Category Archives: Fed

Professor John Taylor on the exploding debt

Posted on by


[Skip to the end]

From the good professor who brought us the ‘Taylor Rule’ for Fed funds:

Exploding debt threatens America

by John Taylor

May 26 — Standard and Poor’s decision to downgrade its outlook for British sovereign debt from “stable” to “negative” should be a wake-up call for the US Congress and administration. Let us hope they wake up.

And yet another black mark on the ratings agencies.

Under President Barack Obama’s budget plan, the federal debt is exploding. To be precise, it is rising – and will continue to rise – much faster than gross domestic product, a measure of America’s ability to service it.

Gdp is a measure of our ability to change numbers on our own spread sheet?

The federal debt was equivalent to 41 per cent of GDP at the end of 2008; the Congressional Budget Office projects it will increase to 82 per cent of GDP in 10 years. With no change in policy, it could hit 100 per cent of GDP in just another five years.

Almost as high as Italy and Italy does not even have its own currency.

“A government debt burden of that [100 per cent] level, if sustained, would in Standard & Poor’s view be incompatible with a triple A rating,” as the risk rating agency stated last week.

Now there’s quality support for an academic position…

I believe the risk posed by this debt is systemic and could do more damage to the economy than the recent financial crisis.

‘Believe’? Without even anecdotal support? Is that the best he can do? This is very poor scholarship at best.

To understand the size of the risk,

I think he means the size of the deficit, but is loading the language for effect.

Is that what serious academics do?

take a look at the numbers that Standard and Poor’s considers. The deficit in 2019 is expected by the CBO to be $1,200bn (€859bn, £754bn). Income tax revenues are expected to be about $2,000bn that year, so a permanent 60 per cent across-the-board tax increase would be required to balance the budget. Clearly this will not and should not happen. So how else can debt service payments be brought down as a share of GDP?

This presumes an unspoken imperative to bring them down. Again poor scholarship.

Inflation will do it. But how much? To bring the debt-to-GDP ratio down to the same level as at the end of 2008 would take a doubling of prices. That 100 per cent increase would make nominal GDP twice as high and thus cut the debt-to-GDP ratio in half, back to 41 from 82 per cent. A 100 per cent increase in the price level means about 10 per cent inflation for 10 years. But it would not be that smooth – probably more like the great inflation of the late 1960s and 1970s with boom followed by bust and recession every three or four years, and a successively higher inflation rate after each recession.

Ok. Inflation, if it happens as above, can bring down the debt ratio. How does this tie to his initial concern over solvency implied in his reference to the AAA rating being a risk for our ‘ability to service it?’

And still no reason is presented that 41% is somehow ‘better’ than 82%.

Nor any analysis of aggregate demand, and how the demand adds and demand leakages interact. Just an ungrounded presumption that a lower debt to GDP ratio is somehow superior in some unrevealed sense.

The fact that the Federal Reserve is now buying longer-term Treasuries in an effort to keep Treasury yields low adds credibility to this scary story, because it suggests that the debt will be monetised.

So what does ‘monetised’ mean? I submit it means absolutely nothing with non convertible currency and a floating fx policy.

That the Fed may have a difficult task reducing its own ballooning balance sheet to prevent inflation increases the risks considerably.

And the presumption that the Fed’s balance sheet per se with a non convertible currency and floating exchange rate policy is ludicrous. All central bankers worth any salt know that causation runs from loans to deposits and reserves, and never from reserves to anything.

And 100 per cent inflation would, of course, mean a 100 per cent depreciation of the dollar.

He’s got that math right- if prices remain where they are today in the other currencies and purchasing power parity holds. And he also knows both of those are, for all practical purposes, never the case.

Why has he turned from academic to propagandist? Krugman envy???

Americans would have to pay $2.80 for a euro; the Japanese could buy a dollar for Y50; and gold would be $2,000 per ounce. This is not a forecast, because policy can change;

And it assumes the above, Professor Taylor

rather it is an indication of how much systemic risk the government is now creating.

