were they to feed false hope in this economic environment, but certainly not for reporting the truth. That defeats their entire purpose for existing. For the Americans who can’t handle this hard truth: Good luck to you, as you most certainly are going to need it.

Understanding The Federal Reserve System

Are you completely confused by the whole Federal Reserve system? If so you are not alone, but you really should at least attempt to understand it. The Federal Reserve plays a huge part in how our economy runs, and every American should be concerned with that right now. While most explanations I've read about the Federal Reserve would probably be confusing for most non-economists to read, a recent one published by James Hamilton on Econbrowser does a fabulous job explaining how the Federal Reserve works.

As a bonus Hamilton also explains all the new and creative things the Fed is doing to help get us out of the financial mess we are in, as well as the present state of the Fed's balance sheet. If you are at all interested in how the Federal Reserve works, and what is going on there today, I strongly recommend that you read his article.

Click here to read the full article.

Looking Ahead To The Bubble Of Tomorrow

As we deal with the consequences of the current asset bubbles popping around us, it is hard to give any thought to future bubbles. However, considering all the recent moves that the government has made, we really do need to pay attention to what their ramifications will be. The things that the government has done are unprecedented, and we should expect the next round of bubbles to be the same. James Picerno from The Capital Spectator talks more in depth about this in his blog post below.

Governments are now working overtime in dispensing monetary and fiscal medicines intended to renew, restore and revive battered economies. In time the aid will quicken the economic heartbeat, although exactly when and to what degree is unknown. The patient has for years gorged on any number of goodies, ranging from the sweet treats of leverage and the candied delights of easy money to roller-coaster thrills of irrational investing.

The party, of course, is over, and the cleanup may go on for some time—probably longer than we expect. In a somewhat haphazard and increasingly desperate effort to ease the current and future pain, governments are dishing out unprecedented rounds of stimulus pills. For obvious reasons, everyone's watching each new step in what promises to be a long run of conventional and unconventional programs intent on propping up economies from east to west, north and south and everywhere in between.

But while the lion's share of attention is on the medicines, what might follow once the patient is no longer in imminent danger of cardiac arrest? In a speculative exercise of considering the possibilities, we offer the following thoughts for the post-crisis world order, which one day will arrive, amazing as it seems at the moment.

* Inflation
Yes, inflation. Strange as it sounds to talk about inflation at a time when deflation seems to be stalking the U.S. economy, it's never too early to think about the natural state of economic affairs. One day (don't ask us when), all this stimulus and its baggage will be yours. Pulling back on the sea of money washing ashore will eventually require the mother of all mopping-up campaigns. Assuming, of course, the Fed and central banks around the world have the stomach for the task.

Make no mistake: pulling back will be tough, very tough. Imagine the scenario a year from now. Let's make a big assumption and say that the economy's showing signs of life and GDP manages to post a modest 1% rise in Q4 2009, with more of the same expected for 2010. Higher interest rates would certainly be warranted, relative to the near-zero levels of the moment. Perhaps much higher rates will be required. But will Bernanke and the boys be willing and able?

The political pressure to keep the stimulus going will probably be immense. Meanwhile, warnings of higher inflation at some point are likely to fall on deaf ears for an extended period. Higher inflation, after all, is just what the Fed wanted by lowering rates so low and so arguments for containing the revival in prices will initially dismissed.

Yes, the inflation beast will work his way back into the director's chair. He always does, and he has a thousand tricks up his sleeve. His task will be all the easier if the deflation mindset takes root, which looks increasingly possible.

Nonetheless, some corners of finance are worried about the longer-term risks. That includes the dollar sellers and the gold buyers. Yes, deflation is a risk, but in the long run history tells us that inflation always comes out on top eventually.

What's more, a sudden change in the weather is hardly beyond the pale. Recall that inflation worries were all the rage earlier this year. Yet that fear quickly gave way to deflation. Expecting smooth and gradual changes on the pricing front may be asking for too much in the 21st century.

* Oil
Just as inflation worries have been banished in recent months, so too are the headline-grabbing predictions of $200 oil. These days, that's a forecast with one too many zeroes.

But let's be clear: the recession-inducing fears that are pushing oil lower these days will eventually abate. That doesn't mean oil will suddenly resume its skyward run at the first sign of economic stability. But marginal growth in oil demand isn't dead; it's merely hibernating.

China, India, and, yes, the United States will one day be in need of more oil. Yes, green technology will slow future demand for fossil fuels. But unless you're expecting miracles, the world economy will almost certainly be consuming more oil in 3 to 5 years compared with today. The crowd, however, will be focused on demand trends over the next year or two and thereby conclude that high oil prices are forever gone. Oil companies will be pressured into agreeing, resulting in a sharp decline in searching for and developing new oil fields. Those are the seeds that will push prices higher once more, perhaps to new all-time heights, although probably not for several years.

* The Bubble of 2013?
No one knows where all the stimulus will wind up, but there are pretty good odds (and a fair amount of historical precedent) suggesting that exuberance will eventually reanimate itself with all its immoderate excess intact. Some say that Treasuries are now a bubble waiting to burst, courtesy of interest rates that can only go higher from here. Perhaps, although it's a safe bet that one day, perhaps sooner than we expect, bubble sightings will return.

Bubbles, writes John Kemp of Reuters, are no accident. "It is the direct consequence of the Fed's asymmetric response to shifts in asset prices." Much will depend on whether the reflation policy is, at the appropriate time, wound up and put in the closet. In theory, it's a no-brainer. In practice, there are complications.

Finally, we bring all this up mainly as a reminder that it's always difficult to maintain strategic perspective. Two years ago, when all the major asset classes were rising, few could imagine the current pain of the moment. Similarly, looking at where we're headed several years from now looks about as relevant as studying the moons of Saturn. But the future keeps coming, even if we're not looking. It's tempting to make all our investment decisions based on what happened yesterday, but we're all probably better off keeping our strategic-investing focus on what's likely to unfold several years from now. No easy task, to be sure. Par for the course if you're intent on winning the investment game.

This post can also be viewed on capitalspectator.com.

Fed Drops Fed Funds Rate To Zero

Well, it looks like the Fed wasn't going to take any chances, they played all their interest rate cards as they dropped the target federal funds rate down to the 0 to 0.25 percent range. They obviously were trying to send a powerful message since most investors and economists only predicted a 0.5 percent reduction. It will be interesting to see how this plays out, but the U.S. has officially won the race to zero. Economics professor Mark Thoma from The Economist's View looks closer at this new development, and brings in some additional outside thoughts and opinions, in his blog post below.

The Fed announced it will move the target federal funds rate into the zero to .25% range, an that it plans to keep it there for some time.

Here's the Fed's statement:

Press Release: The Federal Open Market Committee decided today to establish a target range for the federal funds rate of 0 to 1/4 percent.

Since the Committee's last meeting, labor market conditions have deteriorated, and the available data indicate that consumer spending, business investment, and industrial production have declined. Financial markets remain quite strained and credit conditions tight. Overall, the outlook for economic activity has weakened further.

Meanwhile, inflationary pressures have diminished appreciably. In light of the declines in the prices of energy and other commodities and the weaker prospects for economic activity, the Committee expects inflation to moderate further in coming quarters.

The Federal Reserve will employ all available tools to promote the resumption of sustainable economic growth and to preserve price stability. In particular, the Committee anticipates that weak economic conditions are likely to warrant exceptionally low levels of the federal funds rate for some time.

The focus of the Committee's policy going forward will be to support the functioning of financial markets and stimulate the economy through open market operations and other measures that sustain the size of the Federal Reserve's balance sheet at a high level. As previously announced, over the next few quarters the Federal Reserve will purchase large quantities of agency debt and mortgage-backed securities to provide support to the mortgage and housing markets, and it stands ready to expand its purchases of agency debt and mortgage-backed securities as conditions warrant. The Committee is also evaluating the potential benefits of purchasing longer-term Treasury securities. Early next year, the Federal Reserve will also implement the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility to facilitate the extension of credit to households and small businesses. The Federal Reserve will continue to consider ways of using its balance sheet to further support credit markets and economic activity.

Voting for the FOMC monetary policy action were: Ben S. Bernanke, Chairman; Christine M. Cumming; Elizabeth A. Duke; Richard W. Fisher; Donald L. Kohn; Randall S. Kroszner; Sandra Pianalto; Charles I. Plosser; Gary H. Stern; and Kevin M. Warsh.

In a related action, the Board of Governors unanimously approved a 75-basis-point decrease in the discount rate to 1/2 percent. In taking this action, the Board approved the requests submitted by the Boards of Directors of the Federal Reserve Banks of New York, Cleveland, Richmond, Atlanta, Minneapolis, and San Francisco. The Board also established interest rates on required and excess reserve balances of 1/4 percent.

Well, that's it, we're at zero now. Any further monetary policy action will have to come through other means, e.g. quantitative easing and the purchase of financial assets.

Brad DeLong adds:

Hale "Bonddad" Stewart Is Scared: The Federal Reserve reacts to the fact that the economy train has arrived in Depression City.

Stewart writes:

Hale "Bonddad" Stewart: The Fed's Kitchen Sink Interest Rate Policy: The Fed announced their policy of establishing "a target range for the federal funds rate of 0 to 1/4 percent." This brings two points to mind:

1. The Fed has no interest rate moves left. This is it.
2. The Fed is terrified about the economy. And they have good reason:

Since the Committee's last meeting, labor market conditions have deteriorated, and the available data indicate that consumer spending, business investment, and industrial production have declined. Financial markets remain quite strained and credit conditions tight. Overall, the outlook for economic activity has weakened further....

