Tag Archives: Fed

Re: fed’s action

Posted on by

>
>     On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 8:40 PM, Davidson, Paul wrote
>
>     Warren:
>
>     Don’t you think it was a strange open market operation —
>     where the Fed was moving Treasuries from their balance
>     sheets to private balance sheets (even temporarily) —
>     while accepting as collateral the highest grade mortgage
>     backed securities? Usually open market operations involve
>     Treasuries going one way and bank deposits (not
>     collateral) going the other way.
>
>

Hi Paul,

It was a ‘securities lending operation’ and was probably done that way to be in compliance with existing Fed regulations regarding interaction with the dealer community.

The Fed probably already had authority to lend securities to the primary dealers from their portfolio, and either get cash in return or other securities rated AAA or better (govt, agency, etc). So they offered to loan their tsy secs and accepted the dealer’s securities as collateral for the transaction.

Note that the dealers remain as beneficial owner of the securities pledged to the Fed in return for the tsy secs, and so the Fed is not assuming that risk. The dealers do get tsy secs which they can then in turn use as collateral for loans in the market place at much lower rates than loans vs the collateral they gave the Fed.

So the end result is the dealers get to borrow at the lower rates.

No ‘money’ is added to the system by the Fed. The Fed just sets rates as is always the case.

However, this is not to say they didn’t have other reasons for doing it this way. They continue to display a very limited knowledge of monetary operations and it’s not always clear why they do what they do.

Best to Louise!

Warren

Share

Monetary ops

Posted on by

The larger point is that ANY assets banks are allowed to hold already have to be on the regulators approved list, and banks in any case can fund all their (legal) assets with with govt insured deposits.

So why should another arm of government, the Fed, not always provide funding for the same govt approved assets that the govt already provides funding for? Why did it take them so long to come up with the TAF and now with the security lending facility?

And even now only with partial measures?

Clearly they are still in the dark on the workings of monetary ops and reserve accounting?

You may recall my proposal back in August (long before that, actually):

Drop the discount rate to the FF rate and open it up to any bank legal assets.

This should have always been the case.

The Fed’s ‘job’ is to administer interest rates, and that’s how you do it.

It’s about price, not quantity. Fed operations don’t materially change any of the monetary aggregates, as many who should have known all along have been ‘discovering.’

Yes, in good times the system did function reasonably well, but the risk was always there that in a crisis it would break down.

My other proposals remains equally valid:

Let government agencies fund via the Fed Financing Bank (at Treasury rates). They exist for public purpose, shareholders remain at risk for default losses, and lower interest rates would get passed through to the housing markets.

The Treasury should open it’s lending facility and lend Treasury securities in unlimited size to primary dealers.

Lastly, this is a good time to get the Treasury out of the capital markets and limit them to the issuance of 3 month bills. This would lower long-term rates, which is the investment part of the curve.

Share

Fed policy changes Cont’d

Posted on by

(A response to a comment about Fed policy changes)

On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 9:46 AM, Mike wrote:

the dollar may be the buy of a lifetime here….

Right, especially if the Fed cuts less than expected next week, or not at all.

Vicious reversal of commodities, USD, short term rates, but bad day or two for stocks.

This expanded lending facility may also function to increase the supply of short Treasuries for money funds and narrow the Treasury/LIBOR spread and shut up the rocket scientists who say low rates on short term Treasuries are the market screaming for rate cuts.

Share

Fed policy changes

Posted on by

The Fed continues to show a deficiency in understanding monetary operations with the latest moves. While steps in the right direction, a better understanding of monetary operations would have meant funding ANY member bank asset at the FF rate and establishing an unlimited term lending facility for Treasury securities.

Meanwhile they seem to be trying to minimize further rate cuts and instead trying to target areas of illiquidity as per Friday and today’s announcements. They may have reached their inflation tolerance with crude at $109, the dollar continuously falling, and inflation expectations elevating.

Somewhat more troubling is the eurozone seemingly wanting dollar lines from the Fed. Not sure why, but borrowing external currency isn’t ordinarily a good sign.

