Tag Archives: Europe

U.S. and Eur Data/GDP Downgrades

Posted on by


Karim writes:

U.S. data on the soft side (October)

  • Most notable is core durable goods orders (capex has been gwth leader of late) falling 1.8% and 3mth annual rate slowing to 4% from 7.3%
  • Core shipments (more important for current quarter growth) down 1.1%
  • Personal spending up 0.1%.
  • Personal income up 0.4% (mostly via wages) and savings rate up from 3.3% to 3.5%
  • Headline Price index-0.1% and core unchanged, so reasonable increase in real incomes. Core PCE Index now 1.5% 3mth annualized vs 2% last month

EUR Composite PMI ‘surprises’ to upside in November, rising from 46.5 to 47.2

  • Interesting that manufacturing (more volatile and more of a leading indicator) much weaker than services.
  • Also, German new orders fall 2.6pts to 42.6

Q4 GDP estimates in U.S. being shaved 0.25-0.50% on the data. Current range 2.5-3.25%.
Failure to extend payroll tax cut would have impact almost entirely in Q1 2012 (annual withholding ceilings typically reached early in the year)-about 1% on GDP.

European estimates are about -1.5% annualized for both Q4 and Q1. Germany among the weakest (due to manufacturing) with estimates in the -2.5% area.

PMI data in Europe has had a very good track record signaling ECB policy rate changes. This data pretty much cements another rate cut next month.

Share

CNBC’s John Carney on Krugman and MMT

Posted on by

>   
>   (email exchange)
>   
>   On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Stephanie wrote:
>   
>   John Carney loving on us again

Yes!

Paul Krugman Goes MMT on Italy

By John Carney

November 11 (CNBC) — It seems pretty clear that the school of thought known as Modern Monetary Theory has made a big impact on Paul Krugman’s thinking.

As Cullen Roche at Pragmatic Capitalism points out, just a few months ago the spread between bonds issued by Japan and Italy, which have similar debt and demographic issues, was perplexing Krugman.

“A question (to which I don’t have the full answer): why are the interest rates on Italian and Japanese debt so different? As of right now, 10-year Japanese bonds are yielding 1.09%; 10-year Italian bonds 5.76%.

…I actually don’t have a firm view. But it seems to be an important puzzle to resolve.”

But today’s column is basically right out of MMT.

“What has happened, it turns out, is that by going on the euro, Spain and Italy in effect reduced themselves to the status of Third World countries that have to borrow in someone else’s currency, with all the loss of flexibility that implies. In particular, since euro-area countries can’t print money even in an emergency, they’re subject to funding disruptions in a way that nations that kept their own currencies aren’t — and the result is what you see right now. America, which borrows in dollars, doesn’t have that problem.”

Share

Talk still cheap – ECB writes the check again

Posted on by

Lots of talk, particularly from Germany about the ECB not writing the check, due to (errant) inflation concerns.

But to no avail. In fact, with the Rubicon crossing decision to haircut Greek bonds 50% for the private sector’s holdings, expect the check writing to continue to intensify.

And expect economies to continue to slow under the pressure of continuing austerity demands that also work to make their deficits higher.

From today’s headlines:

Italian Bonds Advance as ECB Purchases Debt; French, Belgian Spreads Widen
A Successor, Picked by a Tainted Hand
EU Lowers Euro-Region Growth Forecasts
Italy’s Senate Speeds Austerity Vote
Merkel’s Party May Adopt Euro-Exit Clause in Platform, CDU’s Barthle Says
Greek President to Meet Party Leaders as Unity Aim in Disarray

Italian Bonds Advance as ECB Purchases Debt; French, Belgian Spreads Widen

By Paul Dobson

November 10 (Bloomberg) — Italian government bonds rose as the European Central Bank was said to purchase the securities and after the nation sold the maximum amount of one-year bills on offer at an auction.

The advance pushed the yield on 10-year securities below 7 percent. Italy’s senate is set to vote tomorrow on a package of austerity measures designed to clear the way for establishing a new government and restore confidence in Europe’s second-biggest debtor. The nation sold 5 billion euros ($6.8 billion) of bills at an average yield of 6.087 percent, up from 3.570 percent on similar-maturity securities sold last month.

