Tag Archives: LIBOR

FOMC preview

Posted on by

My guess is the GDP forecast the Fed is now getting from it’s staff is not a downgrade from previous forecasts, and may even be an upgrade due to:

  • The blowout durable goods numbers
  • The drops in claims following the high unemployment number
  • The private forecasts on average show 65,000 new jobs and unemployment falling to 4.9 on Friday
  • Anecdotal reports from big cap old line corps show no recession in sight
  • But still data dependent with ADP, GDP, and deflator tomorrow am

Yes, it has been about domestic demand, but they now realize exports have taken up the slack and are holding up employment and real gdp, as well as contributing to inflation.

Staff inflation report will show deterioration of both headline CPI and core measures, along with tips fwd breakevens moving higher and survey info showing elevating prices paid and received. And food/fuel/import and export prices all trending higher, risking core converging to headline CPI.

Higher crude prices are now attributed to higher US demand by the markets and the Fed.

Many ‘financial conditions’ have eased:

  • LIBOR has come down over 150 bp since the Dec 18 meeting even as FF are down only 75. mtg rates way down as well, and at very low levels.
  • Commercial mortgage rates somewhat higher, but from very low levels previously
  • Equities have firmed up since the soc gen liquidations (and look very cheap to me)

The last bit of system risk is from a downgrade of the monolines and that risk seems to be diminishing.

The ratings agencies have been reviewing them intensely for 6 months, and both the capital of the monolines and the credit quality of the insured bonds must still be adequate for the AAA rating. And in any case the risk is to go to AA, not to junk, meaning that credit per se isn’t the issue at all. The issue is forced selling by those who can’t legally hold insured bonds if the rating drops. That’s a very different issue.

Wouldn’t surprise me that if tomorrows numbers are as expected, and the fed cuts 50, markets start to look at that as possibly the last move, and reprice accordingly, with FF futures trading closer to a 3% trough than a 2% trough.

An unchanged decision may also result in a near 3% FF futures trough, with a couple of 25 cuts priced in.

♥

Share

Fed comments

Posted on by

The Fed is aware rate cuts don’t do much for near term financial disruptions. For example, the FF/LIBOR spread was first addressed with FF cuts, but little or nothing changed until the TAF was introduced to address and normalize that spread.

Along the same lines, Bernanke has recently met with the President and Congress to coordinate a fiscal package, and today’s cuts were preceded by Paulson talking about what Treasury is doing for the financial crisis.

The Fed knows they pay an inflation price for each cut, but also believe they need to get the current financial crisis behind them first, and then address any residual inflation issue. Nor does Congress want to go into the election with a weak economy.

The incentives are in place for a credible fiscal package.

And with core inflation indicators now moving up, the Fed would very much like this rate cut, along with the pending fiscal package, to ‘work’ and be the last one needed.

♥

Share

Re: FF vs. LIBOR

Posted on by

(an interoffice email)

On Jan 14, 2008 10:29 AM, Warren Mosler wrote:
> thanks, continued tafs will get it to wherever the fed actually wants
> it. it’s a policy rate they can administer at will.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 14, 2008 10:16 AM, Pat Doyle wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Today you can say that the spread has narrowed significantly between LIBOR
> > and FFs. The spread on the indices has been above 60 (with a few
> > exceptions) since August. Aug 7th it was 12bps and was over 100 at times.
> > NOW THE SPREAD IS 43.
> >
> >

Share

3 mo libor down to 4.44%

Posted on by

3 mo libor is now for all practical purposes is ‘under control’ and down about 50 bp since the last Fed meeting.

Market function risk seems to be behind us, and the talk has now shifted to weakness due to softer demand.

The question is what level of demand is consistent with ‘price stability’.

In other words, to not exceed potential non inflationary GDP (the Fed’s speed limit) demand has to be low enough to not continuously drive up food/fuel/import prices.

♥

Share

Inflation – clear and present danger?

Posted on by

Food, fuel, and $/import prices present a triple negative supply shock.

Now gold pushing $900 as LIBOR falls, commercial paper issuance increases, and ‘market function risk’ subsides.

Downside risks to GDP are still not trivial.

Consumer income and desire to spend it may be problematic, and banks and other lenders may further tighten borrowing requirements.

And weaker overseas demand may cool US exports.

