2007-12-26 US Economic Releases

Posted on by

2007-12-26 S&P-Case Shiller Home Price Index

S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price Index (Oct)

Survey n/a
Actual 192.9
Prior 195.6
Revised 195.7

2007-12-26 S&P-CS Composite-20 YoY

S&P/CS Composite-20 YoY (Oct)

Survey -5.7%
Actual -6.1%
Prior 4.9%
Revised n/a

2007-12-26 S&P-Case-Shiller 20 MoM%

S&P/CS 20 MoM (Oct)

Survey n/a
Actual -1.42%
Prior -0.84%
Revised n/a
% Change -69.05%

2007-12-26 Home Price Index

S&P/Case-Shiller TABLE

Survey 1
Actual -4
Prior 0
Revised n/a

It’s a big city index and has been down more than broader measures. Biggest drops have come in Miami, Las Vegas, Detroit, and Los Angeles. Also, these are October numbers – old news now.

2007-12-26 Richmond Fed Manufacturing Index

Richmond Fed Manufacturing Index (Dec)

Survey 1
Actual -4
Prior 0
Revised n/a

2007-12-26 Richmond Fed Manufacturing TABLE

Redmond Manufacturing TABLE

Some weakness and higher prices.

2007-12-26 ABC Consumer Confidence

ABC Consumer Confidence (Dec 23)

Survey n/a
Actual -23
Prior -17
Revised

This was when CNBC was still gloomy. Now that CNBC has turned a bit more optimistic, maybe the number will turn up as well.

♥

Share

Government spending and inflation comments

Posted on by

Government Spending (Trailing Twelve Months)

Note how the ‘soft spot’ in govt. spending corresponds to the softening in domestic demand. Fortunately exports have been expanding sufficiently to sustain reasonably high levels of GDP.

CRB Index

PCE Price Index

Looks like a full recovery from the Aug 06 gasoline price collapsed engineered by Goldman’s changing of their commodity index weightings?

♥

Share

Strong gdp and high credit losses

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merry Christmas!

♥

Share

Re: Is $700 billion a big number

Posted on by

(an email and an article)

On Dec 23, 2007 5:37 PM, Russell Huntley wrote:
>
>
>
> For a very bearish take on the credit crisis, see: Crisis may make 1929 look
> a ‘walk in the park’. The article includes a $700 billion loss estimate from
> the head of credit at Barclays capital:
>
> Goldman Sachs caused shock last month when it predicted that total crunch
> losses would reach $500bn,

Yes, could be. Rearranging of financial assets.

leading to a $2 trillion contraction in lending
> as bank multiples kick into reverse.

I don’t see this as a consequence. Bank lending will go in reverse only if there are no profitable loans to be made.

With floating exchange rates, bank capital in endogenous and will respond to returns on equity.

This already seems humdrum.
>
> “Our counterparties are telling us that losses may reach $700bn,” says Rob
> McAdie, head of credit at Barclays Capital. Where will it end? The big banks
> face a further $200bn of defaults in commercial property. On it goes.

Been less than 100 billion so far. Maybe they are talking cumulatively over the next five years?

>
> UPDATE: My main interest in this article was the quote from Barclays
> Capital. There has been a growing agreement that the mortgage credit crisis
> would result in losses of perhaps $400B to $500B; this is the first estimate
> I’ve seen significantly above that number.
>
> I noted last week that a $1+ trillion mortgage loss number is possible if it
> becomes socially acceptable for the middle class to walk away from their
> upside down mortgages.

Historically, people just don’t walk out onto the streets. They are personally liable for the payments regardless of current equity positions, and incomes are still strong, nationally broader surveys show home prices still up a tad ear over year.

Yes, some condo flippers and speculators will walk. But demand from that source has already gone to zero – did so over a yar ago, so that doesn’t alter aggregate demand from this point.

And that doesn’t include losses in CRE, corporate
> debt and the decrease in household net worth.

Different things, but again, the key to GDP is whether demand will hold up, including exports.