“Together with reported ECB buying, this auction result should support further Italy outperformance,” said Luca Jellinek, head of European interest-rate strategy at Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank in London.

The yield on two-year Italian government notes slid 55 basis points to 6.66 percent at 9:43 a.m. London time. The 2.25 percent securities due November 2013 rose 0.915, or 9.15 euros per 1,000-euro face amount, to 92.205.

The ECB bought Italian government bonds, according to five people familiar with the transactions, who declined to be identified because the deals are confidential. It also bought Spanish securities, two of the people added. The ECB was not immediately available for comment when contacted by telephone.

Share

For BTPS & SPGBs all inter dealer screens have gone blank

Posted on by

As previously discussed, it’s hard to see how anyone with fiduciary responsibility can buy Italian debt or any other member nation debt after EU officials announced the plan for 50% haircuts on Greek bonds held by the private sector.

Yes, all governments have the authority, one way or another, to confiscate an investors funds. But they don’t, and work to establish credibility that they won’t.

But now that the EU has actually announced they are going to do it, as a fiduciary you’d have to be a darn fool to support investing any client funds in any member nation debt.

The last buyer standing is and was always to be the ECB, which will now be buying most all new member nation debt as there is no alternative that includes survival of the union.

And when this happens there will be a massive relief response, as the solvency issue will be behind them, with the euro firming as well.

Then the reality of the state of their economy take over, as GDP continues to fade and unemployment continues to rise until they figure out austerity can’t work and instead they need to proactively increase their member nation’s budget deficits.

Hopefully this doesn’t take quite so long as it took to figure out the ECB has to write the check.

But this one might take even longer as it will be a function of blood in the streets rather than funding capacity.

   
>   (email exchange)
>   
>   On Wednesday, November 09, 2011 5:37 AM, Dave wrote:
>   
>    For BTPS & SPGBs all inter dealer screens have gone blank and there is no liquidity left.
>    There are really no quotes for even 10y BTPs for example and the last bids were hit
>    about 80BP wider for the day vs Bunds.
>   

Share

MMT, The Euro And The Greatest Prediction Of The Last 20 Years?

Posted on by

Thanks, Cullen!!!

MMT, The Euro And The Greatest Prediction Of The Last 20 Years?

By Cullen Roche

November 7 (Seeking Alpha) —Being right matters. This isn’t emphasized quite enough in the finance world and in economics in general. Too often, bad theory has led to bad predictions which has helped contribute to bad policy. While MMT remains a heterodox economic school that has been largely shunned by mainstream economists, the modern proponents have an awfully good track record in predicting highly complex economic events.

In the last few years, the Euro crisis has proven a remarkably complex and persistent event. And no school of thought so succinctly predicted the precise cause and effect, as the MMT school did. These predictions were not vague or general in any manner. In reading the research from MMTers at the time of the Euro’s inception, their predictions are almost eerily prescient. They broke down an entire monetary system and described exactly why its construction would lead to financial crisis if the union did not evolve.

In 1992 Wynne Godley described the inherent flaw in the Euro:

If a government does not have its own central bank on which it can draw cheques freely, its expenditures can be financed only by borrowing in the open market in competition with businesses, and this may prove excessively expensive or even impossible, particularly under conditions of extreme emergency….The danger then, is that the budgetary restraint to which governments are individually committed will impart a disinflationary bias that locks Europe as a whole into a depression it is powerless to lift.

In his must read book “Understanding Modern Money” Randall Wray described (in 1998) the same dynamic that led to the crisis in the EMU:

Under the EMU, monetary policy is supposed to be divorced from fiscal policy, with a great degree of monetary policy independencein order to focus on the primary objective of price stability. Fiscal policy, in turn will be tightly constrained by criteria which dictate maximum deficit to GDP and debt to deficit ratios. Most importantly, as Goodhart recognizes, this will be the world’s first modern experiment on a wide scale that would attempt to break the link between a government and its currency.

…As currently designed, the EMU will have a central bank (the ECB) but it will not have any fiscal branch. This would be much like a US which operated with a Fed, but with only individual state treasuries. It will be as if each EMU member country were to attempt to operate fiscal policy in a foreign currency; deficit spending will require borrowing in that foreign currency according to the dictates of private markets.