Yes, the Fed knows and fears demand MAY weaken, and forecasts lower inflation as a consequence.

But inflation is the clear and present danger, vs an economy that may weaken further

And mainstream economic theory says the cost of bringing down inflation once the inflation cat is out of the bag is far higher than
any near term loss of output incurred in keeping inflation low in the first place.

And the Fed addresses its dual mandate of low inflation and low unemployment with mainstream theory that concludes low inflation is a necessary condition for optimal employment and growth over the long term.

♥

Share

Fed’s Lockhart: economic outlook

Posted on by

He is currently leaning towards cuts, but watching carefully for signs of improvements in market functioning and output, and aware of the risks of his inflation forecast being wrong.

Fed’s Lockhart: Economic Outlook

From Atlanta Fed President Dennis P. Lockhart: The Economy in 2008

Looking to 2008, I believe the pivotal question—the central uncertainty—is the extent of current and future spillover from housing and financial markets to the general economy. The dynamics I’m watching—stated simplistically—are the following. First, there’s the effect of dropping house prices on the consumer and in turn on retail sales and other personal expenditures. And second, I’m watching the effect of financial market distress on credit availability and, in turn, on business investment, general business activity, and employment.

Yes, we are all watching that carefully. So far so good, but consumer spending is always subject to change.
I’m watching credit availability, but seems the supply side of credit is never the issue. The price changes some, but quantity is always there at ‘market’ prices that provide desired returns on equity.

Business investment seems to hold up nicely as well, probably due to most investment being for cost cutting rather than expanding output. This makes investment a type of profit center.

Employment is still increasing, more in some fields than others.

And, of course, overall, from the mainstream’s view, demand is more than enough to be driving reasonably high inflation prints.

My base case outlook sees a weak first half of 2008—but one of modest growth—with gradual improvement beginning in the year’s second half and continuing into 2009. This outcome assumes the housing situation doesn’t deteriorate more than expected

Meaning it’s expected to deteriorate some. I’m inclined to think it’s bottomed.

and financial markets stabilize.

They are assuming this and it already seems to have happened. FF/LIBOR is ‘under control.’

A sober assessment of risks must take account of the possibility of protracted financial market instability together with weakening housing prices, volatile and high energy prices, continued dollar depreciation, and elevated inflation measures following from the recent upticks we have seen.

That statement includes both deflationary and inflationary influences – not sure what to make of it.

But he will vote for 50 bp cut in January.

Maybe if the meeting were today, but much can change between now and then.

I’m troubled by the elevated level of inflation. Currently I expect that inflation will moderate in 2008 as projected declines in energy costs have their effect. But the recent upward rebound of oil prices—and the reality that they are set in an unpredictable geopolitical context—may mean my outlook is too optimistic. Nonetheless, I’m basing my working forecast on the view that inflation pressures will abate.

Doesn’t say what the Fed might do, if anything, if inflation doesn’t abate.

To a large extent, my outlook for this year’s economic performance hinges on how financial markets deal with their problems.

He believes the performance of the real economy is a function of the health of financial markets.

I’m not sure that is turning out to be the case.

The coming weeks could be telling. (What does he know). Modern financial markets are an intricate global network of informed trust. Stabilization will proceed from clearing up the information deficit and restoring well-informed trust in counterparties and confidence in the system overall.

To restore market confidence, leading financial firms, I believe, must recognize and disclose losses based on unimpeachable valuation calculations,

Maybe they already have. The penalties for not being ‘honest’ are severe, and it’s hard to see how any public company would try to cover anything like that up.

restore capital and liquidity ratios, and urgently execute the strenuous task of updating risk assessments of scores of counterparties. The good news is that markets can return to orderly functioning and financial institutions can be rehabilitated quickly. With healthy disclosure, facing up to losses, recapitalization, and the resulting clarity, I believe there is hope for this outcome.

May already be happening.

So far only about $50 billion of announced bank losses. Q4 reports will add some to that, when the majority of the remaining losses will be disclosed.

In Aug 1998 $100 billion was lost all at once with no recovery prospects, back when that was a lot of money.

So far this crisis has been mild by historical standards.