So currency depreciation is systemic risk?

Why might Washington sleep through this wake-up call? You can already hear the excuses.

“We have an unprecedented financial crisis and we must run unprecedented deficits.” While there is debate about whether a large deficit today provides economic stimulus, there is no economic theory or evidence that shows that deficits in five or 10 years will help to get us out of this recession.

Huh? None??? What’s he been reading other than his own writings and the mainstream tagalongs?

Such thinking is irresponsible. If you believe deficits are good in bad times, then the responsible policy is to try to balance the budget in good times.

Ahah, a logic expert!!! That makes no sense at all.

The CBO projects that the economy will be back to delivering on its potential growth by 2014. A responsible budget would lay out proposals for balancing the budget by then rather than aim for trillion-dollar deficits.

‘Responsible’??? As if there is a morality issue regarding the budget deficit per se???

“But we will cut the deficit in half.” CBO analysts project that the deficit will be the same in 2019 as the administration estimates for 2010, a zero per cent cut.

“We inherited this mess.” The debt was 41 per cent of GDP at the end of 1988, President Ronald Reagan’s last year in office, the same as at the end of 2008, President George W. Bush’s last year in office. If one thinks policies from Reagan to Bush were mistakes does it make any sense to double down on those mistakes, as with the 80 per cent debt-to-GDP level projected when Mr Obama leaves office?

The biggest economic mistake of our life time might have been not immediately reversing the Clinton surpluses when demand fell apart right after 2000. And, worse, spinning those years to convince Americans that the surpluses were responsible for sustaining the good times, when in fact they ended them, as they always do. Bloomberg reported the surplus that ended in 2001 was the longest since 1927-1930. Do those dates ring a bell???

The time for such excuses is over. They paint a picture of a government that is not working, one that creates risks rather than reduces them. Good government should be a nonpartisan issue. I have written that government actions and interventions in the past several years caused, prolonged and worsened the financial crisis.

Lack of a fiscal adjustment last July is what allowed the subsequent collapse

The problem is that policy is getting worse not better. Top government officials, including the heads of the US Treasury, the Fed, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Securities and Exchange Commission are calling for the creation of a powerful systemic risk regulator to reign in systemic risk in the private sector. But their government is now the most serious source of systemic risk.

Finally something I agree with. Our biggest risk is that government starts reigning in the deficits or fails to further expand them should the output and employment remain sub trend.

The good news is that it is not too late. There is time to wake up, to make a mid-course correction, to get back on track. Many blame the rating agencies for not telling us about systemic risks in the private sector that lead to this crisis. Let us not ignore them when they try to tell us about the risks in the government sector that will lead to the next one.

The writer, a professor of economics at Stanford and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, is the author of ‘Getting Off Track: How Government Actions and Interventions Caused, Prolonged, and Worsened the Financial Crisis’

It’s not too late for a payroll tax holiday, revenue sharing with the states on a per capita basis, and federal funding of an $8 hr job for anyone willing and able to work that includes federal health care, to restore agg demand from the bottom up, restoring output, employment, and ending the financial crisis as credit quality improves.


[top]

Share

James Grant

Posted on by


[Skip to the end]

(email exchange)

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

Agreed!

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

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

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

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

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

Send this along to Jim, thanks!


[top]

Share

Vice Chair Kohn on fiscal expansion

Posted on by


[Skip to the end]

Yes, he’s got that part very right!!!

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


[top]

Share

Dallas Fed interview

Posted on by


[Skip to the end]

Don’t Monetize the Debt

by Mary Anastasia O’Grady

May 23 (WSJ) — From his perch high atop the palatial Dallas Federal Reserve Bank, overlooking what he calls “the most modern, efficient city in America,” Richard Fisher says he is always on the lookout for rising prices. But that’s not what’s worrying the bank’s president right now.

His bigger concern these days would seem to be what he calls “the perception of risk” that has been created by the Fed’s purchases of Treasury bonds, mortgage-backed securities and Fannie Mae paper.

