Tag Archives: Bernanke

Bernanke on the swap lines

Posted on by


[Skip to the end]

Last week’s swap line number reported by the Fed was down to $521 billion from $608 billion. While still a very large number, it is coming down, and hopefully will continue to do so.

However, the continued fall in commodities prices, particularly crude oil, means dollars are ‘harder to get’ for the foreign sector, as they must export more product to the US for the same amount of dollars. And with the US consumer weakening, obtaining $US via exporting to the US will be that much more problematic.

Here is what Chairman Bernanke said yesterday about the swap lines.

Federal Reserve Policies in the Financial Crisis

In our globalized financial markets, the provision of dollar liquidity has international as well as domestic aspects. To improve dollar funding conditions in important foreign markets, the Federal Reserve has approved bilateral currency swap agreements with 14 foreign central banks. Swap facilities allow each of the central banks involved to borrow foreign currency from the other; in this case, foreign central banks such as the Bank of Japan, the European Central Bank, the Bank of
England, and the Swiss National Bank

And the Bank of Mexico, and other lesser CB’s.

have borrowed dollars from the Federal Reserve to re-lend to banks in their jurisdictions.

Yes, it’s a case of $US loans to foreign governments.

This is functionally no different than the Fed buying, for example, Mexican $ bonds.

Because short-term funding markets are interconnected, the provision of dollar
liquidity in major foreign markets eases conditions in dollar funding markets globally, including here in the United States.

Yes, that is true.

Lending to those less credit worthy does decrease their demand to borrow USD.

And that’s exactly the reason the Fed is lending virtually unsecured to lesser credits- to get interest rates down?

On a risk/reward basis this makes no sense to me.

There are far less costly ways to get USD LIBOR down.

Importantly, these swap arrangements pose essentially no credit risk because our counterparties are the foreign central banks themselves, which take responsibility for the extension of dollar credit within their jurisdictions.

So lending to the Bank of Mexico poses no credit risk?

And the ECB is shell company not guaranteed by the national governments.

And they’ve been criticizing the banking industry for poor underwriting criteria- this is far, far worse.

And would Congress approve the purchase of foreign USD bonds solely as a means to lower USD LIBOR? Is Congress aware that the Fed is authorized to do this?

Hopefully we get lucky and all the central banks politely pay us back.


[top]

Share

Fed Chairman Bernanke’s remarks

Posted on by


[Skip to the end]

Nothing a payroll tax holiday can’t fix in short order.

Market tumbles further on Bernanke comments

Wednesday October 15, 12:46 pm ET

NEW YORK (Reuters) – Stocks fell to session lows on Wednesday, with the benchmark S&P 500 briefly tumbling more than 5 percent, after Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said the economy faces a significant threat from credit market turmoil.


[top]

Share

Bernanke-“Grave”

Posted on by


[Skip to the end]

Karim writes:

Not a word you often see a Fed Chairman use:

….stabilization of our financial system is an essential precondition for economic recovery. I urge the Congress to act quickly to address the grave threats to financial stability that we currently face.

He outlined the channels in which this impacts the economy in this paragraph:

Ongoing developments in financial markets are directly affecting the broader economy through several channels, most notably by restricting the availability of credit. Mortgage credit terms have tightened significantly and fees have risen, especially for potential borrowers who lack substantial down payments or who have blemished credit histories. Mortgages that are ineligible for credit guarantees by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac–for example, nonconforming jumbo mortgages–cannot be securitized and thus carry much higher interest rates than conforming mortgages. Some lenders have reduced borrowing limits on home equity lines of credit. Households also appear to be having more difficulty of late in obtaining nonmortgage credit. For example, the Federal Reserve’s Senior Loan Officer Opinion Survey reported that as of July an increasing proportion of banks had tightened standards for credit card and other consumer loans. In the business sector, through August, the financially strongest firms remained able to issue bonds but bond issuance by speculative-grade firms remained very light. More recently, however, deteriorating financial market conditions have disrupted the commercial paper market and other forms of financing for a wide range of firms, including investment-grade firms. Financing for commercial real estate projects has also tightened very significantly.

When worried lenders tighten credit, then spending, production, and job creation slow.

Separately, he stated that:

  • Economic activity was ‘decelerating broadly’ and that second half growth would be ‘appreciably below potential’
  • He noted improved housing affordability but also that th
  • He cited the usual ‘over time’ for the economy to improve and that inflation would moderate ‘later this year and next’, with significant uncertainty attached to both forecasts.


[top]

Share

Bernanke

Posted on by


[Skip to the end]

Karim writes:

Most of testimony explaining actions of recent weeks. Direct comments on economy below. Focus on enabling financial conditions to improve ‘for a protracted period’ means that in Bernanke’s mind that hikes are off the table for a ‘protracted period’ and cuts may be on the table if inflation cooperates.

Notably, stresses in financial markets have been high and have recently intensified significantly. If financial conditions fail to improve for a protracted period, the implications for the broader economy could be quite adverse.