♥

Share

The subprime mess

Posted on by

On Jan 5, 2008 9:40 PM, Steve Martyak wrote:
> http://www.autodogmatic.com/index.php/sst/2007/02/02/subprime_credit_crunch_could_trigger_col
>
>
> also….
>
> 9/4/2006
> Cover of Business Week: How Toxic Is Your Mortgage? :.
>
> The option ARM is “like the neutron bomb,” says George McCarthy, a housing
> economist at New York’s Ford Foundation. “It’s going to kill all the people
> but leave the houses standing.”
>
> Some people saw it all coming….
>

The subprime setback actually hit about 18 months ago. Investors stopped funding new loans, and would be buyers were were no longer able to buy, thereby reducing demand. Housing fell and has been down for a long time. There are signs it bottomed October/November but maybe not.

I wrote about it then as well, and have been forecasting the slowdown since I noted the fed’s financial obligations ratio was at levels in March 2006 that indicated the credit expansion had to slow as private debt would not be able to increase sufficiently to sustain former levels of GDP growth. And that the reason was the tailwind from the 2003 federal deficits was winding down. as the deficit fell below 2% of GDP, and it was no longer enough to support the credit structure.

Also, while pension funds were still adding to demand with their commodity allocations, that had stopped accelerating as well and
wouldn’t be as strong a factor.

Lastly, I noted exports should pick up some, but I didn’t think enough to sustain growth.

I underestimated export strength, and while GDP hasn’t been stellar as before, it’s been a bit higher than i expected as exports boomed.

That was my first ‘major theme’ – slowing demand.

The second major theme was rising prices – Saudis acting the swing producer and setting price. This was interrupted when Goldman changed their commodity index in aug 06 triggering a massive liquidation as pension funds rebalanced, and oil prices fell from near 80 to about 50, pushed down a second time at year end by Goldman (and AIG as well this time) doing it again. As the liquidation subsided the Saudis were again in control and prices have marched up ever since, and with Putin gaining control of Russian pricing we now have to ‘price setters’ who can act a swing producers and simply set price at any level they want as long as net demand holds up. So far demand has been more than holding up, so it doesn’t seem we are anywhere near the limits of how high they can hike prices.

Saudi production for December should be out tomorrow. It indicates how much demand there is at current prices. If it’s up that means they have lots of room to hike prices further. Only if their production falls are they in danger of losing control on the downside. And I estimate it would have to fall below 7 million bpd for that to happen. It has been running closer to 9 million.

What I have missed is the fed’s response to all this.

I thought the inflation trend would keep them from cutting, as they had previously been strict adherents to the notion that price
stability is a necessary condition for optimal employment and growth.

This is how they fulfilled their ‘dual mandate’ of full employment and price stability, as dictated by ‘law’ and as per their regular reports to congress.

The theory is that if the fed acts to keep inflation low and stable markets will function to optimize employment and growth, and keep long term interest rates low.

What happened back in September is they became preoccupied with ‘market functioning’ which they see as a necessary condition for low inflation to be translated into optimal employment and growth.

What was revealed was the FOMC’s lack of understanding of not only market functioning outside of the fed, but a lack of understanding of their own monetary operations, reserve accounting, and the operation of their member bank interbank markets and pricing mechanisms.

In short, the Fed still isn’t fully aware that ‘it’s about price (interest rates), not quantity (‘money supply, whatever that may be)’.

(Note they are still limiting the size of the TAF operation using an auction methodology rather than simply setting a yield and letting quantity float)

The first clue to this knowledge shortfall was the 2003 change to put the discount rate higher than the fed funds rate, and make the discount rate a ‘penalty rate.’ This made no sense at all, as i wrote back then.

The discount rate is not and can not be a source of ‘market discipline’ and all the change did was create an ‘unstable equilibrium’ condition in the fed funds market. (They can’t keep the system ‘net borrowed’ as before) it all works fine during ‘normal’ periods but when the tree is shaken the NY Fed has it’s hands full keeping the funds rate on target, as we’ve seen for the last 6 months
or so.

While much of this FOMC wasn’t around in 2002-2003, several members were.

Back to September 2007. The FOMC was concerned enough about ‘market functioning’ to act, They saw credit spreads widening, and in particular the fed funds/libor spread was troubling as it indicated their own member banks were pricing each other’s risk at higher levels than the FOMC wanted. If they had a clear, working knowledge of monetary ops and reserve accounting, they would have recognized that either the discount window could be ‘opened’ by cutting the rate to the fed funds rate, removing the ‘stigma’ of using it, and expanding the eligible collateral. (Alternatively, the current TAF is functionally the same thing, and could have been implemented in September as well.)

