Showing posts with label monetary policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label monetary policy. Show all posts

Monday, February 28, 2011

NY Fed Chief: Everything Is Fine, Fed Is Not Responsible For #Egypt, #Libya, #Tunisia,

#Yemen, #Bahrain, #Oman, #Algeria, #North Korea, #Vietnam, for that matter anywhere (like here in the US) where the food and energy prices have been going up sharply. Why, it's the demand growth from the emerging markets that's been pushing up the prices! Growth! Isn't that good?

William Dudley, former Goldman Sachs exec (he was the chief economist) and current chief of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, spoke this morning to the New York University Stern School of Business. As almost all Fed chiefs do (with the exception of Hoenig, maybe), he carefully hedges his position but he was put in there at the head of the NY Fed to help out Ben Bernank in FOMC. So what would you expect from him but the defense of the Fed policies?

I read his speech, and I kept scratching my head - am I living in the same space-time continuum as he? Is he right, and is everything OK? All I know for myself is that I've been long priced out of Whole Foods Market, and am about to be priced out even from Safeway.

Some points from his speech:

  • The Fed has successfully planted the "inflation expectations" among businesses and households through quantitative easing and zero-rate policy, but the inflation expectations remain "well-anchored" - meaning they are not very high, slightly above 2%, as seen in various surveys. So they are healthy signs that the economy is growing.

  • The only way that the (price) inflation goes much higher in the next year or two is if these "inflation expectations" become "unanchored" - meaning "if there were a loss of confidence in the ability and/or willingness of the Federal Reserve to tighten monetary policy in a timely way in order to keep inflation in check". But don't worry that's not going to happen as long as the Fed "communicates" effectively.

  • The bloated [well, he didn't say bloated, but how else would you call it?] balance sheet of the Federal Reserve is not a problem at all, because the Fed has tools to shrink it if necessary - for example by raising the interest paid on the excess reserves.

  • And oh by the way the Fed is not likely to raise the short-term interest rate any time soon.

In short, print print print, spin spin spin.

People in north Africa, Middle East, and Asia, when you see (as you've been seeing) the price of food goes up, think the US Federal Reserve. And give thanks to them for the "growth" that your country is experiencing. The only thing growing is the amount of fiat currency chasing pretty much the same amount of goods, causing the price of goods to go up. Simple math.

But the Fed economists like Dudley hate simple math.

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

George Soros Plans "Bretton Woods II"

Look who's scheming what behind the scene, while all the turmoils from Libya to Indiana, from fighting for life and liberty to fighting to keep to themselves as much taxpayers' money as possible, occupy the news headlines.

George Soros is convening a monetary policy conference in Bretton Woods...

From Economic Policy Journal (2/22/2011):

A monetary conference sponsored by the Institute for New Economic Thinking - a nonprofit founded in 2009 with a $50 million pledge from oligarch George Soros - will be held April 8-11 at the Mount Washington Hotel in Bretton Woods.


Here's the attendance list, according to the article:

Paul Volcker, Former Chairman, Federal Reserve

Adair Turner, Chairman, Financial Services Authority

Richard Bronk, London School of Economics

Gordon Brown, Former Prime Minister, United Kingdom

Paul Davidson, Co-Founder, Journal of Post Keynesian Economics

Martin Wolf, Chief Economics Commentator, Financial Times

Niall Ferguson, Professor of History, Harvard University

Andy Haldane, Executive Director, Financial Stability, Bank of England

Simon Johnson, Professor of Entrepreneurship, Global Economics and Management, Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Henry Kaufman, President, Henry Kaufman & Co., Inc.

Zhu Min, Special Advisor, International Monetary Fund

Carmen Reinhart, Dennis Weatherstone Senior Fellow, Peterson Institute for International Economics

Kenneth Rogoff, Professor of Economics, Harvard University

Jeff Sachs, Director of the Earth Institute

Joseph Stiglitz, University Professor, Columbia Uni[versity]

A parade of globalists and Trilateralists, not to mention CFR members, Bilderbergers... Hey how come Stiglitz is invited but not Paul "Clueless" Krugman? And Gordon Brown? What kind of joke is this? Oh I vaguely remember - Gordon Brown was fishing for a job at the head of the IMF.

The article has excellent information from Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard on Bretton Woods I after the World War II, when John Maynard Keynes got almost all his wishes (and we are where we are in 2011).

I have a feeling that this is a "front". Hidden away somewhere is an equivalent of "Jekyll Island" - a extremely secret meeting of bankers to plot the creation of the Federal Reserve in the US - this time on a global scale.

(h/t heavypuree)

Tuesday, February 8, 2011

Reminder: Ron Paul's Subcommittee Hearing at 10AM, Wednesday February 9, 2011

Ron Paul's Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology Subcommittee will hold its first hearing tomorrow (Wednesday February 9, 2011). The hearing will be about examining "the impact of Federal Reserve policies on job creation and the unemployment rate."

(Will the Fed chairman even show up? UPDATE: No he won't. The House Budget Committee, committee's chairman, Paul Ryan, R-Wis, is scheduled to have the hearing with Ben Bernank on the same Wednesday morning. That's mean, although to be expected from Repub like Paul Ryan and his cohorts who opposed Ron Paul's subcommittee chairmanship.)

(Will C-Span bother to carry?)