Mr. Fisher acknowledges that events in the financial markets last year required some unusual Fed action in the commercial lending market. But he says the longer-term debt, particularly the Treasurys, is making investors nervous. The looming challenge, he says, is to reassure markets that the Fed is not going to be “the handmaiden” to fiscal profligacy. “I think the trick here is to assist the functioning of the private markets without signaling in any way, shape or form that the Federal Reserve will be party to monetizing fiscal largess, deficits or the stimulus program.”

If he actually understood it I would expect him to say the concept is inapplicable with a non convertible currency and floating exchange rate regime.

Richard Fisher.

The very fact that a Fed regional bank president has to raise this issue is not very comforting. It conjures up images of Argentina. And as Mr. Fisher explains, he’s not the only one worrying about it. He has just returned from a trip to China, where “senior officials of the Chinese government grill[ed] me about whether or not we are going to monetize the actions of our legislature.” He adds, “I must have been asked about that a hundred times in China.”

Without knowing the right answer which is that lending is in no case reserve constrianed.
Causation runs from loans to deposits and reserves, and not from reserves to loans.

A native of Los Angeles who grew up in Mexico, Mr. Fisher was educated at Harvard, Oxford and Stanford.

Must have skipped the classes in reserve accounting.

He spent his earliest days in government at Jimmy Carter’s Treasury. He says that taught him a life-long lesson about inflation. It was “inflation that destroyed that presidency,” he says. He adds that he learned a lot from then Fed Chairman Paul Volcker, who had to “break [inflation’s] back.”

Deregulating natural gas in 1978 is what broke the back of inflation as utilities switched from crude to natural gas and even cuts of 15 million barrels per day by OPEC were not enough to keep control of prices.

Mr. Fisher has led the Dallas Fed since 2005 and has developed a reputation as the Federal Open Market Committee’s (FOMC) lead inflation worrywart. In September he told a New York audience that “rates held too low, for too long during the previous Fed regime were an accomplice to [the] reckless behavior” that brought about the economic troubles we are now living through. He also warned that the Treasury’s $700 billion plan to buy toxic assets from financial institutions would be “one more straw on the back of the frightfully encumbered camel that is the federal government ledger.”

In a speech at the Kennedy School of Government in February, he wrung his hands about “the very deep hole [our political leaders] have dug in incurring unfunded liabilities of retirement and health-care obligations” that “we at the Dallas Fed believe total over $99 trillion.”

Hopefully he is worried about possible inflation and not solvency.

In March, he is believed to have vociferously objected in closed-door FOMC meetings to the proposal to buy U.S. Treasury bonds. So with long-term Treasury yields moving up sharply despite Fed intentions to bring down mortgage rates, I’ve flown to Dallas to see what he’s thinking now.

Hopefully he is concerned with the purchases possibly lowering interest rates too much for his liking and not about the size of the fed’s balance sheet.

Regarding what caused the credit bubble, he repeats his assertion about the Fed’s role: “It is human instinct when rates are low and the yield curve is flat to reach for greater risk and enhanced yield and returns.” (Later, he adds that this is not to cast aspersions on former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan and reminds me that these decisions are made by the FOMC.)

“The second thing is that the regulators didn’t do their job, including the Federal Reserve.” To this he adds what he calls unusual circumstances, including “the fruits and tailwinds of globalization, billions of people added to the labor supply, new factories and productivity coming from places it had never come from before.” And finally, he says, there was the ‘mathematization’ of risk.” Institutions were “building risk models” and relying heavily on “quant jocks” when “in the end there can be no substitute for good judgment.”

Never does mention the role of fiscal policy. Like the massive 2003 retro tax cuts and spending increases that drove the next few years, including housing. Helped of course by the lender fraud.

