China’s Treasury Holdings Fall 21 Bln Amid Fed Talk on Taper Timing

I’d guess most of that was runoff of short term bills so wouldn’t alter the longer term rates but it also might be the case that China told the fed they wouldn’t buy any more secs unless they ceased QE.

The Fed doesn’t realize that we don’t need China or anyone else to keep interest rates on tsy’s anywhere we want them, so it’s likely intimidated by that kind of threat that China perhaps has already begun carrying out to make the point, as it did in 2011 when it let its entire bill portfolio run off and only started buying again after Bernanke’s ‘strong dollar’ speech and twist instead of QE, etc.

China’s Treasury Holdings Fall Amid Fed Talk on Taper

By Daniel Kruger

August 15 (Bloomberg) — Holdings of Treasuries in China, the largest foreign lender to the U.S., fell in June for the first time in five months amid discussion by Federal Reserve officials about slowing the pace their bond purchases.

China’s stake dropped by $21.5 billion in June, or 1.7 percent, to $1.276 trillion, according to Treasury Department data released yesterday. Yields climbed after June 19 when Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke said policy makers might reduce the size of their $85 billion a month in purchases of Treasuries and mortgage securities in coming months.

The pullback by China comes as overseas holdings of Treasuries have grown $26.8 billion, or 0.5 percent this year, the slowest pace since a 2.8 percent decline in the first six months of 2006. Treasuries have lost 3.1 percent this year, according to Bank of America Merrill Lynch indexes, headed for the worst performance since 2009.

“What you saw was a knee-jerk reaction” from China, said Adrian Miller, director of fixed-income strategies at GMP Securities LLC in New York. The drop wasn’t “any kind of a message as to a concerted effort to wind down excess exposure because of some duration risk given the Fed’s tapering goals,” he said.

Treasury Selloff

China’s holdings in May were $1.297 trillion, less than the $1.316 trillion reported by the Treasury last month. The Treasury revises the data on a monthly basis based on the nationality of the beneficial holder of the debt, while the initial figure is derived from the location of the purchase.

The benchmark 10-year Treasury yield rose 36 basis points or 0.36 percentage point, to 2.49 percent in June. It touched 2.82 percent yesterday, the highest since Aug. 1, 2011.

The decline in China’s stake “does help explain why the Treasury market sold off in June,” said Michael Pond, head of global inflation-linked research at Barclays Plc, one of 21 primary dealers that trade with the Fed.

Currency reserves have risen 5.6 percent through June to $3.5 trillion, according to data from the People’s Bank of China. Reserve growth in 2012 was 4.1 percent, the slowest pace since 1998, the data show. Reserves had grown at a double-digit pace for 11 consecutive years.

China’s Treasury position has risen $55.4 billion or 4.5 percent so far this year after a 5.9 percent increase in 2012. The holdings declined 0.7 percent to $1.152 trillion in 2011, the first annual decline on record going back to 2001.

Investors in China held 11.1 percent of the $11.4 trillion of marketable U.S. debt in June compared with a record 14 percent in June 2009.

All foreign investors owned 49.1 percent of the marketable debt, the least since May 2011, the data, known as Treasury International Capital, show.

Demand for the debt from overseas investors fell by $56.5 billion, or 1 percent in June to $5.6 trillion. It was the first three-month decline in overseas holdings since 2001.

taper tantrum!

The low jobless claims number seem to have sent markets into full taper mode. Stocks down due to fears of what happens without the presumed Fed support, and bonds higher in yield due to fears of what happens when the Fed slows down purchases.

And so while the ‘better jobs’ outlook that’s driving tapering is arguably good for stocks, markets are saying it’s not good enough to outweigh the higher bond yields and therefore the higher ‘discount rate’ for asset valuations.

Point here is, as previously discussed, the Fed will be cutting back it’s QE unless stocks fall hard enough to change their minds.

Which could very well happen.

While desperate circumstances that drive a large number of people to take on extra jobs at any pay to survive show ‘improvement’ in claims and payrolls, that’s not necessarily good enough for stocks, which look to earnings growth through top line growth, which is looking highly suspect.

And the higher mortgage rates have already pulled the rug out from under mortgage purchase applications and homebuilder stocks, etc. the one green shoot beginning to drive credit expansion.

And Walmart again pointing to the year end tax hikes slowing things down and low income growth keeping them from improving, and nothing in the rest of today’s numbers cause me to think top line is shifting gears, as least not for the better. And more ‘fiscal responsibility’ may be coming soon as both sides agree there is a long term deficit problem, and score political points for doing something about it.

All in the context of the macro issue where for gdp sales = income and a cut in net income from proactive deficit reduction means credit expansion elsewhere has to rise to the occasion to offset ever growing demand leakages.

Egypt and higher oil prices isn’t helping either. It wouldn’t be the first time oil price spikes toppled a suspect economy.

Walmart:


“The retail environment remains challenging in the U.S. and our international markets, as customers are cautious in their spending. Net sales in the first six months were below our expectations, so we are updating our forecast for net sales to grow between 2 and 3 percent for the full year versus our previous range of 5 to 6 percent,” said Holley. “This revision reflects our view of current global business trends, and significant ongoing headwinds from anticipated currency exchange rate fluctuations.”


