Category Archives: Bonds

A few Boehnalities and other notables on the US going broke

Posted on by

Cross currents of right and wrong but always for the wrong reasons.

Bonds Show Why Boehner Saying We’re Broke Is Figure of Speech

By David J. Lynch

March 7 (Bloomberg) — House Speaker John Boehner routinely offers this diagnosis of the U.S.’s fiscal condition: “We’re broke; Broke going on bankrupt,” he said in a Feb. 28 speech in Nashville.

Boehner’s assessment dominates a debate over the federal budget that could lead to a government shutdown. It is a widely shared view with just one flaw: It’s wrong.

“The U.S. government is not broke,” said Marc Chandler, global head of currency strategy for Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. in New York. “There’s no evidence that the market is treating the U.S. government like it’s broke.”

Wrong reason! Broke implies not able to spend.

The US spends by crediting member bank accounts at the Fed, and taxes by debiting member bank accounts at the Fed.

It never has nor doesn’t have any dollars.

The U.S. today is able to borrow at historically low interest rates, paying 0.68 percent on a two-year note that it had to offer at 5.1 percent before the financial crisis began in 2007.

That’s simply a function of where the Fed, a agent of Congress, has decided to set rates, and market perceptions of where it may set rates in the future. Solvency doesn’t enter into it.

Financial products that pay off if Uncle Sam defaults aren’t attracting unusual investor demand. And tax revenue as a percentage of the economy is at a 60-year low, meaning if the government needs to raise cash and can summon the political will, it could do so.

All taxing does is debit member bank accounts. The govt doesn’t actually ‘get’ anything.

To be sure, the U.S. confronts long-term fiscal dangers.

For example???

Over the past two years, federal debt measured against total economic output has increased by more than 50 percent and the White House projects annual budget deficits continuing indefinitely.

So?

“If an American family is spending more money than they’re making year after year after year, they’re broke,” said Michael Steel, a spokesman for Boehner.

So?
What does that have to do with govts ability to credit accounts at its own central bank?

$1.6 Trillion Deficit

A person, company or nation would be defined as “broke” if it couldn’t pay its bills, and that is not the case with the U.S. Despite an annual budget deficit expected to reach $1.6 trillion this year, the government continues to meet its financial obligations, and investors say there is little concern that will change.

Still, a rhetorical drumbeat has spread that the U.S. is tapped out. Republicans, including Representative Ron Paul of Texas, chairman of the House domestic monetary policy subcommittee, and Fox News commentator Bill O’Reilly, have labeled the U.S. “broke” in recent days.

Chris Christie, the Republican governor of New Jersey, said in a speech last month that the Medicare program is “going to bankrupt us.” Julian Robertson, chairman of Tiger Management LLC in New York, told The Australian newspaper March 2: “we’re broke, broker than all get out.”

A similar claim was even made Feb. 28 by comedian Jon Stewart, the host of “The Daily Show” on Comedy Central.

So much for their legacies.

Cost of Insuring Debt

Financial markets dispute the political world’s conclusion. The cost of insuring for five years a notional $10 million in U.S. government debt is $45,830, less than half the cost in February 2009, at the height of the financial crisis, according to data provider CMA data. That makes U.S. government debt the fifth safest of 156 countries rated and less likely to suffer default than any major economy, including every member of the
G20.

There are two factors in default insurance. Ability to pay and willingness to pay. While the US always has the ability to pay, Congress does not always show a united willingness to pay. Hence the actual default risk.

Creditors regard Venezuela, Greece and Argentina as the three riskiest countries. Buying credit default insurance on a notional $10 million of those nations’ debt costs $1.2 million, $950,000 and $665,000 respectively.

“I think it’s very misleading to call a country ‘broke,'” said Nariman Behravesh, chief economist for IHS Global Insight in Lexington, Massachusetts. “We’re certainly not bankrupt like Greece.”

In any case, the euro zone member nations put themselves in the fiscal position of US states when they joined the euro.

That means a state like Illinois could be the next Greece, but not the US govt.