What about another group of alleged culprits: the government-anointed rating agencies? Mr. Fisher doesn’t mince words. “I served on corporate boards. The way rating agencies worked is that they were paid by the people they rated. I saw that from the inside.” He says he also saw this “inherent conflict of interest” as a fund manager. “I never paid attention to the rating agencies. If you relied on them you got . . . you know,” he says, sparing me the gory details. “You did your own analysis. What is clear is that rating agencies always change something after it is obvious to everyone else. That’s why we never relied on them.” That’s a bit disconcerting since the Fed still uses these same agencies in managing its own portfolio.

Agreed. Can’t have it both ways. And now they are threatening to downgrade the US government as well

I wonder whether the same bubble-producing Fed errors aren’t being repeated now as Washington scrambles to avoid a sustained economic downturn.

He surprises me by siding with the deflation hawks. “I don’t think that’s the risk right now.” Why? One factor influencing his view is the Dallas Fed’s “trim mean calculation,” which looks at price changes of more than 180 items and excludes the extremes. Dallas researchers have found that “the price increases are less and less. Ex-energy, ex-food, ex-tobacco you’ve got some mild deflation here and no inflation in the [broader] headline index.”

Mr. Fisher says he also has a group of about 50 CEOs around the U.S. and the world that he calls on, all off the record, before almost every FOMC meeting. “I don’t impart any information, I just listen carefully to what they are seeing through their own eyes. And that gives me a sense of what’s happening on the ground, you might say on Main Street as opposed to Wall Street.”

It’s good to know that a guy so obsessed with price stability doesn’t see inflation on the horizon. But inflation and bubble trouble almost always get going before they are recognized. Moreover, the Fed has to pay attention to the 1978 Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act — a.k.a. Humphrey-Hawkins — and employment is a lagging indicator of economic activity. This could create a Fed bias in favor of inflating. So I push him again.

“I want to make sure that your readers understand that I don’t know a single person on the FOMC who is rooting for inflation or who is tolerant of inflation.” The committee knows very well, he assures me, that “you cannot have sustainable employment growth without price stability. And by price stability I mean that we cannot tolerate deflation or the ravages of inflation.”

Mr. Fisher defends the Fed’s actions that were designed to “stabilize the financial system as it literally fell apart and prevent the economy from imploding.” Yet he admits that there is unfinished work. Policy makers have to be “always mindful that whatever you put in, you are going to have to take out at some point. And also be mindful that there are these perceptions [about the possibility of monetizing the debt], which is why I have been sensitive about the issue of purchasing Treasurys.”

Yes, seems the Fed is worried about perceptions they know not to be true, but struggles to come with a way to communicate the operational realities.

He returns to events on his recent trip to Asia, which besides China included stops in Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore and Korea. “I wasn’t asked once about mortgage-backed securities. But I was asked at every single meeting about our purchase of Treasurys. That seemed to be the principal preoccupation of those that were invested with their surpluses mostly in the United States. That seems to be the issue people are most worried about.”

As I listen I am reminded that it’s not just the Asians who have expressed concern. In his Kennedy School speech, Mr. Fisher himself fretted about the U.S. fiscal picture. He acknowledges that he has raised the issue “ad nauseam” and doesn’t apologize. “Throughout history,” he says, “what the political class has done is they have turned to the central bank to print their way out of an unfunded liability. We can’t let that happen. That’s when you open the floodgates. So I hope and I pray that our political leaders will just have to take this bull by the horns at some point. You can’t run away from it.”

Does not sound like he understands, operationally, what that is currently all about, but instead still uses gold standard rhetoric.

Voices like Mr. Fisher’s can be a problem for the politicians, which may be why recently there have been rumblings in Washington about revoking the automatic FOMC membership that comes with being a regional bank president. Does Mr. Fisher have any thoughts about that?

This is nothing new, he points out, briefly reviewing the history of the political struggle over monetary policy in the U.S. “The reason why the banks were put in the mix by [President Woodrow] Wilson in 1913, the reason it was structured the way it was structured, was so that you could offset the political power of Washington and the money center in New York with the regional banks. They represented Main Street.

