Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘monetary policy’ Category

It has been abundantly obvious from day one that Ben Bernanke has no understanding of “liquidity” — whatsoever.

Only 2 months (?) after Bernanke helicoptered $122 billion to AIG, AIG has come cap in hand to Uncle Sam with a down face and a confession: “The money’s all gone.” AIG supposedly wants $200 billion in new money.

AIG in talks with Fed over new bail-out

By Francesco Guerrera in New York

Published: November 8 2008 02:00 | Last updated: November 8 2008 02:00

AIG is asking the US government for a new bail-out less than two months after the Federal Reserve came to the rescue of the stricken insurer with an $85bn loan, according to people close to the situation.

AIG’s executives were last night locked in negotiations with the authorities over a plan that could involve a debt-for-equity swap and the government’s purchase of troubled mortgage-backed securities from the insurer.

People close to the talks said the discussions were on-going and might still collapse, but added that AIG was pressing for a decision before it reports third-quarter results on Monday.

AIG’s board is due to meet on Sunday to approve the results and discuss any new government plan, they added.

The moves come amid growing fears AIG might soon use up the $85bn cash infusion it received from the Fed in September, as well as an additional $37.5bn loan aimed at stemming a cash drain from the insurer’s securities lending unit.

AIG has drawn down more than $81bn of the combined $122.5bn facility. The company’s efforts to begin repaying it before the 2010 deadline have been hampered by its difficulties in selling assets amid the global financial turmoil.

AIG executives have complained to government officials that the interest rate on the initial loan – 8.5 per cent over the London Interbank Borrowing Rate – is crippling the company.

They compared the loan’s terms with the 5 per cent interest rate paid by the banks that recently sold preferred shares to the government.

One of AIG’s proposals to the Fed is to swap the loan, which gave the authorities an 80 per cent stake in the company, for preferred shares or a mixture of debt and equity.

Such a structure would reduce the interest rate to be paid by AIG and possibly the overall amount it has to repay. An extension in the term of the loan from the current two years to five years is also possible, according to people close to the situation.

The renegotiation of the loan could be accompanied by the government’s purchase of billions of dollars in mortgage-backed securities whose steep fall in value has been draining AIG cash reserves.

AIG is also proposing the government buy the bonds underlying its troubled portfolio of credit default swaps in exchange for the roughly $30bn in collateral the company holds against the assets.

Losses on the mortgage-backed assets, which were acquired by AIG with the proceeds of its securities lending programme, and the CDSs caused the company’s collapse.

Since the government rescue, they have continued to haunt AIG, which is required to put up extra capital every time the value of these assets falls. AIG and the Fed declined to comment.

Red staters get a lot of sh*t from their coastal cousins for being stupid. I will say one thing in red staters’ defense, though: it truly takes a blue coast, blue-blood stupidity to concoct such dangerous national policy as Bernanke’s.

It’s the kind of stupidity that only an Ivy League education can buy.

What is Bernanke going to do when he issues $2 trillion in Treasuries next year, and nobody buys?

All the people who thought they got a great deal when Pepsi priced its last bond at 7.5% are going to feel pretty damn stupid 12 months from now. Either that, or AAA corporates will have lower yields than Treasuries.

At the primary dealer desks, there is no net Asian sovereign demand for US sovereigns anymore.

Right now, Uncle Sam is printing the money and planning to float Treasuries “soon.” I am not exaggerating. It is the dirty secret that every FX macro desk at every major institution knows: the Treasury is printing now and issuing later.

In the ivory towers at Treasury and the Fed, “printed” money will be converted to Treasuries soon, because the Fed and Treasury (okay, just the Fed) think that there is an “irrational” “liquidity crisis”, which will abate any day now.

It won’t abate. It will get worse: all bond yields are based on Treasury yields. Treasury yields are definitely going up in the next year. All other yields (corporates … munis … ) will go up too.