Most recently, Ben very nervously denied that his pet project of QE (currently version 2) has caused food riots and revolutions (see the beginning of the vid on this post). Of course he will deny that the Fed policies actually decrease jobs and increase the unemployment rate. (For more on that thinking, read this one from Zero Hedge.)

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

Bill Fleckenstein: US Dollar Will Win the Race ... to the Bottom!

Winning is good, isn't it?

Bill Fleckenstein's interview with Chris Martenson. Worth a listen.

From the podcast transcript at ChrisMartenson.com:

About bubbles:

You can’t know how high they’re going to go or how long they’re going to go. You just know they’re going to end in disaster. And then consequently they bailed out that bubble with the housing bubble and now we’re trying to print our way to prosperity.

The thing that Greenspan, Bernanke and all the proponents and fans of the Feds continually miss is – it’s the bubble that creates the nasty bust. The busts don’t happen in isolation. Much the same if you drink a quart of water and you get up in the morning, you’re not going to be hung over. But if you drink a quart of Vodka you will. And the Fed does not understand that and they continue to pursue the wrong policies to this day.

About the Fed-think:

First of all, they believe in the infallibility of the Fed. I think it’s probably what draws you to the place and gets inculcated in your viewpoint. Bernanke has been very, very clear that – I’m not going to get his quote exactly right - but he said a few years back that Anna Schwartz and Milton Friedman were right and the Fed caused the Depression and he wasn’t going to let it happen again. Except that they all think the Fed caused the Depression by not pushing the right buttons after all hell broke loose. They do not understand that the reason we had the Depression was partly because of the easy money policies.

And the other thing people don’t understand is when you have a bubble it changes people’s attitudes and the way they behave. In the ‘20s they got leveraged up in bucket shops and we had lots of leverage. In both of our bubbles people abandoned good paying jobs to do something kooky and took on debt. So it’s not just the price action of the bubble that does the damage. It’s the way it modifies people’s behavior when you get misallocation of capital. And that’s part of why bubbles have such long clean up periods. So these guys don’t understand that.

About US dollar:

[The US fights the phantom of deflation by printing like a maniac, while Germany fights to combat inflation.] And the perversity of it all is we get rewarded for using a printing press rather quickly and we believe we don’t have to make many changes. Europe is struggling to fix things and raise retirement ages and all that sort of stuff and yet they get penalized. So I totally agree with you. It’s that German mentality versus our mentality. And in the end if the Euro doesn’t facture, which I don’t think that it will, then the race to the bottom is going to won by the dollar, which at some point is going to cause a huge problem.


I think his comment on how a bubble changes people's attitude and behavior is right on.

Here's the link to the podcast.

Sunday, September 26, 2010

Zero Hedge: Implication of QELite and QE2 = Death of Fiat Monetary System

Excellent article from Zero Hedge on the implication of QE2 that is to come our way, courtesy of the uncontrollable, unaccountable Federal Reserve.

(If you prefer to print out the article and sit down to read it, here's the printer-friendly version.)

Oh BTW, got gold?

(Or for that matter, toilet paper, baby formula, bag of rice, packs of cigarettes ... and a whole lot other items?)

Why QE2 + QE Lite Mean The Fed Will Purchase Almost $3 Trillion In Treasurys And Set The Stage For The Monetary Endgame (Tyler Durden, 9/26/2010 Zero Hedge)

Recently the debate over when QE2 will occur has taken a back seat over the question of what the implications of the Fed's latest intervention in monetary policy will be, as it is now certain that Bernanke will attempt a fresh round of monetary stimulus to prevent the recent deceleration in the economy from transforming into outright deflation. Whether or not the Fed will decide to engage in QE2 on its November 3 meeting, or as others have suggested December 14, and maybe even as far out as January 25, the actual event is now a certainty. And while many have discussed this topic in big picture terms, most notably David Tepper, who on Friday stated that no matter what, stocks will benefit from QE2, few if any have actually considered what the impact of QE2 will be on the Fed's balance sheet, and how the change in composition in Fed assets will impact all marketable asset classes. We have conducted a rough analysis on how QE2 will reshape the Fed's balance sheet. We were stunned to realize that over the next 6 months the Fed may be the net buyer of nearly $3 trillion in Treasurys, an action which will likely set off a chain of events which could result in rates dropping all the way to zero, stocks surging, and gold (and other precious metals) going from current price levels to well in the 5 digit range.

A Question of Size

One of the main open questions on QE2, is how large the Fed's next monetization episode will be. This year's most prescient economist, Jan Hatzius, has predicted that the minimum floor of Bernanke's next intervention will be around $1 trillion, which of course means that he likely expects a materially greater final outcome from a Fed that is known for "forceful" action. Others, such as Bank of America's Priya Misra, have loftier expectations: "We expect the size of QE2 to be at least as much as QE1 in terms of duration demand." As a reminder, QE1, when completed, resulted in the repurchase of roughly $1.7 trillion in Treasury and MBS/Agency securities. It is thus safe to assume that the Fed's QE2 will likely amount to roughly $1.5 trillion in outright security purchases. However, as we will demonstrate, this is far from the whole story, and the actual marginal purchasing impact will be substantially greater.

