Monthly Archives: December 2011

Fitch Again Warns US Debt Burden Threatens AAA Rating

Posted on by

They just want to make it clear that along with S&P and Moody’s they don’t understand the difference between issuers of a currency and users of a currency.

Fitch Again Warns US Debt Burden Threatens AAA Rating

Dec 22 (Reuters) — Fitch Ratings on Wednesday warned again that the United States’ rising debt burden was not consistent with maintaining the country’s top AAA credit rating, but said there would likely be no decision on whether to cut the rating before 2013.

Last month, Fitch changed its U.S. credit rating outlook to negative from stable, citing the failure of a special congressional committee to agree on at least $1.2 trillion in deficit-reduction measures.

“Federal debt will rise in the absence of expenditure and tax reforms that would address the challenges of rising health and social security spending as the population ages,” Fitch said in a statement.

“The high and rising federal and general government debt burden is not consistent with the U.S. retaining its ‘AAA’ status despite its other fundamental sovereign credit strengths,” the ratings agency said.

In a new fiscal projection, Fitch said at least $3.5 trillion of additional deficit reduction measures will be required to stabilize the federal debt held by the public at around 90 percent of gross domestic product in the latter half of the current decade.

Fitch, when it lowered its outlook to negative, had said it was giving the U.S. government until 2013 to come up with a “credible plan” to tackle its ballooning budget deficit or risk a downgrade from the AAA status.

“A key task of an incoming Congress and administration in 2013 is to formulate a credible plan to reduce the budget deficit and stabilize the federal debt burden. Without such a strategy, the sovereign rating will likely be lowered by the end of 2013,” Fitch reiterated.

Rival ratings agency Standard & Poor’s cut its credit rating on the United States to AA-plus from AAA on August 5, citing concerns over the government’s budget deficit and rising debt burden as well as the political gridlock that nearly led to a default.

On November 23, Moody’s Investors Service, warned that its top level Aaa credit rating for the United States could be in jeopardy if lawmakers were to backtrack on $1.2 trillion in automatic deficit cuts that are set to be made over 10 years.

The plan for automatic cuts was triggered after the special congressional committee failed to reach an agreement on deficit reduction. Moody’s said any pullback from the agreed automatic cuts to take effect starting in 2013 could prompt it to take action.

Share

Carney on Mosler on Romney

Posted on by

Mitt Romney’s Ridiculous Comparison of US to Greece

By John Carney

Dec 21 (CNBC) — I realize that Republicans want the United States to accumulate less debt. That’s a fine policy position to take. I’m somewhat sympathetic to the idea that debt can drag down the economy.

But there’s no need to start saying crazy things like the U.S. is about to become Italy or Greece if Obama is elected for another term. This simply isn’t in the cards.

The problems faced by Greece and Italy are nowhere near comparable to those faced by the United States. We have far more dynamic economies — and far lower tax rates — than those countries. More important, our government can indirectly self-finance by having the Federal Reserve buy Treasurys on the secondary market.

As we’ve seen, the Fed has an unlimited balance sheet, something that Greece and Italy do not enjoy.

Our government will never run out of money. Greece and Italy can definitely run out of money.

So it’s a shame to see Mitt Romney, the Republican frontrunner for president, spouting this nonsense.

From The Hill:

Mitt Romney said that the United States would experience a financial crisis similar to that of Greece or Italy if President Obama were elected to a second term, and hit rival Newt Gingrich’s plan for the federal judiciary as unconstitutional during an interview Monday night with Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly.

“I think we hit a Greece-like wall. I think before the end of his second term, if he were re-elected, there’s a very high risk that we would hit a financial crisis that Greece or Italy have faced,” Romney said.

This is worse than ignorant. It is actually malfeasant. Having one of the leading politicians in the country talk like this can only induce further economic panic.

(Hat tip: Warren Mosler)

Share

Romney: US could face ‘financial crisis’ like Greece, Italy if Obama is reelected

Posted on by

In case you had any respect whatsoever for Romney’s understanding of monetary operations and fiscal policy.

In fact, no one has been invoking Greece since the S&P downgrade when interest rates went down, and pundits from both sides pointed out the difference is we ‘print our own money.’

Romney: US could face ‘financial crisis’ like Greece, Italy if Obama is reelected

By Justin Sink

Dec 20 — Mitt Romney said that the United States would experience a financial crisis similar to that of Greece or Italy if President Obama were elected to a second term, and hit rival Newt Gingrich’s plan for the federal judiciary as unconstitutional during an interview Monday night with Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly.