Less Likely to Default

CMA prices for credit insurance show that global investors consider it more likely that France, Japan, China, the United Kingdom, Australia or Germany will default than the U.S.

Pacific Investment Management Co., which operates the largest bond fund, the $239 billion Total Return Fund, sees so little risk of a U.S. default it may sell other investors insurance against the prospect. Andrew Balls, Pimco managing director, told reporters Feb. 28 in London that the chances the U.S. would not meet its obligations were “vanishingly small.”

Presumably a statement with regard to willingness of Congress to pay.

George Magnus, senior economic adviser for UBS Investment Bank in London, says the U.S. dollar’s status as the global economy’s unit of account means the U.S. can’t go broke.

That has nothing to do with it.

“You have the reserve currency,” Magnus said. “You can print as much as you need. So there’s no question all debts will be repaid.”

Any nation can do that with its own currency

The current concerns over debt contrast with the views of founding father Alexander Hamilton, the nation’s first Treasury secretary. At Hamilton’s urging, the federal government in 1790 absorbed the Revolutionary War debts of the states and issued new government securities in about the same total amount.

Alexander Hamilton

Unlike today’s debt critics, Hamilton “had no intention of paying off the outstanding principal of the debt,” historian Gordon S. Wood wrote in “Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic 1789-1815.”

Instead, by making regular interest payments on the debt, Hamilton established the U.S. government as “the best credit risk in the world” and drew investors’ loyalties to the federal government and away from the states, wrote Wood, who won a Pulitzer Prize for a separate history of the colonial period.

Far be it from me to argue with a Pulitzer Prize winner…

From Oct. 1, 2008, the beginning of the 2009 fiscal year, through the current year, which ends Sept. 30, 2011, the U.S. will have added more than $4.3 trillion of debt. Despite White House forecasts of an additional $2.4 trillion of debt over the next three fiscal years, investors’ appetite for Treasury securities shows little sign of abating.

It’s just a reserve drain- get over it!

Govt spending credits member bank reserve accounts at the Fed

Tsy securities exist as securities accounts at the Fed.

‘Going into debt’ entails nothing more than the Fed debiting Fed reserve accounts and crediting Fed securities accounts and ‘paying off the debt’ is nothing more than debiting securities accounts and crediting reserve accounts

No grandchildren involved.

Longer-Term Debt

In addition to accepting low yields on two-year notes, creditors are willing to lend the U.S. money for longer periods at interest rates that are below long-term averages. Ten-year U.S. bonds carry a rate of 3.5 percent, compared with an average 5.4 percent since 1990. And U.S. debt is more attractive than comparable securities from the U.K., which has moved aggressively to rein in government spending. U.K. 10-year bonds offer a 3.6 percent yield.

“You are never broke as long as there are those who will buy your debt and lend money to you,” said Edward Altman, a finance professor at New York University’s Stern School of Business who created the Z-score formula that calculates a company’s likelihood of bankruptcy.

Who also completely misses the point.

Any doubts traders had about the solvency of the U.S. would immediately be reflected in the markets, a fact noted by James Carville, a former adviser to President Bill Clinton, after he saw how bond investors could determine the success or failure of economic policy.

No they can’t.

“I used to think if there was reincarnation, I wanted to come back as the president or the Pope or a .400 baseball hitter,” Carville said. “But now I want to come back as the bond market. You can intimidate everyone.”

Only those who don’t know any better.

Republican Dissenters

Republican assertions that the U.S. is “broke” are shorthand for a complex fiscal situation, and some in the party acknowledge the claim isn’t accurate.

“To say your debts exceed your income is not ‘broke,'” said Tony Fratto, former White House and Treasury Department spokesman in the George W. Bush administration.

The U.S. government nonetheless faces a daunting gap between its expected financial resources

It’s not about ‘financial resources’ when it comes to a govt that never has nor doesn’t have any dollars, and just changes numbers in our accounts when it spends and taxes

and promised future outlays. Fratto said the Obama administration’s continued accumulation of debt risked a future crisis, as most major economies also face growing debt burdens.

