2009-01-09 EU News Highlights


[Skip to the end]

Highlights

Trichet Sees ‘Significant’ Economic Worsening, II Magazine Says
European Confidence Drops to Record Low; Unemployment Increases
German Exports Drop 10.6% as Recession Hurts Orders
German Ministry Seeks $136 Billion Fund to Ease Company Credit
German bond sale’s fate signals trouble ahead

‘Bond failures’ are not all that uncommon in the eurozone and more of a debt management issue at this point.

However a rising deficit due to falling revenues and rising transfer payments as GDP weakens could cause the ability to fund to deteriorate rapidly.

Bank failures that require national government funding don’t help either, and the eurozone seems long overdue for multiple major bank failures.

German Builders See 2% Drop in Revenue in 2009, HDB Group Says
Steinmeier Casts Doubt on German Deficit Limit, Rundschau Says
Sarkozy Says France to Provide More Capital to Banks
Spain December Jobless Claims Rise as Economy Enters Recession
European Two-Year Government Notes Decline, Reversing Gains

German bond sale’s fate signals trouble ahead

by David Oakley

A German sovereign bond auction failed on Wednesday as investors shunned one of the most liquid and safe assets in the world in a warning for governments seeking to raise record amounts of debt to stimulate slowing economies.

The fate of the first eurozone bond auction of 2009 signals trouble ahead as governments around the world hope to issue an estimated $3,000bn in debt this year, three times more than in 2008.

The 10-year bonds failed to attract enough bids to reach the €6bn the German government wanted. Bids of €5.24bn, a cover of only 87 per cent, amounted to the second worst auction on record in terms of demand.

Such developments were rare before the credit crisis. Before the seven German bond auctions that failed last year, the last German bond auction to fail was in July 2000 after the dotcom crash.

Analysts said the vast amount of supply is deterring investors and a growing number of countries, including those with deep and mature bond markets, such as Germany, the UK and Italy, are struggling to attract buyers.

The Netherlands has seen bond auctions fail, the UK and Italy have been forced to offer investors higher yields to meet their auction targets, while Spain and Belgium have cancelled offerings because of a lack of demand.

The German finance agency admitted that investor appetite for government debt had waned, although insisted the auction was “not a disappointment”.

Meyrick Chapman, a UBS fixed-income strategist, said when a German bond auction failed it “does suggest there may be trouble ahead for other governments wanting to raise money in the debt markets. Before the financial crisis, German bond auctions just did not fail.”


[top]

Credit card risks


[Skip to the end]

>   
>   Matt writes;
>   
>   …But as far as credit card debt, I think that
>   the negative reporting may be overblown by
>   debt doomsday types. Ive always suspected
>   so, and may finally have found the proof in a
>   column I read by Gene Epstein in Barrons back
>   in October. Excerpt: “…But according to a
>   source at CreditCards.com, approximately
>   $400 billion of the nearly $1 trillion in
>   outstanding credit- card debt is paid down
>   completely each month, essentially used as a
>   short-term interest-free loan. More than $500
>   billion of the rest is owed by users who pay
>   somewhere between the full amount and the
>   minimum due. Only about 6% of the total is
>   owed by customers who pay only the
>   minimum.”
>   
>   The $500B he identifies as carry over debt is
>   the real credit card debt (to me), and is
>   equivalent to about only 6 weeks of US retail
>   sales. It also probably includes much business
>   wholesale trade as many businesses are using
>   AMEX Corp Card and VISA Business for small
>   purchasing nowadays, often for the “rewards”
>   programs.
>   
>   I think the government and media reports on
>   credit card debt are only taking a snapshot of
>   balances at a given time in a month, and as
>   monthly closing dates on the cards can vary
>   from one cardholder to another, and the cards
>   are continuously used throughout the month,
>   the number looks larger ($900B) than what I
>   think they are trying to track, which I think is
>   the $500B amount (true credit card “debt”).
>   $500B is about $1650 per capita. I dont think
>   this will be a much of a drag for the US
>   economy.
>   
>   Perhaps this perspective will give you some
>   hope that the large stimulus package is going
>   to help improve the economy this year.
>   


[top]

India doing OK?


[Skip to the end]

Yes, if they keep up that much criticized deficit spending.

And the new regional ’employer of last resort’ program helps as well.

Indian Economy to Grow About 7% This Fiscal Year

by Kartik Goyal

Jan 8 (Bloomberg) — India’s economy will grow about 7 percent in the 12 months ending March 31, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said in Chennai today. “Despite the global economic downturn, the fundamentals of Indian economy continue to remain strong,” Singh said. “Much of India’s growth is internally driven and I expect we can maintain a strong pace of growth in the coming years.”


