China policy obamanation


[Skip to the end]

We do not need China or anyone else to buy our securities and we net benefit enormously from net imports in general.

The profoundly confused China policy comes from an administration that both does not understand the monetary system and does not understand that imports are real benefits and exports real costs:

Policies are being held hostage to Communist China’s demands.

by Adrian Van Eck

May 29 — The communist rulers of China have laid down a threat to the government of the United States of America. They are the largest foreign holders of treasury bonds. They say they fear that the huge Federal deficit this year – four times the record deficit set last year – will bring on inflation of such a magnitude as to threaten the buying power of their treasury holdings. They have said that if Washington does not stop this massive deficit spending (much of it financed with money created by Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and the Federal Reserve)

All–not some, or most of government spending is a matter of ‘changing numbers in bank accounts at the fed’ (as per Bernanke’s statement last month).
Govt spending adds varying degrees of aggregate demand, government taxing reduces demand, and government borrowing supports interest rates. ‘Financing’ as the word is generally used does not apply to the issuer of a non convertible currency with a floating exchange rate.

they will protect their own interests by dumping all of their holdings of U.S. treasuries on the market for whatever price they can get for them. They say they will do so even if that collapses the U.S. dollar and pulls down not only the American economy but the economy of the entire world.

To date ‘their own interest’ has been that of supporting their export industries by suppressing their real wages.
So this statement would indicate they are threatening to move away from an export led strategy. Possible, but hard to believe and contradicts what follows here.

Apparently Washington has taken this threat seriously. All of a sudden China is being overrun by important officials from the U.S. Government. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is one of the Americans traveling to Beijing. In past years she has been well known in both the U.S, and China as one who dislikes the rulers of Mainland China. A few years ago she barely escaped being arrested by a pack of Party goons as she led a group of Americans protesting China’s policies toward the formerly independent nation of Tibet, which China overran and conquered soon after they won the Chinese Civil War some 60 years ago. A few days ago she was fawning over China’s Government leaders, telling them how we want to cooperate with them in working to protect the environment. (As usual they blamed America for polluting the Earth, ignoring the fact that it is China which is the worst polluter anywhere.) She must have almost gagged on her own sweet words as she talked.

The second important American Government official in China was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. She has never been thought of as an enemy of China’s communist rulers, so it was easier for her to talk with them. (There were rumors that money from China helped fund her husband’s re-election campaign.) Unfortunately the visit came about as China’s neighbor and close ally – North Korea – exploded a nuclear device reported to be as powerful as the one America dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. They also fired off several rockets. All of this violated the terms of an agreement they signed in 2006 – an agreement that brought them enormous quantities of fuel oil and food. When the nations that negotiated that treaty protested the nuclear explosion, North Korea announced that it was renouncing its agreement to a truce that ended the war in the 1950’s. That again called for Secretary of State Clinton to try and patch up relations without pushing the virtual outlaw nation into crossing the border and attacking South Korea. This made the response to China in threatening America – a definite form of blackmail, as nations such as India and Japan agreed – a secondary issue with Hillary.

That left Treasury Secretary Geithner to absorb the heaviest verbal blows from China’s leaders during his own visit to Beijing. They knew that Geithner, as the president of the independent Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the largest and most important of the privately-owned regional Feds, had himself made threats to China shortly before being confirmed by the Senate to take over the top job at Treasury. He had told the Senate that if China did not stop manipulating the yuan in the foreign exchange market to gain an unfair advantage in its trade he would be in favor of America taking steps on its own to counter this in the foreign exchange market.

What sense does all this make?

China was buying dollars to keep the dollar strong and the yuan weak as part of their strategy to support exports by suppressing domestic costs vs rest of world costs.

Geithner was pushing for a weaker dollar as a way to reduce China’s exports by, in effect, causing prices of goods made in China at Wal-Mart to rise to the point where they wouldn’t sell as well.

Now China is threatening to do the opposite- push the dollar down by selling its USD financial assets, and Geithner is doing the opposite by trying to stop them.

He has since had to swallow those words and now he has to swallow as well threats against America by China.

This administration is in it way over its head and is pursuing a totally confused policy.