The burden is that of making data entries.

In the nightmare scenario, a crush of countries competing to simultaneously sell IOUs to global investors could bid up the yield on government debt and compel overleveraged countries such as the U.S. to abruptly slash public spending.

It could only compel leaders who didn’t know how it all worked to do that.

Not selling the debt simply means the dollars stay in reserve accounts at the Fed and instead of being shifted by the Fed to securities accounts. Why would anyone who knew how it worked care which account the dollars were in? Especially when spending has nothing, operationally, to do with those accounts.

Fratto dismissed the markets’ current calm, noting that until the European debt crisis erupted early last year, investors had priced German and Greek debt as near equivalents.

“Markets can make mistakes,” Fratto said.

So can he. That all applies to the US states, not the federal govt.

$9.4 Trillion Outstanding

If recent budgetary trends continue unchanged, the U.S. risks a fiscal day of reckoning, slower growth or both.

No it doesn’t.

Altman notes that the U.S. debt outstanding is “enormous.” As of the end of 2010, debt held by the public was $9.4 trillion or 63 percent of gross domestic product — roughly half of the corresponding figures for Greece (126.7 percent) and Japan (121 percent) and well below countries such as Italy (116 percent), Belgium (96.2 percent) and France (78.1 percent).

Once a country’s debt-to-GDP ratio exceeds 90 percent, median annual economic growth rates fall by 1 percent, according to economists Kenneth Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart.

Wrong, that’s for convertible currency/fixed exchange rate regimes, not nations like the US, Uk, and Japan which have non convertible currencies and floating exchange rates.

The Congressional Budget Office warns that debt held by the public will reach 97 percent of GDP in 10 years if certain tax breaks are extended rather than allowed to expire next year and if Medicare payments to physicians are held at existing levels rather than reduced as the administration has proposed.

So???

AAA Rating

For now, Standard & Poor’s maintains a stable outlook on its top AAA rating on U.S. debt, assuming the government will “soon reveal a credible plan to tighten fiscal policy.” Debate over closing the budget gap thus far has centered on potential spending reductions. S&P says a deficit-closing plan “will require both expenditure and revenue measures.”

Measured against the size of the economy, U.S. federal tax revenue is at its lowest level since 1950. Tax receipts in the 2011 fiscal year are expected to equal 14.4 percent of GDP, according to the White House. That compares with the 40-year average of 18 percent, according to the Congressional Budget Office. So if tax receipts return to their long-term average amid an economic recovery, about one-third of the annual budget deficit would disappear.

Likewise, individual federal income tax rates have declined sharply since the top marginal rate peaked at 94 percent in 1945. The marginal rate — which applies to income above a numerical threshold that has changed over time — was 91 percent as late as 1963 and 50 percent in 1986. For 2011, the top marginal rate is 35 percent on income over $373,650 for individuals and couples filing jointly.

Not Overtaxed

Americans also aren’t overtaxed compared with residents of other advanced nations. In a 28-nation survey, only Chile and Mexico reported a lower total tax burden than the U.S., according to the Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation.

In 2009, taxes of all kinds claimed 24 percent of U.S. GDP, compared with 34.3 percent in the U.K., 37 percent in Germany and 48.2 percent in Denmark, the most heavily taxed OECD member.

“By the standard of U.S. history, by the standard of other countries — by the standard of where else are we going to get the money — increased tax revenues have to be a part of the solution,” said Jeffrey Frankel, an economist at Harvard University who advises the Federal Reserve Banks of Boston and New York.

So much for his legacy.

Share

Irish Central Bank printing money?

Posted on by

>   
>   (email exchange)
>   
>   On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 12:34 PM, qrote:
>   
>   Had you heard about this?
>   

Central Bank steps up its cash support to Irish banks financed by institution printing own money

Yes and no:

“A spokesman for the ECB said the Irish Central Bank is itself creating the money it is lending to banks, not borrowing cash from the ECB to fund the payments. The ECB spokesman said the Irish Central Bank can create its own funds if it deems it appropriate, as long as the ECB is notified.”