While perhaps manageable in itself, Lehman’s default was combined with the unexpectedly rapid collapse of AIG, which together contributed to the development last week of extraordinarily turbulent conditions in global financial markets. These conditions caused equity prices to fall sharply, the cost of short-term credit–where available–to spike upward, and liquidity to dry up in many markets. Losses at a large money market mutual fund sparked extensive withdrawals from a number of such funds. A marked increase in the demand for safe assets–a flight to quality–sent the yield on Treasury bills down to a few hundredths of a percent. By further reducing asset values and potentially restricting the flow of credit to households and businesses, these developments pose a direct threat to economic growth.


[top]

Share

NYT: Fed to Give A.I.G. $85 bln Loan and Takeecon

Posted on by


[Skip to the end]

The Fed has a major strategic advantage over private sector buyers.

With the Fed making the loan, credit spreads in general should narrow.

This will add value to AIG’s short credit position which is where most of the mark to market losses are.

So the Fed’s actions to reduce systemic risk also increase the value of AIG once they take them over.

It’s good to be the Fed!

(not that it matters to the Fed itself financially one way or the other, but they probably don’t know that)

Fed Close to Deal to Give A.I.G. $85 Billion Loan


by Michael J. de la Merced and Eric Dash

In an extraordinary turn, the Federal Reserve was close to a deal Tuesday night to take a nearly 80 percent stake in the troubled giant insurance company, the American International Group, in exchange for an $85 billion loan, according to people briefed on the negotiations.

In return, the Fed will receive warrants, which give it an ownership stake. All of A.I.G.’s assets will be pledged to secure the loan, these people said.

The Fed’s action was disclosed after Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson and Ben S. Bernanke, president of the Federal Reserve, went to Capitol Hill on Tuesday evening to meet with House and Senate leaders. Mr. Paulson called the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, about 5 p.m. and asked for a meeting in the Senate leader’s office, which began about 6:30 p.m.

The Federal Reserve and Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase had been trying to arrange a $75 billion loan for A.I.G. to stave off the financial crisis caused by complex debt securities and credit default swaps . The Federal Reserve stepped in after it became clear Tuesday afternoon that the banking consortium would not be able to complete the deal.

Without the help, A.I.G. was expected to be forced to file for bankruptcy protection.

The need for the loans became necessary after the major credit ratings agencies downgraded A.I.G. late Monday, a move that likely to have forced the company to turn over billions of dollars in collateral to its derivatives trading partners worsening its financial health.

Until this week, it would have been unthinkable for the Federal Reserve to bail out an insurance company, and A.I.G.’s request for help from the Fed of just a few days ago was rebuffed.

But with the prospect of a giant bankruptcy looming – one with unpredictable consequences for the world financial system – the Fed abandoned precedent and agreed to let the money flow.


[top]

Share

Re: Is Fischer correct?

Posted on by


[Skip to the end]

(an email exchange)

Not even close!

>   
>   On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 11:54 PM, Russell wrote:
>   
>   I found Fischer’s speech.
>   
>   ”No combination of tax hikes and spending cuts, though, will change the total
>   burden borne by current and future generations. For the existing unfunded
>   liabilities to be covered in the end, someone must pay $99.2 trillion more or
>   receive $99.2 trillion less than they have been currently promised.
>   

Why/how? Show me the debits and credits and how that changes real outcomes!

>   This is a cold, hard fact.

Yes, he believes it.

>   The decision we must make is whether to shoulder a substantial portion of that
>   burden today or compel future generations to bear its full weight.”

Yes, produce goods and services and send them back in time to pay off the debt.

>   ”We know from centuries of evidence in countless economies, from ancient
>   Rome to today’s Zimbabwe, that running the printing press to pay off today’s
>   bills leads to much worse problems later on. The inflation that results from the
>   flood of money into the economy turns out to be far worse than the fiscal pain
>   those countries hoped to avoid. ”
>   

What is ‘the printing press’ as above? Deficit spending? So why was the Fed pushing the latest fiscal package? Is this an attack on Bernanke?

>   ”Right now, we—you and I—are launching fiscal bombs against ourselves. ”

Then why is the Fed forecasting lower inflation over the next two years and beyond?


[top]

Share

Bernanke

Posted on by


[Skip to the end]

Karim writes:

Overall tone->On hold->Economy to stay weak->Recognizes rates are low amid inflation risk->But no mention of acting in a timely manner->Credit strains remain high->Commodities and USD offering respite on inflation outlook. Bulk of speech dedicated to financial infrastructure and supervision.