Instead, they cut the fed funds rate 50 bp, and left the discount rate above it, along with the stigma. and this did little or nothing for the FF/LIBOR spread and for market functioning in general.

This was followed by two more 25 cuts and libor was still trading at 9% over year end until they finally came up with the TAF which immediately brought ff/libor down. It didn’t come all the way down to where the fed wanted it because the limited the size of the TAFs to $20 billion, again hard evidence of a shortfall in their understanding of monetary ops.

Simple textbook analysis shows it’s about price and not quantity. Charles Goodhart has over 65 volumes to read on this, and the first half of Basil Moore’s 1988 ‘Horizontalists and Verticalsists’ is a good review as well.

The ECB’s actions indicate they understand it. Their ‘TAF’ operation set the interest rate and let the banks do all they wanted, and over 500 billion euro cleared that day. And, of course- goes without saying- none of the ‘quantity needles’ moved at all.

In fact, some in the financial press have been noting that with all the ‘pumping in of liquidity’ around the world various monetary
aggregates have generally remained as before.

Rather than go into more detail about monetary ops, and why the CB’s have no effect on quantities, suffice to say for this post that the Fed still doesn’t get it, but maybe they are getting closer.

So back to the point.

Major themes are:

  • Weakness due to low govt budget deficit
  • Inflation due to monopolists/price setters hiking price

And more recently, the Fed cutting interest rates due to ‘market functioning’ in a mistaken notion that ff cuts would address that issue, followed by the TAF which did address the issue. The latest announced tafs are to be 30 billion, up from 20, but still short of the understanding that it’s about price, not quantity.

The last four months have also given the markets the impression that the Fed in actual fact cares not at all about inflation, and will only talk about it, but at the end of the day will act to support growth and employment.

Markets acknowledge that market functioning has been substantially improved, with risk repriced at wider spreads.

However, GDP prospects remain subdued, with a rising number of economists raising the odds of negative real growth.

While this has been the forecast for several quarters, and so far each quarter has seen substantial upward revisions from the initial forecasts, nonetheless the lower forecasts for Q1 have to be taken seriously, as that’s all we have.

I am in the dwindling camp that the Fed does care about inflation, and particularly the risk of inflation expectations elevating which would be considered the ultimate Central Bank blunder. All you hear from FOMC members is ‘yes, we let that happen in the 70’s, and we’re not going to let that happen again’.

And once ‘markets are functioning’ low inflation can again be translated via market forces into optimal employment and growth, thereby meeting the dual mandate.

i can’t even imagine a Fed chairman addressing congress with the reverse – ‘by keeping the economy at full employment market forces will keep inflation and long term interest rates low’.

Congress does not want inflation. Inflation will cost them their jobs. Voters hate inflation. They call it the govt robbing their
savings. Govt confiscation of their wealth. They start looking to the Ron Paul’s who advocate return to the gold standard.

That’s why low inflation is in the Fed’s mandate.

And the Fed also knows they are facing a triple negative supply shock of fuel, food, and import prices/weak $.

While they can’t control fuel prices, what they see there job as is keeping it all a relative value story and not ‘monetizing it into an
inflation story’ which means to them not accommodating it with low real rates that elevate inflation expectations, followed by
accelerating inflation.

There is no other way to see if based on their models. Deep down all their models are relative value models, with no source of the ‘price level.’ ‘Money’ is a numeraire that expresses the relative values. The current price level is there as a consequence of history, and will stay at that level only if ‘inflation expectations are well anchored.’ The ‘expectations operator’ is the only source of the price level in their models.

(See ‘Mandatory Readings‘ for how it all actually works.)

They also know that food/fuel prices are a leading cause of elevated inflation expectations.

In their world, this means that if demand is high enough to drive up CPI it’s simply too high and they need to not accommodate it with low real rates, but instead lean against that wind with higher real rates, or risk letting the inflation cat out of the bag and face a long, expensive, multi year battle to get it back in.

They knew this at the Sept 18 meeting when they cut 50, and twice after that with the following 25 cuts, all as ‘insurance to forestall’ the possible shutdown of ‘market functioning’.