My understanding is that rather than keep all the member bank accounts themselves, the ECB utilizes the existing member nation Central Banks as their designated agents for transactions purposes.

So the member banks in the euro zone have their clearing accounts with their national banks.

That means funding for the member banks comes via credits to their accounts at their local central bank, and it’s the personnel at those local central banks, like the Irish Central Bank, who enter the actual debits and credits for the member bank accounts.

In the case the ‘money that’s being created’ is describing secured lending to the member banks as per ECB policy and directive, with the Irish Central Bank making the actual debits and credits to the Irish commercial bank accounts on their books.

It’s somewhat like the US where the NY Fed, for example, keeps the books for it’s member banks.

Share

Proposal for Japan and China- buy US state muni bonds!

Posted on by

My proposal for Japan and China is to announce a plan for each nation to purchase up to $150 billion of US state municipal bonds to help out the US states during these difficult times.

They would be welcomed as rescuers, much like they have been with their announcements to buy securities from troubled euro zone member nations.

While at the same time, buying $US financial assets in the form of state muni debt would work to weaken their currencies vs the dollar and support their export industries.

Doesn’t get any better than that!

Share

Japan buying euro bonds

Posted on by

JAPAN FINMIN NODA: JAPAN WILL BUY EURO BONDS TO HELP BOOST TRUST IN EFSF SCHEME

EURO RISES AFTER JAPAN FINMIN NODA SAYS JAPAN TO BUY EURO BONDS

JAPAN NODA: TO BUY ABOUT 20 PCT OF BONDS PLANNED TO BE ISSUED JOINTLY BY EURO ZONE LATER THIS MONTH

Japan Joins China in Assisting Debt-Crisis-Hit Europe

By Toru Fujioka

January 11 (Bloomberg) — Japan plans to buy euro-zone
sovereign bonds, its finance minister said, joining China in
assisting a region hit by a fund-raising crisis.

Finance Minister Yoshihiko Noda told a news conference in
Tokyo today that Japan will use its foreign-exchange reserves to
buy more than 20 percent of bonds to be issued under a special
assistance program to help Ireland.

“It’s appropriate for Japan to make a contribution as a
leading nation to increase trust in the deal,” he said.

China has also expressed support for the euro zone, with
Vice Premier Li Keqiang last week expressing confidence in
Spain’s financial markets and pledging more purchases of that
nation’s debt. Chinese Vice Premier Wang Qishan said on Dec. 21
his nation has taken “concrete action” to help the European
Union address its debt crisis.

The euro climbed immediately after Noda’s comments, rising
as high as $1.2991, before trading at $1.2952 at 11:50 a.m. in
Tokyo.

>   
>   This is being done in an effort to weaken ¥ vs €.
>   

Yes, with the cover of helping the euro zone, just like China, who announced the same a short while ago to lead the way for Japan.

Japan has been actively seeking ways of weakening the yen to support their exporters.

They publicly bought some $ last year, and their US Tsy holdings have been falling, indicating something unannounced has been going on as well.

And their budget was somewhat expansionary.

Weakening the yen like this is one of the things somewhat subtly working to limit US aggregate demand growth, which should be a good thing for us (we can have lower taxes for a give size govt) but unfortunately our leadership simply lets aggregate demand languish.

Share

Bond Vigilantes Could Target US: Roubini

Posted on by

As a kid growing up I would have thought big time university professors would know better than this.

It should be obvious to him that markets follow expectations of future Fed policy, they don’t cause it.
The fed funds rate changes only when the Fed votes to change it, and the NY Fed has a good enough understanding of its own monetary operations to implement the FOMC’s will. The fact that under Geithner they never could hit a fed funds target is another story for another time, but rest assured it had nothing to do with bond vigilantes.

Yields are probably going up for two reasons. The first is the expectation that fiscal expansion does work and therefore the Fed is more likely to hike that much sooner. Note that GDP forecasts being raised by most all economists, who also were ready to lower forecasts if the tax cuts are allowed to expire.