The Fed will step up their other activities...

To the point: the Fed is scared right now. I mean really scared. And they will do anything even remotely possible right now.

Paul Krugman:

ZIRP!: That’s zero interest rate policy. And it has arrived. America has turned Japanese.

This is the thing I’ve been afraid of ever since I realized that Japan really was in the dreaded, possibly mythical liquidity trap. You can read my 1998 Brookings Paper on the issue here.

Incidentally, there were a bunch of us at Princeton worrying about the Japan problem in the early years of this decade. I was one; Lars Svensson, currently at Sweden’s Riksbank, was another; a third was a guy named Ben Bernanke. I wonder whatever happened to him?

Seriously, we are in very deep trouble. Getting out of this will require a lot of Show allcreativity, and maybe some luck too.

This post can also be viewed on economistsview.typepad.com.

Consumer Prices Show Record Fall: Fight Against Deflation Heats Up

Consumer prices are continuing to fall, even setting new records. This is of course heating up discussion about deflation, which is a horror no one wishes to see. Bernanke and the Fed are going to do everything they can to prevent deflation from coming, but with this crazy economy who knows if they will have the wherewithal to do so. James Picerno from The Capital Spectator dives deeper into the issue in his blog post below.

For the second month running, consumer prices fell. And by more than a little, invoking the specter of deflation once again.

CPI slumped by a hefty 1.7% in November on a seasonally adjusted basis, the government reports today. That follows October's 1.0% fall. More dramatically, last month's tumble is the deepest monthly decline in CPI since the Labor Department began keeping records on this series in 1947. Meanwhile, MarketWatch.com reports that the 1.9% non-seasonally adjusted fall in CPI is the steepest monthly rate since January 1932—the height of the Great Depression.

Meanwhile, core CPI (which strips out food and energy) is unchanged, following a slight decline in October. As this is the Fed's preferred measure of inflation, even a central banker can't deny that inflationary pressures have evaporated, at least for the time being.

Looking at the more familiar year-over-year calculation of headline CPI, consumer inflation is still positive, running at 1.0% for the 12 months through November. Even so, that's down sharply from October's annual rate of 3.7%. At this rate, CPI will soon be falling on an annual basis too.

As striking as the news is, a decline of some magnitude in CPI was expected, partly based on the earlier report of the ongoing decline in producers prices. Nonetheless, the sight of broad price indices sinking month after month in both the consumer and wholesale markets raises the question of whether this is merely a temporary state or something with more endurance?

We've been writing about rising deflation risk for some months now, and it's clear that the beast is here. It's still unclear how long it lasts, and so for the moment one can be optimistic that an unhealthy downward spiral in prices isn't fate.

Keep in mind that the massive monetary stimulus engineered by the Fed has only partly filtered into the economy. Monetary policy has a fair amount of lag time, perhaps a year or more. With each passing month, the aggressive liquidity injections will work deeper into the consumer and business sectors. Few expect a sudden rebound in spending and lending, but at this point simply keeping prices steady would be no small accomplishment.

Another reason to think that prices may soon stabilize comes from the fact that heavy drops in energy prices are currently leading CPI's descent. The energy component of consumer price inflation has lost ground for four months straight, with November's whopping 17% fall the biggest so far. But energy prices can't keep falling off a cliff month after month. Yes, the world economy is headed for tough times, which is paring demand for oil, gasoline and other fuels. But the lion's share of the price cutting relative to the highs of last summer is behind us.

There may yet be more declines in energy coming. In fact, we expect as much. But the magnitude of future declines, if any, will almost surely be smaller. Nor is it unreasonable to expect that energy prices generally will soon tread water, albeit at substantially lower levels compared with recent history.

As for the other components of CPI, well, that's another story. The transportation slice of consumer prices retreated by nearly 10% last month—the fourth month in a row of red ink. Housing prices are weakened last month, although just barely. But not every is posting price discounts. Prices for food, apparel, education/communication and medical care all managed to rise last month. Deflation hasn't yet infected everything, and therein lies more reason for hope.

Still, no one will wonder why Fed funds futures are pricing in a 50-basis-point cut at the Fed's FOMC meeting later today. If accurate, that would bring the target Fed funds down to 0.5%. As extraordinary as a 0.5% will be in historical terms, at this point it's something of a formality to reflect reality since the effective Fed funds (which is based on actual banking activity) is already at a scant 0.14%.

In sum, the war to head off inflation is in full swing. The Fed can't afford to fail in this battle. Allowing deflation to build a head of steam at this point is tantamount to economic suicide. It must be stopped, even at the risk of letting inflation out of the bag down the road. Controlling inflation, after all, is well understood, even if the political will isn't always there. Fighting deflation, by contrast, is far tougher and so preemptive medicine is preferred.

The challenge before us is defeating deflation with unconventional monetary policies, supported by aggressive fiscal stimulus. Since there's not a lot of precedent for the former, one might reason that the fiscal side of the ledger will have to do the heavy lifting, which necessarily depends on the political process. 'Nuff said.

Yet the task is not insurmountable. Indeed, monetary and fiscal policies will be that much more effective if consumer prices merely stabilize in the coming months, or at least stop dropping so rapidly. But that, as they say, is a big "if." Stay tuned.

The full post can also be viewed on capitalspectator.com.

U.S. Debt Offerings: The Biggest Ponzi Scheme In History?

The U.S. Treasury has not been able to keep up with the monetary demands from the Fed which lead them to request the authority to print their own debt. In what has to be considered a ridiculous run up in the national debt of late, this move just compounds the potential problems. This is leading some people to question the validity of U.S. sovereign debt. Is the U.S. government running the biggest ponzi scheme in history? It sure seems like it. Toni Straka from The Prudent Investor looks closer at this in his blog post below.

Ladies and gentleman, fasten your seat belts in anticipation of more monetary madness. In its drive to keep the helicopters above Wall Street (and certain privileged corporate headquarters) filled with colourful stacks of fiat money that can be showered onto everybody that is deemed too big to fail the Federal Reserve blueprints a new layer of debt, writes the Wall Street Journal on Wednesday.

According to the story based on sources "familiar with the matter" the Fed considers to issue its own debt. This would allow the Fed to circumvent banks as intermediaries, possibly leading to a recovery of capital markets. But it could also lead to a situation where the Fed would be a direct competitor to the US Treasury in debt issuance.

While the privately owned Fed's right to print unbacked fiat money is already constitutionally doubtful (see my sidebar) even the Federal Reserve Act does not explicitly permit the Fed to issue debt either.

As chairman Ben Bernanke religiously follows a policy of the easiest money ever in order to combat what will become a bigger depression than the 1930s Ben is looking into new ways to drop Federal Reserve Notes all over the world.


Always remember that chairman Ben Bernanke has become the biggest and fastest money printer in the history of mankind by now, doubling the monetary base within a week. It took 95 years for the first 750 billion. Ben added the same amount last November.

The WSJ reasons that the Fed has to make a move because of the explosive growth of its balance sheet and the questionnable quality of its collateral.

What the WSJ does not ask is whether the continuation of the game of unlimited funny money is another desperate attempt to keep the biggest Ponzi scheme of all times running a little longer. Without ever expanding credit the whole FRN scheme is destined to fail as did ALL other unbacked fiat currencies before.

From the WSJ:

The Federal Reserve is considering issuing its own debt for the first time, a move that would give the central bank additional flexibility as it tries to stabilize rocky financial markets.

...Fed officials have approached Congress about the concept, which could include issuing bills or some other form of debt, according to people familiar with the matter.
It isn't known whether these preliminary discussions will result in a formal proposal or Fed action. One hurdle: The Federal Reserve Act doesn't explicitly permit the Fed to issue notes beyond currency.

Just exploring the idea underscores many challenges the ongoing problems are creating for the Fed, as well as the lengths to which the central bank is going to come up with new ideas.

At the core of the deliberations is the Fed's balance sheet, which has grown from less than $900 billion to more than $2 trillion since August as it backstops new markets like commercial paper, money-market funds, mortgage-backed securities and ailing companies such as American International Group Inc.

The ballooning balance sheet is presenting complications for the Fed. In the early stages of the crisis, officials funded their programs by drawing down on holdings of Treasury bonds, using the proceeds to finance new programs. Officials don't want that stockpile to get too low. It now is about $476 billion, with some of that amount already tied up in other programs.

The Fed also has turned to the Treasury Department for cash. Treasury has issued debt, leaving the proceeds on deposit with the Fed for the central bank to use as it chose. But the Treasury said in November it was scaling back that effort. The Treasury is undertaking its own massive borrowing program and faces legal limits on how much it can borrow.

More recently, the Fed has funded programs by flooding the financial system with money it created itself -- known in central-banking circles as bank reserves -- and has used the money to make loans and purchase assets.

Some economists worry about the consequences of this approach. Fed officials could find it challenging to remove the cash from the system once markets stabilize and the economy improves. It's not a problem now, but if they're too slow to act later it can cause inflation.
Moreover, the flood of additional cash makes it harder for Fed officials to maintain interest rates at their desired level. The fed-funds rate, an overnight borrowing rate between banks, has fallen consistently below the Fed's 1% target. It is expected to reduce that target next week.