And they knew and saw the price of this insurance – falling dollar, rising food, fuel, and import prices, and CPI soaring past 4% year over year.

To me these cuts in the face of the negative supply shocks define the level of fear, uncertainty, and panic of the FOMC.

It’s perhaps something like the fear felt by a new pilot accidentally flying into a thunderstorm in his first flight in an unfamiliar plane without an instructor or a manual.

The FOCM feared a total collapse of the financial structure. The possibility GDP going to 0 as the economy ‘froze.’ Better to do
something to buy some time, pay whatever inflation price that may follow, than do nothing.

The attitude has been there are two issues- recession due to market failure and inflation.

The response has been to address the ‘crisis’ first, then regroup and address the inflation issue.

And hopefully inflation expectations are well enough anchored to avoid disaster on the inflation front.

So now with the TAF’s ‘working’ (duh…) and market functions restored (even commercial paper is expanding again) the question is what they will do next.

They may decide markets are still too fragile to risk not cutting, as priced in by Feb fed funds futures, and risk a relapse into market dysfunction. Recent history suggests that’s what they would do if the Jan meeting were today.

But it isn’t today, and a lot of data will come out in the next few weeks. Both market functioning data and economic data.

Yes, the economy may weaken, and may go into recession, but with inflation on the rise, that’s the ‘non inflationary speed limit’ and the Fed would see cutting rates to support demand as accomplishing nothing for the real economy, but only increasing inflation and risking elevated inflation expectations. The see real growth as supply side constrained, and their job is keeping demand balanced at a non inflationary level.

But that assumes markets continue to function, and the supply side of credit doesn’t shut down and send GDP to zero in a financial panic.

With a good working knowledge of monetary ops and reserve accounting, and banking in general that fear would vanish, as the FOMC would know what indicators to watch and what buttons to push to safely fly the plane.

Without that knowledge another FF cut is a lot more likely.

more later…

warren

♥

Share

Re: US Libor GC Spreads comment

Posted on by

(an interoffice email)

Good report, thanks!

On Jan 4, 2008 10:41 AM, Pat Doyle wrote:
>
>
>
> Pre- August 2007 GC US Treasury’s repo averaged Libor less 17 across the
> curve. In early August and again in early December the spread between GC
> and Libor hit it’s wides in excess of 150bps for 3m repo and 180bps for
> 1mos.
>
>
>
> Today’s Spreads:
>
> 1m = L -46.5
>
> 3m = L – 77
>
> 6m = L – 82
>
>
>
> This recent narrowing of the spread is primarily a result of the TAF
> program and CB intervention but may also be attributed to continuing
> writedowns of assets. There is plenty of cash in the short term markets and
> now some of this cash is going out the curve helping to narrow Libor
> spreads. The problem banks continue to have is that their balance sheet size
> and composition is adversely affecting their capital ratios. Banks and
> Dealers remain very cautious about adding risk assets to their balance
> sheets. Bids are defensive as dealers are demanding higher rents (return
> for risk) for balance sheet. Dislocations still exist, for example it may
> make no sense from a credit perspective but AAA CMBS on open repo trades at
> FF’s + 75, while IG Corp trades FF’s + 40, even NON IG Corps trade tighter
> than AAA CMBS. The more assets are either sold or otherwise liquidated off
> of the balance sheets and the more transparent the balance sheet
> compositions become, then the quicker the markets will stabilize
>
>
>
> GRAPH OF 1 MONTH LIBOR VS. 1 MONTH UST GC
>
>

Share

Crisis may make 1929 look a ‘walk in the park’

Posted on by

Crisis may make 1929 look a ‘walk in the park’

Telegraph
by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

As central banks continue to splash their cash over the system, so far to little effect, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard argues that things risk spiralling out of their control

Twenty billion dollars here, $20bn there, and a lush half-trillion from the European Central Bank at give-away rates for Christmas.
Buckets of liquidity are being splashed over the North Atlantic banking system, so far with meagre or fleeting effects.

It’s about price, not quantity (net funds are not altered), and the CB actions have helped set ‘policy rates’ at desired levels.

That is all the CBs can do, apart from altering the absolute level of rates, which, by their own research, does little or nothing and with considerable lags.