Share

MSNBC: dollar exit supports GDP

Posted on by

This is all part of the effort of non-residents to no longer accumulate $70 billion per month of US financial assets.

The USD goes down as they try to sell USD to each other at lower and lower prices and doesn’t stop until levels are reached where it makes sense to spend the USD here. That’s the only way the net accumulation can be reduced.

Here is BMW is buying US labor content in parts and finished products.

The US has become a substantial and growing auto exporter.

Exports continue to pick up much of the slack from the housing market, as GDP muddles through.

And the Fed thinks this is a good thing. Bernanke stated in from of Congress that he’d like to see exports and investment (in export businesses) drive US GDP rather than consumption.

If the trade gap goes to zero, trade could be adding about another 2% to US demand/GDP.

BMW plans to increase US production while cutting workers in Germany

by Page Ivey

On one side of the Atlantic Ocean, BMW says it will cut 7.5 percent of its work force over two years. On this side of the water, the company says it plans to increase production by more than 50 percent by 2012.

“This is completely driven by the plunge in the dollar,” said Greg Gardner with Oliver Wyman, publisher of the Harbour Report on automotive manufacturing activity. “It is untenable to produce at a much higher cost in Germany.”

The euro climbed to record heights Friday, reaching $1.5463 before falling back to $1.5335 in late trading after the Federal Reserve announced it would provide more cash to banks that need it. That means European goods cost more for Americans to buy.

By building the cars in the U.S., BMW can save money on the lower dollar and on wages since its South Carolina workers make less than German workers, Gardner said.

The declining dollar also means BMW and other foreign automakers likely will start buying locally for more of the parts used by their U.S. plants, he said.

Share

Reuters: payrolls and the output gap

Posted on by

U.S. Feb payrolls drop for second straight month

by Glenn Somerville

U.S. employers cut payrolls for a second straight month during February, slashing 63,000 jobs for the biggest monthly job decline in nearly five years as the labor market weakened steadily, a government report on Friday showed.

The Labor Department said last month’s cut in jobs followed an upwardly revised loss of 22,000 jobs in January instead of 17,000 reported a month ago. In addition, it said that only 41,000 jobs were created in December, half the 82,000 originally reported.

December was first reported as a ‘very weak’ 17,000 increase, revised to up 82,000 a month later (not ‘as originally reported’ as above) and now further revised to up 41,000.

These are substantial swings with current market sensitivities, and January and February will likely be further revised next month.

At the same time, the unemployment rate fell to 4.8%. The previous increases corresponded to an unexpected jump in the labor force participation rate, which has now fallen back some in line with Fed expectations.

The Fed has long been anticipating that demographic forces would reduce the labor force participation rate and thereby tighten the labor markets.

That is, we are running out of people to hire; so, new hires fall while the unemployment rate stays the same or goes down.

The last several months are consistent with this outlook, and it means the output gap isn’t all that large, as 4.75% unemployment is deemed by the Fed to be full employment with anything less further driving up inflation.

All this makes things more difficult for the Fed:

  • Stagnant GDP
  • Declining labor force
  • Very small output gap
  • Dangerously rising inflation

Without a major net supply response (a 5+ million bdp jump in crude or crude substitutes or drop in demand), crude prices will likely continue to rise. The drop in net demand for OPEC crude that cuased the price to break was about 15 million bdp in the 1980s, for example.

Share

Reuters: Yellen the Dove turing more hawkish

Posted on by

Yellen: Fed faces unpleasant mix on prices, growth

by Ros Krasny

CHICAGO (Reuters) – San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank President Janet Yellen said on Friday that the U.S. central bank faces an “unpleasant combination” of risks to inflation and growth in setting interest rate policy.

“The U.S. economy is particularly exposed to downside risks from the unwinding of the housing bubble and disruptions in financial markets,” Yellen said in remarks prepared for Banque de France’s symposium on globalization and monetary policy in Paris.
“There is some slack now in the U.S. labor market and, if these downside economic risks materialize, quite a bit more slack could emerge,” she said, which would tend to dampen inflation.

The dove position: OK to cut now because inflation coming down later anyway.

Still, Yellen said inflation risks were “roughly balanced” and that the Fed “cannot afford to take for granted that inflation expectations will remain well-anchored.”