That will be the real “credit crisis.” We are just mostly through the second act.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

======================================================================
country; nominal interest rate; date; official CPI; last update; real interest rate
======================================================================
China 7.47% 06/13/08 7.70% 05/31/08 -0.23%
Hong Kong 3.50% 06/13/08 5.40% 04/30/08 -1.90%
India 8.00% 06/11/08 8.75% 05/31/08 -0.75%
Indonesia 8.50% 06/13/08 10.38% 05/31/08 -1.88%
Japan 0.50% 06/13/08 0.80% 04/30/08 -0.30%
Malaysia 3.50% 06/12/08 3.00% 04/30/08 0.50%
Pakistan 12.00% 05/23/08 19.27% 05/31/08 -7.27%
Philippines 5.25% 06/05/08 9.60% 05/31/08 -4.35%
South Korea 5.00% 06/30/08 4.88% 05/31/08 0.12%

Sri Lanka 10.50% 06/06/08 26.20% 05/31/08 -15.70%
Taiwan 3.50% 03/28/08 3.71% 05/31/08 -0.21%
Thailand 3.25% 05/21/08 7.60% 05/31/08 -4.35%
Vietnam 14.00% 06/11/08 25.20% 05/31/08 -11.20%
==============================

========================================

Read Full Post »

on today’s seismic Treasury selloff:

“The point is that the world was long Treasury, and we can see how they’ve been suckered.”

In other news, more insanity from the federales, who think they can permanently reduce commodities prices by shoving out leveraged players.

Read Full Post »

Didn’t get this memo. No sir.

Fetch your tin helmets once again. The European Central Bank is opting for a monetary purge. So too is the US Federal Reserve, now ruled from Dallas.

Über-hawks and Cromwellians have gained the upper hand at the great fortress banks. Whether or not they admit it, both are embarked on policies that must lead to retrenchment across the Atlantic world.

The City mood turned wicked as the full import of this policy switch sank in last week. On Wall Street, the Dow’s 396-point dive on high volume late Friday had an ugly feel.

“There is now the distinct possibility of a simultaneous sell-off in global bonds, equities and commodities,” said Jonathan Wilmot from Credit Suisse.

I dunno. I saw Lehman almost die again, and we all knew that the Fed was ready to fire a paper fusillade in the hole.

Trichet’s hawkishness is not in doubt. Bernanke’s is. Spain and Ireland do not a dovish majority make.

Bernanke’s hawkishness is in doubt.

Read Full Post »

Thomas Palley, Open Society Institute pontificator emeritus cum DC-cocktail laude, mocks himself best when he’s most honest. As do most political people.

Defending the Bernanke Fed

Filed under: U.S. Policy, Uncategorized — Administrator @ 6:37 am

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has recently been on the receiving end of significant criticism for recent monetary policy. One critique can be labeled the American conservative critique, and is associated with the Wall Street Journal. The other can be termed the European critique, and is associated with prominent European Economist and Financial Times contributor, Willem Buiter.

Brought up on the intellectual ideas of Milton Friedman, American conservatives view inflation as the greatest economic threat and believe control of inflation should be the Fed’s primary job. In their eyes the Bernanke Fed has dangerously ignored emerging inflation dangers, and that policy failure risks a return to the disruptive stagflation of the 1970s.

Both argue the Fed has engaged in excessive monetary easing, cutting interest rates too much and ignoring the perils of inflation. Their criticisms raise core questions about the conduct of policy that warrant a response.

At least he didn’t call us “liquidationists.” Generous.

Rather than cutting interest rates as steeply as the Fed has, American conservatives maintain the proper way to address the financial crisis triggered by the deflating house price bubble is to re-capitalize the financial system.

Correct.

This explains the efforts of Treasury Secretary Paulson to reach out to foreign investors in places like Abu Dhabi. The logic is that foreign investors are sitting on mountains of liquidity, and they can therefore re-capitalize the system without recourse to lower interest rates that supposedly risk a return of ‘70’s style inflation.

“Supposedly.

The European critique of the Fed is slightly different, and is that the Fed has gone about responding to the financial crisis in the wrong way. The European view is that the crisis constitutes a massive liquidity crisis, and as such the Fed should have responded by making liquidity available without lowering rates. That is the course European Central Bank has taken, holding the line on its policy interest rate but making massive quantities of liquidity available to Euro zone banks.