We thought it was fascinating that no one in the media mentioned Ben Bernanke or commented on his complete absence from the dialogue with China. So I will take it on myself to make such a comment. Bernanke is, after all, the one man closely tied to the creation of the money that so offends the communists in Beijing and one might have expected him to be involved in current talks with China’s rulers – under normal circumstances. A while back, he went to China as part of a delegation and he was asked to make a speech at a university where China trains many of its economists. Bernanke was brutally candid in his remarks. He pointed out precisely all of the mistakes he felt they were making in their centrally planned economy – and predicted that they were heading for trouble so bad that it might bring the ruling Party and the country down, just as a dozen prior dynasties had come crashing down during China’s long history. The woman who serves as China’s economics minister was livid with rage after his remarks. She took over and screamed insults at him for a half hour. Then she called President Bush and said that Bernanke was “persona non grata,” a diplomatic phrase meaning he would never again be welcomed to China. Months later when a Chinese delegation paid a return visit to Washington, they carefully avoided the Fed’s marble headquarters.

Not a whisper has escaped that anyone knows about from the ideas expressed by Tim Geithner concerning China’s threats if America does not sharply curb its deficit spending.

For China’s export strategy to ‘succeed’ they need high levels of aggregate demand in the US.

Yet it is clear from everything happening in Washington that this Administration has absolutely zero intention of stopping its near reckless abandon of any restraint in Federal spending.

In fact, the deficit spending has not even begun to get high enough to restore aggregate demand to levels where unemployment stops rising, never mind falling.

We need to remove a lot more fiscal drag to restore demand, now the unsustainable (non-government) credit chennels have been capped.

Quite the contrary, as new demands are made they are coming up with more plans to lavish Federal spending on recipients. For example, the latest we are hearing regarding General Motors is that the Federal Government may be willing to hand the company $50 billion on top of the money allocated to them already. But Washington would then want to gain 70% ownership in what critics are calling “Federal Motors.”

The problem here is the administrations looks for public purpose in the ‘input’ side rather than the output side. The public purpose of industry is the output it produces, not how the inputs, particularly labor, get rewarded.

Output is directed by markets working within institutional structure which can be modified to influence output towards public purpose while sustaining full employment at all times. But not with an administration that has it all backwards.

And now we have California’s demand that the Federal Government guarantee $18 billion in State borrowing to fund their own wild deficit spending. Political pressures are building to make this happen. If that does happen, a lot of other states will be lining up at the White House front door to demand the same treatment.

The answer here is to give all states $500 per capita of revenue sharing with no strings attached. California would get about $17 billion.

That way it’s ‘fair’ and there is no ‘moral hazard’ issue.
But, again, this hasn’t even been discussed.

This brings us to a topic that is being brushed aside as being too unlikely to even deserve treatment as a rumor. Thus it is being dismissed out of hand in the national media. Yet it is springing up from several key Washington sources and that makes us suspicious that where there is so much smoke there may be fire. What I am talking about, of course, is the sudden discussion of an American Value Added Tax – another name for a national sales tax. It would apply to goods and services alike. Most nations in the world including China itself now have such a VAT tax. It is called value added because each company is taxed only on the value it adds to raw materials or parts it buys and manufactures or assembles into a product. Trucks and hairdressers and even lawyers would be taxed under a VAT.

Even at a rate as low as 10%, which would be seen as very low in the world, it would raise a ton of money. Some are proposing a rate high enough to allow the income tax to be ended but that idea is being shot down by agents of the Administration. The idea would be sold to conservatives as a way to avoid the huge inflation that China is warning against… and also to make unlikely that America would be forced to go back to pre-Reagan Federal income tax rates of just about double those paid today. And industry would be told that – just as happens in other nations with a VAT – it would be forgiven on any goods or services marked for export. I think these VAT tax rumors are for real and I suggest you keep an eye on this. More next week. Adrian Van Eck.

The VAT is even more regressive than the payroll taxes still on the books.

And with consumption being the entire point of the economics it makes no sense to tax consumption in general.

‘Sin’ and ‘luxury’ taxes are different- the idea is to limit consumption of those items subject to the tax, and not to raise revenue. The success of the tax is then judged by how few dollars are collected, not how many as with the VAT.

Now more than ever the US would benefit from an administration that understood the monetary system and the simple fundamentals regarding imports and exports.

But this is not going to happen, and we will continue to pay the price.


[top]

Geithner’s got it wrong re: China


[Skip to the end]

This is what happens with an administration that does not understand imports are real benefits and exports real costs.

This is a proactive move that hurts our real terms of trade and real standard of living.