The hawk position: if you let inflation expectations elevate (and there are signs this is happening), it’s too late, and a much larger output gap is needed to bring it back down.

Share

Bloomberg: from Fisher the hawk

Posted on by

While Fisher is perhaps the most hawkish voting member and voted against Bernanke at the last meeting, continuously rising crude/food prices and a not so large output gap are causing more voting members to firm their anti-inflation rhetoric in recent weeks:

Fisher Says Credit Markets May Not Force Fed to Act

by Naga Munchetty and Scott Lanman

Enlarge Image/Details

(Bloomberg) Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas President Richard Fisher said investors shouldn’t assume that rising credit costs will force the central bank to cut interest rates as deeply as it did in January or in an emergency meeting.

“We reacted with very deliberate actions that took place over a very short timeframe” in January, Fisher said in an interview with Bloomberg Television in Paris. “That shouldn’t lead markets to expectations that we will continue to react in that manner.”

Fisher also downplayed speculation that the Fed is set to reduce its benchmark interest rate before policy makers’ next scheduled session on March 18. Yesterday, yields on agency mortgage-backed securities rose to a 22-year high relative to U.S. Treasuries, while the cost to protect corporate bonds from default climbed to a record.

“I would discourage you from thinking that simply because of a significant action in the credit markets, like we had yesterday, that suddenly we’re going to have an Open Market Committee meeting, and that suddenly we’re going to move Fed funds rates in response,” said Fisher. “It doesn’t work that way.”

Traders see a 100 percent chance that the Fed will lower its 3 percent benchmark rate by three-quarters of a percentage point this month, according to futures contracts. The probability a month ago of such a move was 30 percent.

`Process’ Turmoil
At the same time, Fisher said that the credit-market turmoil “has to be processed.”

That is, the Fed is more inclined to give markets time to work things out. While demand is weak, the output gap has remained modest.

And now, with inflation and inflation expectations elevated, they need a larger output gap to bring it down (rising MNOG).

The world’s 45 biggest banks and securities firms have written off $181 billion since the beginning of 2007, reflecting the collapse of the U.S. subprime-mortgage market.

Without a failure, so far, and without the feared supply-side constraints. Yes, credit standards have tightened, but not due to actual ‘money shortages’.

“There’s a danger if the Fed reacts to new information immediately,” said Fisher, 58, a former money manager and U.S. Senate candidate who joined the Dallas Fed in 2005. “But obviously we take into account all the information as closely as we can.”

Fed officials have cut the target for the overnight interbank lending rate by 2.25 percentage points since August, taking it to 3 percent. The 1.25 percentage point of reductions in January was the fastest easing of policy in two decades. Yields on two-year Treasuries fell to 1.41 percent at 11:55 a.m., the lowest since 2003, as traders anticipate further cuts.

Fisher was the lone voting member of the Federal Open Market Committee who dissented from the Jan. 30 decision to reduce the rate by a half point.

Jobs Report
The FOMC’s decisions in January were in response to a “weaker prospect for the economy,” Fisher said.

Which is why he voted against it. When the risks shifted from ‘market functioning induced collapse’ to ‘slowing demand/weaker GDP/larger output gap’, he stepped aside.

The U.S. Commerce Department releases February payroll- growth and unemployment figures at 8:30 a.m. Washington time today. The jobless rate probably rose to a two-year high and payrolls increased at a quarter of last year’s pace as builders and manufacturers fired more workers, economists said before the report.

A modestly larger output gap is expected. Fisher and others aren’t so sure that it will be large enough to bring down the rate of inflation, as it’s still going up even with current weakness.

Yes, inflation is a lagging indicator, but oil prices are a leading indicator and drive future inflation for years down the road.

Fisher was in Paris for a conference on globalization, inflation and monetary policy, hosted by France’s central bank. In a speech before the interview, Fisher said “persistent” increases in commodity prices make it harder for central bankers to determine precisely how much inflation may be rising.

Exactly. And so far, the rate cuts are seen to have been driving down the dollar, driving up crude prices and future inflation, and not doing a whole lot for market functioning.