...There are also questions about the Fed's authority.

"I had always worked under the assumption that the Federal Reserve couldn't issue debt," said Vincent Reinhart, a former senior Fed staffer who is now an economist at the American Enterprise Institute. He says it is an action better suited to the Treasury Department, which has clear congressional authority to borrow on behalf of the government.

I conclude the Fed is looking for ways to fuel future monetary hyper inflation in truly creative ways. This move comes only 2 months after the Fed had announced unlimited FRN refinancing in collaboration with other major central banks.

Bernanke is of the stubborn opinion that the last depression was a result of too tight monetary policy. While this may be true to a certain extent we have no reality based example that a zero interest rate policy has helped averting an economic downturn that stemmed from too much easy money in the first place. It was the Fed that refused to recognize the unsustainable property bubble. It appears this was not their first mistake and it will not be their last one.

This article has been reposted from The Prudent Investor. The full post can also be viewed on The Prudent Investor.

The Fed Seeks Ability To Issue Own Debt

The Fed can't get enough money from the Treasury to fund all their ventures, so what do they do? Simple, they request the authority to issue their own debt. If Congress approves this measure it would give the Fed even more power, an idea that should be at least a little scary to taxpayers. Tim Iacono from The Mess That Greenspan Made looks closer at this new development in his blog post below.

One of the great mysteries of our debt-fueled financial system in general and central banking in particular is exactly when it is that "money is printed", a phrase that is thrown around quite casually by far too many people when maybe it shouldn't be.

Our fractional reserve banking system effectively "prints money" each time a new loan is made. That much should be clear. With a ten percent bank reserve ratio, each new $1,000 in deposits can generate $10,000 in loans. Where does this extra money come from? It is created "out of thin air". That's the way banks work.

Up until late-2007, Wall Street's "shadow banking system" did something similar, however, it apparently had what amounted to a zero percent reserve ratio which is one of the major reasons that we have the crisis that we have today.

As for the U.S. government, "printing money" is performed by the Federal Reserve when it buys Treasury bills (or any other assets of questionable quality) and in return provides money that it creates "out of thin air".

This is generally frowned upon for obvious reasons.

Largely as a result of the willingness of our Asian trading partners to do so, the Fed has not needed to buy much U.S. debt in recent years, its balance sheet remaining fairly constant at around $800-$900 billion up until a few months ago when Lehman Brothers was allowed to fail and the downward spiral commenced.

As most everybody knows, the Fed's balance sheet is now almost $1.5 trillion bigger, prompting the question of where exactly this $1.5 trillion came from.

Well, some of it came from the Treasury Department but, as discussed last week, a good portion of this was simply "created out of thin air" and then exchanged with companies like AIG for one toxic asset or another.

It is all adding up very quickly and, with no end in sight for the current crisis, it should come as no surprise that the central bank is looking for ways to get even more money into the system without people all around the world wondering about where all the money is coming from.

According to this report in today's Wall Street Journal, it seems the Fed is now looking at issuing its own debt in order to bypass that cumbersome Congressional approval process for issuing Treasuries.

The Federal Reserve is considering issuing its own debt for the first time, a move that would give the central bank additional flexibility as it tries to stabilize rocky financial markets.

Government debt issuance is largely the province of the Treasury Department, and the Fed already can print as much money as it wants. But as the credit crisis drags on and the economy suffers from recession, Fed officials are looking broadly for new financial tools.

Fed officials have approached Congress about the concept, which could include issuing bills or some other form of debt, according to people familiar with the matter.

It isn't known whether these preliminary discussions will result in a formal proposal or Fed action. One hurdle: The Federal Reserve Act doesn't explicitly permit the Fed to issue notes beyond currency.

Just exploring the idea underscores many challenges the ongoing problems are creating for the Fed, as well as the lengths to which the central bank is going to come up with new ideas.

As Andre Agassi used to say, "Image is everything".

Why look bad when the rest of the world remains scared to death of global financial markets, more than willing to continue gobbling up U.S. debt at ridiculously low yields, and your only real problem is that your government can't authorize enough spending fast enough?

This article has been reposted from The Mess That Greenspan Made. The full post can also be viewed on The Mess That Greenspan Made.

Here Come More Interest Rate Cuts

Central banks from around the world are cutting interest rates in dramatic fashion in an attempt to curtail the financial crisis. If these record interest rate cuts will help remains to be seen, but it seems that the world's central bankers feel it is their best hope. Tim Iacono from The Mess That Greenspan made talks more about these rate cuts in his blog post below.

Now's not the time to be timid if you're a central banker or an elected official. Day after day they watch a once vibrant world economy sink deeper into an abyss caused by a massive credit contraction following the collapse of multiple asset bubbles.

Central banks all around the world were busy today slashing interest rates with abandon:

• Bank of England -------------- cut 100 basis points to 2.0 percent
• European Central Bank -- cut 75 basis points to 2.5 percent
• Sweden's Riksbank ---------- cut 175 basis points to 2.0 percent
• Bank of New Zealand ------- cut 150 basis points to 5.0 percent
• Bank of Indonesia ------------ cut 25 basis points to 9.25 percent
  

Earlier in the week, Australia's central bank cut short-term interest rates by 100 basis points to 4.0 percent and Thailand slashed by a full percentage point.

Tumbling home prices and a rapidly weakening economy have created a near state of panic in the U.K. that makes the situation in the U.S. somehow look tame by comparison. Short term rates have fallen by 300 basis points in less than two months and they now sit at their lowest level since 1951.

On the continent, the fifteen countries that use the euro got their biggest interest rate cut in the common currency's 10-year history as the central bank attempts to mop up after collapsing housing bubbles in Spain and Ireland while also dealing with major economic slowdowns in Germany and Italy. The French just announced a $33 billion stimulus package.

Herding cats has never been more difficult.

The Swedish central bank couldn't wait for their regularly scheduled mid-December meeting and hastily made their biggest rate cut in 16 years in an attempt to combat a recession that officially began two months ago. The government also announced a $4 billion stimulus plan.

In New Zealand, rates were slashed by a record 1.5 percentage points and Reserve Bank Governor Alan Bollard indicated there are more, smaller cuts to come. The kiwis entered a recession back in the first quarter of the year and short-term rates have been slashed from 8.25 percent over the summer to just 5.0 percent.

In Indonesia, both interest rates and inflation (~12%) are still quite high and the central bank has received some criticism for making its first rate cut in over a year. They were no doubt influenced by the full-point rate cut in Thailand a few days ago.

The day is still young - there may be more rate cuts to come.

This article has been reposted from The Mess That Greenspan Made. The full post can also be viewed on The Mess That Greenspan Made.

Homebuilders Next In Line To Beg For Bailout Funds

Detroit automakers recently received the cold shoulder from Congress on their quest for a piece of the $700 billion bailout pie; next in line are the homebuilders. Hopefully they will learn from the automakers and won’t fly to Washington in private jets to beg for these funds, although at this point it appears doubtful that their wishes will be answered anyway. The homebuilders are prepared to request an aid package estimated at $250 billion and aptly called “Fix Housing First”, according to the Wall Street Journal. The homebuilders are trying to convince Congress that the rest of the financial system will continue to deteriorate until home prices stabilize.

The “Fix Housing First” plan calls for two parts, a large tax credit for homebuyers and a government subsidy of mortgage rates. The tax credit that the homebuilders are proposing would equal 10 percent of the home’s purchase or $22,000, whichever is less according to the Wall Street Journal. The mortgage subsidy requested by the homebuilders would aim to bring interest rates on government backed 30 year fix loans down to 3 percent for loans made in the first half of 2009, and 4 percent for loans made in the second half of the year, according to the Wall Street Journal. The Wall Street Journal also notes that Realtors are pushing a 4.5 percent interest rate buy down for new mortgage loans. It is their estimation that for each 1 percent that rates fall, 500,000 to 800,000 additional homes could be sold.

It seems very unlikely that any variation of the “Fix Housing First” plan will get passed before Obama takes office, but once he does all bets are off. I seriously doubt that the plan would remain intact as is, but some variation of the proposal could be possible. There is a lot of support for the idea that the housing crisis is the underlying cause of the greater financial crisis, and most Americans are more likely to approve of measures that will aid the housing and mortgage markets before aiding banks and other financial institutions. We have been trying to prop up the financial industry for a long time, without much avail. Why not give housing a try?

Of course the problem is that this will simply artificially inflate housing prices yet again. We did that before and look where that has left us. If we are able to inflate housing prices, that will alleviate many of the problems plaguing the financial industry and homeowners alike, but it is not sustainable. Housing simply became too expensive, and it will become too expensive again if we inflate it, and the next time it will cost us even more to fix the fallout. Housing prices need to rise in correlation with a rise in income, which is the only sustainable way. I hope that Congress and the next administration know better than to rely on biased research when looking to spend hundreds of billions in taxpayer money.

Citigroup Bailout, Deflation And The Worldwide Financial Epidemic

The news of Citigroup's $300 billion bailout seems like déjà vu, and the scary word "deflation" that is being thrown around seems distant compared to everything else we are dealing with. The U.S. is not the only country with problems either, this is without a doubt a global financial epidemic. James Picerno from The Capital Spectator wonders, though, if the cure might be worse than the disease.

Have we seen this movie before? It certainly sounds familiar.