Yes, there is a power struggle going on in the Fed

“Now we have this great populist fervor and the banks are arguing for Main Street, largely. I have heard these arguments before and studied the history. I am not losing a lot of sleep over it,” he says with a defiant Texas twang that I had not previously detected. “I don’t think that it’d be the best signal to send to the market right now that you want to totally politicize the process.”

Speaking of which, Texas bankers don’t have much good to say about the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), according to Mr. Fisher. “Its been complicated by the politics because you have a special investigator, special prosecutor, and all I can tell you is that in my district here most of the people who wanted in on the TARP no longer want in on the TARP.”

At heart, Mr. Fisher says he is an advocate for letting markets clear on their own. “You know that I am a big believer in Schumpeter’s creative destruction,” he says referring to the term coined by the late Austrian economist. “The destructive part is always painful, politically messy, it hurts like hell but you hopefully will allow the adjustments to be made so that the creative part can take place.” Texas went through that process in the 1980s, he says, and came back stronger.

This is doubtless why, with Washington taking on a larger role in the American economy every day, the worries linger. On the wall behind his desk is a 1907 gouache painting by Antonio De Simone of the American steam sailing vessel Varuna plowing through stormy seas. Just like most everything else on the walls, bookshelves and table tops around his office — and even the dollar-sign cuff links he wears to work — it represents something.

He says that he has had this painting behind his desk for the past 30 years as a reminder of the importance of purpose and duty in rough seas. “The ship,” he explains, “has to maintain its integrity.” What is more, “no mathematical model can steer you through the kind of seas in that picture there. In the end someone has the wheel.” He adds: “On monetary policy it’s the Federal Reserve.”

Ms. O’Grady writes the Journal’s Americas column.


[top]

Share

FRB press release–reg D and remuneration

Posted on by


[Skip to the end]

This will allow them to raise rates simply by paying interest on reserves and not require them to first ‘unwind’ their portfolio as was the case in Japan.

Press Release

May 20 — The Federal Reserve Board on Wednesday announced the approval of final amendments to Regulation D (Reserve Requirements of Depository Institutions) to liberalize the types of transfers consumers can make from savings deposits and to make it easier for community banks that use correspondent banks to receive interest on excess balances held at Federal Reserve Banks.

The amendments would also ensure that correspondents that are not eligible to receive interest on their own balances at Reserve Banks pass back to their respondents any interest earned on required reserve balances held on behalf of those respondents. The Board is also making other clarifying changes to Regulation D and Regulation I (Issue and Cancellation of Federal Reserve Bank Capital Stock).

The Board has revised Regulation D’s restrictions on the types and number of transfers and withdrawals that may be made from savings deposits. The final amendments increase from three to six the permissible monthly number of transfers or withdrawals from savings deposits by check, debit card, or similar order payable to third parties. Technological advancements have eliminated any rational basis for the distinction between transfers by these means and other types of pre-authorized or automatic transfers subject to the six-per-month limitation.

The Board also approved final amendments to Regulation D to authorize the establishment of excess balance accounts at Federal Reserve Banks. Excess balance accounts are limited-purpose accounts for maintaining excess balances of one or more institutions that are eligible to earn interest on their Federal Reserve balances. Each participant in an excess balance account will designate an institution to act as agent (which may be the participant’s current pass-through correspondent) for purposes of managing the account. The Board is authorizing excess balance accounts to alleviate pressures on correspondent-respondent business relationships in the current unusual financial market environment, which has led some respondents to prefer holding their excess balances in an account at the Federal Reserve, rather than selling them through a correspondent in the federal funds market. A correspondent could hold its respondents’ excess balances in its own account at the Federal Reserve Bank; however, doing so may adversely affect the correspondent’s regulatory leverage ratio. As market conditions evolve, the Board will evaluate the continuing need for excess balance accounts.