A Question of Composition

Probably the most important fact that economists and investors are ignoring is that QE2 will be accompanied by the prerogatives of QE Lite, namely the constant rebalancing the Fed's balance sheet for ongoing and accelerating prepayments of the MBS/Agency portfolio. This is a critical fact, because once it becomes clear that the Fed is indeed commencing on another round of monetization, rates will collapse even more beyond recent all time records (and if we are correct, could plunge all the way to zero). What is very important to note, is that as Bank of America's Jeffrey Rosenberg highlights, a material drop in rates, which is now practically inevitable, is certain to cause a surge in mortgage prepayments of agency securities: "Our mortgage team highlights a 100 basis point decline in rates would raise the agency universe of mortgages refinanciability from currently about half to over 90%." (full report link)

The fact that declining rates creates a feedback loop on prepayments, which in turn results in more security purchases and even lower rates, is most certainly not lost on the Fed, and is the primary reason for the formulation of QE Lite as it currently exists. Indeed, those who follow the Fed's balance sheet, are aware that the MBS/Agency book has declined from a peak of $1.3 trillion on June 23, to $1.246 trillion most recently, a decline of $53 billion, which has been accompanied by $25 billion in Bond purchases, resulting in such direct FRBNY market involvements as $10 billion weekly POMOs. These, in turn, are nothing less than a daily pump of liquidity into the Primary Dealers (who exchange bonds boughts at auction for outright cash) by the Fed's Open Market Desk, which then liquidity is used to the PD community to bid up risk assets.

If we are correct in our assumption that on November 3, the Fed will announce a $1.5 trillion new asset purchase program, the implications of the previous observation will be dramatic. We additionally believe, that unlike QE1, the Fed will be far less specific as to the composition of purchases this time around, specifically for the aforementioned resion. As the Fed adds an additional $1.5 trillion in total assets, and as 10 Year rates, and thus 30 year cash mortgage rates, drop, the prepayment frequency of the Fed's existing MBS/agency book will surge, until it approaches and surpasses BofA's estimated 90% in a very short period of time. And courtesy of its QE Lite mandate, the Fed will purchase not only $1.5 trillion of US Treasurys as part of its new QE2 mandate, but will actively be rolling those MBS and Agencies put to it by the general public. As a result, it is our belief that over the six months beginning on November 3, the Fed will end up purchasing almost $3 trillion in US Treasurys in total. This can be summarized visually as follows:

As the chart shows, while the Fed's balance sheet grows from its current level of $2.3 trillion to $3.8 trillion, it is what happens to the Treasurys held outright by the Fed that is most disturbing: from $800 billion, we expect this number to surge to nearly $3.6 trillion in just over half a year, a massive increase of almost $3 trillion. The implications of this asset "transformation" on the Fed's balance sheet, not to mention those of US retail and foreign investors, and capital markets in general, will be dramatic.

Offerless Bonds?

One of the main problems facing the Fed in indirectly monetizing US Treasurys (keep in mind the proper definition of monetization is the Fed buying bonds directly from the Treasury, as opposed to using Primary Dealer middlemen, which is how it operates currently), is that there simply are not enough bonds in circulation to be bid, under its current regime of operation! Readers will recall that as part of existing SOMA guidelines, the Fed is limited to holding at most 35% of any specific marketable CUSIP. Furthermore, applying the SOMA limit to the $2 trillion in upcoming next twelve month issuance, means that in the interplay of the prepayment feedback loop coupled with collapsing rates, the Fed will need to either change the cap on the SOMA 35% limit, or the Treasury will need to issue far more debt to keep up with the sudden expansion in the Fed's outright, and not just marginal, capacity for incremental debt. Priya Misra summarizes this conundrum facing the Fed best:

We examine the Treasury market to analyze which part of the curve might benefit the most from Fed buying if it embarks on QE2. The constraints will come in term of the 35% SOMA limit as well as current outstandings and issuance profile. Table 5 provides the breakdown of average SOMA holdings and eligible dollar amount outstanding by sector. We estimate that in the nominal coupon universe, there is currently $1.3trillion in outstanding eligible issues for the Fed to buy. We compute eligible number of issues as the amount the Fed can buy without breaching its SOMA limit of owning 35% of the issue size. Considering that the Fed has not purchased 0-2 year securities in either QE1 or the reinvestment program so far, the eligible universe reduces to $935billion. Interestingly, $560bn of this is in the less than 7 year sector.

While the total eligible securities may seem like a low number in the context of QE2, we expect $2.1tn in gross issuance over the next year. Adding 35% of this gross issuance to the total, the Fed will have $1.67tn in eligible nominal outstanding to purchase without breaching the 35% limit. However, depending on the total size of QE2, much of the buying might have to be concentrated in the 2-7 year sector. To the extent that the Fed wants to keep long end rates low, it might have to increase the 35% SOMA limit, or the Treasury could change issuance.

We believe that the resolution to the limited supply question will be found promptly, as the last thing the US government and Treasury need is to be told that they need to issue more debt. We are confident they will obligly handily. From a purely structural perspective, suddenly the entire UST curve, and not just the "belly", will be offerless, as the Fed will now have a mandate of buying up virtually every single bond available in the open market, and then some! What this means is that rates will promptly plunge, and while many have noted the possibility that the 10 Year drops below 1% upon the formal announcement of QE2, we believe there is a very high probability that even the long-end can see rates drop substantially below 1%, while the 10 Year approaches 0%. Keep in mind that this move will not be predicated upon inflation expectations whatsoever (and in fact we believe this is merely the first step to an outright monetary collapse also known in some textbooks as hyperinflation), but merely as a means of frontrunning Ben Bernanke, as the entire bond market goes offerless, knowing full well that the Fed will buy any bond below its theoretical minimum price of 0% implied yield (we leave it to our readers to determine what this means price-wise on the curve). It also means that the Fed will finally cross the boundary into outright monetization, as Bernanke will be forced to directly bid for any new paper emitted by the US Treasury, to maintain the tempo of its purchases.