Once again, the government steps in to bail out a financial institution and Mr. Market takes kindly to the idea. Initially. But then reality sets in and the process starts anew. Perhaps it'll be a true sign of a bottom when the Feds engineer a bailout and the market tanks on the news.

But not yet. The latest installment of rescue revolves around the once mighty Citigroup. A giant among giants, this behemoth of financial behemoths surely fits the bill as too big to fail. If such a thing exists as a financial institution that must be saved at any cost, Citigroup looks like the poster boy for this idea.

Total assets for Citigroup were a bit more than $2 trillion in September. For those who like to keep score, that's roughly 14% of the annualized value of U.S. GDP for this year's third quarter.

The days of pulling another Lehman and letting a big bank fail are history. Better to bailout more rather than less and deal with the consequences later. The grand strategy here is that if the government bails out enough banks (and perhaps an auto company or two) while spitting out stimulus in various forms as far as the eye can see, the system will correct itself, or at least stop bleeding. At a time when deflationary risks are rising, this plan is considered prudent and timely by a growing swath of economists and voices from the peanut gallery, including yours truly. The risk of an even deeper implosion of prices and confidence must be avoided lest the vortex of deflation pull everything down the rat hole. Preventing deflation is the last battle in this horror film because once the big "D" takes hold, in sentiment and prices, the challenge becomes much, much tougher.

The problem is that no one's really quite sure if deflation with a big "D" is on our doorstep. Quite possibly it is, or so one could reason after witnessing consumer and wholesale prices fall last month on a scale unmatched since the government began keeping tabs on such things in the late-1940s. Waiting for definitive signs risks letting the monster out of the cage. Decisions, decisions. Nonetheless, there's a strong case for assuming deflation is coming. If we're wrong, we'll have more inflation on our hands than we otherwise would. But the world knows how to fight inflation, even if the political will is sometimes lacking. Attacking deflation, on the other, is another story.

Any way you slice it, there's bound to be more than a little disappointment and finger pointing in the months and years ahead. Indeed, no one should think that the necessary but risky strategy of preventing deflation is destined to end in triumph, or quick results. The stakes are high, in part because the government's moving quickly toward betting the house on a fiscal/monetary solution. On the opposing shore is the unwinding of excess, some of which has been decades in the making. When an immovable force meets government printing presses, the outcome isn't entirely clear.

All the more so if the world is looking for signs, one way or the other, by next Wednesday. It's difficult to gauge expectations as we run from one crisis to another. But this much is clear: the financial and economic problems will take time--years--to solve, and to the extent that the crowd thinks otherwise, the seeds of disenchantment have been planted.

The U.S. economy is sick, and getting sicker. Europe has the disease and Asia is at risk of contracting the same, albeit in a milder form. Looking back on the past five decades offers no clue for what may be coming. Growth has been a constant, according to GDP numbers from economist Angus Maddison, emeritus professor, University of Groningen (Netherlands). As the chart below shows, outright contraction is unknown in the postwar era.

Fifty years is a long time, virtually an eternity for mere mortals studying the past in search of clues about the future. It's all too easy to look at this track record and conclude that real declines in global GDP aren't possible, or are so unlikely as to be unworthy of considering. The IMF forecast, for one, still imagines more of the same with next year's estimate for real global GDP rising by a respectable if not impressive 2.4%.

Of course, the crowd used to think in persistent-growth terms for housing prices, and how they never fall on a year-over-year basis. Oh, sure, that happened in the Great Depression, but such episodes were dismissed as a thing from the past.

Perhaps it's time to consider the unthinkable. We've all received a crash course in just that over the last few months. But has the education so far been sufficient? Or do we still need to spend more time studying?

There are many dangers stalking the global economy, and at the top of the list is the assumption that the governments of the world can spend their way out of the slump on our collective doorstep. In the U.S. alone, the government now stands at the ready to spend $7 trillion--yes trillion with a "t"--to bring financial salvation to the system, according to Bloomberg News. That's the equivalent of three-and-a-half Citigroups, or half the U.S. economy. Scale no longer looks to be a stumbling block.

By spending enough money, governments are likely to keep inflation-adjusted global GDP floating somewhere above zero, if only slightly. That would still bring a fair amount of pain and repricing, but embedded in the expectation is the notion that a floor can be built under the crisis.

Perhaps, although at some point one might wonder if the cure will be worse than the disease. There are some awkward questions that will accompany the mother of all spending sprees now underway. First up: Is there some point at which additional government spending becomes counterproductive because a) it encourages future inflation on a scale that will be excessively burdensome; and/or b) the prospect of the government owning ever-larger chunks of the economy risks institutionalizing mediocrity or worse in the economy?

There are two great episodes of deflation in modern history, and each continues to raise questions about the associated lessons. Yes, spending is the only hope of sidestepping the beast, and if that means artificially engineered demand from the government, so be it. But it's not clear that the strategy leads to happy results all around. Meantime, there's more than one way to fight deflation.

That's not to say we shouldn't try to spend our way out of a deflationary trap. We should. We must. And we will. The risk is real this time, unlike the previous worries over deflation in 2001-2003. But the details of how we engage our anti-deflationary war may matter as much, if not more, as the decision to wage the war in the first place.

The dismal science has precious little experience with fighting deflation and so we must recognize that we may soon be caught up in an economic experiment on a scale that has little or no precedent. By all means, let's fight this war ferociously. But it also needs to be fought intelligently. What exactly do we mean by "intelligently"? We can't say for sure. No one can, and therein lies the greatest risk.

This article has been reposted from The Capital Spectator. The full post can also be viewed on The Capital Spectator.

Fed Preparing For Another Interest Rate Cut

With inflation concerns now being trumped by the fear of deflation, and the economy still struggling, the Federal Reserve is expected to cut the Fed Funds rate again during their next meeting in December. Kathy Lien examines this closer and shares her expectations in her blog post below.

US consumer prices dropped 1 percent last month, taking the annualized pace of growth to 3.7 percent, which is the lowest level since October 2007. Falling oil prices takes the credit for lower inflationary pressures with gasoline prices tracking the 50 percent decline in crude. Gas station receipts fell a whopping 14 percent and commodity prices have fallen in general, which has helped to push down transportation costs.

Although the core PPI numbers accelerated, core CPI dropped 0.1 percent and we expect it to head even lower. Less price pressure will give the Federal Reserve more room to cut interest rates. We expect the Fed to cut by another 50bp in December, but it is important to note that Fed Fund futures are pricing in a tiny chance of a 75bp rate cut next month.

The housing market continues to be one of the weakest links in the US economy. Housing starts fell to a record low while building permits dropped to the lowest level in close to 50 years. When you have an environment where foreclosures are rising at a very rapid pace, there is no desire by builders to break new ground.

This afternoon, we have the minutes from the latest FOMC meeting at which the Fed cut interest rates by 50bp to 1 percent. Given the continued concern reflected in Bernanke’s testimony to the House Financial Services Committee on Tuesday, the Fed is likely to support further easing.

All of the major currency pairs have been consolidating since the middle of last week and the FOMC minutes could be the trigger for a major breakout.

This article has been reposted from Kathy Lien. The full post can also be viewed on KathyLien.com.

Why Have Homeowners Been Forgotten?

As part of the latest directional shift in the allocation of the bailout funds being managed by Hank Paulson, it seems homeowners have once again been overlooked. The bailout funds which were originally intended to boost the lending markets have now been earmarked to boost bank balance sheets. Paulson and Bernanke seem much more concerned with propping up failing banks than homeowners at this point. Anthony Freed from Your Mortgage or Your Life even goes so far as to call them liars. You can read more about this in his blog post below.

Two months ago, in late September, I penned a piece titled Liars, and the Lying Lies They Are Telling You, which examined just one single publicly available FDIC document from 2002 which shows beyond any doubt that the Feds were not only aware of the problems in the finance industry that have led to near economic collapse today, they were already convinced that there would soon be dire repercussions.

Yet, today we have Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and his mini-me Neel Kashkari, as well as a host of other top Federal officials, testifying under oath that the threats to our economic security were not immediately apparent until just months ago - hence the gun-to-the-head threats that produced the biggest bailout of private industry in history, while prescribing less governance on the application of those funds than is required to redeem a typical twenty-cent manufacturers coupon for kitty-litter.

Now we will see Barney Frank and others on the Hill posture and shuffle, as they feign attempts to look like they are in control of anything whatsoever, and they will act surprised that they had handed Paulson and his boy a blank check, and they is spending it as they sees fit.

Well, there should be no surprise there if they actually took the time to read the legislation they passed.

Paulson, who is overseeing the bailout program for the Bush administration, changed course and announced last week that the government would not use any of the money to buy rotten mortgages and other bad assets from banks. That had been the centerpiece of the plan when Paulson and Bernanke originally pitched it to lawmakers.

“Our assessment … is that this is not the most effective way” to use the bailout money, Paulson said at that time.

Instead, Paulson said the department would focus on rolling out a capital injection program to pour $250 billion into banks in return for partial ownership stakes in them.

The idea behind the capital injection program is for banks to use the money to rebuild reserves and lend more freely to customers. However, banks do have the leeway to use the money for other things, such as buying other banks or paying dividends to investors. That has touched a nerve with some lawmakers. Locked-up lending is a prime reason why the U.S. is suffering through the worst financial crisis since the 1930s. All the fallout from the housing, credit and financial crises have badly hurt the economy, which is almost certainly in recession, analysts say.