In 2002, Stephanie Kelton (then Stephanie Bell) was even more specific in describing the funding crisis that would inevitably ensue in the region:

Countries that wish to compete for benchmark status, or to improve the terms on which they borrow, will have an incentive to reduce fiscal deficits or strive for budget surpluses. In countries where this becomes the overriding policy objective, we should not be surprised to find relatively little attention paid to the stabilization of output and employment. In contrast, countries that attempt to eschew the principles of “sound” finance may find that they are unable to run large, counter-cyclical deficits, as lenders refuse to provide sufficient credit on desirable terms. Until something is done to enable member states to avert these financial constraints (e.g. political union and the establishment of a federal (EU) budget or the establishment of a new lending institution, designed to aid member states in pursuing a broad set of policy objectives), the prospects for stabilization in the Eurozone appear grim. (emphasis added)

In 2001 Warren Mosler described the liquidity crisisthat the Euro would lead to:

Water freezes at 0 degrees C. But very still water can be cooled well below that and stay liquid until a catalyst, such as a sudden breeze, causes it to instantly solidify. Likewise, the conditions for a national liquidity crisis that will shut down the euro-12’s monetary system are firmly in place. All that is required is an economic slowdown that threatens either tax revenues or the capital of the banking system.

A prosperous financial future belongs to those who respect the dynamics and are prepared for the day of reckoning. History and logic dictate that the credit sensitive euro-12 national governments and banking system will be tested. The market’s arrows will inflict an initially narrow liquidity crisis, which will immediately infect and rapidly arrest the entire euro payments system. Only the inevitable, currently prohibited, direct intervention of the ECB will be capable of performing the resurrection, and from the ashes of that fallen flaming star an immortal sovereign currency will no doubt emerge.

In a recent article, Paul Krugman referred to some of his predictions as “big stuff”. What the MMT school has accomplished through its understanding and prescience of the European union is not merely “big stuff” – it is nothing short of remarkable. This was not merely saying that the Euro was flawed for this reason or that and that the construct of a united Europe was misguided (a prediction made by many at the time of the Euro’s inception due mainly to political biases). The MMT economists approached the formation of the Euro from a purely operational aspect and predicted with near perfection, exactly why it was flawed and exactly why it would not work as is currently constructed.

Some economists say MMT focuses too much on reality by focusing on the actual operational aspects of the banking system and the monetary system. But as we have seen time and time again, having a poor understanding of the monetary system is not only detrimental to your portfolio, but detrimental to the millions of citizens who are now being subjected to the ignorance of the economists who influence these monetary constructs.

Share

News recap comments

Posted on by

The news flow from last week was so voluminous it was nearly impossible to process. For good measure I want to start today’s commentary with a simple recap of what happened.

On the negative side –

· Greece called a referendum and threw bailout plans up in the air taking Greek 2yrs from 70% to 90% or +2000bps.
· Italian 10yr debt collapsed 40bps with spreads to Germany out 70bps. The moves were far larger in the 2yr sector.
· France 10y debt widened 25bps to Germany. At one point spreads were almost 40 wider.
· Italian PMI and Spanish employment data were miserable.
· German factory orders plunged 4.3 percent on the month.
· The planned EFSF bond for 3bio was pulled.
· Itraxx financials were +34 while subs were +45.
· Draghi predicted a recession for Europe along with disinflation.
· The G20 was flop – there was no agreement on IMF involvement in Europe.
· The US super committee deadline is 17 days away with no clear agreement.
· The 8th largest US bankruptcy in history took place.
· US 10yr and 30yr rallied 28bps, Spoos were -2.5%, the Dax was -6% and EURUSD was -3%.
· German CDS was up 16bps on the week.

On the positive side –

· The Fed showed its hand with tightening dissents now gone and an easing dissent in place.

Too bad what they call ‘easing’ at best has been shown to do nothing.

· The Fed’s significant downside risk language remained intact.

Downside risks sound like bad news to me.

· In the press conference Ben teed up QE3 in MBS space.

Which at best have been shown to do little or nothing for the macro economy.

· US payrolls, claims, vehicle sales and productivity came in better than expected.

And the real output gap if anything widened.

· S&P earnings are coming in at +18% y/y with implied corporate profits at +23 percent q/q a.r.