In other words, the Buiter critique advocates one set of interest rates for banks, and a very different one for individuals, without regard to respective credit risk. Presumably, there would be no arbitrage between these two bifurcated markets. Presumably, liquidity provisions to other banks–“inflation by other means”–would both 1) save the banks, and 2) not institutionalize higher prices on the tabs of the people who didn’t take the stupid risks.

Never made much sense to me either. [I used to like Buiter because he was the only person who trashed Bernanke way back in the day. Unfortunately his “lender of last resort” bailout loophole was an unforgivable leap of illogic, and while formally very different from the Bank of Japan’s disastrous early-1990’s bailout, was functionally indistinguishable.]

According to the European critique the Fed should have done the same. Thus, the Fed’s new Term Securities Lending Facility that makes liquidity available to investment banks was the right move. However, there was no need for the accompanying sharp interest rate reductions given the inflation outlook. By lowering rates, the European view asserts the Fed has raised the risks of a return of significantly higher persistent inflation. Additionally, lowering rates in the current setting has damaged the Fed’s anti-inflation credibility and aggravated moral hazard in investing practices.

The problem with the American conservative critique is that inflation today is not what it used to be.

It’s different this time.

1970s inflation was rooted in a price – wage spiral in which price increases were matched by nominal wage increases. However, that spiral mechanism no longer exists because workers lack the power to protect themselves. The combination of globalization, the erosion of job security, and the evisceration of unions means that workers are unable to force matching wage increases.

DC establishment liberal: “Inflation is okay now, because workers have to eat all costs themselves.” As if workers will just sit back and take this? As if they can’t read these internet posts, which presume weakness, ignorance and stupidity on the part of American workers?

The problem with the European critique is it over-looks the scale of the demand shock the U.S. economy has received. Moreover, that demand shock is on-going. Falling house prices and the souring of hundreds of billions of dollars of mortgages has caused the financial crisis. However, in addition, falling house prices have wiped out hundreds of billions of household wealth. That in turn is weakening demand as consumer spending slows in response to lower household wealth.

Different. This. Time.

Countering this negative demand shock is the principal rationale for the Fed’s decision to lower interest rates. Whereas Europe has been impacted by the financial crisis, it has not experienced an equivalent demand shock. That explains the difference in policy responses between the Fed and the European Central Bank, and it explains why the European critique is off mark.

The bottom line is that current criticism of the Bernanke Fed is unjustified. Whereas the Fed was slow to respond to the crisis as it began unfolding in the summer of 2007, it has now caught up and the stance of policy seems right. Liquidity has been made available to the financial system. Low interest rates are countering the demand shock. And the Fed has signaled its awareness of inflationary dangers by speaking to the problem of exchange rates and indicating it may hold off from further rate cuts. The only failing is that is that the Fed has not been imaginative or daring enough in its engagement with financial regulatory reform.

Copyright Thomas I. Palley

The bottom line is, DC policy emerati are profoundly ignorant, sycophantic, and irresponsible people.

Read Full Post »

There were about five pieces of news on Friday that delivered such a massive upside kick to oil.

1) Chinese oil consumption numbers came in much higher than expected.

Wall Street is still being blindsided by the impact of the Sichuan earthquake, and apparently most of it is ignorant that ~30 percent of Chinese oil/ natgas/ heating oil comes from Sichuan and Gansu (which was also thrown into chaos by the quake).

2) Shaul Mofaz rattled Kadima’s flimsy sabre at Iran, again. Anyone who took that seriously is ill-informed.

3) The dollar continued hemorrhaging. Brokers are cutting back trading with Lehman Brothers, and Bernanke will probably be called out on his fateful March 17 nationalization of banks’ default risk. He will have to throw hundreds of billions of dollars in Treasuries at Lehman’s crippled balance sheet, further debasing Treasuries specifically and US financial credibility generally.

4) Morgan Stanley said oil would go to $150.

