2008-12-11 USER


[Skip to the end]


Trade Balance (Oct)

Survey -$53.5B
Actual -$57.2B
Prior -$56.5B
Revised -$56.6B

[top][end]

Exports MoM (Oct)

Survey n/a
Actual -2.2%
Prior -6.4%
Revised n/a

[top][end]

Imports MoM (Oct)

Survey n/a
Actual -1.3%
Prior -5.7%
Revised n/a

[top][end]

Exports YoY (Oct)

Survey n/a
Actual 5.3%
Prior 8.6%
Revised n/a

[top][end]

Imports YoY (Oct)

Survey n/a
Actual 4.2%
Prior 6.8%
Revised n/a

[top][end]

Trade Balance ALLX (Oct)

[top][end]

Import Price Index MoM (Nov)

Survey -4.9%
Actual -6.7%
Prior -4.7%
Revised -5.4%

[top][end]

Import Price Index YoY (Nov)

Survey -2.0%
Actual -4.4%
Prior 6.7%
Revised 5.7%

[top][end]

Import Price Index ALLX 1 (Nov)

[top][end]

Import Price Index ALLX 2 (Nov)

[top][end]

Initial Jobless Claims (Dec 6)

Survey 525K
Actual 573K
Prior 509K
Revised 515K

[top][end]

Continuing Jobless Claims (Dec 15)

Survey 4100K
Actual 4429K
Prior 4087K
Revised 4091K

[top][end]

Jobless Claims ALLX (Dec 6)


[top]

Re: Will the Fed Issue Debt?


[Skip to the end]

(email exchange)

Paying interest on reserves is functionally identical to issuing debt.

The difference would just be the different maturities.

This could be used to support higher short term rates, if that’s what they want.

Lots of CB’s have done this.

>   
>   On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 12:50 AM, Scott wrote:
>   
>   I hope all is well down under. This is interesting!
>   

BOTTOM LINE: News reports indicate that Fed officials may be considering issuing debt. At this stage, we do not know how credible this is. They certainly do not need this to expand their balance sheet but may be motivated either by perceptions that existing options (reserve expansion) are too inflationary or by plans to acquire longer-term risky assets. The idea is not without risk as the existence of Federal Reserve debt would provide the basis on which markets could then take positions on the solvency of the central bank.

MAIN POINTS:

1. According to news reports, Fed officials are considering issuance of debt as an alternative way of expanding their balance sheet. Apart from the fact that these reports have appeared in several places, which often signals that they have some basis, we do not know if Fed officials are seriously considering this alternative. If they are, we think they would need Congressional authorization before proceeding and suspect they would seek it even if they did not think it necessary from a legal standpoint.

2. The idea is a bit puzzling as the Fed already has an effective means of expanding its balance sheet without limit by creating reserves. For example, if officials want to increase the size of an existing liquidity facility or create a new one, all they have to do is extend a loan in one of these facilities and credit the reserve account of the bank that borrows the funds. (If the counterparty is not a bank, then the Fed can provide the funds as Federal Reserve notes – i.e., “print money”). In normal circumstances this would push the federal funds rate down, which officials might not want to do, but currently the effective funds rate is so close to zero that this would not seem to be a significant consideration.

3. So why consider the alternative of issuing debt? We can think of two motivations:

a) Fed officials are uncomfortable with the speed with which the monetary base (bank reserves plus currency in circulation) has expanded over the past two months, either on their own account or because the public may see this as creating a huge inflation problem down the road. In the week ended December 3, the monetary base was $1.47trn; three months earlier it was $843bn. However, in our view this is a misguided concern for a couple of reasons:

i) At a time when concerns about deflation are mounting, Fed officials should want the public to see its current liquidity program as inflationary, to prevent such concerns from translating into expectations that prices will fall in a broad-based and sustained fashion.

ii) Such concerns usually take as an implied premise that the liquidity will be difficult to remove – in essence that the Fed will find itself on a razor’s edge of having to withdraw massive amounts of liquidity in a very short period once the economy starts to improve. This is highly unlikely in our view. By our reckoning, the output gap is already 4% of GDP (unemployment is about 2 points above the natural rate, and each point is worth 2% of GDP) and likely to go much higher before the economy starts to grow at a trend rate. This should give the Fed plenty of time to put its balance sheet back in order before inflation becomes a genuine risk.