And probably half of aggregate demand comes directly or indirectly from the government. Don’t see that going negative. And AMT tax just cut fifty billion for 2008 will help demand marginally.

>
> The S&L crisis was $160B, so even adjusting for inflation, the current
> crisis is much worse than the S&L crisis (see page 13 of this GAO document).

That was net government losses? Shareholders/investors lost a lot more?

And a $1 trillion per day move in the world equity values happens all the time.

Q4 GPD being revised up to the 2% range. This has happened every quarter for quite a while.

Yes, it can all fall apart, but it hasn’t happened yet. And while there are risks to demand, negative GDP is far from obvious. Those predicting recessions mainly use yield curve correlations with past cycles and things like that.

Interesting that the one thing that is ‘real’ and currently happening is ‘inflation’, which the fed doesn’t seem to care about. And it won’t stop until crude stops climbing.

♥

Share

Repo Mkts and TAF

Posted on by

(an interoffice email)

On 12/21/07, Pat Doyle
wrote:
>
>
>
> It is becoming apparent that the funding pressures for year end are ebbing.
> The ease in pressure has a lot to do with the TAF and coordinated CBK
> interventions. The Fed is getting the cash to the people who need it.
> Discount window borrowings have been slowly climbing as well approx 4.6bb
> now. The Fed statement that they will provide this TAF facility for as long
> as needed is easing concerns amongst banks and providing a reliable source
> of funding for “hard to fund” assets.

Should have done this in August!
>
>
> There is and has been a lot of cash in the markets still looking for a home.
> Balance sheets are slowly cleaning up but balance sheet premiums (repo) will
> remain stubbornly high as long as the level 3 type assets remain on
> dealer/bank balance sheets.
>
>
>
> The current spread between the 1×4 FRA vs. 1×4 OIS is 57bps..

This looks like a good play – seems unlikely LIBOR will be at a wider spread than the discount rate. Load up the truck?

1×2 FRA vs.
> 1×2 OIS is 40bps. Spot 1mos LIBOR VS 1MOS FFs is 4.86 vs. 4.25 or 61bps.
> These spreads still represent continued unwillingness to lend in the
> interbank market and also illustrate a steeper credit curve.
>
>
>
> Turn funding has not changed substantially. While funding appears to be
> stabilizing, balance sheets are still bloated and capital ratios are still
> under pressure therefore balance sheets will remain expensive in repo land.
>
>
>
> From another bank;
>
> Mortgages over the year-end turn traded at 5.25 today, which we still feel
>
> is a good buy here considering the amount of liquidity the fed has been
> dumping
>
> into the system as of late (via the TAF and standard RP operations) and the
>
> expectation that they will continue to do so on Dec 31. Treasuries also
> traded
>
> over the turn traded today at 2.50, the first treasury turn trade we’ve seen
> in
>
> quite some time.
>
>
>
>
>
> Yesterday Tsy GC O/N’s backed up from the low 3s to 3.70. The FED has been
> actively trying to increase the supply of treasuries in the repo markets.
>
>
>
> AGENCY MBS repo has been steadily improving. 1mos OIS vs 1mos AGCY MBS has
> gone from a spreads of 63bps last week to 15bps last night. And spreads to
> 1month LIBOR have widened by 33bps AGCY MBS from L-23 12/13 to L-56 12/20.
> Again LIBOR still showing the unwillingness of banks to lend to each other.
>
>
> -Pat
>
>
>
>
> Patrick D. Doyle Jr.
>
> AVM, L.P. / III Associates
>
> 777 Yamato Road
>
> Suite 300
>
> Boca Raton, Fl. 33431
>
> 561-544-4575
>
>

♥

Share

2007-12-21 US Economic Releases

Posted on by

2007-12-21 Personal Income

Personal Income (Nov)

Survey 0.5%
Actual 0.4%
Prior 0.2%
Revised n/a

OK number.

2007-12-21 Personal Spending

Personal Spending (Nov)

Survey 0.7%
Actual 1.1%
Prior 0.2%
Revised 0.4%

Nice bounce back from a low number also revised up. Makes the two month average about 0.75%. This will cause further upward revisions of Q4 GDP.