Reinforces the notion that it’s a good for stocks, bad for people economy.

· Mortgage speeds were much faster than expectations suggesting some easing refi pressures.

And savers holding those securities saw their incomes cut faster than expected.

· The ECB cut 25bps and indicated a dovish forward looking stance.

Which reduced euro interest income for the non govt sectors

· CME Margins were reduced.

Just means volatility was down some.

· There was a massive USDJPY intervention which may be a precursor to a Swiss style Japanese policy easing.

Which, for the US, means reduced costs of imports from Japan, which works against US exports, which should be a good thing for the US as it means for the size govt we have, taxes could be lowered to sustain demand, but becomes a bad thing as our leadership believes the US Federal deficit to be too large and so instead we get higher unemployment.

· The Swiss have indicated they want an even weaker CHF – possibly EURCHF 1.40.

When this makes a list of ‘positives’ you know the positives are pretty sorry

· The Aussies cut rates 25bps

Cutting net interest income for the economy.

Share

Credit spillovers from Eur banks to EM

Posted on by

Makes sense.

I always wondered how that loan demand was accommodated.
Never looked like the kind of lending US regulators would sanction.


Karim writes:

Interesting table from JPM.
Much larger dependence on credit from Eur banks for LATAM economies than from U.S. banks.
Poland/Russia not as surprising but still large!
Overall, domestic bank lending surveys in EM have also been moving towards a net tightening of lending standards.

Could be more severe credit contraction in those economies as a result of ongoing strains in Europe.

Euro area and US bank claims on EM
As of 2Q11
EUR Banks
US Banks
$ bn
% of dom cred
$ bn
% of dom cred
EM
1980.7
12.4
811.3
5.1
EM Asia
406.7
3.2
472.0
3.8
China
90.6
1.0
81.7
0.9
Korea
68.4
6.3
95.1
8.8
Latam
618.1
38.7
248.5
15.6
Brazil
285.0
23.1
97.6
7.9
Russia
113.5
16.1
23.8
3.4
Poland
249.0
95.6
14.4
5.5


Share

CBO Congressional Report- U.S. Could Face European-Style Debt Crisis

Posted on by

How about the accounts sticking to accounting.

Just in case you thought there was any hope:

But most ominously, the CBO report warns of a “sudden fiscal crisis” in which investors would lose faith in the U.S. government’s ability to manage its fiscal affairs. In such a fiscal panic, investors might abandon U.S. bonds and force the government to pay unaffordable interest rates. In turn, the report warns, Washington policymakers would have to win back the confidence of the markets by imposing spending cuts and tax increases far more severe than if they were to take action now.

U.S. Could Face European-Style Debt Crisis: Congressional Report

June 22 (AP) — The rapidly growing national debt could soon spark a European-style crisis unless Congress moves forcefully, the Congressional Budget Office warned Wednesday in a study that underscores the stakes for a bipartisan group working on a plan to reduce red ink.

Republicans seized on the non-partisan report to renew their push to reduce costs in federal benefit programs such as Medicare — the federal government health care program that benefits the elderly.

The report said the national debt, now $14.3 trillion, is on pace to equal the annual size of the economy within a decade. It warned of a possible “sudden fiscal crisis” if it is left unchecked, with investors losing faith in the U.S. government’s ability to manage its fiscal affairs.

Democrats and Republicans have been stepping up budget talks aimed at averting what could be the disastrous first-ever default on U.S. government debt. A bipartisan group led by Vice President Joe Biden tasked with reaching an agreement has not made the politically difficult compromises on the larger issues, such as changes in Medicare, or tax increases.

The study reverberated throughout the Capitol as Biden and negotiators and senior lawmakers spent several hours behind closed doors. The talks are aimed at outlining about $2 trillion in deficit cuts over the next decade, part of an attempt to generate enough support in Congress to allow the Treasury to take on new borrowing.

Biden made no comment as he departed, except to say the group would meet again on Thursday and probably Friday as well.

The CBO, the non-partisan agency that calculates the cost and economic impact of legislation and government policy, says the nation’s rapidly growing debt burden increases the probability of a fiscal crisis in which investors lose faith in U.S. bonds and force policymakers to make drastic spending cuts or tax increases.