Asset Implications

As we have noted above, the immediate implication of the vicious (or virtuous if you are Ben Bernanke) feedback loop of collapsing rates, prepayments, and accelerating UST purchases, is that mid-and long-term rates will likely promptly approach zero, as every UST holder realizes they are now the marginal price setter in a market in which there is a bid for any price. The Fed will merely render the traditional supply/demand curve meaningless, and any bonds offered for sale at any price will be bid up by Brian Sack. The implication on stock prices is comparably obvious: to readers who have been confounded by the impact on stocks when there is $10 billion worth of POMOs in a week, we leave to their imagination what the impact on 4x beta stocks will be once the Fed floods the market with $90 billion worth of weekly liquidity, which is what we calculate to be the peak repurchase activity between the months of January and March, as QE2 ramps up to its full potential. In this vein, analysts such as Deutsche's Joe LaVorgna who this Friday came out with a note advising clients not to "Fight the Fed" (link) may take the message to heart. After all, if this last attempt by the Fed to spur asset price inflation, in which Bernanke is effectively telling the consumer that a house can be had for no money down, and for no interest ever, thereby eliminating the risk of price deprecitation, fails, it is game over.

And speaking of game over, we dread to look at a chart of the DXY in early 2011. The dollar will plunge, pure and simple, as the Fed makes it clear that it will not tolerate currency appreciation. Also, don't forget that as a side effect of QE2, another component that will surge in addition to Fed Treasury holdings, will be excess reserves held by the banks. If we are correct in estimating that the Fed's assets will explode to $3.8 trillion, then bank excess reserves will skyrocket by a factor of 150% from the current $1 trillion to well over $2.5 trillion. The immediate casualty of this will be the US Dollar: one needs to look no further than 2009 to see what happened to the DXY when excess reserves increased by $1 trillion, in order to extrapolate what happens when it becomes clear that Bernanke is prepared to put any amount of liabilities on the Fed's balance sheet in its latest reflation attempt. And if anyone had doubts about the Fed being able to successfully absorb $1 trillion in excess reserves accumulated through QE1, all those concerns will be put to rest once the number hits $2.5 trillion, or more.

Which brings us to gold. Needless to say, once the full "all in" realization of just what QE2 means for risk assets and capital markets sets in, gold (and other physical commodities) will promptly go from its current price of $1,300 to a number well in the five-digit range. We leave it up to our readers to provide the actual digits.

In summary, David Tepper may well be right that stocks will benefit from QE2, as will Bonds and as will commodities. In fact, every asset class will explode in a supernova of endless liquidity. To be sure, all of this will be very short lived. Very soon, all those assets denominated in fiat paper, will promptly collapse in the great black hole of reserve currency devaluation, as it becomes clear that the Fed will stop at nothing to win the race of global currency debasemenet. And of course, none of this is to be confused for an actual improvement in the economy, as QE2 will result in a dramatic and irreversible deterioration in the US, and thus global, economy, which, once the initial euphoria from QE2 recedes, will promptly progress to isolationism, protectionism, currency wars and exponentially accelerating monetization of each and every asset class, thereby rendering price discovery irrelevant, as central banks around the world stampede into irrelevant capital market, each buying up as much of everything as their printing presses will allow them, until the ink runs dry.

At this point we refuse to pass ethical judgment on the Fed's actions. The Fed will do this action regardless of what happens on that other fateful event scheduled to take place on November 3. If it does not, asset prices will collapse leading America into a deflationary vortex of deleveraging, and Bernanke is fully aware of this. The only reason the market has found some validation to the September risk asset surge, is the "certainty" of QE2. Were this to be taken away, stocks would plunge, as would all other assets. And since the Fed is uncontrollable, and unaccountable to anyone, it is now impossible to prevent this line of action, whose outcome is what some may be tempted to call, appropriately so, hyperinflation. The direct outcome will be an explosion in all asset prices, although we continue to believe that of all assets, gold will continue to outperform both stocks and bonds, as recently demonstrated. Those who are wishing to front-run the Fed in its latest and probably last action, may be wise to establish a portfolio which has a 2:1:1 (or 3:1:1) distribution between gold, stocks and bonds, as all are now very likely to surge. We would emphasize an overweight position in gold, because if hyperinflation does take hold, and the existing currency system is, to put it mildly, put into question, gold will promptly revert to currency status, and assets denominated in fiat, such as stocks and bonds, will become meaningless.

And while Zero Hedge refuses to condemn what is now openly an act of war against the US middle class and the country's holders of dollar-denominated assets, by Ben Bernanke, who is fully aware what the implications of QE2 will be, we were delighted to read a brief note by none other than Bank of America's Jeffrey Rosenberg, who analyzes the costs of QE2, and comes to a politically correct conclusion which recapitulates everything said previously.