“I think we hit a Greece-like wall. I think before the end of his second term, if he were reelected, there’s a very high risk that we would hit a financial crisis that Greece or Italy have faced,” Romney said.

“I think it’s also very possible that we would continue to see very high levels of unemployment. I think you would see industry in this country, entrepreneurs, big and small, decide to go elsewhere, to take their investment dollars to other nations. This president has put together the most anti-investment, anti-growth and anti-job series of policies that I’ve seen since Jimmy Carter,” he added.

Share

another look at the LTRO

Posted on by

The initial rate on the 3 year LTRO was reported to be ‘fixed’ at 1%, but turns out it adjusts with the policy rate and will be an average of the policy rate over the three year term.

So it doesn’t fix rates for the banks, it just ensures funding at the policy rate. Which makes sense, as the bank’s cost of funds is the policy instrument of the ECB.

Also interesting is how in the case of bank defaults the member nations guarantee the bank deposits. But those member nations get their funding from bond sales. And with the weaker ones that means bond sales to the ECB. So in that sense, the ECB is backing bank deposits. Which means when it provides liquidity and takes collateral, should the bank subsequently realize losses, causing the ECB to realize losses on the funds provided to the bank for liquidity, the member nation would then sell bonds to the ECB to get the funds to pay for the loans it got from the ECB.

Again, it all comes down to the ECB writing the check. And it all works from a solvency point of view when the ECB writes the check. And the ECB writing the check introduces a serious moral hazard issue. Hence the (over) emphasis on austerity.

Share

quick look at the 489 billion euro LTRO

Posted on by

When it comes to CB liquidity operations, as previously discussed, it’s about price- interest rates- and not quantities of funds. In other words, the LTRO is an ECB tool that assists in setting the term structure of euro interest rates. It helps the ECB set the term cost of funds for its banking system, with that cost being passed through to the economy on a risk adjusted basis, with the banking system continuing to price risk.

So what does locking in their funds via LTRO do for most banks? Not much. Helps keep interest rate risk off the table, but they’ve always had other ways of doing that. It takes away some liquidity risk, but not much, as the banks haven’t been euro liquidity constrained. And banks still have the same constraints due to capital and associated risks.

To it’s credit, the ECB has been pretty good on the liquidity front all along. I’d give it an A grade for liquidity vs the Fed where I’d give a D grade for liquidity. Back in 2008 the ECB was quick to provide unlimited euro liquidity to its member banks, while the Fed dragged its feet for months before expanding its programs sufficiently to ensure its member banks dollar liquidity. And the FDIC did the unthinkable, closing WAMU for liquidity rather than for capital and asset reasons.

But while liquidity is a necessary condition for banking and the economy under current institutional arrangements, and while aggregate demand would further retreat if the CB failed to support bank liquidity, liquidity provision per se doesn’t add to aggregate demand.

What’s needed to restore output and employment is an increase in net spending, either public or private. And that choice is more political than economic.

Public sector spending can be increased by simply budgeting and spending. Private sector spending can be supported by cutting taxes to enhance income and/or somehow providing for the expansion of private sector debt.

Unfortunately current euro zone institutional structure is working against both of these channels to increased aggregate demand, as previously discussed.

And even in the US, where both channels are, operationally, wide open, it looks like FICA taxes are going to be allowed to rise at year end and work against aggregate demand, when the ‘right’ answer is to suspend it entirely.

Share

Housing Starts-GDP

Posted on by

It was pretty lonely forecasting those kinds of GDP numbers several months ago!

While the 8% budget deficit keeps it all muddling through at modest levels of growth, it’s still a far cry from being ‘acceptable’ in my book, as it’s just barely enough to reduce the output gap.

And letting FICA go up at year end or somehow paying for continuing the current level could trim quite a bit of Q1 aggregate demand.


Karim writes:

Even though the 9.3% rise in starts was led by a 25% gain in the volatile multi-family component, this still represents ‘news’ for GDP forecasts as most (including the Fed) did not assume any contribution to growth from this sector.

Some Q4 GDP estimates starting to move from 3.5% to 4%, and Q1 also now looks to be in the 3.5% area (assuming payroll tax cut is extended).

Although still likely, FOMC may have a lively debate on extending ‘conditional commitment’ beyond mid-2013.

Share

Japan To Buy Chinese Govt Bonds Under Bilateral Pact

Posted on by

This is peculiar.
This supports the yuan vs the yen,
supporting Japan’s exports to China.

Could be more evidence of China’s inflation concern?