Geithner to Urge China to Boost Demand, Official Says

by Rebecca Christie

May 28 (Bloomberg) — Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner
will urge China to boost domestic demand and loosen controls on
the yuan in his first trip to the nation since taking office,
while readying a defense on queries about sinking U.S. bonds.

In meetings with Chinese leaders in Beijing June 1-2,
Geithner will encourage China to move toward a more flexible
exchange rate, a U.S. Treasury official told reporters in
Washington. He will also answering any questions the Chinese may
have about the dollar or the U.S. budget deficit, the official
said on condition of anonymity.

While delivering a familiar U.S. message on reducing
China’s reliance on exports, the Treasury chief may meet an
unprecedented level of concern about the outlook for Treasuries.
China is the largest foreign holder of U.S. government debt,
which has handed investors the worst loss since at least 1977
this year as forecasts for federal budget deficits ballooned.

“We’re going to be flooding the world with debt for a
while,” said Tim Adams, a former U.S. Treasury undersecretary
for international affairs who helped lead the Bush
administration’s economic policy with China. “We’ve got to hope
that that the Chinese are willing to keep buying.”

China held about $768 billion in Treasury securities as of
March, according to U.S. government data.

U.S. Commitment

The U.S. is committed to reducing its budget deficit and
maintaining deep and liquid markets for government debt, the
official said in a briefing before Geithner’s May 30 departure.

To spur the U.S. economy, Geithner has said the
administration needs to run deficits in the short term. For the
fiscal year that ends Sept. 30, the deficit is projected to
reach a record $1.75 trillion, according to a Congressional
Budget Office forecast.

The widening gap has contributed to the tumble in
Treasuries, which have lost 5.1 percent, including reinvested
interest, so far this year, according to Merrill Lynch & Co.
index data. The dollar has also been hammered, with the Federal
Reserve’s trade-weighted Major Currency Dollar index sliding 3.2
percent so far this year.

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao in March expressed concern about
the value of the nation’s U.S. investment. Also in March,
central bank governor Zhou Xiaochuan advocated a “super-
sovereign reserve currency” disconnected from any individual
nation, casting doubt about the long-term role of the dollar.

Wen, Hu Meetings

Geithner is set to meet with Wen during his trip, along
with President Hu Jintao and Vice Premier Wang Qishan. In
addition, Geithner will deliver a speech at Peking University on
U.S.-China economic relations and take part in an economic
development event that features U.S. companies.

The Treasury secretary is confident the U.S. dollar will
keep playing an important role as a reserve currency for a long
time, the official said today.

The Beijing talks will include the importance of open trade
and the need for both the U.S. and China to move toward balanced
long-term growth strategies, including a flexible currency
policy, the official said.

Since mid-2008, when China’s leaders began to take measures
to address an economic slowdown, the yuan has hovered around
6.84 per dollar. That rate was reached after a gradual
appreciation since July 2005 from a level of about 8.3 yuan, a
peg China had maintained since 1995.

So far this month, the yuan is little changed, closing
today at 6.829 per dollar.

‘Manipulating’ Label

Geithner has avoided a showdown over China’s currency
policy, declining to repeat comments he made in written remarks
to lawmakers after his Senate confirmation hearing in January
that China was “manipulating” its currency.

In its first semiannual report on foreign-exchange policies
since Geithner became secretary, the Treasury said April 15 that
while the yuan remains “undervalued,” it didn’t meet the
standard for illegal manipulation in the second half of 2008.

China will need to keep buying dollars if it plans to keep
the yuan tethered to the dollar, said Brad Setser, a former
Treasury official who is now an economist at the Council on
Foreign Relations in New York.

“If China insists on pegging to a now-depreciating dollar,
it isn’t clear that China will be doing anything other than add
to its dollar portfolio,” Setser said. “China’s public
expression of concern about its dollar holdings is somewhat at
odds with its policy of pegging to the dollar quite tightly.”

When notes and bonds of U.S.-backed companies such as
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are included, China’s holdings of
U.S. debt come to about $1.55 trillion, according to Setser.
“China will certainly raise its concerns in some form,” he
said.