“Across our International markets, growth in consumer spending is under pressure,” said Doug McMillon, Walmart International president and CEO. “Consumers in both mature and emerging markets curbed their spending during the second quarter, and this led to softer than expected sales. While this creates a challenging sales environment, we are the best equipped retailer to address the needs of our customers and help them save money.

During the 13-week period, the Walmart U.S. comp was negatively impacted by lower consumer spending due to the payroll tax increase and lower inflation than expected. Comp traffic decreased 0.5 percent, while average ticket increased 0.2 percent.

“While I’m disappointed in our comp sales decline, I’m encouraged by the improvement in traffic and comp sales as we progressed through the quarter. The 2 percent payroll tax increase continues to impact our customer,” said Bill Simon, Walmart U.S. president and CEO. “Furthermore, we also expected an increase in the level of grocery inflation, which did not materialize in a meaningful way. We were pleased that both home and apparel had positive comps.

Egypt Spirals Out Of Control


The violence that has plagued Egypt since the ouster of President Mohamed Morsi on July 3 has finally spiraled out of control. Clashes broke out across Egypt on Wednesday when police tried to break up two protests in support of Morsi. The Healthy Ministry says at least 525 were killed in the violence, and 3,717 were injured. The interim government declared a month-long state of emergency, a tool Egyptian rulers have frequently used to crack down on perceived threats. Cairo was quiet Thursday morning, but Morsis Muslim Brotherhood party has called for protests later today.

IMF on Japan’s debt

Just when you think they are coming around…

IMF report cites concerns over Japan’s fiscal situation

August 3 (Jiji Press) — The International Monetary Fund has expressed concern about the fiscal situation in Japan, where public debt keeps soaring.

Simulations by the IMF “suggest that global output losses could reach 2 percent of GDP” if Japan is “exposed to a reconsideration of sovereign risk by investors” and experiences a long-term interest rate jump of two percentage points, the IMF said in a report.

The international body called for a credible fiscal consolidation plan by Japan in the report on the spillovers of the domestic economic and monetary policies of major contributors to the global economy.

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s three-pronged economic policy, Abenomics, is believed to have “positive, albeit small” spillover effects on the global economy in the short term if all three arrows are successfully deployed, the report said.

But the IMF also said, “The pickup in growth provided by short-term fiscal and monetary stimulus is expected to wind down after a year or so.”

In the absence of a successful reform package including fiscal consolidation, structural reforms and achievement of the new inflation target, the IMF’s simulations “suggest that output in Japan will be 4 percent lower after 10 years,” the report said.

In a different report, focusing on major nations’ external positions, the IMF said it can see “moderate undervaluation” of the yen relative to medium-term fundamentals and desirable policies, in the wake of the currency’s sharp drop since autumn last year.

But in the spillover report, the global body said, “The effects of the yen’s depreciation on competitiveness in other countries is broadly offset by the positive effects of higher growth in Japan and lower interest rates in trading partners as a result of greater capital inflows and lower sovereign risk in Japan.”

At a teleconference, an IMF economist said it has become very difficult to analyze developments in Japan because of volatile market movements and a sharp deterioration in the nation’s trade balance due to soaring imports of energy sources.

Byron Wien’s August 2013 Commentary

The usual muddled mainstream confusion, but worth reading as to how it all now maybe points to a weaker 2nd half.

That is, if mainstream thought is now transitioning from improvement to weakness markets should react accordingly.

Byron Wien is Worried About Rest of Year

By Byron Wien

August 2 (Barron’s) &#8212 At the beginning of the year most economic observers had a realistic view of the pace of economic growth for the United States. As usual there were positive and negative cross-currents, but the consensus was that real growth would be about 2% for 2013. The Federal Reserve was engaged in a vigorous program of monetary easing, however, and a substantial amount (perhaps three-quarters of the total) of that money flowed into financial assets, driving the price of equities higher and keeping interest rates low. As a result of the strong stock market performance, some economists increased their growth estimates for the second half and the full year. Now, with two quarters behind us, it is time to take a hard look at how the year is playing out.

The first quarter came in at 1.8% real growth; second-quarter estimates indicate some slowdown from that rate, but 1% is probably a good working number at this point. Year-over-year growth is running at 1.62%. That is hardly an impressive number when you consider that the Federal Reserve is putting money into the economy through bond purchases at an annual rate of $1 trillion. In 2008, when the accommodative monetary policy began, the entire balance sheet of the Federal Reserve, accumulated in the 95 years since its founding in 1913, was $1 trillion, so the degree of monetary stimulus is unprecedented.

If growth is less than 2%, you have to wonder about the structural problems holding the economy back. In my view the economy is suffering from a lack of demand. Companies are reluctant to hire workers when the order book is thin. The global competition is intense in every product category. There are too many folks making too much stuff around the world. There are also structural problems in employment. Following past recessions, at the same point in the recovery, four years from the trough, the unemployment rate would have been close to 5%, but it is now 7.6%. The workforce participation rate is only 63.5%, which is down two full points from the level before the 2008–09 recession. Many able workers have given up looking for a job because they are so frustrated and disillusioned by their failure to find one. Yet there are several million unfilled jobs out there, jobs that require a certain level of technical skill which many jobseekers do not have.