Not to say changing rates isn’t disruptive as it shifts nominal income/wealth between borrowers and savers of all sorts.

As the credit paralysis stretches through its fifth month, a chorus of economists has begun to warn that the world’s central banks are fighting the wrong war, and perhaps risk a policy error of epochal proportions.

“Liquidity doesn’t do anything in this situation,” says Anna Schwartz, the doyenne of US monetarism and life-time student (with Milton Friedman) of the Great Depression.

The last major, international fixed exchange rate/gold standard implosion. Other since – ERM, Mexico, Russia, Argentina – have been ‘contained’ to the fixed fx regions.

“It cannot deal with the underlying fear that lots of firms are going bankrupt. The banks and the hedge funds have not fully acknowledged who is in trouble. That is the critical issue,” she adds.

The critical issue at the macro policy level is what it is all doing to the aggregate demand that sustains output, employment, and growth. So far so good on that front, but it remains vulnerable, especially given the state of knowledge of macro economics and fiscal/monetary policy around the globe.

Lenders are hoarding the cash, shunning peers as if all were sub-prime lepers. Spreads on three-month Euribor and Libor – the interbank rates used to price contracts and Club Med mortgages – are stuck at 80 basis points even after the latest blitz. The monetary screw has tightened by default.

The CB can readily peg Fed Funds vs. LIBOR at any spread they wish to target.

York professor Peter Spencer, chief economist for the ITEM Club, says the global authorities have just weeks to get this right, or trigger disaster.

Seems they pretty much did before year end. Spreads are narrower now and presumably at CB targets.

“The central banks are rapidly losing control. By not cutting interest rates nearly far enough or fast enough, they are
allowing the money markets to dictate policy. We are long past worrying about moral hazard,” he says.

They have allowed ‘markets’ to dictate as the entire FOMC and others have revealed a troubling lack of monetary operations and reserve accounting.

“They still have another couple of months before this starts imploding. Things are very unstable and can move incredibly fast. I don’t think the central banks are going to make a major policy error, but if they do, this could make 1929 look like a walk in the park,” he adds.

Hard to do with floating exchange rates, but not impossible if they try hard enough!

The Bank of England knows the risk. Markets director Paul Tucker says the crisis has moved beyond the collapse of mortgage securities, and is now eating into the bedrock of banking capital. “We must try to avoid the vicious circle in which tighter liquidity conditions, lower asset values, impaired capital resources, reduced credit supply, and slower aggregate demand feed back on each other,” he says.

Seems a lack of understanding of the ‘suppy side’ of money/credit is pervasive and gives rise to all kinds of ‘uncertainties’ (AKA – fears, as in being scared to an extreme).

New York’s Federal Reserve chief Tim Geithner echoed the words, warning of an “adverse self-reinforcing dynamic”, banker-speak for a downward spiral. The Fed has broken decades of practice by inviting all US depositary banks to its lending window, bringing dodgy mortgage securities as collateral.

Banks can only own what the government puts on their ‘legal list’, and banks can issue government insured deposits, which is government funding, in order to fund government approved assets.

Functionally, there is no difference between issuing government insured deposits to fund their legal assets and using the discount window to do the same. The only difference may be the price of the funds, and the fed controls that as a matter of policy.

Quietly, insiders are perusing an obscure paper by Fed staffers David Small and Jim Clouse. It explores what can be done under the Federal Reserve Act when all else fails.

Section 13 (3) allows the Fed to take emergency action when banks become “unwilling or very reluctant to provide credit”. A vote by five governors can – in “exigent circumstances” – authorise the bank to lend money to anybody, and take upon itself the credit risk. This clause has not been evoked since the Slump.

The government already does this. They already determine legal bank assets, capital requirements, and via various government agencies and association advance government guaranteed loans of all types.

This is business as usual – all presumably for public purpose.

Get over it!!!

Yet still the central banks shrink from seriously grasping the rate-cut nettle. Understandably so. They are caught between the Scylla of the debt crunch and the Charybdis of inflation. It is not yet certain which is the more powerful force.

Yes, as they cling to the belief that ‘inflation’ is a ‘strong’ function of interest rates, while it is an oil monopolist or two and a government induced and supported link from crude to food via biofuels that are driving up CPI and inflation in general.