[top]

WWII Deficit Spending


[Skip to the end]

This is from ‘Full Employment and Price Stability’ under ‘Mandatory readings‘ at www.moslereconomics.com:

Past Attempts at Government Sponsored Full Employment

With a private sector desire for H(nfa), and a government that fails to run a deficit large enough to accommodate that desire, the corresponding unemployment can be severe. It may eventually be reduced by a reduction in desired H(nfa) because of lower interest rates, or, as some contend, by falling wages. However, the time necessary to test this hypothesis is usually beyond human tolerance, and the pragmatic view of government employment arises.

For example, from 1931 to 1941 unemployment averaged well over 10% – the definition of a depression. It hit a high of 24.9% in 1933, and was still 14.6% as late as 1940. GNP reached a high of $203.6 (billions of 1958 dollars) in 1929; fell to a low of $141.5 in 1933, and by 1939, had crept up only to $209.4. Low interest rates were not enough to decrease desired H(nfa). Short term Treasury securities reached a high of just over 5% in May of 1929, were cut to the mid 3% range in November 1929 following the stock market crash, and were as low as about 0.5% by September 1931. Rates were increased to about 2.5% until May of 1932, and then remained well under 1% until 1948. Continuous low interest rates also did not seem to result in run-away asset prices. The Dow equity index price did not recover to its 1929 highs until 1958, the 1927 highs were not reached until 1946, and the low of 1930 was not surpassed until 1936.

In 1933, after several years of undesirable unemployment and depressed GNP, the Public Works Administration, the first public works program, was enacted. It was followed by the WPA in 1935. It is noteworthy that these programs did not come about until after several years of troubling unemployment, and fell short of solving the unemployment crisis and ending the depression. Work relief never reached more than 40% of the unemployed, and only 3 million of the 9 million unemployed participated in the WPA. The reason these programs were constrained was the reluctance to engage in government deficit spending. During the 1930’s, in spite of the high unemployment and depressed growth, budget balancing was never far from the forefront of political purpose. Belief in a balanced budget prevented government relief programs from ending the depression, and when Roosevelt honored his 1936 campaign pledge to balance the budget in 1937, the economy suffered a major setback with unemployment jumping back to 19.1% from a seven year low of 14.3%. Public works programs that were ‘paid for’ by other spending cuts or by tax increases could not reduce unemployment as there was never enough net government spending to accommodate desired H(nfa). The largest deficit of the 1930’s was 5.9% of GNP in 1934, and it was down to 0.1% of GNP by 1938. The U.S. was on a gold standard, and policy had to include managing the national gold supply. This led to various extremes such as suspending domestic convertibility in 1934, and making it illegal for domestics to own gold, as well as strong support for balancing the federal budget.

During WWII, a radically different approach was initiated. Government spending exceeded tax collections in 1942, 1943,1944, and 1945 by 14.5%, 31.1%, 23.6%, and 22.4% of GNP respectively. Unemployment was under 2% by 1943, and output increased from $209.4 (billions of 1958 dollars) to $337.1 by 1943. Prices were fixed, and government planning agents from the Office of Price Administration enacted rationing. Great effort was taken to ensure that rationing was perceived as equitable ensuring public support for the program. Patriotism kept Americans from black markets that may have otherwise drained resources needed for the war effort, and patriotism also became associated with nominal savings. The idea was to get desired H(nfa) up to the level of deficit spending in a low interest rate environment. In other words, hoarding of dollar denominated financial assets via government bond purchases was encouraged, allowing the government to purchase up to 60% of the real output without price competition from consumers. The desire of the American public to earn money and not spend it, which caused the unemployment of the previous decade, now dovetailed well with the public sector demands for war production, and unemployment was, for all practical purposes, eliminated.


[top]

2009-01-08 USER


[Skip to the end]


Initial Jobless Claims (Jan 3)

Survey 545K
Actual 467K
Prior 492K
Revised 491K

[top][end]

Continuing Claims (Dec 27)

Survey 4483K
Actual 4611K
Prior 4506K
Revised 4510K

[top][end]

Jobless Claims ALLX (Jan 3)


[top]

Stimulus package


[Skip to the end]

(email exchange)

>   
>   Mauer wrote:
>   
>   My main worry about the efficacy of the fiscal
>   stimulus–aside from the international
>   spillovers in case it is not supported by equally
>   ambitious fiscal plans elsewhere–is this:
>   households that face considerable employment
>   uncertainty, and hence about their to future
>   income prospects, are unlikely to go on a big
>   spending spree. Just as banks are hoarding
>   cash, households will try to preserve wealth
>   by increasing saving at the margin. This
>   reduces the marginal propensity to consume,
>   and renders the fiscal boost rather ineffective.
>   
>   Why not try to deal with the looming
>   unemployment problem, and the huge sense of
>   risk and uncertainty it creates, more directly?
>   What I have in mind is subsidizing employment
>   directly by providing employers incentives to
>   keep people on the job.
>   

I look at it this way- if people want to work and earn/save/not spend their paychecks, the output can be directed to public goods and services (goods and services not re-offered for sale) without ‘inflation’.

This is done via federal deficit spending, which adds exactly that amount to non-government ‘savings.’