FDIC chief Sheila Bair continues to be the loan voice - I mean lone voice - advocating that some of the crumbs of the Bailout Cake be scattered in the direction of distressed borrowers who are, or will soon be, facing foreclosure.

In a break with the administration stance, Sheila Bair, chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., who also will testify Tuesday, recently proposed using $24 billion of the bailout money to help some American households avoid foreclosure. So far, the Treasury Department has pledged $250 billion for banks and has agreed to devote $40 billion to troubled insurer American International Group(AIG Quote - Cramer on AIG - Stock Picks) — its first slice of funds going to a company other than a bank. That leaves just $60 billion available from Congress’ first bailout installment of $350 billion.

As much as I appreciate that there is at least one person in the Federal Government’s ivory tower who has some sense of the pain and heartache that the American Homeowner is facing, even if her advocacy basically ends with the gavel and the conclusion of the hearings.

The hearings may address a lot of things today, but the most important thing they will not address is who is responsible for letting us get into this terrible position in the first place? Are we and the now completely vegetative national press, really expected to believe that no one saw this entire catastrophe heading our way, when a simple Google search will produce hundreds of documents that show that version of the truth is ridiculously false?

In the article Liars, and the Lying Lies They Are Telling You, I featured testimony by Karen Shaw Petrou and others who were sounding the alarm repeatedly, exposing the vulnerabilities to the system posed by the nearly industry-wide use of risk-abatement models that only work in a market that never contracts.

That was a fatal strategy on the part of the financial industry. The notion that Federal Regulatory agencies were not aware of the risks is patently false. From 2002:

“The next panelist, Karen Shaw Petrou, Managing Partner of Federal Financial Analytics, had a considerably different take on the appropriateness of the Basel initiative. Ms. Petrou said that she has significant concern with Basel II, not because the individual pieces of it are necessarily wrong but because “nobody understands how it all works together.”

Ms. Petroustressed that reliance on models on which the Basel rules are based must be evaluated with tremendous caution and a careful look at the bottom line. She also highlighted problems with the operational risk rule. Reputation risk is not included in the Basel definition of operational risk for purposes of determining a capital requirement. As another weakness of the Basel II proposal, Ms. Petrou stressed the difficulty with relying on models.

She suggested that the Basel Committee move forward only with the provisions of the rule on which there is widespread agreement and considerable evidence of immediate need.”

In the article, I half-jokingly asked if any readers happened to know where Karen Shaw Petrou was today, and wheter or not she was available to take either Paulson’s or Bernake’s jobs. Well, a friend from OpenSalon.com - Tom Cordle - was curious enough to follow through, and what he found is gold: More proof that the Federal Regulatory Agencies charged with protecting the economy, the nation, and the American taxpayer from the reckless profiteering that is the nature of capitalism were at best asleep on the job - at worst they were completely complicit in the manufacturing of this crisis.

The long and short of it is - WE ARE BEING LIED TO REPEATEDLY, AND THE PROOF IS AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE - CONGRESS, THE PRESS, AND ALL OF US…

Trillions of dollars of our tax money to bailout foreign investors, and nothing for distressed homeowners but failed programs and broken promises. The bailout money is now being directed to the Credit Card companies and foreign investors, and the icing is that they want us to believe that they never imagined this could happen.

That is a bald-faced lie. The following is subsequent Congressional testimony from Karen Shaw Petrou, this time the pudding is from 2006:

Testimony Of Karen Shaw Petrou

Managing Partner

Federal Financial Analytics, Inc.

Before the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit

Committee on Financial Services

U.S. House of Representatives

September 14, 2006

This panel has led the way in recognizing the critical importance of the Basel risk-based capital rules, starting the policy debate in early 2002 with the first Congressional hearings on the rules long before many in the industry realized their critical importance. I was honored to testify then to offer views on the rules at that early stage and am grateful again now to outline ways to modernize the regulatory-capital requirements governing U.S. financial-services firms.

Sad to say, much of what I will say today is what I said in 2002 and at several later hearings on the proposal in the House and Senate. For example, in 2002, I urged the regulators carefully to consider the competitive implications of their rules. The House Financial Services Committee has pressed hard on this point and the agencies are now paying heed to it, but I fear that many aspects of the most recent proposal still do not address ongoing problems raised by the unique nature of the U.S. industry. It is different in many key respects from other national financial-services regimes, and U.S. rules must thus be carefully tailored to reflect U.S. reality.

There is, though, one key difference between 2002 and now: the Basel risk-based capital rules - for better or worse - are final everywhere else but here. Thus, we no longer have the luxury of pushing for a better international Accord. That is now final, and banks around the world will start to operate under it in January of 2007. This means not only that internationally-active U.S. banks will operate under anachronistic capital rules that place them at a disadvantage and that put the banking system at risk - that would be bad enough. However, it also means that foreign firms may have an undue capital advantage with which to enter the U.S. and acquire banks and other financial-services firms. As I said before this panel in May of 2005, M&A by global firms here is fine if it’s a fair fight. It isn’t fine, though, if our domestic institutions are gobbled up by foreign competitors able to engage in “regulatory arbitrage” solely because we can’t make up our minds on our capital standards.

What are the key U.S. financial-system realities that must be kept carefully in mind as new capital rules are finalized? Put very simply, they are:

• We are facing emerging financial risks, most notably in housing and mortgage markets. We can debate all day long if the housing “bubble” will burst or fizzle, but we know for sure that U.S. consumers are highly leveraged and are making use in unparalleled fashion of high-risk mortgage products. The current Basel I rules applicable to all U.S. institutions woefully under-capitalize high-risk assets, creating a regulatory incentive for banks to hold them. Getting the risk right in risk-based capital is not just an issue for model builders. It’s a critical challenge to protect the FDIC and the economy more generally.
• In the U.S. bank regulatory capital rules cover only insured depositories and a subset of parent holding companies. We have a wide range of charter options, the consolidated supervised entity (CSE) importantly among them, that permit astute companies to pick and choose among the charters. Outside the U.S., almost all firms fall under the Basel rules, eliminating much of the competitiveness concerns critical in the U.S. The Basel rules as now finalized may be good, bad or indifferent, but they will apply with few distinctions outside the U.S., ensuring the proverbial “level playing field.” We will have a most uneven one - with dangerous systemic-risk ramifications - if the final U.S. bank capital rules do not reflect our charter and supervisory diversity. The proposed operational risk capital standard is particularly problematic in our competitive and legal reality.
• We have a unique capital requirement, the “leverage” standard proposed now to continue under the Basel IA and II regimes. Advocates of leverage argue that it will counteract possibly risky drops in regulatory capital. However, the leverage standard, while providing false comfort, exacerbates the charter disparities noted above because it applies only to some financial-services players, not to all of them. It is, further, no panacea for the problems in Basel. This panel will well remember the thousands of banks and S&Ls that failed in the 1980s and early 1990s even as the leverage standard applied to each and every one of them.
• We have thousands of banks, savings associations and credit unions - not just the four or five big players that dominate most other markets. Initial plans simply to ignore all but the biggest U.S. banks in the Basel rules have rightly been shelved, but the current proposal still has unnecessary restraints on what size institution may choose which capital regime. Each insured depository and, when applicable, holding company should choose the rules it thinks are right for it, not have that choice defined by its regulators. Supervisors have full powers - actually expanded under the Basel proposals - to intervene and add more capital if they think an institution’s choice is risky.

With these thoughts in mind, I offer and urge the following recommendations related to the Basel rules in the U.S.:

• First, we need to get our rules in place as fast as possible. If we can’t make up our minds on the more complex issues, leave them aside and finalize at least the simpler, “standardized” sections of the rules (revised for U.S. mortgage and other issues as necessary) and the Basel IA requirements. As noted, the current Basel I rules encourage risk-taking because there is no regulatory capital penalty for it. A simple rewrite that better equates risk-based capital to risk is urgently needed, and debate over the fine points of these highly-complex rules should not deter action on their key points on which there is, in fact, broad general agreement.
• Second, we should not cling to the leverage standard in hopes that it will protect us from “undue” capital drops. I very much doubt that risk-based capital under Basel II would drop here in anywhere near the amounts suggested by the fourth quantitative impact study, which was based on top-of-the-cycle numbers and back-of-the-envelope estimates. Putting banks and their holding companies through all of the hoops and all the added expense of the Basel rules and then slapping the leverage standard atop them undermines the entire point and purpose of the Basel standards and - importantly - is far from the guarantee of safety and soundness hoped by those now pushing for retaining the leverage standard. It should be discarded - especially for holding companies - and regulators should rely on their own powers and market discipline to press banks that might consider unwise capital reductions to think again.
• Third, the U.S. rules should not include an operational risk-based capital (ORBC) standard. The Basel IA proposal rightly does not include this and it should similarly be omitted from the Basel II rules. While this will put the U.S. Basel II rules at still more variance with the international Accord, it is necessary because of the lack of any agreed-upon methodology or measurement systems for operational risk. Worse still, a focus on ORBC will distract both banks and supervisors from urgently-needed disaster preparedness and contingency planning - capital is no substitute for back-up systems and advance planning as was made all too clear after September 11 and Hurricane Katrina.
• Finally, we must make up our mind and move forward. All of the benchmarks, caveats, limits and questions in the Basel II rules create wholesale uncertainty about what capital rules will apply when to whom. As noted, U.S. banks operate in the real world of aggressive competitors at home and abroad. We have proposed imposing not only new risk-based capital standards, but also new powers for regulators to buttress these - Pillar 2 - and new disclosure standards - Pillar 3 - to enhance market discipline. Far too little attention has been paid in the current debate to these critical elements of the overall Basel framework - indeed, they are almost unmentioned in the current notice of proposed rulemaking. Rightly structured, however, these two additional pillars will give U.S. regulators all the tools they need to ensure that capital is right for each bank under their purview without forcing institutions into the one-size-fits-all leverage standard, benchmarks, and other constraints on Basel now under consideration.