America’s headline CPI screamed to 4.3 per cent in November. This may be a rogue figure, the tail effects of an oil, commodity, and food price spike. If so, the Fed missed its chance months ago to prepare the markets for such a case. It is now stymied.

CPI might also be headed higher if crude continues its advance.

This has eerie echoes of Japan in late-1990, when inflation rose to 4 per cent on a mini price-surge across Asia. As the Bank of Japan fretted about an inflation scare, the country’s financial system tipped into the abyss.

As I recall, it was a tax hike that hurt GDP.

Yes, the world economies are vulnerable to a drop in GDP growth, but the financial press seems to have the reasoning totally confused.

♥

Share

Strong gdp and high credit losses

Posted on by

CNBC just had a session on trying to reconcile high gdp with large credit losses. Seems they are now seeing the consumer clipping along at a +2.8% pace for Q4. No need to rehash my ongoing position that most if not all the losses announced in the last 6 months would have little or no effect on aggregate demand. Credit losses hurt demand when the result is a drop in spending. And yes, that happened big time when the subprime crisis took the bid away from would be subprime buyers who no longer qualified to buy a house. That probably took 1% away from gdp, and the subsequent increase in
exports kept gdp pretty much where it was. But that story has been behind us for over a year.

The Fed is not in a good place. They should now know that the TAF operation should have been done in August to keep libor priced where they wanted it. They should know by now losses per se don’t alter aggregate demand, but only rearrange financial assets. The should know the fall off in subprime buyers was offset by exports.

The problem was the FOMC- as demonstrated by their speeches and actions- did not have an adequate working understanding of monetary operations and reserve accounting back in August, and by limiting the current TAFs to $20 billion it seems they still don’t even understand that it’s about price, and not quantity. Too many members of the FOMC
are mostly likely in a fixed exchange rate paradigm, with its fix exchange rate/gold standard fractional reserve banking system that drove us into the great depression. With fixed exchange rates it’s a ‘loanable funds’ world. Banks are ‘reserve constrained.’ Reserves and consequently ‘money supply’ are issues. Government solvency is an issue.

With today’s floating exchange rate regime none of that is applicable. The causation is ‘loans create deposits AND reserves,’ and bank capital is endogenous. There are no ‘imbalances’ as all current conditions are ‘priced’ in the fx market, including ANY sized trade gap, budget deficit, or rate of inflation.

The recession risk today is from a lack of effective demand. There are lots of ways this can happen- sudden drop in govt spending, sudden tax increase, consumers change ‘savings desires’ and cut back spending, sudden drop in exports, etc.- and in any case the govt can instantly fill in the gap with net spending to sustain demand at any level it desires. Yes, there will be inflation consequences, distribution consequences, but no govt. solvency consequences.

So yes, there is always the possibility of a recession. And domestic demand (without exports) has been moderating as the falling govt budget acts to reduce aggregate demand. But the rearranging of financial assets in this ‘great repricing of risk’ doesn’t necessarily reduce aggregate demand.

Meanwhile, the Saudis, as swing producer, keep raising the price of crude, and so far with no fall off in the demand for their crude at current prices, so they are incented to keep right on hiking. And they may even recognize that by spending their new found revenues on real goods and services (note the new mid east infrastructure projects in progress) they keep the world economy afloat and can keep hiking prices indefinitely.

And food is linked to fuel via biofuels, and as we continue to burn up every larger chunks of our food supply for fuel prices will keep rising.

The $US is probably stable to firm at current levels vs the non commodity currencies, as portfolio shifts have run their course, and these shifts have driven the $ down to levels where there are ‘real buyers’ as evidenced by rapidly growing exports.

Back to the Fed – they have cut 100 bp into the triple negative supply shock of food, crude, and the $/imported prices, due to blind fear of ‘market functioning’ that turned out to need nothing more than an open market operation with expanded acceptable bank collateral (the TAF program). If they had done that immediately (they had more than one outsider and insider recommend it) and fed funds/libor spreads and other ‘financial conditions’ moderated, would they have cut?

There has been no sign of ‘spillover’ into gdp from the great repricing of risk, food and crude have driven their various inflation measures to very uncomfortable levels,and they now believe they have ‘cooked in’ 100 bp of inflationary easing into the economy that works with about a one year lag.

Merry Christmas!

♥

Share