Trying to increase output that needs to be bought on the market when the desire to consume isn’t there requires that much more deficit spending to eventually induce more spending.

This can/does work, and with government solvency not an issue, it’s a viable political option.

However, seems public purpose is better served via deficit spending, producing public goods and services when the desire for private goods and services is suppressed?

For a narrow example to make the point, why try to induce more car production and employment building cars and marketing cars when the demand isn’t there due to desires to save rather than spend? Instead employ people to fix the roads and bridges until demand for vehicles picks up?

That said, my best guess is that given more income, spending will go up substantially and in short order, due to delayed purchases due to lack of income.

Warren


[top]

Obama and the deficit


[Skip to the end]

Obama Says Deficit Likely to Approach $1 Trillion

by Julianna Goldman and Roger Runningen

Jan 6 (Bloomberg) — President-elect Barack Obama said he expects to inherit a $1 trillion budget deficit and that similar shortfalls are in store “for years to come” as the government grapples with a recession and other spending demands.

A “trillion dollar deficit will be here before we even start the next budget,” Obama said after meeting in Washington with his economic advisers, including Peter Orszag, who has been designated as director of the Office of Management and Budget. “Potentially we’ve got trillion-dollar deficits for years to come, even with the economic recovery we are working on.”

Obama said he wants his budget and economic teams to craft a stimulus plan that stabilizes the economy and begins the process of “getting our budget under control.” That includes barring lawmakers from inserting pet spending projects, known as earmarks, into the legislation, he said.

‘Unsustainable’ Spending
Some congressional Democrats, including Senate Budget Committee ChairmanKent Conrad of North Dakota, are calling the incoming administration to come up with a long-term plan to cut the deficit. Conrad said today on Bloomberg TV that the nation’s financial situation is “unsustainable for the long term.”

A plan for dealing with budget imbalances “has to be put in place” as the new administration and Congress craft a stimulus plan, he said.

Obama said he agrees.

“It’s not just Democratic or Republican colleagues on the Hill that are concerned about this, I’m concerned about this,” Obama said. “I’m going to be willing to make some very difficult choices in how we get a handle on this deficit.”


Advisers

Along with Orszag, those who took part in the session were Timothy Geithner, Treasury secretary-designate; Christina Romer, director-designate of the Council of Economic Advisors and Lawrence Summers, director-designate of the National Economic Council.


[top]

Fed minutes, cont.


[Skip to the end]

Just in case you thought the FOMC understands monetary operations and reserve accounting.

(And I didn’t see any discussion on the swap lines to foreign CBs)

Participants discussed the potential advantages and disadvantages of setting quantitative targets for bank reserves or the monetary base. Some were of the view that quantitative targets for an increasing reserve base could be effective in preventing deflationary dynamics and useful in communicating to the public the Committee’s determination to take the steps needed to avoid such an outcome. Several other participants, however, noted that increases in excess reserves or the monetary base, by themselves, might not have a significant stimulative effect on the economy or prices because the normal bank intermediation mechanism appeared to be impaired, and banks may not be willing to lend their excess reserves. Conversely, a decline in excess reserves or the monetary base would not necessarily be contractionary if it occurred in the context of improving financial market conditions. A few of those who supported quantitative base or reserve targets did so because they saw them as helping to coordinate the actions of the Board of Governors, which is responsible for authorizing most special liquidity and lending facilities, and the Committee, which is responsible for open market operations. Most participants, however, were of the view that such coordination would best be achieved by continued close cooperation and consultation between the Committee and the Board. Going forward, consideration will be given to whether various quantitative measures would be useful in calibrating and communicating the stance of monetary policy.

Members debated how best to communicate their decisions regarding monetary policy actions. Since the large amount of excess reserves in the system would limit the Federal Reserve’s control over the federal funds rate, several members thought that it might be preferable not to set a specific target for the federal funds rate. Indeed, those members felt that lack of an explicit target could be helpful, in that it would focus attention on the shift in the policy framework from targeting the federal funds rate to the use of balance sheet policies and communications about monetary policy as a way of providing further monetary stimulus. A few members stressed that the absence of an explicit federal funds rate target would give banks added flexibility in pricing loans and deposits in the current environment of unusually low interest rates. However, other members noted that not announcing a target might confuse market participants and lead investors to believe that the Federal Reserve was unable to control the federal funds rate when it could, in fact, still influence the effective federal funds rate through adjustments of the interest rate on excess reserves and the primary credit rate. The members decided that it would be preferable for the Committee to communicate explicitly that it wanted federal funds to trade at very low rates; accordingly, the Committee decided to announce a target range for the federal funds rate of 0 to 1/4 percent. Members also agreed that the statement should indicate that weak economic conditions were likely to warrant exceptionally low levels of the federal funds rate for some time. The members emphasized that their expectation about the path of the federal funds rate was conditioned on their view of the likely path of economic activity.


[top]