Share

Bernanke and the beast: beware the MNOG!

Posted on by

4:20 pm Eastern time, March 6

2008-03-06 Tips 5y5y fwd

TIPS 5y5y fwd

Twin themes remain since Q2 2006: weakness and inflation.

Weakness:
The great repricing of risk continues driving credit spreads wider, bid/offer spreads wider, volumes lower, and market forces continue to drive a general, massive deleveraging in the financial sector.

Housing is very weak: sales and construction are down more than 50% from the highs.

Unemployment is up a few tenths, and domestic demand in general is subdued.

Overall, strong exports keep us out of recession, and the real economy muddles through with GDP near zero.

Inflation:
Crude back up through $105, and the $ index down big to all time lows, driving up import prices and external demand (and rising export prices), and our own pension funds are driving up commodity prices by allocating funds to passive commodities.

CPI is up about 4.5% year over year, and core is moving up towards 2.5% as well.

The Fed
The Fed strategy has been to cut rates as an expression of doing what’s necessary to help the financial sector’s problems from spreading to the real economy.

The Fed sees a risk of a massive, 1930’s like, output gap and deflation. They see no reason to worry about the current 4.5% inflation when a potential 10%+ deflation/depression is looming, and with their models forecasting lower inflation.
And as they see inflation expectations remaining now ‘reasonably well anchored,’ and futures markets indicating lower prices for the out months vs the spot months, the Fed’s models continue to forecast lower inflation in the months and years ahead.

Policy is necessarily formed on forecasts, not rear view mirror observations, even if those forecasts have been continuously wrong for the last year. As a point of logic, there is no choice but to continue to forecast to the best of their ability and to continue to formulate policy around those forecasts.

Unfortunately, things have gone awry.

Rather than adding to demand and supporting GDP through the anticipated monetary and credit channels, the Fed’s rate initial rate cuts instead have seemingly driven the $US down and raised the price of imports, particularly energy.

With nominal wages ‘reasonably well anchored’ this has acted as a tax on the consumer and further reduced domestic demand. Falling real wages did coincide with increased exports, but not enough to keep GDP from falling ‘below trend’ and the output gap somewhat wider than it was previously.

Further rate cuts did the same – drove the $ down/prices up further, and reduced real wages and domestic demand. And further increased exports just enough to keep GDP near zero.

And the ‘credit crisis’ continues.

And inflation expectations have elevated. Note the attached chart of 5 year TIPS 5 years forward. The Fed has indicated this is one of their important indicators of inflation expectations and was taking comfort that it had been reasonably well anchored up to a few months ago. Now it’s just passed previous all time highs.

Even the Fed doves have recently said inflation is above their comfort zones, and they have been qualifying their support for rate cuts with statements like ‘if oil prices fall or remain at current levels’ when crude was around $100 or less.

Here’s the problem for the Fed:
They rely on output gaps to bring inflation down to their comfort zones. When they see even tail risk of major deflationary forces setting in they feel more than justified in addressing that risk of an excessive output gap that would not only slow inflation but bring on outright deflation.

But as inflation persists and expectations become less well anchored, the Fed believes the required output gap to bring inflation back down increases substantially, as their most recent studies show that it takes ever larger moves in interest rates to alter unemployment, and ever larger moves in unemployment to alter inflation.

Should housing simply stop contracting, and housing prices only level off, tail risk of an output gap large enough to cause a massive deflation fades.

Suddenly, the forecast output gap, while positive, is far too low to bring inflation and inflation expectations back into the Fed’s comfort zones.

The Fed is already out on the fringes of mainstream economics, including the text books Bernanke and Mishkin have written.

Mainstream economics says that if you are at full employment (believed by the Fed to be a 4.75% unemployment rate) when faced with rising energy costs that drive up prices and reduce consumer demand, leave it alone.

Don’t cut rates and add to demand, and turn a relative value story into an inflation story.

Instead, let demand weaken, let GDP fall, so that other prices will remain stable and and only relative value adjusts as markets allocate by price.

If you do support demand with rate cuts, you only drive inflation higher, real wages fall anyway, inflation expectations elevate, and the real cost of then stopping/reversing this process and bringing inflation back down is far higher than if you had left it alone.