The costs of QE 2 in our view however go beyond the cost benefit analysis Chairman Bernanke highlighted in his Jackson Hole speech. There, the Chairman highlighted two key risks to additional purchases of longer-term securities. First, that they do not know with precision the effect of changes in Fed holdings of securities on financial conditions. On this point we have emphasized on numerous occasions that the main consequences of QE1 to date have been financial asset inflation. Further purchases under QE2 hence in our view would likely be limited in impact to furthering this process of asset inflation. However, the costs of even further asset inflation would likely accelerate the risks associated with what we characterize as conditions conducive to the growth of a credit bubble: low global yield levels, tight credit spreads, and an excess of demand for credit relative to supply. While those characteristics create asset inflation and form the backdrop of our near term bullish outlook on risky asset class performance, the risks of sparking future credit bubbles with their attendant systemic risk consequences grows under a scenario of QE2, in our view.

It’s the (lack of) confidence, stupid

The second risk highlighted in Jackson Hole by the Chairman concerns the confidence effects of Fed’s ability to exit accommodative policy and shrink the size of its balance sheet. While we agree with the notion that the key risk is one of confidence, the confidence impact of greater near term importance may lie less with concern over the Fed’s eventual ability to exit and more with what expanding QE2 says about the Fed’s confidence in its ability to utilize monetary policy to address deflationary risks.

Bernanke acknowledged that fiscal policy needs to be part of the policy response and that “Central bankers alone cannot solve the world’s economic problems.” In our assessment, further liquidity injection beyond some additional marginal transmission mechanism into mortgage refinancing or housing affordability would achieve little impact on the real economy. Much of the liquidity benefit of QE1 for the commercial side of the economy already remains on display in the form of very high rates of corporate refinancing activity. Additional rate declines from QE2 would add only marginally to those trends well underway. For smaller corporates or small business, QE1 did little to expand lending, though QE1 likely did prevent even further declines in lending. However, QE alone appears incapable of leading to expanding lending as the problems today shift from one of supply to one of demand. Chart 5 illustrates the stabilization of lending and how most of the Fed’s expanded balance sheet remains in the form of cash, not loans. Chart 6 shows that even as banks have eased underwriting standards, the demand for loans remains low.

Rather than liquidity – and its potential augmentation from expanding QE - the key issue behind the inability to see credit expansion and the weakness of monetary policy more broadly to affect a more positive economic outlook is confidence. And this leads to our final cost analysis on QE2. Where confidence stands as the key issue for the economy, expanding QE2 may end up doing more damage than good as the confidence loss from a Fed indicating its fears of deflation through expansion of QE2 as well as the follow on loss of confidence from the diminishing impact of further QE leads to a loss in confidence whose costs outweigh those of the benefits of further reductions in long term rates.

Perhaps at this point it is prudent to recall what the first definition of credit is:

1. Belief or confidence in the truth of something.

By that defintion, America's "credit" has ran out.

AttachmentSize
BofA Securitization Weekly 9.17.pdf882.84 KB

Thursday, February 18, 2010

Now It's Federal Reserve's Fiat: Discount Rate Raised to 0.75%

supposed to curb carry-trades by member banks

Fed hikes discount rate to 0.75% (2/18/2010 Marketwatch)

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- The Federal Reserve announced late Thursday that it was raising its discount rate in order to encourage banks to borrow from the private market for short-term credit instead of from the Fed.

"In a statement, the Fed said it would raise its discount, or primary credit rate, to 0.75% from 0.5% effective on Friday.

"Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke signaled last week that the Fed was mulling the move.

"Fed watchers had expected the move to come at the next Fed meeting in March. Today's action shows a sense of urgency on the part of the Fed officials.

"The Fed said the move is intended to "normalize" its operations as the financial crisis winds down.

"The change is not a tightening and does not signal any change in monetary policy, the Fed said.

"The change in the discount rate was approved by the Fed Board of Governors on requests from all 12 district bank boards.

"Former Fed Gov. Laurence Meyer drew attention to the possibility of a discount rate hike early this year. Meyer said Fed officials were unhappy that banks were engaging in a carry-trade or borrowing from the Fed at ultra-low levels and then reinvesting the money elsewhere."

My question is: WHY NOW?

My second question is: WHAT'S THE POINT?

After hours, stocks and index futures are reversing today's gains. Notable exception is US dollar. Thank you, Ben, for further complicating the Op-Ex week.

Monday, January 11, 2010

Financial Crises Brewing in Latin America

Venezuela's Hugo Chavez devalues the currency (bolivar) by 50%. And Argentinian President Cristina Kirchner wants to seize bank reserves at the country's central bank.

Constitutional Showdown in Argentina (MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY, 1/10/2010 Wall Street Journal)

"Argentine President Cristina Kirchner's firing of the country's central bank president last Wednesday has provoked a constitutional crisis, not unlike the one that rocked Honduras last summer. As with then-Honduran President Manuel Zelaya, Mrs. Kirchner has tried to run roughshod over her nation's laws. She blithely ignored legal protections of bank independence.

"Not surprisingly, central banker Martín Redrado refused to go and challenged her reason for sacking him: his refusal to hand over to her $6.6 billion in bank reserves.

"In response, Mrs. Kirchner issued a decree to amend the bank's charter so that she could push Mr. Redrado out "legally." A federal judge then issued an injunction in favor of Mr. Redrado, and on Friday he returned to his bank post. The same judge froze the bank's reserves so Mrs. Kirchner couldn't take them. The constitutional battle lines were drawn.