First-half growth may have been held back by several factors. At the beginning of the year taxes on America’s top earners went up and the 2% payroll tax holiday ended. In April the sequestering of government funds for health care and defense went into effect. These changes are estimated to knock 1.5% off nominal Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of 4%, bringing it down to 2.5%. Taking 2% inflation off that number (inflation has recently been running closer to 1%), you are down to .5% real growth. The weather was unusually cold during the winter which also dampened growth. There are some important positives, though. Housing has been strong and domestic oil production has increased significantly. These two factors and some other minor ones could bring real growth back up to 2% for 2013.

One notable fiscal factor which should provide some encouragement to investors is the improvement in the budget deficit. In 2010 the deficit of $1.5 trillion was 10% of GDP. This year, because of tax increases and spending cuts, it should only come in at $700 billion on a $17 trillion economy or slightly more than 4% of GDP. This improvement is likely to continue next year. With the budget deficit declining, Congress has some room to engage in long-deferred infrastructure, research and development and job training programs. It is unclear whether this legislation will be introduced, however.

In spite of the lackluster performance of the economy in the first half, there is a general feeling that the second half will be better. The impact of the sequester may not be as severe and there is a general perception that both corporate executives and consumers are more positive on the outlook. The market hit some rough spots in May–June when Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke indicated that the central bank might reduce its bond buying program as early as September. From May 1 to July 5, the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield rose from 1.7% to 2.7%, but by July 18 it was back down below 2.5%. Even if the Fed only bought $60 billion of securities rather than $85 billion, it would still be engaged in a significant program of monetary easing, but talk of tapering scared the fixed income market. When Treasury yields moved higher, Bernanke softened his language and calmed down the bond traders.

I know there is a feeling among policymakers at the Fed that the current high degree of monetary accommodation is excessive and should be restrained when the economy has regained its natural momentum. I do not believe we have come anywhere near that point yet. Moreover, the Fed’s own targets for implementing a program of restraint have not been met. The unemployment rate is not near the 6.5% threshold target that the Fed has set for itself and neither has inflation reached 2%. Since the economy is running well below its potential, I believe the Fed should maintain its current level of security purchases. Any reduction in the program is a form of tightening and neither the market nor the economy is really ready for that.

Although there is a palpable degree of optimism about corporate performance in the second half of this year, I wonder if it is justified. Companies have generally beaten analysts’ estimates more than two-thirds of the time so far this year, but I think that is mostly because management guided estimates lower so the results would compare favorably. That was certainly the case for Alcoa and Coca-Cola. United Parcel Service did not prepare the market for disappointment and the stock declined sharply. In the technology sector Microsoft, Intel and Google missed estimates. Second-quarter earnings are only expected to be up 2% over 2012 levels and full-year estimates are only projected to grow 4%–6% over last year, with much of that improvement coming from stronger performance in the second half.

It is unlikely that we are going to see better earnings if sales don’t improve. Second-quarter sales are only expected to rise 1.25% over last year and full-year estimates are for a 2.75% increase. If there is some pressure on margins from modestly higher labor costs, depreciation and energy prices, that meager level of revenue improvement may not be enough to keep margins from eroding. It has been my view that profit margins are peaking and we should see if that observation is correct in the second half of 2013.

There are other reasons to be concerned. In 2010 world real growth was running at 4% as a result of the post-recession recovery in the United States and strength in the emerging markets. It is only at a 2% rate of increase now. We know that economic activity in China is slowing, but nobody seems to know by how much. China is the engine of growth for the emerging markets, so there is a negative reflective impact there. Europe remains in a recession. Reduced emphasis on austerity should help push the Eurozone into a position of very modest expansion in 2014 but the region is not likely to be an important contributor to overall world growth. Only Japan is providing favorable surprises. Shinzo Abe’s policy of heavy fiscal and monetary stimulus should be successful in bringing the country out of its deflationary recession in 2014. Japan’s monetary stimulus is $600 to $700 billion and its economy is less than half the size of that of the United States, so it is putting money into its economy one and a half times faster than the Fed is doing so in the U.S. There is also a vigorous fiscal stimulus program taking place in Japan at the same time. Abe’s recent success in the Japanese election should give him the confidence to continue his aggressive stimulus program.

There are other signs of trouble which have implications for second half economic performance. The increase in interest rates has moved 30-year mortgage yields up 100 basis points to 4.5%. While this is low on an historical basis, it is substantially higher than recent levels and should have an effect on housing which has been one of the clear positives in the U.S. economy this year. We have seen some evidence of this in slower housing starts and mortgage applications, but that condition may be temporary.

The composite Purchasing Managers’ Index, which includes both manufacturing and services, has shown some signs of weakness, reflecting disappointing demand. The National Federation of Independent Business sentiment, which had been favorable recently, has weakened. Retail sales have shown signs of softness in spite of the fact that household net worth is at an all-time high. The rises in the stock market and luxury real estate have benefited the portion of the population that has the lowest propensity to spend in relation to their income. In contrast we have 45 million Americans on food stamps, substantially higher than ever before. Railcar loadings and bank loans, two important indicators of business activity, have also weakened. First Call earnings revisions have turned down, indicating more disappointments may lie ahead.