In conclusion, Basel critics might wish none of this had started and the U.S. could just get back to Basel I as is. This is understandable given all the flaws in the initial proposal and all the problems to which regulators turned a deaf ear for so long. However, it is critical to remember that Basel I as is rewards risk-taking and the leverage standard as is will do nothing to constrain this. It is also vital to remember that major competitors at home and abroad are now or will soon come under a more risk-sensitive capital regime with no leverage standard. Each and every one of these firms is a major force to be reckoned with in the U.S. whether or not it chooses to become a bank under the Federal Reserve’s domain or headquarter itself here.

Thus, Basel II is here like it or not. Charters will be selected and deals done based on it, like it or not. The longer U.S. banks are kept under Basel wraps, the fewer of them there will be under our traditional regulatory framework. The longer Basel I is in place, the riskier our banking system will be - leverage standards now have no meaningful impact on risk other than to encourage taking it. Unless Congress is prepared to rewrite our rules and force all banks - big and small - and all competitors under the same capital regime - a major challenge that would keep Congresses busy for years to come - U.S. banks cannot be the last ones allowed to come under modern, risk-sensitive regulatory capital standards.

This article has been reposted from Your Mortgage or Your Life. The full post can also be viewed on yourmortgageoryourlife.wordpress.com.

What Can The Fed Do Now About The Housing Crisis?

The housing crisis that is plaguing the United States seems only to be getting worse. Does Bernanke, or any other government official for that matter, have the answer? Toni Straka at The Prudent Investor looks more closely at the situation in his post below.

Halloween started early this year with a televised speech by the Fed's bearded chairmen Ben Bernanke. Recognizing that the problems in the biggest debt bubble of all times are far from over, Bernanke appeared helpless when offering several options for the future of the government sponsored entities (GSE) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The reorganization of the two mortgage giants, saddled with so many debts in default that no one can quantify reliably due to a lack of proper accounting, can take several ways.

Obviously addressing US policymakers, Bernanke presented four possibilities for the future role and organization of Frannie. The first one is rather wishful thinking: Returning the two GSEs to their pre-conservatorship status quo.

According to a Reuters dispatch from Friday, one in five homeowners sits on negative equity and it is going to get worse:

Nearly one in five U.S. mortgage borrowers owe more to lenders than their homes are worth, and the rate may soon approach one in four as housing prices fall and the economy weakens, a report on Friday shows.

About 7.63 million properties, or 18 percent, had negative equity in September, and another 2.1 million will follow if home prices fall another 5 percent, according to a report by First American CoreLogic.

The data, covering 43 states and Washington, D.C., includes borrowers nationwide, even those who took out mortgages before housing prices began to soar early this decade.

Seven hard-hit states -- Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada and Ohio -- had 64 percent of all "underwater" borrowers, but just 41 percent of U.S. mortgages.

As if this was not enough, Marketwatch raised concerns that nothing influences people's investments more than the change of value of their house.

Consumers react more to changes in their home values than changes in their investment portfolios, according to a recent study.

In fact, real estate economists at UCLA and the University of Southern California found that a 10% decline in housing wealth from the 2005 highs would result in a $105 billion, or 1.2%, drop in personal consumption expenditures. That 10% decline in home values translates to roughly a 1 percentage-point reduction in real GDP growth, researchers said. Read the report.

One of Bernanke's other options looks DOA when checking the state of markets. A true privatization is simply not in the cards after a 99% decline in the share price of Fannie and Freddie.

Elaborations about copycatting the European system of covered mortgage bonds may bring its problems too at a time when trust between lenders has reached an all-time low as it is demonstrated by the essential seize-up of interbank markets for more than a year by now.

This leaves Bernanke's last option: Bringing the GSEs under Uncle Sams rule, with or without additional shareholders. Taking it from the recent past where the former champion of free market ideology has made a bizarre U-turn with several acts of Fedization I would not wonder if this will also be the future of Frannie.

Seeing that Bernanke offers options without favoring one of them I am afraid that it is not Bernanke who will solve the mess that Greenspan made. Thinking about Treasury secretary Hank Paulson's recent moves that cost the taxpayers basically another $70 billion in bonuses for his friends on Wall Street and had them pay almost double the price for some bank shares it is most likely we will see another round of more government in everything.

Somehow the American economy reminds me of the twists in the life of Joseph A. Schumpeter, an economist who coined the term "creative destruction" 90 years ago, favoring a laissez-faire capitalism over any government intervention. Schumpeter did not fail to recognize the signs of his times. In a speech held in Tokyo in 1932 Schumpeter had already shifted his perception towards permissible protectionism.

10 years later, in 1942, Schumpeter had morphed into a socialist. In his late work "Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy" Schumpeter declared that capitalism had no chance of survival, praising Karl Marx' theory on socialism which offered a more flexible approach to the headwinds any system will encounter. Will the same happen to the USA?

This article has been reposted from The Prudent Investor. The full post can also be viewed on The Prudent Investor.

Federal Reserve Invoking Serious Monetary Inflation

The U.S. Federal Reserve is trying everything right now to fix the financial crisis. The latest plan, as outlined below by Toni Straka at The Prudent Investor, involves sending billions of dollars to foreign countries around the world. The end result of all this is going to be severe monetary inflation, read on...

Only 75 minutes after the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) slashed Fed Funds half a point to the lowest recorded level of 1%, chairman Ben Bernanke started his money dropping helicopter fleet in order to shower the world with another $120 billion. This time it is the central banks of Brazil, Mexico, Singapore and South Korea that will receive up to $30 billion each in newly established swaplines.

A Fed press release states that each country will enter into $30 billion swaplines with the Fed,

in order to help improve liquidity conditions in global financial markets and to mitigate the spread of difficulties in obtaining U.S. dollar funding in fundamentally sound and well managed economies.

In response to the heightened stress associated with the global financial turmoil, which has broadened to emerging market economies, the Federal Reserve has authorized the establishment of temporary liquidity swap facilities with the central banks of these four large and systemically important economies. These new facilities will support the provision of U.S. dollar liquidity in amounts of up to $30 billion each by the Banco Central do Brasil, the Banco de Mexico, the Bank of Korea, and the Monetary Authority of Singapore.

The Fed has now established swaplines with 14 central banks responsible for 28 countries in order to market its only product: Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) that are backed by nothing than the belief that today's FRN will buy you the same amount of goods and services in the future.

The other central banks helping to fly the FRN helicopters are the Reserve Bank of Australia, the Bank of Canada, Danmarks Nationalbank, the Bank of England, the European Central Bank, the Bank of Japan, the Reserve Bank of New Zealand, the Norges Bank, the Sveriges Riksbank, and the Swiss National Bank.

IMF Will Dish Out Still More FRNs
In its efforts to flood the whole world with FRNs the Fed

welcomes the announcement today by the International Monetary Fund of the establishment of the Short-Term Liquidity Facility, which is designed to help member countries that are facing temporary liquidity problems in the global capital markets. The Federal Reserve is supportive of the IMF's role in helping countries address and resolve their ongoing economic and financial difficulties.

Jumping to the IMF website one finds more details how the IMF will dish out more FRN loans all over the world with the newly established Short-Term Liquidity Facility (SLF). This comes one day after the IMF warned that Latin America would not escape the global turmoil.
According to the release members can borrow up to 500 percent of their quota.

Quoting IMF head Dominique Strauss-Kahn the new facility is a better design than usual standby agreements. He said the IMF would use its full financial force to stem the crisis.
Here are the details of the SLF:

• Purpose. Provide large, upfront, quick-disbursing, short-term financing to help countries with strong policies and a good track record address temporary liquidity problems in capital markets.
  
• Eligibility. Countries with a good track record of sound policies, access to capital markets and sustainable debt burdens may qualify (the IMF's standard debt sustainability analysis should indicate a high probability that both public and private debt will remain sustainable). Policies should have been assessed very positively by the IMF's most recent country assessment.
  
• Conditions. Financing is made available without the standard phasing and loan conditions of more traditional IMF arrangements. However, borrowers are expected to certify that they are committed to maintaining strong macroeconomic policies.
  
• Size of loan. Disbursement of IMF resources can be up to 500 percent of quota, with a three month maturity. Eligible countries are allowed to draw up to three times during a 12-month period.

Altogether it appears as the global banking machine requires more and more grease with every week but the engine is sputtering worse than at the beginning of the credit crisis.

We have entered the stage where even hundreds of billion of freshly created money will not be enough to deflate the biggest credit bubble in an orderly way.

Stocks reacted to the news of the rate cut in a classical "buy the rumour, sell the news" fashion. Early gains fizzled away as soon as the widely expected rate cut was announced as was the case after a second late bounce.

The near 10% advance in crude oil signals that commodities are again bought as as an inflation hedge.