The currency is a public monopoly, and as a simple point of logic (not theory or ideology) a monopolist sets two prices. One is how the item exchanges for itself, what Marshall called the ‘own rate’ and for the currency is the interest rate.

In other words, the Fed/govt. sets the entire term structure of risk free rates, one way or another, whether it likes it or not and/or knows it or not.

A monopolist also sets the terms of exchange for his item vs all other things, which for the currency is called the ‘price level’.

In other words, the price level is necessarily a function of prices paid by govt. when it spends, also whether it knows/likes it or not.

(Kindly send this along to the good professor if you have his contact info.)

Bond Vigilantes Could Target US: Roubini

Economist Nouriel Roubini on Wednesday voiced concern over a compromise on extending tax cuts struck by US President Barack Obama and Republican leaders, saying the agreement could expose the US to bond vigilantes who will drive up the price of yields.

Bond vigilantes – the term was coined by economist Ed Yardeni in the 1980s to describe major investors who demand higher yields to compensate for the perceived risks resulting from large deficits – could derail the country’s precarious recovery, some economists say.
Roubini, who has been dubbed Dr Doom since he accurately forecast the latest financial crisis, said on Twitter: “Obama-GOP tax deal costs $900 billion over two years. US kicking the can further down the road. Are bond vigilantes starting to wake up?”

Republican leaders and the White House agreed earlier this week to extend tax cuts on all income groups for two years and extend unemployment benefits in a deal which they hope will spur economic growth and cut unemployment.

Roubini is not alone in thinking the deal could worsen the US deficit and put the country at risk.

Chinese central bank adviser Li Daokui said on Wednesday the fiscal health of the United States was worse than Europe’s, and that the dollar had so far been shielded from trouble because markets are still focused on debt-laden European countries.

US bond prices and the dollar would fall when the European situation stabilizes, Daokui said.

Share

QE dynamics one more time- it’s about price, not quantity

Posted on by

Believe it or not I’m still getting a lot of questions about how QE works,
so I’ve reorganized the discussion some:

First, recognize that, in fact, reserves, functionally, are nothing more than 1 day t bills.

And, for all practical purposes, the difference between issuing 1 day t bills and 3 month t bills is inconsequential.

So since currently the shortest thing the Treasury issues are 3 mo bills,
I can say that:

QE- the Fed buying longer term treasury securities- is functionally identical for the economy to the Treasury having issued 3 month t bills instead of those longer term securities the Fed bought.

Now the more tricky part.

The yields on the approx. $13 trillion of various Treasury securities and reserve balances continuously gravitate towards what are called indifference levels.

That means that for any given composition of reserve balances at the Fed and Treasury securities (also Fed accounts), there is a term structure of interest rates that adjusts to investor preferences at any given time.

So, for example, with govt providing investors with the combination of $2 trillion in reserves and $11 trillion in various Treasury securities, the yield curve will reflect investor preferences given the current circumstances.

That means if investors expect Fed rate hikes, the front end of the curve would steepen accordingly. And if instead they expect 0 rates for a considerable period of time, the curve would flatten for the first few years to reflect that.

If the Fed then buys another $1 trillion of securities, reserves go to $3 trillion and there are $10 trillion longer term Treasury securities outstanding.

And to actually purchase those reserves, the Fed would have to drive the term structure of rates to levels where investors voluntarily are indifferent with that mix of offerings, given all the other current conditions.
The Fed doesn’t force anyone to sell anything.
It just offers to buy at prices (interest rates) that adjust to where people want to sell at those prices.

So even if the Fed owned a total of $10 trillion of securities, and there were only $3 trillion left outstanding for investors, if investors believed the Fed was going to hike rates by 3%, for example, the term structure of rates on Treasury securities would reflect that.

What I’m trying to say is that QE does not mean rates will actually go down. The yield curve is still a function of investor expectations.

But the yield curve is also a function of ‘technicals.’
This means the quantity of 30 year securities offered for sale, for example, can alter the yield of that sector more than it alters the yields of the other sectors.