2007-12-21 PCE Deflator YoY

PCE Deflator YoY (Nov)

Survey 3.4%
Actual 3.6%
Prior 2.9%
Revised 3.0%

Back to my favorite quote from September, ‘If the fed doesn’t care about inflation, why should I?’

Wonder what it takes for the fed to care?

2007-12-21 PCE Core MoM

PCE Core MoM (Nov)

Survey 0.2%
Actual 0.2%
Prior 0.2%
Revised n/a

2007-12-21 PCE Core YoY

PCE Core YoY (Nov)

Survey 2.0%
Actual 2.2%
Prior 1.9%
Revised 2.0%

Core at or though fed’s upper bound.

2007-12-21-u-of-michigan-confidence.gif

U. of Michigan Confidence (Dec F)

Survey 74.5
Actual 75.5
Prior 74.5
Revised 2.0%

People still watching CNBC.

2007-12-21 Inflation Expecations - 1 Year Ahead

Inflation Expectations – 1 Year Ahead

Survey n/a
Actual 3.4%
Prior 3.2%
Revised n/a

One of the fed’s indicators – don’t like this action as they think once it elevates it’s too late.

2007-12-21 Inflation Expecations - 5 Years Ahead

Inflation Expectations – 5 Years Ahead

Survey n/a
Actual 3.1%
Prior 2.8%
Revised n/a

As above – once it elevates it’s too late.

♥

Share

2007-12-20 US Economic Releases

Posted on by

small 2007-12-20 GPD Annualized

GDP Annualized (3QF)

Survey 4.9%
Actual 4.9%
Prior 4.9%
Revised n/a

small 2007-12-20 Personal Consumption

Personal Consumption (3QF)

Survey 42.8.9%
Actual 2.8%
Prior 2.7%
Revised n/a

2007-12-20 GDP Price Index

GDP Price Index (3QF)

Survey 0.9%
Actual 1.0%
Prior 0.9%
Revised n/a

Above numbers as expected.

small 2007-12-20 Core PCE QoQ

Core PCE QoQ (3QF)

Survey 1.8%
Actual 2.0%
Prior 1.8%
Revised n/a

This is now at the upper bound of the fed’s comfort zone.

2007-12-20 Initial Jobless Claims

Initial Jobless Claims (Dec 15)

Survey 335K
Actual 346K
Prior 333K
Revised 334K

Creeping up.

Fed gets concerned if it gets over 375K.

2007-12-20 Continuing Claims

Continuing Claims (Dec 8)

Survey 2610K
Actual 264K
Prior 2639K
Revised 2634K

Creeping up as well, but not yet a major concern.

2007-12-20 Leading Indicators

Leading Indicators (Nov)

Survey -0.3%
Actual -0.5%
Prior -0.5%
Revised n/a

Pretty much in line with expectations.

2007-12-20 Philadelphia Fed.

Philadelphia Fed. (Dec)

Survey 6.0%
Actual -5.7%
Prior 8.2%
Revised n/a

♥

Share

it’s about price, not quantity

Posted on by

It’s about price, not quantity.

CB’s don’t alter net reserve positions – they ‘offset operating factors’ and set interest rates.

Fed to redeem $14.02 bln of bill holdings Dec. 27

Thu Dec 20, 2007 11:20am EST

NEW YORK, Dec 20 (Reuters) – The U.S. Federal Reserve said on Thursday it will redeem the full amount of maturing Treasury bill holdings, amounting to $14.02 billion on Dec. 27.

The redemption, a move to drain liquidity from the banking system, will take place via the Federal Reserve’s System Open Market Account or SOMA.

“The Federal Reserve Open Market Trading Desk will continue to evaluate the need for the use of other tools, including further
Treasury bill redemptions, reverse repurchase agreements and Treasury bill sales,” the Fed said in a statement on the New York Fed’s Web site. (Reporting by John Parry; Editing by James Dalgleish)

♥

Share