I still think the economy will grow at 2% this year, but I worry that final sales will not be enough to offset some margin deterioration. As a result I fear that earnings will be below estimates. I have been worried about economic growth and earnings all year and the Standard & Poor’s 500 has kept working its way higher. The liquidity being provided by the Fed is responsible for that. Valuations are still reasonable and if the easy money policy continues, I recognize that stocks can move up more from here. I think earnings will be below estimates, but investors may not care as long as the Fed’s bond buying program continues. Right now the S&P 500 is trading somewhat above 15 times consensus earnings and slightly more than 16 times the earnings level that reflects a reasonable degree of disappointment. This is not an extreme level of overvaluation, even considering the recent rise in interest rates. Investor sentiment is in optimistic territory, near the level that has signaled a likely decline in the past. Companies have considerable cash on their balance sheets, some of which will be used to buy back stock. That could increase earnings per share, offsetting earnings shortfalls.

According to a report in Barron’s (July 24) by Mark Hulbert, which was supported by considerable academic research, since the 1920s the average multiple for the S&P 500 at market top is 18.7, close to where we are now. Moreover, the market tends to rise sharply just before the top rather than forming a plateau, indicating exhaustion. The average bull market gained 21% in the twelve months before the top; the current 12-month return is 23%. In a blow-off the market multiple could rise to 20, and each multiple point is 100 points on the index. I don’t expect that to happen, but if the Fed keeps pumping money into the economy, anything is possible. While a higher high may be ahead, at some point the Fed will slow its accommodation and investors will recognize the implications of slow economic growth and very modest earnings improvement. That is why I believe a degree of caution is warranted.

More on EU Private Sector Credit Expansion

ECB Says Bank Loans to Private Sector Shrink Most on Record

By Jeff Black

July 25 (BN) — Lending to companies and households in the 17-member euro area fell the most on record in June in a sign the region is still struggling to shake off its longest-ever recession.

Loans to the private sector dropped 1.6 percent from a year earlier, the Frankfurt-based European Central Bank said today. That’s the 14th monthly decline and the biggest since the start of the single currency in 1999.

The rate of growth in M3 money supply, which the ECB uses as an indicator for future inflation, fell to 2.3 percent in June from 2.9 percent in May, according to today’s data. That’s below all 30 estimates in a Bloomberg survey of economists.

M3 grew 2.8 percent in past three months from the same period a year earlier. M3 is the broadest gauge of money supply and includes cash in circulation, some forms of savings and money-market holdings.

Bernanke


Karim writes:

Something for everyone (even uses on the other hand in his remarks); base case remains in place for tapering in September. First mention Ive seen on nature of rate hike cycle: will be gradual. Seems to be looking past the first hike!

Sequencing in these paragraphs is telling. Base case first; risks second(bold). Same pattern appeared in the Minutes. Effective way to stick to your forecast but to try and keep rates in check.

  • substantial increases in home prices are bolstering household finances and consumer spending while reducing the number of homeowners with underwater mortgages. Housing activity and prices seem likely to continue to recover, notwithstanding the recent increases in mortgage rates, but it will be important to monitor developments in this sector carefully.
  • The price index for personal consumption expenditures rose only 1 percent over the year ending in May. This softness reflects in part some factors that are likely to be transitory. Moreover, measures of longer-term inflation expectations have generally remained stable, which should help move inflation back up toward 2 percent. However, the Committee is certainly aware that very low inflation poses risks to economic performance–for example, by raising the real cost of capital investment–and increases the risk of outright deflation. Consequently, we will monitor this situation closely as well, and we will act as needed to ensure that inflation moves back toward our 2 percent objective over time.
  • The pickup in economic growth projected by most Committee participants partly reflects their view that federal fiscal policy will exert somewhat less drag over time, as the effects of the tax increases and the spending sequestration diminish. The Committee also believes that risks to the economy have diminished since the fall, reflecting some easing of financial stresses in Europe, the gains in housing and labor markets that I mentioned earlier, the better budgetary positions of state and local governments, and stronger household and business balance sheets. That said, the risks remain that tight federal fiscal policy will restrain economic growth over the next few quarters by more than we currently expect, or that the debate concerning other fiscal policy issues, such as the status of the debt ceiling, will evolve in a way that could hamper the recovery. More generally, with the recovery still proceeding at only a moderate pace, the economy remains vulnerable to unanticipated shocks, including the possibility that global economic growth may be slower than currently anticipated.