Moreover, as the economy starts to improve, the excess liquidity should unwind on its own, as banks’ needs for liquidity facilities diminish in a natural fashion and the Fed begins to raise the federal funds rate target.

b) The other possible motivation is to lay the financing groundwork for large-scale direct purchases of longer-term risky assets, such as private-label mortgages and corporate bonds (which would also require congressional approval). If this is the motivation, then one implication is that the debt would be long-term in nature (again, we have no way of knowing what officials themselves are thinking in this regard). The idea would be such financing might need to be in place long after the liquidity facilities have been unwound, as the assets thus acquired take time to mature or be sold back into the private markets.

4. If the Fed were to issue debt, some interesting questions and possible unintended consequences arise, which we simply raise at this point for further discussion: (a) how would Fed debt stand relative to Treasury debt of comparable maturity? Would it be senior, junior, or pari passu? (b) would it be subject to some limit, as the Treasury’s debt is, and if not could this facilitate a situation in which some programs currently authorized for the Treasury (like TARP) would effectively be financed by comparable operations undertaken by the Fed? (c) if Fed debt does come into existence and begin to trade in the markets, prices on such debt (and on the inevitable CDS to be based on it) would allow the markets effectively to trade on the credibility of the central bank. It is not obvious to us that Fed officials would really want this to happen.


[top]

2008-12-10 USER


[Skip to the end]


MBA Mortgage Applications (Dec 5)

Survey n/a
Actual -7.1%
Prior 112.1%
Revised n/a

[top][end]

MBA Purchasing Applications (Dec 5)

Survey n/a
Actual 298.10
Prior 361.10
Revised n/a

[top][end]

MBA Refinancing Applications (Dec 5)

Survey n/a
Actual 3767.30
Prior 3802.80
Revised n/a

[top][end]

Wholesale Inventories MoM (Oct)

Survey -0.2%
Actual -1.1%
Prior -0.1%
Revised -0.4%

[top][end]

Wholesale Inventories YoY (Oct)

Survey n/a
Actual 8.0%
Prior 9.3%
Revised n/a

[top][end]

Wholesale Inventories ALLX 1 (Oct)

[top][end]

Wholesale Inventories ALLX 2 (Oct)


[top]

2008-12-09 USER


[Skip to the end]


ICSC UBS Store Sales YoY (Dec 9)

Survey n/a
Actual -0.70%
Prior 1.30%
Revised n/a

[top][end]

ICSC UBS Store Sales WoW (Dec 9)

Survey n/a
Actual -0.80%
Prior 0.10%
Revised n/a

[top][end]

Redbook Store Sales Weekly YoY (Dec 9)

Survey n/a
Actual -0.80%
Prior -0.40%
Revised n/a

[top][end]

Redbook Store Sales MoM (Dec 9)

Survey n/a
Actual -0.40%
Prior -1.10%
Revised n/a

[top][end]

ICSC UBS Redbook Comparison TABLE (Dec 9)

[top][end]

Pending Home Sales MoM (Oct)

Survey n/a
Actual -0.7%
Prior -4.3%
Revised n/a

[top][end]

Pending Home Sales YoY (Oct)

Survey n/a
Actual -0.6%
Prior 7.9%
Revised n/a


[top]

Payrolls


[Skip to the end]

Karim writes:

  • -533k in payrolls, and downward revisions of -199k to prior 2 mths
  • Unemployment rate rises ‘only’ to 6.7% from 6.5% because 422k left the labor force
  • The 2 real shockers are:
    • Index of hours fell 0.9% for the month (after -0.4% prior mth); even adjusting for some productivity gwth, looks like real GDP in Q4 may be more like -7 to -8% vs the most recent range of estimates of -4 to -5%.
    • Diffusion index plunges from 37.8 to 27.6; support for job gwth increasingly narrow.
  • By sector
    • Mfg -85k
    • Construction -82k
    • Retail -91k
    • Finance -32k
    • Temp help -78k
    • Hospitality -76k
    • Education +52k
    • Govt +7k


[top]

ECB funding national government securities


[Skip to the end]

ECB cuts to 2.5pc and mulls “printing money”

By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

The Maastricht Treaty prohibits the ECB from injecting stimulus by purchasing the government debt of the eurozone’s fifteen states debt — a method known as “monetizing the deficit” or, more crudely, as “printing money.”

But it can achieve the same effect

not quite

by mopping up sovereign debt, mortgage securities, or even company debt on the open market, as the Fed has already begun to do. At the moment the ECB accepts some of these assets as collateral in exchange for loans, but it has not yet hit the atomic button by buying them outright with its own freshly-minted fiat money.

When the ECB accepts collateral for loans, it doesn’t offer non recourse funding. The owner of the securities remains liable in the case of default.


[top]

Perspective


[Skip to the end]

>  
>  On 12/5/08, Jason wrote:
>  
>  Factoid for the weekend: 1yr ago RBS & co. paid 80bn for Abn, largely in cash.
>  
>  Today that’d buy you Citi (22.5bn), MS (10.5bn), GS (21bn), Mer
>  
>  (12.3bn), DB (13bn), Barclays (12.7bn) and leave you with 8bn
>  
>  in leftover change to shore up the b/s.
>  


[top]

California May Pay With IOUs for Second Time Since Depression


[Skip to the end]

(email exchange)

right,

as I’ve been suggesting for a long time, all states should always pay only with iou’s.

that way they spend first, then collect taxes, just like the federal govt.

and they can deficit spend without a funding imperative as well.

>  
>  On 12/5/08, Jason wrote:
>  
>  My opinion is that the next major round of the bailout will need to be for the states… I am
>  surprised there has not been more emergency loan news out from the government as of
>  yet. Or purchases of debt from the fed etc.
>  
>  They probably want them to exhaust every budget trimming avenue first and eliminate a lot
>  of the pork. But they can’t let that process go too far with the fragility of the economy.
>  

California May Pay With IOUs for Second Time Since Depression

By Michael B. Marois and William Selway

Dec. 5 (Bloomberg) — California, the world’s eighth largest economy, may pay vendors with IOUs for only the second time since the Great Depression, State Finance Director Mike Genest said.

In a letter to legislative leaders Dec. 2, Genest said the state “will begin delaying payments or paying in registered warrants in March” unless an $11.2 billion deficit is closed or reduced. California, which approved its budget less than three months ago, may run out of cash by March, state officials say.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger warned that he may issue the warrants, which are a promise to pay with interest, to suppliers and contractors as the seizure in credit markets may make it too costly to borrow.

“It’s getting worse very quickly,” Schwarzenegger, a 61-year-old Republican, told reporters Dec. 1 after declaring a fiscal emergency and ordering the Legislature into a special session to find ways to close the deficit. “It’s like an avalanche in that it gains momentum. And that’s what we’re in right now, so it’s a real crisis.”

California is reeling more than any other state from budget woes that pushed the nation’s governors to seek help from Congress. States say federal money is needed to ease the pain from spending cuts and tax increases that would be a further blow to an economy in the throes of a recession.

The warrants would be given to landscapers, carpet cleaners, construction firms, food services companies and other state vendors. They would pay an interest rate of as much as 5 percent, based on state law. California last issued the IOUs in 1992 when lawmakers and then-Governor Pete Wilson deadlocked on a budget for 61 days past the start of the fiscal year.

Higher Yields
Investors are souring on the state. California 10-year bonds yield 0.73 percentage point more than top-rated municipal bonds, according to Bloomberg indexes, the highest since the depths of the last budget crisis in Jan. 2004. By comparison, the difference for New York is 0.27 percentage point.

California Controller John Chiang said that the state’s cash account will decline to $882 million by February, below its preferred cushion of $2.5 billion, and will be negative $1.9 billion by March.

Tax collections have been hammered as the collapse of the real estate market eliminated 136,000 construction jobs in the past two years and caused consumers to curb spending. California leads the nation in home foreclosures, its 8.2 percent unemployment rate is the third-highest in the U.S., and the wealthiest 1 percent of citizens pay almost half its personal income taxes, making it sensitive to swings in the stock market.

Stock Losses
“When the market tanks those people sneeze and we in Sacramento get a cold,” said H.D. Palmer, a spokesman for Schwarzenegger’s finance department.

California’s two year budget shortfall is about $28 billion, accounting for one-third of the deficits faced by U.S. states, according to figures from the National Conference of State Legislatures in Denver.

“If the state’s having budget problems and they’re about to run out of cash, that limits their opportunity to raise money in the capital markets,” said Terry Goode, who heads up municipal bond research for Wells Capital Management in San Francisco.

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey attracted no bids from investment banks to manage a $300 million taxable note offering this week.

Biggest Borrower
California, the biggest borrower in the municipal-bond market, has $51.9 billion in general-obligation debt. It’s rated A+ by Standard & Poor’s and Fitch Ratings, the fifth-highest grades, and an equivalent A1 at Moody’s Investors Service.

Even if the state runs out of cash, constitutional law stipulates that holders of California state general obligation bonds are first in line for payment by the treasury.

The budget deficit has grown even as California cut spending on health care, universities, and welfare programs. Schwarzenegger proposed a tax increase for the first time since he took office in 2003 as Democrats agreed to slash $8 billion in spending. Republicans, who have enough support to block a two-thirds majority needed to pass a tax increase, have made sure the measure has failed.

“This is not blind ideology on the part of Republicans, but our sincere belief that higher taxes will hurt the economy and lead to more uncontrolled spending,” said Assembly Republican leader Mike Villines.

Schwarzenegger’s declaration of a fiscal emergency gives lawmakers 45 days to plug the shortfall. If they fail to find a solution in that time, they are barred from doing any other legislative work until they do. The declaration came after lawmakers were unable to agree on a plan to close the gap during a three-week special session that expired Nov. 30.

“We’re just barely hanging on right now,” Chiang said. “We need strong legislative action immediately.”


[top]

Re: Harvard University to Sell Bonds to Repay Debt


[Skip to the end]

(email exchange)

>  
>  On 12/6/08, Jason wrote:
>  
>  This will be a bellweather for the muni cash market. Harvard is one of the best credits in
>  muni space outside the AAA state GOs. They plan to bring 500mm deal. if market can
>  not absorb this, it does not bode well for muni cash.
>  
>  It also potentially represents a very attractive buying opportunity for muni investors. This
>  very high quality deal may come at a big concession
>  
>  Lastly, Harvard is doing this to refinance there VRDNs. The VRDNS were most likely
>  originally on with pay fixed swaps. Thus as they pay off the VRDNs they are potentially
>  net receivers of BMA swaps. hence the move lower in ratios. More of this to come in my
>  opinion.

Hedging cash munis with BMA swaps has to be another large hedge gone bad.

It’s another mixed metaphor strategy, sort of like corporate basis.

The unwind side could easily result in serious overshooting in the other direction.

Harvard University to Sell Bonds to Repay Debt, Cancel Swaps

By Bryan Keogh

Dec. 5 (Bloomberg) — Harvard University, the oldest U.S. college, plans to sell taxable and non-taxable bonds to repay debt and terminate interest-rate swap agreements.

The university will offer $600 million of top-rated, tax-exempt bonds next week, Bloomberg data show. Cambridge, Massachusetts-based Harvard also plans a separate sale of 5-, 10- and 30-year debt as soon as today, according to a person familiar with the transaction.

And the big winner is:

JPMorgan Chase & Co., Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley are managing the bond sale. New York-based JPMorgan is managing the municipal sale.


[top]