This is because, in general, there tends to be fewer ‘natural’ buyers of 30 year securities than 3 month bills.
For most of us, we are a lot more cautious about investing for 30 years at a fixed rate than for 3 months at a fixed rate.
And it takes relative large moves in 30 year rates to cause those investors to shift our preferences to either buy them if govt wants to issue more, or sell them if the Fed wants to buy them back.

On the other hand, there are pension funds who ‘automatically’ buy 30 year securities regardless of yield because they are matching the purchases to 30 year liabilities.

So altogether, the yield curve is function of both investor expectations for interest rates and the ‘technicals’ of supply and demand (desires by issuers and investors).

And while there might be no amount of 3 month bills the Treasury could issue that would materially drive up 3 month t bill rates, relatively small amounts of 30 year bonds do alter the yields of 30 year securities. Insiders would say the 30 year market is a lot ‘thinner’ than the 3 month market.

So what is QE?

QE is nothing more than the govt altering the mix of investments offered to investors.

The Fed buying longer term securities reduces the amount of longer term securities and increases the amount of reserves (one day securities)

Interest rates, as always, continuously gravitate to reflect current investor expectations of future Fed rate changes and current ‘technicals’ of supply and demand.

QE changes the technicals, and possibly expectations, and results in a yield curve that reflects those current conditions.

So all QE does is alter the term structure rates, as investors express preferences for the term structure of interest rates, given the securities and reserves of the varying maturities offered by the Fed and Treasury and all the current conditions.

That brings us back to the question of what QE means for the economy, inflation, value of the currency, etc.

Which comes down to the question of what the term structure of rates means for the economy, inflation, the value of the currency, etc.

QE is nothing more than a tool for changing interest rates by adjusting the available supply of securities of various maturities (technicals). And it’s not a particularly strong tool at that.

It’s the resulting interest rates that may or may not alter the economy, inflation, and the value of the dollar, etc. and not the quantities of reserves and Treasury securities per se.

And it is clear to me that the FOMC does not fully understand this.

If they did, they’d be in discussion with the Treasury about cutting issuance.

And, additionally, If they wanted the term structure of interest rates to be lower, they would simply target their desired term structure of rates by offering to buy unlimited amounts of Treasury securities at their desired rate targets, and not worry about the mix between reserves and Treasury securities that resulted. Which is what they did in the WWII era. And how they target the fed funds rate.

With today’s central banking and monetary policy with its own currency, it’s always about price (interest rates) and not quantities.

Share

Greenspan: High US Deficits Could Spark Bond Crisis

Posted on by

Something that’s never happened even once in the history of the world with fiat money and floating fx policy.

Greenspan: High US Deficits Could Spark Bond Crisis

November 14 (Reuters) — The United States must move to rein in its massive budget deficits or it faces the risk of a bond market crisis, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said Sunday.

“We’ve got to resolve this issue,” Greenspan said of the ballooning U.S. debt levels.

He spoke about the issue as a panel, chaired by former White House chief of staff Erskine Bowles and former U.S. Senator Alan Simpson, is due to deliver a report on debt and deficits by Dec. 1.

A draft report made public last week offered a series of politically tough tax and spending choices that would seek to reduce the debt by $4 trillion by 2020.

The report received a lukewarm reception from some politicians and outright condemnation by others, including House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who pronounced the ideas “simply unacceptable.”

Greenspan, who spoke on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” said he believed “something equivalent to what Bowles and Simpson put out is going to be approved by Congress. But the only question
is whether it is before or after a crisis in the bond market.”

He said the risk is that the deficit, which hit $1.3 trillion this year, could spook the bond market. That would result in long-term interest rates moving up rapidly and could lead to a double-dip recession.

Share

Zoellick Sees ‘Elephant,’ Not Endorsing Gold Standard

Posted on by

Back pedaling from yesterday’s remarks, but just getting the fish hook in deeper.