In fact, that’s what all Fed members said continuously up to last August. In recent testimony, for example (see recent postings on this website), Bernanke said the Fed didn’t cut rates because there was an inflation problem.

If crude stays at current levels or continues higher (which I suggest it will as Saudis/Russians continue to act as swing producers, and demand remains far higher than needed for them to continue to support prices at current levels), all inflation measures will continue to march higher.

And with oil producers and other foreigners now spending their $ revenues rather than holding $US financial assets, exports keep rising and keep the current output gap from widening.

For the Fed, this means the MNOG (minimum non-inflationary output gap) needed to bring inflation down to comfort zones goes up substantially.

Their current MNOG could now very well be substantially higher than the current output gap (unemployment was last reported at 4.9%).

And this MNOG beast seems to be growing by the day.

So today’s news of initial claims coming down some, retail sales showing some Feb recovery vs Jan, pending home sales flattening, muni markets reorganizing and selling bonds again, and the ISM bouncing back yesterday, and mainstream companies in general reporting reasonably good to excellent current earnings, all indicate the MNOG is growing faster than the current output gap is growing.

And less than 60 days away are the $150 billion in tax rebate checks.

For the Fed, however, ‘deflationary spiral’ tail risk remains, particularly if you see the risks as those of the 1930’s gold standard days. Back then, the supply side of credit would abruptly shut down for both the private and the public sector, and financial sector issues were immediately transmitted to the real economy. (It doesn’t work that way with today’s non convertible currency and floating exchange rate regime, where public sector spending is not operationally constrained, but the Fed doesn’t yet seem to see it that way.)

Today’s equity markets contribute to the Fed’s tail risk fears- they see the stock market as a reliable leading indicator.

The equity markets are under pressure from both directions: a weak economy is bad for business and a rebound means higher interest rates from the Fed.

And with a Fed that believes the only tool it has to fight tail risk deflation is changing interest rates (see Bernanke testimony), it is rational for markets to expect the Fed to toss another big chunk of raw meat to the MNOG with another big fed fund rate cut after the March 18 meeting.

Data dependent, of course.

Payrolls tomorrow. Jan revision probably more relevant than the Feb number, as the pattern has been for substantial revisions a month after the initial announcement.

Share

Re: Crossing curves

Posted on by

(an email exchange)

>
>   Warren,
>
>   Claims just printed before I finished this….351 (down from revised 375) But Con’t Claims
>   made a new local high @ 2831……….the water coming into the boat, is still coming in at
>   a fast rate than the water getting bailed out………..Con’t Claims going higher is
>   bad………as the FED already knows…..
>
>   Best
>   Please call with any questions
>   RMG
>
>

Hi Rob,

Problem for the Fed-

With inflation both where it is and where it’s going over the next few quarters due to price pressures already baked in, it now NEEDS a larger output gap to keep it under control as per it’s own models.

And as crude/food/import prices go even higher, the required output gap grows.

The question is where the curves cross. At some point even the pessimistic output gap projection isn’t sufficient to bring down inflation.

The mainstream view (not mine) is that higher food/crude takes away demand for other products. And it’s the lack of demand for these other products that keeps high food/crude a relative value story and not an inflation story, and inflation expectations remain anchored.

If, at this point, if the Fed adds to demand- becomes accommodative- the result is inflation. , ,

At least up to now, the fed has seen risk of a collapse large enough to bring on an output gap large enough to not only bring inflation down, but drive us into a 30’s style deflation.

The main channel for this to happen is the housing channel.

They see a potential drop in housing prices to drive us down into a widespread deflationary spiral.

Now, with inflation rising as fast as it is, what I’m saying is they are getting closer to NEEDING a housing collapse just to both bring inflation into their comfort zone over a multi year horizon, and to keep inflation expectations from elevating near term.

Any sign of a bottom or even a near bottom in home prices could now mean they’ve overdone it on the easing, as even a 6% unemployment rate might not be a sufficiently large output gap for their models to show the declines in inflation they need, and we are far from that. .

warren

Share