5) The USD and EUR are both heavily overvalued. As long as China keeps its currency peg alive, the dollar and euro will both be overvalued. The only other large currency alternative is commodities, so that’s where money is going.

As I have said many times, government witch hunts against “speculators” never signal the top of a bull market.

Israel’s saber-rattling might have been good for 1 percent of oil’s gain. Obama’s triumph in the US presidential primaries multiplied that, for a total of maybe 3 percent.

In the meantime, Asia’s cracking currency regimes are effectively increasing their subsidies of fuel.

HONG KONG: Buckling under the weight of record oil prices, several Asian countries have cut or are thinking of cutting their fuel subsidies, which raises a pressing question for Beijing: Can China afford its own oil subsidies at a time when it is spending billions on post-earthquake reconstruction?

The short answer is yes, because China is blessed with both large trade account and fiscal surpluses. The reconstruction cost is projected to amount to about 1 percent of China’s gross domestic product, while the fuel subsidies account for another 1 percent, JPMorgan estimates.

Remember that China had a fiscal surplus of 0.7 percent of gross domestic product last year, or $174 billion. So even if spending on post-earthquake rebuilding and fuel subsidies were to cause a 1 percent fiscal deficit, that would still be very manageable.

But here is a more important question: Why should China keep domestic fuel prices at about half of the global average?

The usual answers are to keep inflation in check and stave off social instability that could result if prices were to rise too quickly.

But by distorting fuel prices, China is encouraging fuel consumption and discouraging the use of new energy. Since the Chinese still live in an $80-a-barrel oil environment, demand for anything from cars to chemical products will spiral higher and raise the risks of economic overheating.

Increasing subsidies on fuel will crowd out more investment in other areas, such as education or health care, to name two possibilities.

What’s more, a worsening fiscal situation might put downward pressure on the yuan. Fuel subsidies have exaggerated inflation in the developed world, while understating inflation in the developing world. China’s inflation could well hit 15 percent if Beijing were to free up caps on energy prices, Morgan Stanley estimates.

“If China is not able to take away the subsidy and cut down its demand, it will have huge implications for the world,” said Shikha Jha, a senior economist at Asian Development Bank.

Countries like China and India, along with Gulf nations whose retail oil prices are kept below global prices, contributed 61 percent of the increase in global consumption of crude oil from 2000 to 2006, according to JPMorgan.

Other than Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore and South Korea, most Asian nations subsidize domestic fuel prices. The more countries subsidize them, the less likely high oil prices will have any affect in reducing overall demand, forcing governments in weaker financial situations to surrender first and stop their subsidies.

That is what happened over the past two weeks. Indonesia, Taiwan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, India and Malaysia have either raised regulated fuel prices or pledged that they will.

Actions taken by those countries will not be able to tame a rally in prices though unless China, the second-largest oil user in the world, changes its policy. While the West is critical of China’s energy policy, there is little outcry for change within the country, except for complaints from two loss-making refineries.

By contrast, Indonesia has convinced its people that fuel subsidies benefit the rich more than the poor, because rich people drive more and consume more electricity. Jakarta rolled out a $1.5 billion cash subsidy program to help low-income Indonesians cope with higher prices. Although no country wants to build a system on subsidies, the cash subsidy at least makes fuel subsidy cuts politically feasible.

“The people need to wonder, who pays for the subsidies?” said Louis Vincent Gave, chief executive of GaveKal, a research and asset management company. “Most Asian countries are printing money to pay for them.”

Fuel subsidies compromise countries’ ability to control their own budget spending. If China and India can cut their subsidies, they would be able to spend more on infrastructure and education.

While Asian governments dole out cheap food and cheap energy, Asian currencies settle the bill. Morgan Stanley expects some emerging market currencies to face downward pressure, probably for the first time in a decade, as those countries unwind their fuel subsidies and domestic inflation shoots up.

China’s domestic fuel prices are among the lowest in the world, equal to about 61 percent of prices in the United States, 41 percent of Japan and 28 percent of England. The longer it waits, the more painful it will be when it tries to remove the subsidy.