"Mrs. Kirchner's insistence that the central bank's assets should be at her disposal is noteworthy. It reflects a primitive view, not unknown even in the U.S., that the role of a central bank is to print money for the government's use. Yet it is nonetheless surprising that even after the nation has suffered so much inflationary agony, it is still possible for an Argentine politician to pursue this line of reasoning without risk of being tarred and feathered." [emphasis is mine] (The article continues.)

Primitive, maybe, but that's exactly what the first central bank was set up for: to print money for the government's use, and that government was Britain in 1694. The reason why a politician like her is not "tarred and feathered" is because the general public remain ignorant of how the monetary system works. Many people, including Venezuela's Chavez, believe more money, however fiat, means wealth.

To be precise, "bank reserves" that the above article talks about is not the required reserves or excess reserves that you see on the Federal Reserve balance sheet but "foreign exchange reserve". "Mr. Redrado [central bank governor] argues that Congress should decide on whether the payment should be made and says he is defending the bank's independence." (Argentina's Bad Timing by Richard Barley, 1/12/2010 Wall Street Journal)

Maybe what we are witnessing in Latin America is the beginning of of an end of the central bank franchise and of fiat money. For now it's a wishful thinking on my part.

But in Venezuela, Mr. Chavez believes he can force the price to stay low, while he basically doubles the money supply. In the U.S., Mr. Bernanke has doubled the monetary base which could more than double the money supply, and he has been buying up agency bonds and MBS at the behest of the Obama administration to force down the mortgage rates.

In Argentina, Ms. Kirchner thinks the nation's banks including the central bank are her checkbook account to pay for her pet government projects. In the U.S., President Obama is reportedly thinking about a levy on financial institutions to replenish TARP fund and to help balance the budget. Not even a lip service to cutting government spending here. (See the story from AP.)

Now the difference between the U.S. and "primitive"-thinking Venezuela and Argentina is getting very cosmetic.

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

...And Fed Is Back to Accommodative Stance

A Fed board member and two presidents of regional Federal Reserve banks have spoken about the need for the Federal Reserve to tighten the monetary policy (i.e. raising the Fed funds rate) aggressively even without the overt sign of inflation (for that matter, without overt sign of recovery).

This morning, the Fed trotted out the Federal Reserve Atlanta's president Dennis Lockhart, who said there is no rush for the Fed to begin to tighten the monetary policy.

No rush to tighten, Atlanta Fed's Lockhart says (9/30/09 MarketWatch)

"WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- There is no rush for the Federal Reserve to begin to tighten monetary policy, said Dennis Lockhart, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, on Wednesday.

""I think it may well be some time before a comprehensive exit need be under way," Lockhart said in a speech in Mobile, Ala.

"There has been much speculation in financial markets and economic circles about the U.S. central bank's so-called "exit strategy" -- when and how it will start winding down the stimulus and liquidity measures implemented to battle the financial crisis that took hold a year ago."

Well, that speculation has been fueled by none other than the Fed officials. First, it was last week's FOMC meeting (September 22/23): the Fed said it would continue to keep the rate low for a long time to assist the recovery. Then on Friday last week, Kevin Warsh, a Fed board member and former Morgan Stanley banker who worked in the President's Working Group on Financial Markets (aka Plunge Protection Team), wrote an Op-Ed piece on Wall Street Journal strongly indicating that the Fed would move aggressively even if the signs of inflation were not evident. Then came Richard Fisher, president of the Dallas Fed yesterday, basically saying the same thing as Warsh in a plainer English. He was joined by the Philadelphia Fed president Charles Plosser, who delivered the speech in Pennsylvania saying "The Fed will need courage. I believe we will need to act well before unemployment rates and other measures of resource utilization have returned to acceptable levels."

Then today the Atlanta Fed president is sounding like a voice of reason by saying "Assuming stable inflation, I would like to see more evidence of private activity in the economy before advocating change in the Fed's overall monetary-policy stance."

Is the Federal Reserve playing "bad cop, good cop" routine?

The stock market doesn't seem to know what to think of these utterances by the Federal Reserve officials. Chicago PMI number registered a fall instead of expected increase, and that overwhelmed the good news of 2nd quarter GDP (final reading) revised to decreasing only by 0.7% (annualized) instead of -1.1% consensus.

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Fed Is Back to Threatening with Rate Hike

On Friday last week, a Fed Board member Kevin Warsh wrote a please-read-carefully-between-the-lines-and-between-the-words Op-Ed piece on Wall Street Journal.

Today, Federal Reserve Dallas president Richard Fisher spoke in a plainer English.

Official: Fed will need to boost rates quickly
(9/29/09, AP via Yahoo Finance)

"WASHINGTON (AP) -- To prevent inflation from taking off, the Federal Reserve will need to start boosting interest rates quickly and aggressively once the U.S. economy is back on firmer footing, a Fed official warned Tuesday.

""I expect that when it comes time to tighten monetary policy, my colleagues and I will move with an alacrity that, if needed, will be equal in speed and intensity" to when the Fed was slashing rates to battle the recession and the financial crisis, said Richard Fisher, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.

"Although Fisher has a reputation for being one of the Fed's toughest inflation fighters, it marked the second such warning by a central bank official in recent days. Fed member Kevin Warsh on Friday said the central bank will need to move swiftly when the time comes to raise rates.

"It's all part of a high-wire act that the Fed has to perform as the economy transitions from recession to recovery."