Japan To Buy Chinese Govt Bonds Under Bilateral Pact

TOKYO (Nikkei) — Japan will likely purchase yuan-denominated bonds issued by the Chinese government under a proposed bilateral currency and financial agreement, The Nikkei learned Monday.

Japanese and Chinese officials are working out plans to have the pact signed when their leaders meet for a summit this coming Sunday. The agreement will be pillared on the purchase of Chinese government bonds using Japan’s foreign exchange fund special account, along with the joint establishment of a green investment fund.

Japan seeks to diversify its forex fund special account, which now focuses on dollar investments. It also aims to strengthen economic cooperation with China by supporting that nation’s efforts to turn the yuan into a more international currency.

The bond purchases may total up to 10 billion dollars’ worth, or roughly 780 billion yen, with buying carried out in stages through the special account.

The Chinese government counts Japanese government bonds among its foreign-currency reserves. Through cross-holding of bonds, Japan and China will be better poised to exchange information on financial developments in the bond market and elsewhere.

The Japanese government also plans to aid Chinese efforts to nurture an offshore market for yuan-denominated transactions.

The proposed joint fund for environmental investment would feature the participation of the Japan Bank for International Cooperation and private-sector companies from the Japanese side. Details of the fund’s size and investment percentages are to be fleshed out in the near future.

Thailand and Nigeria are among the countries that hold yuan-denominated government bonds through their central banks. Tokyo and Beijing believe that having a developed nation like Japan maintain a certain amount of yuan-denominated holdings may help lift the Chinese currency’s standing on the international stage.

China’s government bond offerings totaled 1.4 trillion yuan in 2009, up 55% on the year.

Such issuances have recently increased in Hong Kong. Overseas investors can acquire government bonds issued on the mainland, but regulations — including a ceiling on purchase amounts — remain strict. top

China Bond Purchases Could Help Ties: Finance Minister

Japan To Buy Chinese Govt Bonds Under Bilateral Pact

TOKYO (NQN) — Finance Minister Jun Azumi on Tuesday confirmed a report that Japan is considering buying Chinese government bonds, arguing that such purchases will offer the two countries significant advantages while strengthening bilateral economic ties.

At a news conference after a Cabinet meeting, Azumi said Japan should hold yuan-denominated bonds as a means of strengthening diplomatic relations.

Azumi said no official decisions have been made on the matter, and that Tokyo will discuss the issue at a future Japan-China summit. He also suggested that the two nations may be able to strike an agreement when Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda visits China.

Share

Draghi leaves door open on PSI?

Posted on by

Reads to me like PSI discussion might come back after a firewall and bank recap is in place?

FT: And the fifth answer is that the idea of introducing private sector involvement (PSI) in eurozone bail-outs was, in retrospect, a mistake?

Mario Draghi: The ideal sequencing would have been to first have a firewall in place, then do the recapitalization of the banks, and only afterwards decide whether you need to have PSI. This would have allowed managing stressed sovereign conditions in an orderly way. This was not done. Neither the EFSF was in place, nor were banks recapitalized, before people started suggesting PSI. It was like letting a bank fail without having a proper mechanism for managing this failure, as it had happened with Lehman.

Share

comments on the new long term ECB funding policy for member banks

Posted on by

The talk is that the new ECB longer term euro funding policy will mean euro member banks will suddenly start buying member nation euro debt and thereby ease the funding issue.

That doesn’t make sense to me. I see the 20 billion euro/wk bond purchases as possibly being enough to stabilize things, but not this.

Here’s my take:

So even if a bank officer now wants to buy, say, Italian debt out to 3 years because he can get ECB funding for that term, he probably has to go to an investment committee, so it is unlikely to happen overnight.

And the investment committees go something like this.

Investment officer:

‘now that we can get 3 year term funding from the ECB, i recommend we add to our italian debt position and make a 3% spread, which is a 30% return on equity’

committee responses:

‘why does the availability of term funding alter our current policy of reducing holdings to reduce credit risk?
what are the regulatory limits?
will the regulators allow us to own more?
what about the risk of downgrade which could force a sale?
what about repo haircuts if prices fall?
what if it’s decided Italy is unsustainable and the euro ministers vote on private sector haircuts?
how will taking on this risk affect our ability to raise capital?’

etc.

While banks may indeed buy more euro member nation debt due to the availability of the new term funding, I don’t think that new funding is enough to cause them to make that decision.

I do think the term funding will be used by banks with problems obtaining term funding to lock in the term cost of funds.

Share