Same for Tapering:

  • If the incoming data were to be broadly consistent with these projections, we anticipated that it would be appropriate to begin to moderate the monthly pace of purchases later this year. And if the subsequent data continued to confirm this pattern of ongoing economic improvement and normalizing inflation, we expected to continue to reduce the pace of purchases in measured steps through the first half of next year, ending them around midyear. At that point, if the economy had evolved along the lines we anticipated, the recovery would have gained further momentum, unemployment would be in the vicinity of 7 percent, and inflation would be moving toward our 2 percent objective. Such outcomes would be fully consistent with the goals of the asset purchase program that we established in September.
  • I emphasize that, because our asset purchases depend on economic and financial developments, they are by no means on a preset course. On the one hand, if economic conditions were to improve faster than expected, and inflation appeared to be rising decisively back toward our objective, the pace of asset purchases could be reduced somewhat more quickly. On the other hand, if the outlook for employment were to become relatively less favorable, if inflation did not appear to be moving back toward 2 percent, or if financial conditions–which have tightened recently–were judged to be insufficiently accommodative to allow us to attain our mandated objectives, the current pace of purchases could be maintained for longer. Indeed, if needed, the Committee would be prepared to employ all of its tools, including an increase the pace of purchases for a time, to promote a return to maximum employment in a context of price stability.
  • 6.5% threshold and first mention (that Ive seen) on the pace of rate hikes

  • if a substantial part of the reductions in measured unemployment were judged to reflect cyclical declines in labor force participation rather than gains in employment, the Committee would be unlikely to view a decline in unemployment to 6-1/2 percent as a sufficient reason to raise its target for the federal funds rate. Likewise, the Committee would be unlikely to raise the funds rate if inflation remained persistently below our longer-run objective. Moreover, so long as the economy remains short of maximum employment, inflation remains near our longer-run objective, and inflation expectations remain well anchored, increases in the target for the federal funds rate, once they begin, are likely to be gradual.

US Jobless Claims Jump Above Forecasts; Prices Still Tame

The data continues to support the narrative:

Proactive deficit reduction, aka ‘austerity’, slows an economy and can throw it into reverse if some other agent’s deficit spending/savings reduction doesn’t rise to the occasion.

And add to that the growing headwind of the now highly aggressive ‘automatic fiscal stabilizers’ with a deficit now probably running at a pace well under 3% of GDP.

As you know I’ve been looking for any sign of credit expansion and so far I see nothing but deceleration. Mortgage credit outstanding continues to contract, housing starts have gone sideways, and most recently mtg apps have actually turned down. Unemployment claims seem to have bottomed earlier this year and the 3 month moving average has turned up as well. Year over year consumer credit growth is flat, and bank lending in general remains only very modestly positive, with no sign of a recent increase needed to fill the ‘spending gap’ left by a retreating govt sector.

Furthermore, GDP has been revised down to be consistent with my narrative, with Q1 now down to 1.8% and Q2 estimates in the 1%- 1.5% range. And, as discussed yesterday, with long term productivity somewhere around that level, jobs should go from up 200,000 to flat, with a lag of course. In other words, the upturn in claims that leads jobs is offering more support for that narrative.

Additionally, the risk of it all going into reverse is mounting as well. This happens when the deficit- the net financial equity of the economy- isn’t sufficient to support the credit structure that’s supporting growth. And the way the deficit gets higher is via the automatic fiscal stabilizers going into reverse- the slowing economy increases transfer payments and reduces revenues.

Also note the evidence of global disinflation including commodity prices, a general fade of the emerging market sector, and Europe at best getting modestly less worse. Only Japan has had some growth, but none of it is about growing imports, so it’s no help to anyone else, and their 25% real wage pay cut and increased exports/lower prices is reducing domestic demand abroad and deflating prices and margins abroad.

For more data, scroll down through www.moslereconomics.com where I’ve been posting charts with the data releases. Hint: they all show a general deceleration.

Conclusion- we are in the midst of a global, broad based fiscally induced set of contractionary/deflationary forces.

Supporting optimism is the notion that ‘yes the fiscal drag from the tax hikes is subtracting from growth, but when it ends growth will return as the underlying private sector is growing at over 3%”

Yes, that’s possible, but again, it means private sector credit growth has to be there offering ever increasing support to offset the ‘demand leakages’ and to overcome the fiscal headwinds of the automatic fiscal stabilizers. And note that the automatic fiscal stabilizers are just that. They work to reverse declines by automatically increasing the deficit, and work to end expansions by automatically decreasing the deficit. So they will end the up leg in any case, and pro active deficit reduction only hastens that outcome in any case.

So after the tax hikes and sequesters have ratcheted down growth and lowered the deficit as well, the question is whether the economy will grow from that point.

I agree it’s not theoretically impossible, but it takes ever expanding private sector credit expansion, which is asking a lot from our current institutional structure.

And, of course, the portfolio shifting in reaction to the QE placebo is it’s own can of worms…

US Jobless Claims Jump Above Forecasts; Prices Still Tame

The number of Americans filing new claims for unemployment benefits rose last week, although the level still appeared to point to healing in the nation’s job market. Meanwhile, prices for U.S. imports and exports fell in June for the fourth straight month.

Initial claims for state unemployment benefits increased by 16,000 to a seasonally adjusted 360,000, the Labor Department said on Thursday.

Randy Wray’s response to NYT article

Warren Mosler & MMT: Deficit Lovers?

By L. Randall Wray

July 5 — Here’s a piece from yesterday’s NYTimes by Annie Lowrey: Warren Mosler, a Deficit Lover With a Following.

While this is a mostly good piece on Warren, Lowrey gets enough of it wrong to call into question her ability as a reporter. Yes, Warren designed and built a yacht, and he designed and built great race cars (even if his first model was called one of the fifty worst cars ever–for its unorthodox looks, not for its performance). It is also true that Modern Money Theory has taken off in the blogosphere, where it has picked up tens of thousands of followers. And Warren just completed a whirlwind speaking tour in Italy that attracted hundreds of listeners even in small towns. (Try that, any other American economist!)

The rest of her piece is filled with bias and mistakes. First, while it is true that Warren’s former hedge fund lost money in a Russian deal, he had already sold out his stake and was not involved. Warren knew the risks of pegging a currency and opposed the deal from the beginning. Note however, that the deal was much more complicated than Lowrey implies. As I recall, the position was hedged but some major international banks defaulted on their promises; eventually Warren’s former firm collected damages. In any event, the risks of pegging a currency are well-known by followers of MMT and the Russian default is perfectly consistent with MMT’s teachings.

Lowrey also quotes Stephanie Kelton as saying ““These ideas definitely aren’t disseminated through published academic journals.” “It’s all on the Internet.” Stephanie said no such thing. And of course, it is pure nonsense. There are dozens and dozens of scholarly papers published in the academic journals on MMT. There are critiques of MMT and responses to the critics. The ideas have been debated since the mid 1990s by PhD economists. Lowrey is a lazy reporter as this would have been easy to check; or she came to the story with a bias, trying to paint MMT as silly. Indeed, she likens MMT to Ron Paul’s gold buggism–which has no academic support at all. Yes, the internet blogs have been essential to spreading the ideas of MMT outside academia–and that is a good thing–but Lowrey’s attempt to dismiss it stinks of bias. One wonders if her famous NYTimes Nobel winning economics columnist colleague put her up to this.

She also quotes blogger Mark Thoma as follows:

“They deny the fact that the government use of real resources can drive the real interest rate up,” said Mark Thoma, an economics professor and widely followed blogger who teaches at the University of Oregon. After delving into the technical details of modern monetary theory for a few minutes, he paused, then added, “I think it’s just nuts.”

The last part rings true–I don’t think Thoma has spent more than a few minutes to try to understand MMT (and he doesn’t understand any of it). But if he did say that “government use of real resources” might “drive the real interest rate up”, then he’s far more confused about macroeconomics than I ever suspected. It is one of the dumbest statements I’ve ever seen in print, so I suppose she made it up. What nonsense.

The “real interest rate” is a compound term, comprised of the nominal interest rate and the rate of inflation. Technically, the real rate is the nominal rate less expected inflation. As we know, the Fed sets the overnight nominal rate. The real rate is then the Fed’s target rate less expected inflation.

Now it is possible that “government use of real resources” MIGHT raise expectations of inflation. That is what gold buggism is all about. So let us say Ron Paul whips up inflationary expectations. What happens to the real rate? Well, we are subtracting a bigger expected inflation number from the Fed’s target rate. SO THE REAL RATE GOES DOWN! Now, Thoma might think the Fed will also react to Ron Paul’s gold buggism and so increase its target rate. How much? Who knows. Is there any guarantee the Fed will raise it MORE than Ron Paul raises inflation expectations? I see no reason why one would jump to that conclusion. And historically, the ex post real rate does often fall when inflation rises (it even goes massively negative).

That is not proof that it is impossible for the real rate to rise when government uses real resources, but there’s no reason to think the real rate automatically goes up. It depends. On whether inflation expectations increase by less than the Fed raises the nominal rate target.

Finally, Warren and “Deficit Owls” are by no means “deficit lovers”–so Lowrey’s title is misleading. There’s a time for deficits, a time for balanced budgets, and even a time for budget surpluses. It all depends on the other two sectors (reminder: Government Balance + Private Domestic Balance + Foreign Balance = 0). A more accurate title would have been: Warren Mosler: Not Afraid of Deficits.

At least Lowrey had the good sense to interview Jamie Galbraith. This is a nice statement:

“There’s a whole deficit lobby of Peterson-funded groups arguing we’re turning into Greece,” said James K. Galbraith, an economist at the University of Texas at Austin. “They’re blowing smoke and the M.M.T. group has patiently explained why.”

Precisely. MMT tries to expose Peterson as running a dishonest scare campaign in order to push through his policy to gut the social safety net. It is not that we “love deficits”. It is that we hate dishonesty.

Warren Mosler, a Deficit Lover With a Following – NYTimes.com

You got the Russian trade dead wrong. Please file a correction.

I turned the firm over to my partners at the end of 1997, long before the Russian default, after a disagreement on how that fund was managed. With a fixed exchange rate there was a very real risk of default. As I told you my only contribution to the fund was the name which proved invaluable.

Also you should have asked me for a response to Thoma and real rates if you were going to publish his comments, as a matter of journalism. The only reason real rates can be a problem is if they limit credit expansion, in which case a tax cut or spending increase is in order to sustain output and employment.

Not that it matters, but history will not be kind to you regarding these points and the dismissive tone of your article in general.

Warren Mosler, a Deficit Lover With a Following

By Annie Lowry

July 4 (NYT) — Warren Mosler is a card-carrying member of the 1 percent. A deeply tanned, tennis-lean hedge fund executive, Mr. Mosler lives on this run-down but jewel-toned Caribbean island for tax reasons. Transitioning into an active retirement, he recently designed and had built an $850,000 catamaran called Knot My Problem. He whizzes around St. Croix in a white, low-slung sports car he created himself, too.

But his prescriptions for economic policy make him sound like a warrior for the 99 percent. When the recession hit, Mr. Mosler said, the government should have spent and spent until unemployment came down to a comfortable level. Forget saving the banks through the Troubled Asset Relief Program. Washington should have eliminated the payroll tax, given every state $500 per resident and offered a basic job to anyone who wanted one.

“There would have been no recession,” Mr. Mosler, 63, said over a salad at a hole-in-the-wall seaside cafe called Rum Runners.

Washington’s debts would have soared, of course. But Mr. Mosler sees no problem with that. A failed Senate candidate in Connecticut with unorthodox but attention-grabbing economic theories, he says he believes the United States should be running much bigger deficits and that the last thing the government needs to worry about is balancing its budget.

Mr. Mosler’s ideas, which go under the label of “modern monetary theory,” or M.M.T., are clearly on the fringe, drawing skeptical reactions even from many liberal Keynesian economists who agree with some of his arguments. But they have attracted a growing following, flourishing on the Internet and in a handful of academic outposts, as he and others who share his thinking have made the case that austerity budgeting in the United States and in Europe is doing irreparable harm.

Like many Keynesian economists, Mr. Mosler and other modern monetary theorists are particularly disturbed by the longstanding campaign articulated and financed by Peter G. Peterson, a former commerce secretary who co-founded the Blackstone Group private equity fund, to reduce the deficit or else.

“There’s a whole deficit lobby of Peterson-funded groups arguing we’re turning into Greece,” said James K. Galbraith, an economist at the University of Texas at Austin. “They’re blowing smoke and the M.M.T. group has patiently explained why.”

Still, even for those with some knowledge of economics, the tenets of the modern monetary theory can make your head spin. The government does not tax its citizens to pay for federal spending. It taxes them to ensure they use the dollar and to help to regulate demand. Since the government prints the dollar, it can never run out of money and it need never balance its budget, not even to prevent the crowding out of private investment when the economy is humming along.

What about inflation? “What about it?” Mr. Mosler replied. “How can the United States have $16 trillion in debt and still be on the verge of deflation, even when Chairman Bernanke’s using every alphabet-soup trick in his book?”

To mainstream economists, Mr. Mosler and his adherents represent something of a counterpoint to the handful of academics on the right who believe the United States should return to the gold standard because the government is supposedly going bankrupt and the Federal Reserve under Ben S. Bernanke is debasing the currency.

“They deny the fact that the government use of real resources can drive the real interest rate up,” said Mark Thoma, an economics professor and widely followed blogger who teaches at the University of Oregon. After delving into the technical details of modern monetary theory for a few minutes, he paused, then added, “I think it’s just nuts.”

But just as a return to the gold standard has attracted a popular following — including many supporters of Ron Paul, the charismatic former Texas congressman — so has modern monetary theory, which has been spread on the great stage of the Web. A thriving academic blogosphere brings ideas up and knocks them down, and popular sites like Business Insider and Naked Capitalism have given modern monetary theorists a platform to join in.

“These ideas definitely aren’t disseminated through published academic journals,” said Stephanie Kelton, an economist at University of Missouri-Kansas City, who coined the term “deficit owls” to distinguish modern monetary theorists from “deficit hawks.” “It’s all on the Internet.”

Mr. Mosler has played a pivotal role in promoting the theory, and unlike many economists he has the resources to do so. He runs a popular blog called the Center of the Universe, a sly joke, perhaps, given that tiny, tropical St. Croix, which is about 1,200 miles from Miami, is the easternmost point in the United States. He eagerly appears on radio programs and on television. Recently, he went on a tour of Italy to promote his anti-austerity ideas.

He has also helped to build an infrastructure to mint new modern monetary theorists, helping to found the Center for Full Employment and Price Stability at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, and financing a small army of graduate students. “Someone once said that economics advances one funeral at a time,” Mr. Mosler said, chuckling. “The hope is that we have a generation of economists coming up who really understand how things work and can put those ideas to a public purpose.”

There were also a few self-financed political campaigns, including some fruitless races in the Virgin Islands. In his 2012 run, Mr. Mosler said he believed the voting was rigged. He made a vanity run for Senate in Connecticut in 2010 as an independent, making waves by offering to use $100 million of his own money to pay down the deficit if any member of Congress could prove that government spending was actually constrained by tax revenue. He came in third, with about 1 percent of the vote. “It was a mistake,” Mr. Mosler said of running in Connecticut. “It did get the ideas out there, though.”

Mr. Mosler started his career at a small bank in Connecticut, and eventually became a Wall Street trader. It was there, he said, that he developed an intuitive understanding of how the economy works — one very different from that of policy makers in Washington and the vast bulk of academics.

“All debt management is, is debiting and crediting different accounts,” Mr. Mosler said, recalling seeing numbers appear and disappear from his computer at Bankers Trust in New York in the 1970s. “Can the federal government run out of dollars? No, because the Fed could pipe in a bigger number. That number doesn’t come from anywhere. It’s like when a player scores a field goal at a stadium. Three points just appear. The government is just the scorekeeper for the dollar.”

In the early 1980s, he left Wall Street and along with a partner, Clifford Viner, who is now the owner of the Florida Panthers hockey team, founded a hedge fund in Boca Raton, Fla. The fund made relatively few, relatively complicated financial bets, said Michael Reger, a partner of Mr. Mosler’s for the last 20 years. “He’s an urban myth,” Mr. Reger said of the affable, talkative and bookish Mr. Mosler.

Mr. Mosler’s fund has made a number of bets informed by his theory. For instance, Mr. Reger said, when the Treasury was paying down the United States debt during the Clinton years, many bond traders thought that prices would spike because of increasing scarcity. But Mr. Mosler predicted that no such scarcity would ever materialize, and shorted the bonds.

That trade panned out, though others have not. The business lost hundreds of millions of dollars betting that Russia would not default on its debts. That country’s fixed exchange rate spurred it to go belly up, Mr. Mosler said.

On the side, he ran Mosler Automotive, which created several dozen low-slung, lightweight, superfast sports cars over its nearly 30 years in business. That passion project never quite worked out, he said, and he is now in the process of selling it off. “The Consulier got named one of the 50 worst cars ever made by Time magazine,” he said with a laugh. “Look it up!”

But entering retirement, Mr. Mosler has more than enough work to do promoting his monetary theories, he said.

“Economics is about the allocation of scarce resources,” Mr. Mosler said. “If there’s a food shortage, you have a real problem in divvying up the food. Right now, we have a dollar shortage because of mistaken notions about how the monetary system works. How does that make any sense?”

Euro Zone June Manufacturing PMI Rises to 16-Month High of 48.8, EU rejects earthquake repair

Still contracting but at a reduced pace.

Germany a bit worse and other up a bit may show the squeeze has caused a bit of a shift from Germany to other members as the pie continues to shrink?

In any case, a reduced pace of deterioration does nothing to alleviate the ongoing and intense social pressure that is driving members to the breaking point.

And apparently the EU rejected my proposal for funding 5 billion euro over 5 years to rebuild earthquake damage in Italy, even though the proposal was perfectly legal and well within the spirit of EU policy, etc. My proposal was to allow corporations to accelerate a mere 5 billion of tax payments from 10 years forward where the EU forecasts show excess revenues, to be applied over the next 5 years for the rebuilding of the recent damage to L’Aquila that killed over 300 people.

And most disturbing is that the rejection has every appearance of malice.

And clearly any monetary arrangement, such as the euro zone, that can’t find a way to rebuild earthquake damage of a fraction of a % of GDP in the face of gaping output gap makes no economic sense whatsoever.

Euro Zone June Manufacturing PMI Rises to 16-Month High of 48.8

July 1 (Bloomberg) — Manufacturing output in the euro zone improved in June to a 16-month high, a sign that the economy was stabilizing, albeit slowly.

The euro zone June Purchasing Managers’ Index for the manufacturing sector rose to a 16-month high of 48.8, up from the flash estimate of 48.7 and May’s reading of 48.3.

But the readings for individual countries revealed a more mixed picture.

The data were particularly strong for Italy, where June manufacturing PMI rose to 49.1, the highest since July 2011 and Spain, where manufacturing PMI rose to 50 in June from 48.1 in May. French PMI also rose to 48.4 in June from 46.4 in May. A reading above 50 indicates an expansion, while a reading below indicates a contraction.

However, German manufacturing activity contracted for the fourth consecutive month in June, coming in below expectations at 48.6.

“I think it tells us two things. One, it tells us that the euro zone as a whole is gradually beginning to stabilize. I think that’s obviously very good news. Probably, the more important part of the data is the split and the fact that we are beginning to see stronger PMI data from the likes of Spain and Italy. That may settle some people’s concerns about the recovery in those countries,” Darren Williams of AllianceBernstein told CNBC.

The euro zone has been in a recession for a year-and-a-half and any signs of stabilization will ease pressure on the European Central Bank to expand monetary policy to boost growth.

“June’s improved purchasing managers’ survey supports hopes that overall manufacturing activity across the euro zone is on the brink of stabilization. This reinforces hopes that euro zone GDP could finally have stopped contracting in the second quarter after a record six quarters of decline,” Howard Archer, European economist at IHS Global Insight said.

But Archer added that conditions remain far from easy for euro zone manufacturers. “The upside for domestic demand in the euro zone remains constrained by restrictive fiscal policy in many countries (despite increased flexibility now being allowed on fiscal targets), still tight credit conditions, high and rising unemployment, and limited consumer purchasing power.”

The PMI readings came ahead of inflation data which showed that euro zone consumer inflation accelerated to 1.6 percent in June from 1.4 percent in May. Meanwhile, unemployment for the euro zone rose to a record high 12.1 percent in May, from a revised rate of 12 percent in April.