Geithner, 47, will need to “say all the right things”
about the U.S. fiscal shortfall, said Adams, who accompanied
former Treasury secretaries John Snow and Paul O’Neill on trips
to China. “There’s enormous concern about the size and
intractability of the deficit,” said Adams, who is now a
managing director at the Lindsey Group, an investment consulting
firm in Fairfax, Virginia


[top]

Durable Goods Order/Claims

Karim writes:

Durable Goods Order/Claims

  • Durables goods orders +1.9% headline; -1.5% ex-aircraft and defense (this is the measure used for the private sector capex component of GDP)
  • Defense up 23.2% m/m; here are the prior 3mths for defense orders in 2009 (-11%;+33%;-40%)
  • Shipments ex-defense -0.3%
  • Inventories -0.8% (unexpected as most felt inventory drawdown was over in Q1)
  • Initial claims fall to 623k from 636k (revised up from 631k)
  • Continuing claims up another 110k
  • Data shows economy still contracting; look for range of estimates for Q2 from -2% to -4%

James Grant


[Skip to the end]

(email exchange)

>   
>   Hi Warren. I heard James Grant speak yesterday. He was funny, entertaining, articulate
>   and full of historical knowledge, but I found his monetary analysis appalling. He wants
>   the U.S. (and the rest of the world) to be on a strict gold standard.
>   
>   It seems to me that the consequent reduction in flexibility and efficiency could be a
>   death sentence for hundreds of millions of people around the world. What do you think ?
>   

Agreed!

The gold standad wasn’t abandoned because it worked so well!

The gold standard panic of 1907 was so bad they created the Fed in 1913 to keep it from ever happening again.

It happened again and even worse in 1929 to the point gold was dropped domestically in 1934.

No depressions since as the supply side constraints on ‘money’ were eliminated and counter cyclical fiscal policy became viable.

They kept the Fed open anyway and gave it other things to do.

Send this along to Jim, thanks!


[top]

Obama – “US out of money”

After a fiscal package that may or may not be sufficient to bring down unemployment, the president is now directly telling us that the next move is to dampen aggregate demand by reducing health care spending (and letting tax rates go higher.)

In a sobering holiday interview with C-SPAN, President Obama boldly told Americans: “We are out of money.”

C-SPAN host Steve Scully broke from a meek Washington press corps with probing questions for the new president.

SCULLY: You know the numbers, $1.7 trillion debt, a national deficit of $11 trillion. At what point do we run out of money?

OBAMA: Well, we are out of money now. We are operating in deep deficits, not caused by any decisions we’ve made on health care so far. This is a consequence of the crisis that we’ve seen and in fact our failure to make some good decisions on health care over the last several decades.

So we’ve got a short-term problem, which is we had to spend a lot of money to salvage our financial system, we had to deal with the auto companies, a huge recession which drains tax revenue at the same time it’s putting more pressure on governments to provide unemployment insurance or make sure that food stamps are available for people who have been laid off.

So we have a short-term problem and we also have a long-term problem. The short-term problem is dwarfed by the long-term problem. And the long-term problem is Medicaid and Medicare. If we don’t reduce long-term health care inflation substantially, we can’t get control of the deficit.


[top]

FDIC undervalued failed banks as suspected


[Skip to the end]

As suspected at the time, some (not all) of the failed banks were undervalued by the FDIC to facilitate a quick transfer to other institutions to the detriment of the former shareholders.

Worse, the FDIC said some of the banks failed due to liquidity and not capital impairment.
This means they failed because FDIC deposit insurance and Fed lending failed to do their job of supporting the liability side of banking as per the business model of this long standing ‘public/private partnership’ called banking.

JPMorgan $29 Billion WaMu Windfall Turned Bad Loans Into Income

by Ari Levy and Elizabeth Hester

May 26 (Bloomberg) — JPMorgan Chase & Co. stands to reap a $29 billion windfall thanks to an accounting rule that lets the second-biggest U.S. bank transform bad loans it purchased from Washington Mutual Inc. into income.

Wells Fargo & Co., Bank of America Corp. and PNC Financial Services Group Inc. are also poised to benefit from taking over home lenders Wachovia Corp., Countrywide Financial Corp. and National City Corp., regulatory filings show. The deals provide a combined $56 billion in so-called accretable yield, the difference between the value of the loans on the banks’ balance sheets and the cash flow they’re expected to produce.

Faced with the highest U.S. unemployment in 25 years and a surging foreclosure rate, the lenders are seizing on a four- year-old rule aimed at standardizing how they book acquired loans that have deteriorated in credit quality. By applying the measure to mortgages and commercial loans that lost value during the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, the banks will wring revenue from the wreckage, said Robert Willens, a former Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. executive who runs a tax and accounting consulting firm in New York.

“It will benefit these guys dramatically,” Willens said. “There’s a great chance they’ll be able to record very substantial gains going forward.”

When JPMorgan bought WaMu out of receivership last September for $1.9 billion, the New York-based bank used purchase accounting, which allows it to record impaired loans at fair value, marking down $118.2 billion of assets by 25 percent. Now, as borrowers pay their debts, the bank says it may gain $29.1 billion over the life of the loans in pretax income before taxes and expenses.

Purchase Accounting

The purchase-accounting rule, known as Statement of Position 03-3, provides banks with an incentive to mark down loans they acquire as aggressively as possible, said Gerard Cassidy, an analyst at RBC Capital Markets in Portland, Maine.

“One of the beauties of purchase accounting is after you mark down your assets, you accrete them back in,” Cassidy said. “Those transactions should be favorable over the long run.”

JPMorgan bought WaMu’s deposits and loans after regulators seized the Seattle-based thrift in the biggest bank failure in U.S. history. JPMorgan took a $29.4 billion writedown on WaMu’s holdings, mostly for option adjustable-rate mortgages and home- equity loans.

“We marked the portfolio based on a number of factors, including housing-price judgment at the time,” said JPMorgan spokesman Thomas Kelly. “The accretion is driven by prevailing interest rates.”

Wachovia ARMS

JPMorgan said first-quarter gains from the WaMu loans resulted in $1.26 billion in interest income and left the bank with an accretable-yield balance that could result in additional income of $29.1 billion.

Wells Fargo arranged the $12.7 billion purchase of Wachovia in October, as the Charlotte, North Carolina-based bank was sinking from $122 billion in option ARMs. As of March 31, San Francisco-based Wells Fargo had marked down $93 billion of impaired Wachovia loans by 37 percent. The expected cash flow was $70.3 billion.

The Wachovia loans added $561 million to the bank’s first- quarter interest income, leaving Wells Fargo with a remaining accretable yield of almost $10 billion.

Government efforts to reduce mortgage rates and stabilize the housing market may make it easier for borrowers to repay loans and for banks to realize the accretable yield on their books. With mortgage rates below 5 percent, originations surged 71 percent in the first quarter from the fourth, a pace that may accelerate during 2009, said Guy Cecala, publisher of Inside Mortgage Finance in Bethesda, Maryland.

Recapturing Writedowns

Wells Fargo, the biggest U.S. mortgage originator, doubled home loans in the first quarter from the previous three months, in part through refinancing Wachovia loans.

“To the extent that the customers’ experience is better or we can modify the loans, and the loans become more current, that could help recapture some of the writedown,” Wells Fargo Chief Financial Officer Howard Atkins said in an April 22 interview.

Banks still face the risk that defaults may exceed expectations and lead to further writedowns on their purchased loans. Foreclosure filings in the U.S. rose to a record for the second straight month in April, climbing 32 percent from a year earlier to more than 342,000, data compiled by Irvine, California-based RealtyTrac Inc. show.

Accretable Yield

The companies bought by Wells Fargo, JPMorgan, PNC and Bank of America were among the biggest lenders in states with the highest foreclosure rates, including California, Florida and Ohio. Housing prices tumbled the most on record in the first quarter, leaving an increasing number of borrowers owing more in mortgage payments than their homes are worth, according to Zillow.com, an online property data company.

“We’ve still got a lot of downside to work through this year and probably through at least part of next,” said William Schwartz, a credit analyst at DBRS Inc. in New York. “If I were them, I wouldn’t be claiming any victory yet.”

The difference in accretable yield from bank to bank is due to the amount of impaired loans, the credit quality of the acquired assets and the state of the economy when the deals were completed. Rising and falling interest rates also affect accretable yield for portfolios with adjustable-rate loans.

PNC closed its $3.9 billion acquisition of National City on Dec. 31, after the Cleveland-based bank racked up more than $4 billion in losses tied to subprime loans. PNC, based in Pittsburgh, marked down $19.3 billion of impaired loans by 38 percent, or $7.4 billion, and said it expected to recoup half of the writedown. After gaining $213 million in interest income in the first quarter and making some adjustments, the company has an accretable-yield balance of $2.9 billion.

‘Being Prudent’

“We’re just being prudent,” PNC Chief Financial Officer Richard Johnson said in a May 19 interview.

Johnson said he expects the entire accretable yield to result in earnings. The company has taken into “consideration everything that can go wrong with the economy,” he said.

Bank of America, the biggest U.S. bank by assets, has potential purchase-accounting income of $14.1 billion, including $627 million of gains from Merrill Lynch & Co. and the rest from Countrywide. Bank of America bought subprime lender Countrywide in July, two months before the financial crisis forced Lehman Brothers into bankruptcy and WaMu into receivership.

As market losses deepened, Bank of America had to reduce the returns it expected the impaired loans to produce from an original estimate of $19.6 billion.

Countrywide Marks

“The Countrywide marks in hindsight weren’t nearly as aggressive,” said Jason Goldberg, an analyst at Barclays Capital in New York, who has “equal weight” investment ratings on Bank of America and PNC and “overweight” recommendations for Wells Fargo and JPMorgan.

Bank of America spokesman Jerry Dubrowski declined to comment.

The discounted assets purchased by JPMorgan and Wells Fargo make the stocks more attractive because they will spur an acceleration in profit growth, said Chris Armbruster, an analyst at Al Frank Asset Management Inc. in Laguna Beach, California.

“There’s definitely going to be some marks that were taken that were too extreme,” said Armbruster, whose firm oversees about $375 million. “It gives them a huge cushion or buffer to smooth out earnings.”


[top]

Vice Chair Kohn on fiscal expansion


[Skip to the end]

Yes, he’s got that part very right!!!

>   On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 11:06 PM, Roger wrote:
>   
>   Federal Reserve Vice Chairman Donald Kohn:
>   
>   Interactions between Monetary and Fiscal Policy in the Current Situation
>   
>   [I]n the current weak economic environment, a fiscal expansion may be much more
>   effective in providing a sustained boost to economic activity.
>   Doesn’t say anything about when. Looks like it’s already too late to forestall a pileup.
>   


[top]

German debts set to blow ‘like a grenade’-Pritchard


[Skip to the end]

Completely agreed about the possibility of a bank blow up.

And it’s also possible the government plan blows up the government.

The eurozone is the region vulnerable to ratings downgrades- both banks and national governments.

Not the UK and US governments where spending is not revenue constrained.

The ECB can ‘save’ the eurozone but only by extending credit beyond that ‘permitted’ by the treaty which in some ways they have already done.

This warning comes from a financial regulator:

German debts set to blow ‘like a grenade’

by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

May 25 (Telegraph) — German debts set to blow ‘like a grenade’
Germany’s financial regulator BaFin has warned that the toxic debts of the country’s banks will blow up “like a grenade” unless they take advantage of the government’s bad bank plans to prepare for the next phase of the crisis.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s bad bank plan has been heavily criticised Photo: EPA
Jochen Sanio, BaFin’s president, said the danger is a series of “brutal” downgrades of mortgage securities by the rating agencies, which would eat into the depleted capital reserves of the banks and cause broader stress across the credit system. “We must make the banks immune against the changes in ratings,” he said.

The markets will “kill” banks that try to go it alone without state protection, warning that banks have €200bn (£176bn) of bad debts on their books. “We are pretty sure that within a month or two our banks will feel the full force of the sharpest recession ever on their credit portfolios,” he said, speaking after the release of BaFin’s annual report last week.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has called for a stress test for Europe’s banks along the lines to the US Treasury’s health screen, saying the region “urgently needs to weatherproof its institutions”.

The IMF said European institutions have written down less than 20pc of projected losses of $900bn (£566bn) by 2010. Euro area banks will have to raise a further $375bn in fresh capital, compared with $275bn for US banks. The Tier one capital ratio is 7.3pc in Europe, and 10.4pc in the US.

The German bad bank plan has been heavily criticised as an attempt to brush the problems under the carpet until after the elections in September. It allows banks to spread losses over 20 years in an off-balance sheet vehicle – much like the “SIVs” that masked their extreme leverage in the first place – and risks repeating the Japanese error of letting “zombie” banks limp on rather than purging the system.

The recession has hit Europe much harder than expected. German GDP has contracted by 6.9pc over the last year, and the eurozone as a whole has shrunk 4.6pc, although there are signs that the economy may be through the worst.

Germany’s IFO business confidence index rose to 84.2 in May, the highest since December, and German exports have started to rise again after a catastrophic fall of 16pc. But Carsten Brzeski from ING said it is too early to celebrate.