China actually doesn’t have much freedom to splash dollars for fuel. Its entire macroeconomic policy can be summarized as “long USD, short RMB.” Not a good trade.

Read Full Post »

Setser on the PBOC:

What cann’t go on still hasn’t slowed, let alone stopped (Chinese reserve growth)

… Back in 2004, it was considered rather stunning when China added close to $100 billion to its reserves ($95 billion) in a single quarter, bring its total reserves up to around $600 billion.. The dollar’s fall against the euro (and associated rise in the dollar value of China’s euros) explains around $15 billion of the rise. But at the time, $80 billion was considered a very large sum for China to have added to its reserves.

Now China has $1756 billion in reserves, after a $74.5 billion April increase. The dollar rose against the euro in April, so the underlying pace of increase – after adjusting for valuation changes – was more like $82 billion.

In a month.

And not just any month – in a month when oil topped $100 a barrel.

$82 billion a month, sustained over a year, is close to a trillion dollars. A trillion here, a trillion there and pretty soon you are talking about real money. If a large share of China’s reserves is going into dollars, as seems likely, this year’s increase in China’s dollar holdings could be almost as large as the US current account deficit.

The fact that one country’s government – and in effect two institutions (SAFE and the CIC) – are providing such a large share of the financing the US needs to sustain large deficits (particularly in a world where Americans want to invest abroad as well as import far more than they export) is unprecedented.

The real surprise in some sense is that the increase in China’s April preserves isn’t that much of a surprise. At least not to those who have been watching China closely.

Wang Tao – now of UBS – estimated that China added $600 billion to its foreign assets in 2007, far more than the reported increase in China’s reserves. Logan Wright (as reported by Michael Pettis) and I concluded that Chinese foreign asset growth – counting funds shifted to the CIC – could have topped $200 billion in the first quarter.

China hasn’t disclosed how much it shifted to the CIC, let alone when it shifted funds over to the CIC. But it seems likely that the surprisingly low increase in China’s reserves in March stems from a large purchase of foreign exchange by the CIC. Indeed, the CIC’s March purchase may have used up all of the RMB 1.55 trillion the CIC initially raised.

As a result, all of the increase in the foreign assets of China’s government seems to have showed up at the PBoC in April. Or almost all. China raised its reserves requirement in April, and the banks may have been encouraged to meet that reserve requirement by holding foreign exchange.

China’s current account surplus – adding estimated interest income to its trade surplus – was no more than $25 billion in April. FDI inflows were around $7.5 billion. Sum it up and it is a lot closer to $30 billion than $40 billion. Non-FDI capital inflows – hot money – explain the majority of the increase.

No wonder Chinese policy makers were so focused on hot money this spring. Hot money flows seem to have contributed to their decision to stop the RMB’s appreciation in April. But interest rate differentials still favor China – so it isn’t clear that a slower pace of appreciation will stem the inflows.

It certainly though helps to sustain the underlying imbalance that has given rise to massive bets on China’s currency.

The scale of China’s reserve growth suggests that China’s government is no longer just lending the US what it needs to buy Chinese goods. And it is now lending the US – and indeed the world – far more than the world needs to buy Chinese goods. Vendor financing is a fair description for China’s reserve growth in 2003 or 2004, but not now.

China’s government is increasingly acting as an international as well as a domestic financial intermediary. It has long borrowed — whether through the sale of PBoC bills of Finance Ministry bonds to fund the CIC – rmb to buy dollars, effectively taking the foreign currency domestic Chinese savers do not want to take. Now though it is borrowing from the rest of the world to lend to the rest of the world.

Most intermediaries though make money. Or at least try to. By contrast, China’s government is almost sure to lose money on its external financial intermediation. Selling RMB cheap to buy expensive dollars and euros is not a good business model.

China cannot be entirely comfortable with all the money that is pouring into China. But it isn’t at all clear that Chinese policy makers are willing to take the steps needed to shift decisively toward a new set of policies. It is clear that the costs of China’s current policies are rising.

Remember, China looses [sic] money on its reserves. More isn’t better.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »