Japan update

Looks to me they are at least as afraid of becoming the next Greece as they are afraid of nuclear contamination.

I have seen no statements about ‘spending what it takes’ to secure the safety of the world’s population and to rebuild their nation.

The prime minister isn’t saying that, probably because of his concerns about finance.
He probably believes that Japan is dependent on lenders and may be at a tipping point with a 200% debt to gdp level.
He likely believes that with one false move the government’s ability to spend could be cut off.

In fact, they have been floating trial balloons about this being the right time for a new consumption tax to pay for any rebuilding.

In fact, and ironically, the actual risks of a major yen spending initiative that did substantially increase their deficit spending is not solvency but inflation. A massive rebuilding effort would have a good chance of raising the measured inflation rate a few points, and send the currency lower as well.

Both of which they have been desperately trying to accomplish, largely with ‘monetary policy’ that has yet to restore aggregate demand to full employment levels and promote real growth after nearly two decades of near 0 rates and massive QE initiatives.

And I still don’t see how any of this makes the yen stronger.
The repatriation story is nonsense, so if that’s what’s been driving prices watch for a sharp reversal.

Presidential approval index

This is not looking good.

The economy is perceived to be at least modestly growing and improving.

The President is now perceived to be working with the opposition, first to extend the tax cuts at year end, and now with the spending cuts.

The President has kept us out of direct conflict in the latest round of disruptions.

So what’s the problem?

Gasoline is pushing $4/gallon and there’s no plan except to tax it so we don’t use so much?

They all believe we’ve run out of money, are dependent on borrowing from the likes of China, and could be the next Greece?

The rebels are losing in Libya and there seems to be nothing we can do about it?

Homes are still being lost by the hundreds of thousands?

Vast numbers of people owe more on their house than it’s worth?

People can’t find decent jobs?

The healthcare situation is worse than ever?

There is a perception that the President and Congress are insensitive to what people are going through?

There is no actual recovery plan, nor even any proposals that make sense?

There is a general feeling that America is in decline?

Japan- economic ramifications

Nothing much to say here about the financial aspects. Need to see how they react.

Best I can tell this doesn’t effect the world economy all that much.

Oil demand may initially fall some, due to a temporary reduction in consumption and maybe a refinery shut down. And domestic demand in general may fall until the rebuilding starts.

The power lost by the nuclear plants shutting down may amount to maybe 1-2% of total electric power consumption, and will be replaced but a combo of different sources.

Replacing the nuclear plants will cost something but not a lot in the scheme of things, and the new ones are even safer than the older ones, which seem to have help up reasonably well, especially considering the extreme stresses.

Govt deficit spending may go up by a small % of GDP as will the spending of insurance company and other private reserves.
And insurance companies then replenishing their reserves does the reverse.

I’d guess they govt will direct most of the rebuilding contracts to domestic companies.

I don’t see anything that makes the yen stronger?

Japan should have more than adequate resources of all types immediately available as emergency services, shouldn’t need any help from anyone, though for political purpose they will certainly accept it.

They’ve been saying for years there’s nothing left for govt to buy, so they must have thousands of emergency helicopters, millions of emergency temporary housing trailers, etc. etc. ready to go?

Euro area takes huge step towards comprehensive policy package

Euro area takes huge step towards comprehensive policy package

Euro area heads of state made far more progress than expected at last Friday’s summit. They reached an agreement on a number of elements of the comprehensive policy package which is due to be finalised on March 24/25.

Most important, in our view, was the decision that the cost of liquidity support can be reduced in order to help with debt sustainability. We have argued that the liquidity support that is being provided is too expensive to enable the peripheral sovereigns to achieve anything more than simply stabilise debt-to-GDP ratios at close to the peak levels. Even though the magnitude of the reduction in the borrowing cost envisaged at this stage (100 basis points) is not enough, it is a step in the right direction and it sends a signal that concessional lending could be used to enable the peripheral sovereigns to return to debt sustainability without disruptive debt restructurings.

But, it was also made clear that a lower borrowing cost of liquidity support is conditional on the behaviour of the recipient sovereign. In recognition of the commitments that Greece has made, the borrowing cost of the bilateral loans will be reduced by 100 basis points, and their maturity will be extended from 4 years to 7.5 years. In contrast, due to the reluctance of the new Irish government to discuss raising its 12.5% corporate tax rate, the borrowing cost of the EFSF and EFSM loans to Ireland have been left unchanged.

The comprehensive policy package which will be completed by March 24/25 is due to have five elements: an increase in the size and a broadening of the scope of the EFSF (which will provide liquidity support out to mid 2013); more details on the operation of the ESM (which will provide liquidity support beyond mid 2013); a reformed Stability and Growth Pact (which will guide fiscal policy across the region); a new macroeconomic surveillance framework (which will guide macro prudential and structural policies to limit intra regional imbalances); and a competitiveness pact (which will guide all policies towards lifting growth potential in the region).

Regarding the EFSF, Euro area leaders agreed that its lending capacity will be increased to 440 billion euros, although they did not specify how this would be achieved. In terms of additional functionality, only one thing was agreed: allowing the EFSF to intervene in the primary debt markets. This looks to be an alternative to providing liquidity loans, rather than taking over the role of secondary market support that the ECB has been doing. It looks like the ECB has failed in its attempt to have the EFSF take over this task.

Regarding the ESM, it was confirmed that it will have an effective lending capacity of 500 billion euros and that this will be ensured by a mix between paid in capital, callable capital, and guarantees. It will also have the power to purchase debt in the primary markets, but not the secondary markets.

On the reforms to the Stability and Growth Pact and the new macroeconomic surveillance framework, these will be finalised by the finance ministers before March 24/25.

On the competitiveness pact, Euro area leaders agreed on its broad contours (it is now called the pact for the euro). It is essentially about boosting growth potential in the region, motivated by the idea that ‘competitiveness is essential to help the EU grow faster and more sustainably in the medium and long term, to produce higher levels of income for citizens, and to preserve our social models’. It covers four areas: improving competitiveness (through inter alia a better alignment of wages and productivity, and through higher productivity); boosting employment (through increased flexibility and tax reforms); improving the medium term sustainability of public finances (through inter alia aligning retirement ages with demographics); and reinforcing financial stability (through legislation on banking resolution and regular bank stress tests).

Euro area leaders made some other announcements as well, including an agreement that the introduction of a financial transactions tax should be explored and there is a desire to develop a common corporate tax base.

Even though the final announcement on the comprehensive policy package is still almost two weeks away, the content seems pretty clear. No one should doubt that Euro area leaders are committed to ensuring the survival of the monetary union. On the question of whether sovereign debt restructuring is going to occur, the comprehensive policy package was never going to be able to fully resolve that issue. Whether or not any of the peripheral sovereigns end up restructuring their debt depends on both the extent of the fiscal effort they are willing to engage in and the extent to which the rest of the region is willing to subsidise the liquidity support. Both of these are still unclear, but the rest of the region has now sent a powerful signal that if the debtor sovereigns put in a good faith effort then debt restructurings could well be avoided.

David Mackie

QE and the term structure of rates

Background information first, answer later-

The Fed sets the fed funds target at their regular meetings, and lets the market then determine the term structure of rates.

That term structure of rates is therefore largely a function of anticipated future fed funds rate settings.

Then the Fed does QE- buys longer term securities at market prices- to try to bring longer term rates down, particularly mortgage rates.

But longer term rates don’t come down as much as hoped for.

Now to the point all this:

What the market place believes QE does, and not what QE actually does, is the same ‘force’ that largely determines the term structure of rates.

And so when the Fed does QE,
and the market place believes that QE will work to promote a strong economy and risk inflation,
the term structure of rates goes up in anticipation of higher fed funds rate settings by the Fed down the road.

And when the Fed ends QE,
that same market place then believes that support has been pulled from the economy,
the future is no longer as inflationary,
and the term structure of rates falls as fears of future fed funds hikes subside.

It doesn’t matter that the mainstream beliefs are wrong with regard to QE,
because the term structure of rates only reflects those same mainstream market place expectations, regardless of their actual validity.

And yes, this all highly problematic for a Fed trying to keep long rates down.

labor charts

So this was a good monthly employment report?

Ok, there were a few new jobs, but not nearly as many as there used to be each month a few years ago, in an economy a lot closer to full employment, with a much smaller output gap, and one that was considered only modest at the time.

And average weekly hours remain a lot lower than before, indicating businesses have room to increase productivity/add output without adding staff.

The fall in the unemployment rate has been substantially helped by the decline in the labor participation rate, below, meaning more people are out of work aren’t included as unemployed as they are no longer looking for work.

A few Boehnalities and other notables on the US going broke

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

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

By David J. Lynch

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

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

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

Wrong reason! Broke implies not able to spend.

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

It never has nor doesn’t have any dollars.

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

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

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

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

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

For example???

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

So?

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

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

$1.6 Trillion Deficit

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

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

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

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

So much for their legacies.

Cost of Insuring Debt

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

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

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

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

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

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

Less Likely to Default

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

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

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

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

That has nothing to do with it.

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

Any nation can do that with its own currency

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

Alexander Hamilton

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

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

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

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

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

Govt spending credits member bank reserve accounts at the Fed

Tsy securities exist as securities accounts at the Fed.

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

No grandchildren involved.

Longer-Term Debt

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

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

Who also completely misses the point.

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

No they can’t.

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

Only those who don’t know any better.

Republican Dissenters

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

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

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

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

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

The burden is that of making data entries.

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

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

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

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

“Markets can make mistakes,” Fratto said.

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

$9.4 Trillion Outstanding

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

No it doesn’t.

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

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

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

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

So???

AAA Rating

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

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

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

Not Overtaxed

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

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

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

So much for his legacy.

Comments from the Algeria Oil Minister

DJ Algeria Oil Min:Increasingly Hard To Understand Market Dynamics

Agreed!

DJ Algeria Oil Min:Oil Markets Increasingly Respond To Financial Speculation

Agreed! The funds involved in commodity speculation dwarf the funds involved in the physical markets

DJ Algeria Oil Min:Market Volatility Makes Energy Investment Difficult

Agreed! The risk of a price collapse is a major factor for long term investment decisions.

DJ Algeria Oil Min: Seeking To Exploit Shale Fields In Algeria
DJ Algeria Oil Min: Will Seek Partnerships To Exploit Unconventional Oil, Gas
DJ Algeria Oil Min:Sonatrach, Partners To Invest $2.5B/Year On Unconventional Hydrocarbons
DJ Algeria Oil Min: Europe Will Need Long-Term Gas Contracts

Yes, long term contract work best for both producers and users to ensure the viability of investments and the stability of supply and price

DJ Algeria Oil Min: No Shortage Of Physical Oil

Agreed! Reinforces the fact that the Saudis are the swing producer/ultimate price setter as previously discussed

DJ Algeria Oil Min: OPEC Will Respond If There’s A Shortage Of Crude

Confirming excess Saudi capacity estimates

DJ Algeria Oil Min: No Requests For Extra Crude From Algeria

Confirming no supply shortages and Saudi price setting

Weber/LBS/Rehn


Karim writes:

Weber being more explicit than what LBS said earlier today. Basically, if 1% is considered too low, 1.25% or 1.5% would be as well.

Domestic orders in Germany today and BdF Confidence survey both firm. Expect 25bp/qtr from ECB until they get to at least 2%.

Weber:
“I wouldn’t do anything here to try to correct market expectations at this point,” Weber told Bloomberg News in Frankfurt today when asked about investors pricing in an increase in the benchmark rate to 1.75 percent by the end of the
year. It was the intention of the ECB to bring forward market expectations and “I see no reason at this stage to signal any
dissent with how markets priced future policies,” he said.\

Weber also said the ECB’s latest inflation forecasts may underestimate price pressures.

LBS:
ECB Board Member Bini Smaghi said this morning that the increase in energy and agricultural raw materials prices is a “permanent” phenomenon. He also said that the wider the gap between real interest rates and GDP growth, the higher the risk of instability, and that keeping interest rates at 1% would further increase the rate of monetary expansion.


Also, EU Commissioner for Economic Affairs Rehn keeping positive sentiment alive about reducing borrowing rates for Ireland and Greece:

“The issue now, today and tomorrow is debt sustainability and I can see that there’s a case to be made to reduce the interest rates paid by Greece and Ireland”.

Agreed, and should it happen this is not good for the euro, though markets will think it is.

Higher rates both increase national govt deficits and exacerbate credit issues.

Libya Libya Libya

Here’s my take.

As before, all the world actually cares about is the price of oil.

And the internal struggle will wind down with someone controlling the oil.

And whoever gets control of the oil wants the oil for only one reason- to sell it.

In a land of haves and have nots (at all levels), and no understanding of fiscal balance, it’s all about having the oil to sell.

So that means prices go back to where the Saudis want them to be.

My guess, and all anyone can do is guess, is Brent at maybe 100 which puts WTI maybe just under 90 until the glut issues are sorted out.

If this happens, seems-

The long oil long trades reverse.
Food prices back off some.
The view of the economy goes from half empty to half full.
The dollar gets a lot stronger.
Energy related stocks lose, others win.
But a stronger dollar may dampen prospects for US stocks.
Bonds move with stocks.
Attention shifts back to China, Europe, UK, and US fiscal policies, which are all in tightening mode.

And happy birthday to my brother Seth who turns 60 today! He just posted some old family pictures on facebook.