Gold is a non financial asset,not an ‘alternative monetary asset’

Starting to look like the QE fairy dust is wearing off.
The dollar selling was the focus of the ‘risk on’ hysteria, and it looks like the dollar may have stopped going down.

From what I see, the risk positions mostly look like short dollar bets, including long gold, commodities, and commodity currencies, etc. And long equity trades have had support from weak dollar assumptions as well.

I’ve yet to see any fundamental reason for the dollar weakness apart from misunderstanding QE. In fact, the firming US economy continues to lower the US budget deficit modestly, which tightens things up a bit, and also attracts foreign direct investment and financial investment. (I recall in the late 90’s reading that US FDI was the highest in the world, and it sure wasn’t due to cheap labor.)

So I’m watching for what’s potentially a dramatic dollar reversal here and all the other reversals that will come with it.

Zoellick Sees ‘Elephant,’ Not Endorsing Gold Standard

By Robin Knight

November 10 (Bloomberg) — Gold is the “elephant in the room” that must be addressed by policymakers, as it’s being used as an alternative monetary asset because of unease about the strength of developed economies, Robert Zoellick, president of the World Bank, told CNBC Wednesday.

What “the price of gold has been telling people is that there is a lack of confidence in some of the fundamentals growth policies,” Zoellick said.

“The golden elephant in the room, whether people recognize it or not, is being used as an alternative monetary asset,” he said.

Share

QE and the wealth effect

Posted on by

>   
>   (email exchange)
>   
>   On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 11:26 PM, wrote:
>   
>   Do you have any thoughts on this supposed wealth effect?
>   

There is one but I see it as coming from deficit spending, and probably not QE.

Federal deficits support income and add to net financial assets,
which is the financial equity and income that supports the credit structure.

The question is whether QE net adds to nominal wealth via the equity price channel, via ‘valuation’ due to lower long term risk free rates/higher pe’s.

First, the evidence isn’t clear that QE results in higher equity prices, with Japan as the leading example.

Second, there’s the question of whether the maybe 75 billion of annual income- about 1/2% of gdp removed from the private sector- is a stronger force than the valuation benefits of the lower discount rates.

Third, let me suggest that by doing QE on a quantity basis rather than targeting a rate, the change in rates on a ‘bang for the buck’ basis could be a lot lower than if the rate was directly targeted.

Let me give a possible example. Let’s say the Fed simply targeted the 10 year tsy at 2.25%. They would have a bid at that level and buy all the secs the market didn’t want to buy at that level. They may in fact buy a lot or a very few, and possibly none at all, depending on tsy issuance, investor demand, and market expectations. But let’s say for this example they did that and bought a total of $1 T 10 year notes defending the 2.25% level.

Now let’s say that instead, the FOMC had limited the Fed to buying $900 billion. The question then is how high would 10 year notes trade with that $100 billion free to trade at market levels?

What I’m saying is it could be at much higher yields, as the market expectation component of demand does its thing. The yield would simply be the same as if the Tsy had issued $900 billion fewer 10 year notes.

Note that we went for years with no issuance of 30 year t bonds, and 30 years t bond rates on the outstanding bonds did not fall to 0.

Yes, the curve flattened maybe 50 basis points, and steepened again when issuance resumed, but in the scheme of things it was a factor for the macro economy.

In other words, qe, without a rate target, qe might actually reduce rates very little.

It’s all about how much net govt issuance alters the term structure of rates.

So is there a wealth effect?

Yes, but in both directions- removing income lowers it and valuations help it.

And, recognizing QW when done the way they are doing it probably doesn’t reduce rates all that much, the cost of QE in lost income is more likely to be higher than the valuation gains.

Hope this helps!

Also:

Looks like it was buy the rumor and then double up on the news.

Either it all sticks or it all unwinds that much more intensely.

Still looks like the latter to me as the notion that QE doesn’t work sinks in. The mood now is there will be QE 3,4,5 or whatever it takes until it does work.

Like the kid in his car seat who keeps turning his toy steering wheel as much as it takes to turn the car.

Share