Make no mistake: Only because recent inflation figures looked better than in summer does not mean that all this poisonous "liquidity" will not result in monetary inflation. What we see here is monetary inflation by the textbook and it will be felt dearly within the next 12 months. Central banks have gone wild since they found themselves behind the curve, rather following the wishes of Wall Street than insulating the inflation virus and absorbing all the liqudity that allowed the leverage excesses of this millennium.

Oh, and by the way; IMHO gold as the oldest inflation hedge has seen its low of the year with a very high probability based on the fundamentally bad outlook.

This article has been reposted from The Prudent Investor. The full post can also be viewed on The Prudent Investor.

Fed Cuts Interest Rates By 0.5 Percent

The Federal Reserve followed through today on expectations once again, cutting interest rates by 0.5 percent. Tim Iacono from The Mess That Greenspan Made looks closer at the latest interest rate cut, and compares it to past cuts.

With today's half-point cut to short-term interest rates, the Federal Reserve is once again back out "in front of the curve"... well, at least in front of the curve from a few years ago.
This morning's announcement that the Fed has once again lowered short-term interest rates to the freakishly low level of 1.0 percent was widely expected, particularly since the effective Fed funds rate has been below that level for weeks now, averaging just 0.82 percent since October 10th.

here were some major changes to the policy statement as shown below. In fact, Compare It!, the software program used to detect subtle changes to the wording was stymied, finding many, many more differences (in red) than similarities (in blue).

It's good to know that certain passages have remained unchanged - that "the Committee expects inflation to moderate" and they "will monitor economic and financial developments carefully and will act as needed to promote sustainable economic growth and price stability".

As for what has changed, there is a rather sobering assessment of the current state of the rapidly deteriorating economy with special emphasis given to the slowdown in consumer spending and business spending.

They really do "monitor economic and financial developments" and "act as needed".

This article has been reposted from The Mess That Greenspan Made. The full post can also be viewed on The Mess That Greenspan Made.

Fed Funds Rate Cut Expectations

Tomorrow the Fed will announce whether or not it decided to lower interest rates, and if so, by how much. Pretty much everyone is expecting a cut to the Fed Funds rate, but they are split on how much it will be. Currency expert Kathy Lien looks more closely at tomorrow's big announcement and adds some well found advice for investors in her post from KathyLien.com.

The biggest event risk this week is undoubtedly the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy decision on Wednesday. Now more than ever, the Fed’s decision could turnaround the currency and equity markets. Since the last interest rate cut by the central bank on October 8th, the dollar has rallied more than 8 percent and the Dow Jones Industrial Average has fallen by more than 10 percent. The Fed’s half point rate cut at the time was a part of a coordinated effort with central banks from around the world including the ECB, the Bank of Canada, the Bank of England and the Swiss National Bank. With US interest rates now at 1.50 percent, the Fed will need to start rationing rate cuts going forward unless they want to take interest rates to zero.

Going into the FOMC meeting, economists can’t seem to agree on how much the Federal Reserve will cut interest rates. Of the 64 economists surveyed by Bloomberg:

53 percent expect a 50bp rate cut
26.5 percent expect a 25bp cut
19 percent expect interest rates to remain unchanged
1 lone economist or 1.5 percent of the people polled expect a 75bp rate cut.

Fed Funds traders appear to be more optimistic as they have already priced in 50bp of easing for Wednesday with a 32 percent chance of a 75bp rate cut.

The recent strength of the US dollar will add pressure on the Federal Reserve to make a larger interest rate cut but everyone needs to realize that the rate cut by the Fed this week will not be their last. Even though the national average of gasoline prices has fallen 35 percent, layoffs continue to rise. If GM and Chrysler are forced to cut back or worse, pushed into bankruptcy, unemployment will continue to grow. The US economy is expected to get worse before it gets better and the Federal Reserve will not want to back themselves into a corner quite yet; a larger rate cut on Wednesday would give them less room to cut interest rates in December.

Here are the 3 most likely outcomes for Wednesday’s monetary policy decision:

Coordinated Rate Cut by the Fed, ECB and BoE (Dollar Bearish)

The best and most effective option for the Federal Reserve would be to coordinate a rate cut with the European Central Bank and the Bank of England. All 3 central banks would get the most bang for their buck by working together. Given Monday’s comments by ECB President Trichet about cutting interest rates again in November, he may not be opposed to making the rate cut one week earlier. The Times of London has also indicated that the BoE is under pressure to cut rates as well. This measure of solidarity would send a strong message to investors and at the same time not require the Federal Reserve to take interest rates below 1.00 percent, leaving them little room to cut interest rates later. A coordinated rate cut to should be bullish for the global equity markets and bearish for the US dollar.

Independent 50bp Rate Cut from the Fed (Dollar Neutral)

Although a coordinated rate cut is the most effective option for the currency market, it may not be the most likely option because for whatever reasons, the ECB and the BoE may be opposed to coordinated intervention. Since an independent rate cut by the Federal Reserve is exactly what the market expects, the impact on the US dollar should be limited. The key will be the tone of the FOMC statement.

25bp Rate Cut (Dollar Bullish)

A 25bp rate cut will be a big disappointment to both the currency and equity markets. Given the degree of risk aversion and fear, we do not believe that Bernanke will risk the consequences of a disappointment since it could trigger another round of selling for stocks and high yielding currencies. In this type of market environment where investors are becoming immune to new measures taken by the US Treasury and the Federal Reserve, it pays to over deliver.

75bp Not a Viable Option - Too Close to ZIRP

Even though Fed Funds traders are pricing in a respectable chance of a 75bp rate cut, we do not believe that this will happen because it is too close to zero. Zero interest rates come with a host of problems. If the economy worsens substantially despite zero interest rates, we will be experiencing a world of problems in rejuvenating growth. This situation can best be exhibited by the Japanese recession that ensued during much of the nineties. With interest rates at nearly zero levels, the BoJ found itself unable to stimulate growth with no policy tools available at its disposal. During this time the BoJ was forced to implement newly devised policy measures that had little if any effect on promoting growth. At the same time, a zero interest rate is also inflationary.

Although we believe that a coordinated rate cut would be the best option for the Federal Reserve if they want a good chance at stabilizing the markets, the fact that Trichet talked about cutting interest rates on November 6th specifically suggests that it may not be an option that he is seriously considering. If the central banks can work together, Wednesday’s rate decision could turn around the currency markets, but if they choose to respond with fractured rate cuts, risk aversion could remain a problem.

This article has been reposted from Kathy Lien. The full post can also be viewed on KathyLien.com.

Bernanke Pushing For Another Stimulus Package

In an effort to stem the financial crisis, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke is encouraging Congress to pass another stimulus package when they meet next month. To date, President Bush has said he feels as if passing another stimulus bill would be premature, considering we haven’t given the current stimulus measures time to be fully integrated into the economy, but Democrats hope that Bernanke’s blessing will be enough to change his mind. There are several proposals for a new stimulus package on the table right now, but Democrats would like to see this one include funds to address infrastructure and aid states, according to the Associated Press.

If a new stimulus package is passed, it will probably end up being as much as--or even more--than the previous $168 billion stimulus package passed back in February. In addition to the infrastructure and state aid, there could be another tax rebate included, according to the AP. It makes total sense, too, because if we are going to take bad debts off the books for these financial institutions, then why shouldn’t the government give taxpayers money to pay off their debts? Our nation’s infrastructure is badly deteriorating in many areas, so there is a definite need for something to be done; the infrastructure proposal is a good one, assuming that the projects selected are carefully reviewed. In addition to completing badly needed repairs or upgrades, infrastructure work would also create jobs.

But at what point are we going to say enough is enough? How many bailouts or stimulus packages do we have to pass before the economy is going to turn around? Will the economy even react to any of this? These are all tough questions, ones for which the government doesn’t have answers. At this point, they are determined to do whatever it takes to fix the economy and are content to use a trial and error methodology. I don’t know about you, but I would prefer that the government be a little more conservative with my tax dollars than they have been.

We have already committed around a trillion dollars in financial stimulus aid and so far nothing has worked; at some point we need to cut our losses. I think part of the problem is that since, it is an election year, everyone is trying hard not to lose their jobs--instead of thinking, "What is best over the long term?" they are thinking, "What is going to get results over the next two months?" This is obviously not the mindset we want our leaders to have. I sure hope Bush stands up to this push for another stimulus package and instead lets the next administration evaluate its merits. Hopefully by then our leaders will be thinking straight and have our true interests at heart.

Federal Reserve Meeting Today: BYOB, Pizza Will Be Served

The Fed is meeting again today and tomorrow. To mark this diminishingly historic occasion, I have composed the following ditty. Ahem...

There once was a man named Bernanke:

For the banks, an immaculate flunky.

When their assets all failed

with our money he bailed

them all out like a good little monkey

Thank you. Thank you.

As the Fed disappears behind the curtain yet again, ‘O we of little faith’ are bracing for yet another quarter percent drop in interest rates. Soon it will be official: You will likely see more appreciation on kitsch from the Franklin Mint than anything that comes out of the U.S. Mint. My friends all laughed when I plunked down 100 smackers for my Mystical Dreamcatcher Pocketwatch, but who’s laughing now?!