Click to read Bernanke’s Speech

  • Although we have seen improved functioning in some markets, the financial storm that reached gale force some weeks before our last meeting here in Jackson Hole has not yet subsided, and its effects on the broader economy are becoming apparent in the form of softening economic activity and rising unemployment. Add to this mix a jump in inflation, in part the product of a global commodity boom, and the result has been one of the most challenging economic and policy environments in memory.
  • We have recently extended our special programs for primary dealers beyond the end of the year, based on our assessment that financial conditions remain unusual and exigent. We will continue to review all of our liquidity facilities to determine if they are having their intended effects or require modification.


[top]

Share

Re: Resource allocation

Posted on by


[Skip to the end]

>   
>   On 8/3/08, Craig wrote:
>   
>   Ok. And the irony is as prices fall, demand increases again.
>   Until consuming governments get their head around that fact
>   and put some kind of floor under crude prices to incent
>   substitution (which may be beyond their thinking and/or impossible
>   politically), it seems like crude prices are gonna play rope-a-dope
>   with consumers.
>   
>   
>   Craig
>   
>   

Crude will be rationed as is everything else (scarcity, etc.).

The question is how. Ration by price or by other things?

Rationing by price is the most pervasive and means the wealthy (by definition) outbid the less wealthy for the available supply.

Make you wonder why the Democrats support higher prices, as that means they support their supporters going without while the wealthy drive any size SUV they want. Much like wondering why Obama supports Bernanke after Bernanke explained to Congress how he’s keeping inflation down by keeping a lid on inflation expectations after explaining the main component of inflation expectations is workers demanding higher wages, meaning Obama, Kennedy, and the rest of the left is praising Bernanke for doing a good job of suppressing wages.

Non-price rationing is less common but not unfamiliar, such as mandating cars get an average of 27 mpg, minimum efficiency standards for refrigerators, windows, etc. This takes an element of rationing by price away and results in the wealthy consuming less and leaving some for the less wealthy to consume a bit.

So seems to me the logical path for the Democrats would be something like my 30 mph speed limit for private transportation, which is ‘progressive’ and also drives the move towards public transportation with non price incentives as previously outlined. But there hasn’t even been any discussion of a progressive policy response. All seem highly regressive to me.

So I expect the world’s new and growing class of wealthy will continue to outbid our least wealthy for fuel and other resources.

Also, there may be limits to how high we want world consumption/burning of fuels for all the various ‘green’ reasons.

That would mean drilling and other production increases are out, as would be increased use of coal via the electric grid for electric cars.

And, again, it would be the world’s wealthy outbidding the less wealthy for consumption of the allowable annual fuel burn, as somehow allocation by price continues to rule.

Most paths keep coming down to the continuing combination of weakness and higher prices.

Warren

[top][end]

(comments from my brother, Seth, who was cc’d)

>   
>   I think democrats have lots of business and profits waiting
>   in govt subsidies for wind and solar. If oil prices fall that goes
>   away for now and they can’t produce on the subsidies for
>   them-cynical view but probably true
>   
>   There are also a lot of wealthy democrats and they want their
>   votes. Poor people all vote for democrats anyway-even with
>   declining lifestyles they are not going to McCain. So I think
>   Obama is pandering to the wealthy-it might be who he is-no
>   one really knows.
>   
>   With all of their green talk I have not seen any of them reduce
>   air travel, suv caravans or turn off the a/c in the capital. Just a
>   way to get votes and sound concerned. I saw a tv program
>   about how the chinese olympic swimming building is a green
>   sustainable building. It is 7 acres, pools, 25,000 people.
>   they finally said it uses about 25% less energy than a comparable
>   building would have. That is not green or sustainable, especially
>   since the building was not needed in the first place. I think “green”
>   is about making money, not the environment.
>   
>   
>   Seth
>   

I just can’t allow myself to be that cynical like you new yorkers!

:)

Warren

>   
>   
>   I think I am cynical usually, but this green thing drives me nuts
>   it started 30 years ago but is now all about money
>   when I see some lights turned off in Times Square (even in the
>   daytime) or the 5 huge spot lights on the CBS building lighting up
>   Katie Couric’s 50′ x 30′ poster which are on 24 hours a day turned
>   off, then I will believe it is about resources and not money.
>   there is a long way to go.
>   they advertise expensive green buildings here-I am not kidding-the
>   big thing is thermostats with timers on them and bamboo floors-didn’t
>   we have those 30 years ago??
>   
>   they talked about the oscar ceremony being green this year-the
>   celebrities were all giddy about it-what they did was use red
>   carpet made of recycled fibers????? what is that?
>   absolutely nothing-
>   anyway, time to calm down. too much excitement here
>   seth –
>   
>   

[top]

Share

Bernanke testimony on inflation

Posted on by


[Skip to the end]

The last few Michigan surveys had one-year inflation expectations over 5%.

This is not lost on an FOMC that believes inflation expectations cause inflation.

Chairman Bernanke said this yesterday after outlining the inflation expectations/inflation process:

“A critical responsibility of monetary policy makers is to prevent that process from taking hold.”

‘Prevent’ implies action, not ‘monitoring’.

Might just be a poor choice of words.


[top]

Share