“As Congress debates the president’s request for an increase in the statutory debt ceiling, the CBO warns of a more ominous credit cliff — a sudden drop-off in our ability to borrow imposed by credit markets in a state of panic,” said Republican House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan.

The findings aren’t dramatically new, but the budget office’s analysis underscores the magnitude of the nation’s fiscal problems as negotiators struggle to lift the current $14.3 trillion debt limit and avoid a first-ever, market-rattling default on U.S. obligations. The Biden-led talks have proceeded slowly and are at a critical stage, as Democrats and Republicans remain at loggerheads over revenues and domestic programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

With Republicans insisting that the level of deficit cuts at least equal the amount of any increase in the debt limit, it would take more than $2 trillion in cuts to carry past next year’s elections. House Republican leaders have made it plain they only want a single vote before the elections.

That $2 trillion-plus goal is proving elusive. And a top Senate Democrat warned Wednesday that it would be insufficient anyway.

“While I am encouraged by the bipartisan nature of the leadership negotiations being led by Vice President Biden, I am concerned by reports the group may be focusing on a limited package that will not fundamentally change the fiscal trajectory of the nation,” said Senate budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, a Democrat. “That would be a mistake.”

Democratic leaders, however, held a news conference Wednesday to argue for more economic stimulus measures such as a proposal floated by the White House to extend a payroll tax cut enacted last year. The move demonstrates the continuing appeal of deficit-financed policy solutions — suggested even as warnings of the dangers of mounting debt grow louder and louder.

“We absolutely need to reduce our deficit. We know that,” said Demoratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. “But economists tell us that reducing spending is only half the equation. The other half is measures to create jobs.

President Barack Obama planned to meet with House Democratic leaders Thursday to discuss the status of the deficit reduction talks. The meeting comes as Democrats want the president to rule out Medicare benefit cuts as part of any budget deal.

The White House said the meeting will address deficit reduction through a “balanced framework,” a term the White House uses to describe cuts in spending coupled with increased tax revenue.

With the fiscal imbalance requiring the government to borrow more than 40 cents of every dollar it spends, the CBO predicts that without a change of course the national debt will rocket from 69 percent of gross domestic product this year to 109 percent of GDP — the record set in World War II — by 2023.

The CBO’s projections are based on a scenario that anticipates Bush-era tax cuts are extended and other current policies such as maintaining doctors’ fees under Medicare are continued as well. The debt would be far more stable under the budget office’s official “baseline” that assumes taxes return to Clinton-era rates and that doctors absorb unrealistic fee cuts.

Economists warn that rising debt threatens to devastate the economy by forcing interest rates higher, squeezing domestic investment, and limiting the government’s ability to respond to unexpected challenges like an economic downturn.

But most ominously, the CBO report warns of a “sudden fiscal crisis” in which investors would lose faith in the U.S. government’s ability to manage its fiscal affairs. In such a fiscal panic, investors might abandon U.S. bonds and force the government to pay unaffordable interest rates. In turn, the report warns, Washington policymakers would have to win back the confidence of the markets by imposing spending cuts and tax increases far more severe than if they were to take action now.

Share

Major Banks Likely to Get Reprieve on New Capital Rules

Posted on by

The real problem is if you understand what a bank is, you wouldn’t be trying to use capital ratios to protect taxpayer money.

First, notice that the many of the same people clamoring for higher capital ratios have also supported ‘nationalization’ of banks, which means there is no private capital. So it should be obvious that something other than private capital is employed to protect taxpayer money.

Taxpayer money is protected on the asset side (loans and other investments held by banks) with lending regulations. That includes what type of investments are legal for banks, what kind of lending is legal, including collateral requirements and income requirements. That means if Congress thought the problem in 2008 was lax and misguided lending, to further protect taxpayer money they need to tighten things up on that side. And that would include tightening up on supervision and enforcement as well.

(Of course, they think the current problem is banks are being too cautious, but Congress talking out of both sides of its mouth has never seemed to get in the way before. Just look at the China policy- they want China to strengthen its currency which means they want the dollar to go down vs the yuan, but at the same time they are careful not to employ policy that might cause China to sell their dollars and drive the dollar down vs the yuan.)

So what is the point of bank capital requirements? It’s the pricing of risk.