In October 2008, the Board adopted an interim final rule amending Regulation D that directed Federal Reserve Banks to pay interest on balances held by eligible institutions in accounts at Reserve Banks. The final rule revises those provisions as they apply to balances of respondents maintained by “ineligible” pass-through correspondents–that is, entities such as nondepository institutions that serve as correspondents but are not eligible to receive interest on the balances they maintain on their own behalf at the Federal Reserve. Specifically, the final rule provides that only required reserve balances maintained in an ineligible correspondent’s account on behalf of its respondents will receive interest. Ineligible correspondents will be required to pass back that interest to their respondents. Both required reserve and excess balances in the account of an eligible pass-through correspondent will continue to receive interest and those correspondents are permitted, but not required, to pass back that interest to their respondents.

The final amendments to Regulations D and I will become effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Excess balance accounts will be available for the reserve maintenance period beginning July 2, 2009.


[top]

Share

Fed Disclosure of Member Bank Borrowings

Posted on by


[Skip to the end]

(email exchange)

>   
>   On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 10:35 AM, wrote:
>   
>   We are talking trillions of dollars from our pocket…
>   

The Fed is lending to its member banks. That is the same as the banks taking in deposits insured by the FDIC. Banks specific loans are only seen by regulators as a matter of public purpose.

Do you want every loan by every bank revealed? If so, lobby congress, as the majority in congress doesn’t want that.

Your beef is with congress, not the Fed.

Also, loans to member banks are not ‘dollars from our pocket’ unless they aren’t repayable, and the regulators monitor banks for capital compliance and they’ve done an ok job so far in that regard. Relatively few FDIC losses given the magnitude of the slowdown.

>   
>   Where is accountability for keeping the dead alive?
>   

Funding banks is not keeping the dead alive. All banks are always publicly funded via FDIC insured deposits. So happens the Fed is offering funds cheaper and for longer term than the FDIC, so it’s getting the business.


[top]

Share

Bernanke

Posted on by


[Skip to the end]

Karim writes:

Bernanke Testimony (All quotes in italics)

  • We are likely to see further sizable job losses and increased unemployment in coming months
  • Recent data also suggest that the pace of contraction may be slowing, and they include some tentative signs that final demand, especially demand by households, may be stabilizing. In coming months, households’ spending power will be boosted by the fiscal stimulus program, and we have seen some improvement in consumer sentiment. Nonetheless, a number of factors are likely to continue to weigh on consumer spending, among them the weak labor market and the declines in equity and housing wealth that households have experienced over the past two years. In addition, credit conditions for consumers remain tight.
  • The housing market, which has been in decline for three years, has also shown some signs of bottoming
  • The available indicators of business investment remain extremely weak.
  • Conditions in the commercial real estate sector are poor.
  • We continue to expect economic activity to bottom out, then to turn up later this year.
  • The supply of mortgage credit is still relatively tight, and mortgage activity remains heavily dependent on the support of government programs or the government-sponsored enterprises.
  • Investors seemed to adopt a more positive outlook on the condition of financial institutions after several large banks reported profits in the first quarter, but readings from the credit default swap market and other indicators show that substantial concerns about the banking industry remain.

The section below appears to warn about the impact of rising rates, wider credit spreads, and weaker equities. i.e., the Fed wont be looking to snuff out any rallies. Also, slack to expand even after recovery takes hold, meaning disinflation continues, with ‘expectations’ being main factor preventing deflation.

  • An important caveat is that our forecast assumes continuing gradual repair of the financial system; a relapse in financial conditions would be a significant drag on economic activity and could cause the incipient recovery to stall.
  • Even after a recovery gets under way, the rate of growth of real economic activity is likely to remain below its longer-run potential for a while, implying that the current slack in resource utilization will increase further. We expect that the recovery will only gradually gain momentum and that economic slack will diminish slowly. In particular, businesses are likely to be cautious about hiring, implying that the unemployment rate could remain high for a time, even after economic growth resumes.
  • In this environment, we anticipate that inflation will remain low. Indeed, given the sizable margin of slack in resource utilization and diminished cost pressures from oil and other commodities, inflation is likely to move down some over the next year relative to its pace in 2008. However, inflation expectations, as measured by various household and business surveys, appear to have remained relatively stable, which should limit further declines in inflation.


[top]

Share