I guess you could say that. You could also say that the Fed is empowered to make or break the economy. As you see in this comment in the article from a monetary policy expert at University of California Santa Cruz (I didn't even know they have the economics department):

"When the decision is made to boost rates, they will need to be "increased aggressively," argued Carl Walsh, a professor of economics at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and an expert on monetary policy. "Committing to a gradual increase in the policy rate is not justified."" [emphasis is mine]

Not justified?? And "aggressive increase" is justified, then? Why? By who (or what)? The expert continues:

"Consumers, businesses and investors must feel more confident that prices won't spiral higher in the future, so their inflation expectations don't become "unanchored," Walsh said last month."

Is this based on any kind of historical observations, or is it solely his conviction of how consumers, businesses and investor should feel when they see the interest rate being jacked up suddenly and aggressively?

I have this nagging feeling that it's the latter, because it is consistent with other policies having been floated, particularly since the current administration took over. Key word is "should". Policy decisions are to be made on how things "should be", as perceived and determined by the policy makers, whether they are legislators or industry lobbyists or administration officials or the Fed officials. It is normative, as opposed to positive.

It is not new; an unnamed aide to the previous administration said they were not working in the reality-based community. It's just that the current government has turned up the heat on the proverbial pot very aggressively and rapidly. They are not slow-boiling the proverbial frog anymore, and the frog now knows something bad is up and getting rapidly uncomfortable.

Friday, September 25, 2009

Curious Op-Ed Piece by a Board Member of Federal Reserve

Why now? Inquiring mind wants to know.

Kevin M. Warsh is a 39-year-old former VP of Morgan Stanley and a current member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve. He wrote an op-ed piece for Wall Street Journal, which was posted on September 24 for September 25 publication.

It is hard to believe he is 39 years old, for he writes as enigmatically as 83-year-old Alan Greenspan speaks (or used to speak).

The Fed's Job Is Only Half Over
(Kevin M. Warsh, 9/25/09 Wall Street Journal)

"Recent media stories have chronicled in great detail the events of the last couple of years. A pair of conclusions might be fairly drawn from these early drafts of history. One is that the financial-market turmoil of the last year proved to be of significant consequence to the economy. The second is that the Federal Reserve distinguished itself from historical analogues by taking extraordinary actions to address risks to the economy. Commentators, however, tend to disagree as to whether the extraordinary actions undertaken were to the good or the detriment of the U.S. economy in the long-run."

With this not so attention-grabbing opening, he drools on about how the Federal Reserve has done a good job but that this is no time to "declare victory". And I'm thinking "OK, what is your point?"

Then, he delivers, sort of, one of the points [emphasis is mine]:

"It is unwise to prejudge the Federal Reserve's policy strategy—or to declare the victor or the vanquished—by the split time, however notable it might be. We are at a critical transition period, of still unknown duration, and we must prepare diligently for an uneven road race ahead. If policy is not implemented with skill and force and some sense of proportionality, the success of the overall endeavor could suffer."

He seems to me to be saying, in crude language, "Don't ask questions. Leave it us, or you will suffer a consequence of your meddling."

Then he mentions "policy makers". At first, I thought he means legislators. But as I read the article, I now think he means "policy makers" at the Federal Reserve, because he starts to talk in first person.

"It also means that policy makers should acknowledge the heightened costs of policy error. The stakes are high, in part, because the policy accommodation that requires timely removal as the economy rebounds is substantial. And our policy judgments will ultimately prove worthy of the accolades, and tender the ultimate rejoinder to our critics, if we rise to meet this heightened responsibility. I am confident we will."

Tender the ultimate rejoinder to our critics? (He talks like Edward IV or his brother Richard III, last king of the House of York.) Is he challenging the supporters of H.R. 1207 (audit the Fed), which is slated to be introduced in the House Financial Services Committee on September 25?

A curious part comes in the last three paragraphs:

"In this environment, market participants and policy makers alike should steer clear of ironclad policy prescriptions. Nonetheless, I would hazard the view that prudent risk management indicates that policy likely will need to begin normalization before it is obvious that it is necessary, possibly with greater force than is customary, and taking proper account of the policies being instituted by other authorities."

Is he saying that the Fed will drain the liquidity sooner and faster than it becomes necessary? Even if that could threaten the market crash and economic crash? (Maybe that's why he, in the preceding paragraphs, cites history full of unintended and unfortunate policy errors?)

""Whatever it takes" is said by some to be the maxim that marked the battle of the last year. But, it cannot be an asymmetric mantra, trotted out only during times of deep economic and financial distress, and discarded when the cycle turns. If "whatever it takes" was appropriate to arrest the panic, the refrain might turn out to be equally necessary at a stage during the recovery to ensure the Federal Reserve's institutional credibility. The asymmetric application of policy ultimately could cause the innovative policy approaches introduced in the past couple of years to lose their standing as valuable additions in the arsenal of central bankers."

This to me is the most curious remark. The Fed would do "whatever it takes" at a recovery stage "to ensure the Federal Reserve's institutional credibility". The Fed would do it, not that it is necessary or it would help the recovery, but to ensure its credibility. Also the next sentence is interesting. He seems to be saying that if the Fed doesn't do "whatever it takes" in the recovery stage, it would lose those valuable weapons - various lending programs, buying securities that are not allowed by the Fed's charter (i.e. agency bonds and MBS), owning stakes in a private business (AIG), creating SIVs (Maiden Lane LLCs), "whatever it took".