[top]

Commodities speculation


[Skip to the end]

I’ve also hear reports that pension funds have been adding to passive commodity strategies:

The green shoots will grow slowly

by David Robertson

May 25 (Business 24/7) — By the middle of this month, copper prices were 60 per cent up on the start of the year and platinum was up by a third. The rebound has been driven by a conviction that these metals were oversold and as construction demand (copper) and automotive demand (platinum) pick up, the price of the metals will return to more sensible levels. However, I bring bad news. Industrial demand is not returning nearly as fast as the London Metal Exchange or London Stock Exchange would have us believe – and that means we are still some way off from seeing a return to the sort of growth levels achieved prior to 2008.

Two things are currently distorting metal prices: Chinese stockpiling and speculation. The Chinese have taken advantage of the low price of metals to fill their warehouses and this has been mistaken for a dramatic ramp up in “real” industrial demand. I have no doubt that Chinese demand from factories and construction companies has increased recently but at nothing like a rate that would support a 60 per cent surge in copper prices.

Speculation has also played a significant role in boosting prices as investors have piled into commodities, partly because they have been fooled by Chinese demand and partly because a lot of people are already thinking about where to stash their cash in the event of rampant inflation next year.

Last week Investec, the South African bank, highlighted the impact speculation was having on market-traded metals by focusing on commodities that are not easily traded. For example, ferrochrome, which is used to make stainless steel, actually fell 13 per cent in price between the first and second quarter of this year and it is off 63 per cent from its high at the end of last year. Manganese contract prices are off 70 per cent and the steel makers are pushing for a 45 per cent cut in iron ore contract prices.

There is no “hot money” in these commodities so they give us a better guide to real industrial demand – and clearly there is little to get excited about yet. As a result, I expect to see a repeat of last year’s oil bubble: everyone will shortly wake up and realise that the shoots are not quite as green as had been hoped and prices will fall back by 20 to 30 per cent (again).


[top]

Professor James Sturgeon


[Skip to the end]

From Jim Sturgeon

I’ll put in my two cents. The crooks should be convicted as a regular part of the legal system and examples set to deter future attempts. However, the acquisitive heart and I expect the felonious one, beats about the same from generation to generation (to paraphrase JKG the elder). It’s the institutions that change. We should have a way of dealing with crooks as a matter of institutional (no pun) policy. That much it seems goes without saying, although it seems to be rather more difficult to do than it should.

The most recent economic crisis, triggered by a rapid run-up in the nominal (money) price of various assets, is a more difficult institutional adjustment. Warren is correct that whatever real assets were created as we ran up the money price of debt and other monetary instruments are still in place. And whatever scientific/technological knowledge was created is still present and available for use. We are not now dumber than we were in 2000 or 2005. What has been lost is the balance sheet value of some (probably many) wealth holders. But of course if this was never a reflection of the real value of the assets then it is not so much a loss as a readjustment. People feel poorer because they once felt richer; buoyed by the fool’s gold in their portfolio. Feeling poorer, they now pull in on the reins of their consumption with all the well known results. Agreed there is a need for new rules and the enforcement of both old and new ones so as to control and regulate the financial sector. I also think we would benefit by reducing the strength of that sectors siren’s song that lures so many able minded to its call.

There is a relationship between the financial crises and the real economy, but it is of our making. By this I mean we have put in place a system of rules and policies by which the pecuniary forces in the economy animate or arrest the real forces. This frequently contributes to an already poorly functioning labor sector (market). What would help is to readjust this relationship with an eye toward lessening the impact on the real sector due to the exuberance (irrational or otherwise) in the financial sector. This is a matter of policy, law and regulatory changes necessary to adjust the institutional controls. The first and most obvious one is the labor market. The Full Employment Act of 2009 should be written and passed with an ELR provision (build a high speed rail system for openers and then I’ll add about 50 other obvious projects that would build real wealth in the US). This would significantly dampen the effect of the financial sector on the labor market and bring some stabilization to aggregate demand. Economists and others ought to give at least as much attention to the labor market and real sector as they have to the financial sector.

I don’t know if the above is what Warren has in mind when he says it is the response wherein the problem lies, but it seems to me the response so far is mostly framed with the same logic and played with most of the same players that have helped us misunderstand the relationship between finance and production.


[top]