For those of you who didn’t have foresight enough to invest in chilling likenesses of dead royalty and zirconium encrusted daggers, allow me to predict what the Fed is planning to do. Just let me look into my Dragon of Lore Crystal Ball (a steal at 5 payments of only $39.99!)...

Abra-cadabra!

~~Ah yes...I scry a rather stoned-looking Bernanke telling the table that he knows exactly what needs to be done. Well! That’s good news!~~

~~Oh. He wasn’t talking about the economy. He was suggesting that they order pizza.

But still...based on his track record, that’s one of his more reasonable suggestions.~~

~~Now someone else at the table is telling him that no one there can afford to have a pizza delivered

because food and gas prices have soared again.~~

~~Bernanke insists that “Referendum Deepdish” be passed as they can just print more money

in the office next door. The motion is passed.~~

~~Someone raises a new motion: Will the Reserve lower interest rates again despite the fact that it has done nothing to mitigate the housing crisis or prevent a recession? They ask the chairman directly.~~

~~Bernanke teeters in his seat for a moment, opens his mouth...and then passes out on the floor.

The attendees concur with the chairman’s motion to drop the interest rate again. Motion is passed.~~

~~The pizza arrives. The delivery fellow receives a lousy tip.~~

As we can see, it’s all business as usual at the Federal Reserve. But before I go off to polish my collection of Elvis Head Silver Dollars, I leave the Fed with three bits of advice:

1. These are tough, confusing times, and I do in fact sympathize with anyone tasked with sorting this out, but your methods have proven to be the financial equivalent of bloodletting for the ailing economy. Try something new for once, PLEEEEEEEASE!
2. We know the banks own you (literally), but at least pretend that you have the interest of the American people in mind. You know, we love a good circus act. And if you piss us off, then...
3. Don’t stiff the pizza boy: He knows where you live.

Bear Stearns, Carlyle Capital And The Fed

For those who haven’t already seen the headlines in the local paper, Bear Stearns agreed this weekend to be acquired by JP Morgan for $236 million or about $2 a share, a sharp contrast to its 52 week high of $159. In addition, on Sunday the mortgage-bond fund Carlyle Capital decided to close up shop. Many people believe that this is only the beginning of the financial melt down. How will the Fed respond to these recent events at their meeting today?

The Fed will likely lower the key interest rates yet again, anywhere between .5 to a full point. Most traders will welcome as large a rate drop as Bernanke will give after the hammering the markets took this past week, but people who have their savings held in dollars might have other thoughts.

I know that I’ve been pounding this point home a lot lately, but the Fed is destroying the value of the dollar. I can’t imagine that it will be much longer before any foreign countries buying up U.S. treasuries start to think twice. What will happen then? The U.S. is funding its enormous debt by issuing more debt, and if that option gets reduced or eliminated there will be serious consequences. The options come down to printing more money (and further deflating the dollar) or default, and neither scenario would end well.

I’ve said it over and over again, but if you aren’t already diversifying out of the dollar, do it now. It is ok to keep some savings in dollars, but people really need to start looking at a basket of currencies. EverBank offers a product called a foreign currency CD which will pay interest on your money and also allow you to easily diversify into other currencies. They even offer various baskets of currencies to aid with diversification. EverBank also offers silver and gold CD’s, which is a simple way to diversify into the precious metals market.

The Latest Gloomy Forecast For The Real Estate Market

To add more salt to the wound which is the real estate market, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke is now proposing drastic measures be taken by mortgage lenders. His outlook on the future of the real estate market, if the decline is left unchecked, is very grim, but he wasn’t without ideas on how to curb the carnage.

Bernanke’s brilliant idea is to have mortgage lenders write down some of the principal owed by borrowers who are struggling to pay their mortgage payments. His reasoning is that if people have negative equity in their homes, then they have no incentive to keep paying the mortgage. If mortgage lenders were to write down some of the principal owed to make it more in line with the actual home value, then less people would default on their loans.

Previous talk of principal write-downs has gone nowhere, and for good reason. The thing is, Bernanke and those politicians who support his approach aren’t the ones who stand to lose money here. They are asking the mortgage lenders and the investors in mortgage securities, who have already taken a beating, to suck it up some more. Naturally, this idea isn’t going to sound all that appealing to them, but Bernanke and friends sure look good to the people. I know that if I owned a house with negative equity, then I would love a nice, easy fix to that problem at no cost to myself. Who wouldn’t? But if I were the one with money to lose, this type of deal would make me uneasy, and the fact that the government would be making me out to be the bad guy wouldn’t sit too well with me.

Who’s to say that these people are actually going to continue paying? Are they just guessing that the reason people aren’t paying is because of the negative equity? Bernanke was quoted by Bloomberg as saying, the “recent surge” in delinquencies has been “closely linked” to the slide of home equity. My thought is that they are using past information that suggests that people with equity in their home pay their mortgages at a better rate. Here is a potential problem: in the past, people with equity have been able to refinance and pull money out if they got into trouble, but that opportunity no longer exists unconditionally. Sure, if you have 20 percent equity, then you can probably refinance, but I don’t think that lenders would even contemplate a write down of that extent.

Writing off the principal to even it with the home’s value (100% LTV) still probably wouldn’t allow homeowners with negative equity to refinance. How far do they want the lenders to go with this write-off? If people don’t have the ability to refinance, will having the negative equity removed really make that much difference? I’m sure that it will have some effect on the amount of people paying their mortgage and avoiding foreclosure, but will those savings be enough to offset the additional costs to the lenders? That is the question that they will have to analyze for themselves.

Even if this plan could work the way Bernanke suggests, I don’t think that the lenders and investors will be able to come together to enact something like this. I just don’t see it happening, but if it does somehow come together, it will certainly be interesting to see how things turn out. Will it keep more people in their homes, helping the overall housing market? Or will it lead a mass fire sale of homes by people who now think that they can get out from under their house?

A proposal like this even being mentioned is an ominous sign for the real estate market. Investors who regularly read my blog know that I am very into cash flow real estate, especially right now. If I can’t see the income before I buy it, then I’m not interested; it’s that simple. I’m sure that there is money to be made in other non-cash flow properties, but with the way things are going right now, that is just more risk than I’m willing to take.

President Bush Says “No Recession,” So We All Can Relax Now...

During a news conference yesterday, President Bush said that the country was not recession bound. It appears that everything is going to be okay, and we all can sleep better at night without fear of the scary recession monster.

I don’t know about you, but I’m just not getting that warm and fuzzy feeling. If you believe President Bush, and you feel good about the country’s economic future, then more power to you. I just don’t think I’m ready to drink that Kool-Aid quite yet.

I look at the economy and I still see major issues. Mr. Bush says that the economic stimulus package will be more than enough to fix what ails us, but I look at it and think “what a waste of tax payer money.” Of that $168 billion how much will actually end up back in the economy? 1/2? 1/3 or less? No one can know for certain, but I have a feeling it will not be nearly as much as the Bush clan is projecting.

What I do know is that inflation is running rampant, and it appears that the Fed isn’t going to do anything to slow it down for awhile. Even if Bush and Bernanke pull out all the stops to ward off recession, with what will we ultimately be left? Recession is a natural thing, it happens every once in awhile, and whether or not we want to, we are going to have to face it eventually. If we keep delaying it and delaying it, once it eventually comes it will only come harder. It would be great if we could avoid recession forever, but that only happens in Fantasy Land, and it is high time for President Bush and Bernanke to come back to reality. I know Bush is just trying to delay the recession until after the elections, but come on, man... your legacy is already ruined, and you’re only making it worse.

Meanwhile, investment-wise it pretty much comes down to this: If you believe that Bush and Bernanke have this thing under control, then you want to buy up dollar assets. If you don’t believe Bush and Bernanke are going to pull off a miracle, and are just setting us up for a harder fall, then you want to get out of the dollar.

Consequences Of Inflation: Nonsense Says Bernanke

Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke has shown once again that he could care less about the consequences of inflation. In his latest address, Bernanke made it pretty clear that at the next Fed meeting (March 18th) he is planning to lower interest rates once again. Did he not get all the reports that were released this month about ramped inflation, or does he just not care?

Every month it seems inflation is getting worse and worse, and the economy despite all the rate cuts, is continuing its downward spiral. Newsflash to Bernanke: The rate cut thing isn’t working. Well, it is certainly working to increase inflation, and devalue the dollar, but it isn’t helping the economy like he hoped. Rather than admit defeat, Bernanke is making what he must think is a valiant stand, but rather than glory all he is likely to see is stagflation and a bunch of ticked-off retired folks.

To all of the retirees out there, I offer you my sincerest apologies. It appears that your retirement money is not going to go as far as you probably planned. You can thank Alan Greenspan, and now Bernanke for that little favor. I wonder how many parents are going to have to move in with their children because they can no longer afford retirement? It would be an interesting irony considering how children are now moving out later and later in life. To all of the entrepreneurs out there, can I suggest starting a business catering to in-law additions or design? Just an idea I thought I’d share to help fill a need in this soon to be emerging market, compliments of Mr. Bernanke of course.

If you have yet to retire, hopefully you have enough time to conquer this inflation problem within your retirement portfolio. My suggestions are to diversify out of the dollar and make sure that you have exposure to gold and silver. Gold makes me nervous right now, seeing how high its price has gone, but at this point I would feel much better owning gold than dollars. Whatever you choose to invest in, make sure that you are taking inflation into account in your retirement need projections, and you had better be expecting more than 2 or 3 percent.