"For those of us at the Federal Reserve, the task ahead involves longer days, but, in all likelihood, fewer weekends. While the undertaking is as challenging as any we faced in the preceding period, it is exceptionally well suited to the Federal Reserve's comparative advantages of deliberation, dispassion, and a determination to make judgments based on the long-term interests of the U.S. economy."

In 1913 when the Federal Reserve System was born, one ounce of gold was US$18.92. Today, one ounce of gold is $996. US dollar's purchasing power as measured by gold has dropped 95% since the Fed came into being. And that is the long-term interest of the U.S. economy?

Thursday, May 14, 2009

Federal Reserve and Transparency Don't Go Together

Forbes has an article titled "The Federal Reserve Needs To Be Boring Again" by Thomas F. Cooley. The purpose of the article must be to counter the growing call for transparency of the Federal Reserve, whether it is from Bloomberg, Fox News (suing Treasury), Representative Ron Paul (his bill now has 162 co-sponsors), or Senator Bernie Sanders.

"... let's focus on why it is important to have an independent central bank. The answer is quite obvious. An independent central bank can focus on monetary policies for the long term--that is, policies targeting low and stable inflation and a monetary climate that promotes long-term economic growth. Political cycles, alas, are considerably shorter. Without independence, the political cycle would subject the central bank to political pressures that, in turn, would impart an inflationary bias to monetary policy."

Obvious? Policy targeting low and stable inflation? Then why has US dollar lost 94% of its purchasing power since 1933? 76 years is a long time and the Fed has been in existence the whole period and more, but according to the professor short-term-thinking politicians are to blame.

What does he mean by "independence" anyway? "Being unaccountable"?

Commenting on the bills currently in the Congress that call for transparency, he says with unmasked sarcasm:

"Great! Obviously, monetary policy is so falling-off-a-log simple that your elected representatives can insert themselves via the demand for transparency into decisions of true complexity and subtlety. Why am I not feeling reassured?"

That's a good one. We have left the monetary policy to the "independent", competent Fed who supposedly knows the true complexity and subtlety, and look what has taken us.

Professor Cooley is basically saying "Trust us, like you trusted us for the past 90-plus years. You don't know anything but we do".

I've lost the will to summarize the article any longer. If you want to see the article for some reason, please follow the link at the top of the post. If you do, please make sure to read the comment section. Many of the comments are much more intelligent, informative, and erudite than the article itself.

According to Forbes, Professor Cooley is "the Paganelli-Bull professor of economics and Richard R. West dean of the NYU Stern School of Business, writes a weekly column for Forbes". He is also a member of the Council of Foreign Relations and serves on the Board of Thornburg Mortgage, which filed for bankruptcy on May 1. He is also responsible for bringing about MBA/MS in Mathematics in Finance degree program at NYU, to breed the next generation of "super quant" managers for the Wall Street. He is also a consultant to the Federal Reserve Banks of New York and Minneapolis.

Tuesday, April 28, 2009

Monetary Base resuming the sharp rise? And negative interest rate coming? (update)

Looks like adjusted monetary base is spiking up again, after a brief dip. If this is unleased onto the market, don't tell me it won't have any effect on inflation.
----------------------
And here's an update to a nutty idea by the Harvard economist about a week ago on how to encourage spending (or how to make money unattractive to hold). Well, he wasn't so nutty after all.

According to Financial Times, the Federal Reserve's internal analysis prepared for the last policy meeting says "The ideal interest rate for the US economy in current conditions would be minus 5 per cent." Of course a central bank cannot technically cut the rate below zero. The actual plan based on the analysis would include expansion of asset purchase by the Fed well beyond the amount that has been authorized so far (over $1 trillion) and types of assets authorized, in order to intentionally cause inflation so that individuals and corporations who hold money would see their holdings decrease by 5% each year - so that they would spend money as soon as possible before it further loses value.

If you have $100 today, it will be effectively worth $95 in a year. In 3 years, it will be about $85. In 5 years, $77. In 10 years, $59. If they overshoot their target and we end up having -7% effective rate, $100 today will be only $80 in 3 years, $69 in 5 years, $48 in 10 years.

It would be a terra incognita for sure. Not even the Weimar Republic inflated intentionally.

Peter Schiff's take is on his blog. Here's the link.

Monday, April 20, 2009

Harvard economics professor's solution

It May Be Time for the Fed to Go Negative (New York Times)

in order to encourage more spending. According to the professor, we may have to figure out a way to make holding money less attractive. His suggestions are:

  • Pick a digit from 0 to 9, and announce that all currency with serial number ending with that digit will not be legal tender any more. Effective 10% negative return on holding the currency. (To be sure, it is his graduate student's idea, not his.)
  • Produce significant enough inflation so that the real interest rate as measured by purchasing power becomes negative.

And here's hoping it's a delayed April Fools Day joke:

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/04/time-for-mankiv-to-resign.html

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

Bloomberg Commentary

Fed’s Flood May Leave Democracy Needing Bailout: Kevin Hassett

"Many economists believe that helping financial institutions turn their less liquid assets into hard cash is a key step toward returning them to good footing. The best way to achieve that in a democracy would be for Congress to appropriate the funds to acquire the assets and for Treasury to borrow the money that it needs.

But Congress is unwilling to appropriate enough money, so Treasury and the Fed have cooked up a work-around: the Fed buys the assets instead. Since the Fed exists outside of the normal budget process, no permission from elected officials is required. "

The economic activities are not the only area affected by the monetary policies.