With an entirely publicly owned bank, risk is priced by government officials which means it’s politicized, with government officials deciding the interest rates that are charged. With private capital in first loss position, risk is priced by employees who are agents for the shareholders, who want the highest possible risk adjusted returns on their investment. This introduces an entirely different set of incentives vs publicly owned institutions. And the choice between the two, and the two alternative outcomes, is a purely political choice.

With our current arrangement of banking being public/private partnerships, the ratio between the two is called the capital ratio. For example, with a 10% capital ratio banks have 10% private capital, and 90% tax payer money (via FDIC deposit insurance). And what changing the capital ratio does is alter the pricing of risk.

Banks lending profits from the spread between the cost of funds and the rates charged to borrowers. And with any given spread, the return on equity falls as capital ratios rise. And looked at from the other perspective, higher capital ratios mean banks have to charge more for loans to make the same return on equity.

Additionally, investors/market forces decide what risk adjusted return on investment is needed to invest in a bank. Higher capital requirements lower returns on investment, but risk goes down as well. But it’s not a ‘straight line’ relationship. It takes a bit of work to sort out all the variables before an informed decision can be made by policy makers when setting required capital ratios.

So where are we?

We have policy makers and everyone else sounding off on the issue who all grossly misunderstand the actual dynamics trying to use capital requirements to protect taxpayer money.

Good luck to us!

For more on this see Proposals for the Banking System, Treasury, Fed, and FDIC

Major Banks Likely to Get Reprieve on New Capital Rules

By Steve Liesman

June 10 (CNBC) — The world’s major banks may get a break from regulators and be forced to set aside only 2 percent-to-2.5 percent more capital rather than the 3 percent reported earlier, officials familiar with the discussions told CNBC.

News of the potential reprieve—which would affect major global banks such as JPMorgan , Citigroup , Bank of America , Wells Fargo , UBS and HSBC —helped stocks pare losses Friday afternoon.

The new rule, which would force the world’s biggest financial institutions to set aside more capital as a cushion against potential losses, is being imposed after the recent credit crisis nearly caused the collapse of the banking system.

The increased capital buffer would be in addition to a seven percent capital increase for all banks, which was negotiated at last year’s Basel III meeting.

The officials, who asked not to be named, made their comments after global banking regulators met this week in Frankfurt. The US has proposed a tougher three percent charge for big banks, but there has been pushback from some European nations, especially France. Negotiations are continuing.

The news comes after JPMorgan Chief Jamie Dimon rose in an Atlanta meeting this week and directly confronted Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke over the numerous new banking regulations, including a new surcharge for the biggest banks.

Officials say there is a more formal meeting in two weeks of regulators in Basel, Switzerland, where the actual percentage should be formalized as a proposal to global leaders.

Sources caution that the situation is still a moving target, with the U.S. apparently holding out for a higher global surcharge if other countries push lower forms of capital, other than common equity, to be used to meet capital requirements.

Earlier this week, U.S. Treasury Department Secretary Tim Geithner suggested that the higher the quality of capital, the lower the surcharge can be.

Share

Euro News Highlights

Posted on by


[Skip to the end]

This raises national budget deficits and inches them closer to a liquidity crisis:

Highlights

Europe Unemployment Rate Rises More Than Expected
Trichet Says Spending, Deficits Can’t Keep Rising, Le Monde Says
Germany’s Steinbrueck Says New GDP Outlook to Be Clearly Worse
German Retail Sales Unexpectedly Fall After Unemployment Rises
France, Germany Not Satisfied With G-20, Sarkozy Says
Sarkozy Says Concrete Decisions Are Needed on Tax Havens

Europe Unemployment Rate Rises More than Expected

by Jurjen van de Pol

Apr 1 (Bloomberg) — European unemployment increased more than economists expected in February to the highest in almost three years as the recession forced companies across the continent to cut output.

The jobless rate in the euro zone rose to 8.5 percent from a revised 8.3 percent in January, the European Union’s statistics office in Luxembourg said today. The February reading is the highest since May 2006 and exceeded the 8.3 percent rate economists forecast, according to the median of 23 estimates in a Bloomberg News survey. The January figure was revised higher from 8.2 percent reported on Feb. 27.


[top]

Share