Showing posts with label bubbles. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bubbles. Show all posts
Monday, August 12, 2013
Monday, December 17, 2012
The Fiscal Cliff Is A Diversion
The Derivatives Tsunami and the Dollar Bubble
December 17, 2012 | Paul Craig Roberts
The “fiscal cliff” is another hoax designed to shift the attention of policymakers, the media, and the attentive public, if any, from huge problems to small ones.
The fiscal cliff is automatic spending cuts and tax increases in order to reduce the deficit by an insignificant amount over ten years if Congress takes no action itself to cut spending and to raise taxes. In other words, the “fiscal cliff” is going to happen either way.
The problem from the standpoint of conventional economics with the fiscal cliff is that it amounts to a double-barrel dose of austerity delivered to a faltering and recessionary economy. Ever since John Maynard Keynes, most economists have understood that austerity is not the answer to recession or depression.
Regardless, the fiscal cliff is about small numbers compared to the Derivatives Tsunami or to bond market and dollar market bubbles.
The fiscal cliff requires that the federal government cut spending by $1.3 trillion over ten years. The Guardian reports that means the federal deficit has to be reduced about $109 billion per year or 3 percent of the current budget. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/27/fiscal-cliff-explained-spending-cuts-tax-hikes
More simply, just divide $1.3 trillion by ten and it comes to $130 billion per year. This can be done by simply taking a three month vacation each year from Washington’s wars.
The Derivatives Tsunami and the bond and dollar bubbles are of a different magnitude.
Last June 5 in “Collapse At Hand” http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2012/06/05/collapse-at-hand/ I pointed out that according to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency’s fourth quarter report for 2011, about 95% of the $230 trillion in US derivative exposure was held by four US financial institutions: JP Morgan Chase Bank, Bank of America, Citibank, and Goldman Sachs.
Prior to financial deregulation, essentially the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act and the non-regulation of derivatives–a joint achievement of the Clinton administration and the Republican Party–Chase, Bank of America, and Citibank were commercial banks that took depositors’ deposits and made loans to businesses and consumers and purchased Treasury bonds with any extra reserves.
With the repeal of Glass-Steagall these honest commercial banks became gambling casinos, like the investment bank, Goldman Sachs, betting not only their own money but also depositors money on uncovered bets on interest rates, currency exchange rates, mortgages, and prices of commodities and equities.
These bets soon exceeded many times not only US GDP but world GDP. Indeed, the gambling bets of JP Morgan Chase Bank alone are equal to world Gross Domestic Product.
According to the first quarter 2012 report from the Comptroller of the Currency, total derivative exposure of US banks has fallen insignificantly from the previous quarter to $227 trillion. The exposure of the 4 US banks accounts for almost of all of the exposure and is many multiples of their assets or of their risk capital.
The Derivatives Tsunami is the result of the handful of fools and corrupt public officials who deregulated the US financial system. Today merely four US banks have derivative exposure equal to 3.3 times world Gross Domestic Product. When I was a US Treasury official, such a possibility would have been considered beyond science fiction.
Hopefully, much of the derivative exposure somehow nets out so that the net exposure, while still larger than many countries’ GDPs, is not in the hundreds of trillions of dollars. Still, the situation is so worrying to the Federal Reserve that after announcing a third round of quantitative easing, that is, printing money to buy bonds–both US Treasuries and the banks’ bad assets–the Fed has just announced that it is doubling its QE 3 purchases.
In other words, the entire economic policy of the United States is dedicated to saving four banks that are too large to fail. The banks are too large to fail only because deregulation permitted financial concentration, as if the Anti-Trust Act did not exist.
The purpose of QE is to keep the prices of debt, which supports the banks’ bets, high. The Federal Reserve claims that the purpose of its massive monetization of debt is to help the economy with low interest rates and increased home sales. But the Fed’s policy is hurting the economy by depriving savers, especially the retired, of interest income, forcing them to draw down their savings. Real interest rates paid on CDs, money market funds, and bonds are lower than the rate of inflation.
Moreover, the money that the Fed is creating in order to bail out the four banks is making holders of dollars, both at home and abroad, nervous. If investors desert the dollar and its exchange value falls, the price of the financial instruments that the Fed’s purchases are supporting will also fall, and interest rates will rise. The only way the Fed could support the dollar would be to raise interest rates. In that event, bond holders would be wiped out, and the interest charges on the government’s debt would explode.
With such a catastrophe following the previous stock and real estate collapses, the remains of people’s wealth would be wiped out. Investors have been deserting equities for “safe” US Treasuries. This is why the Fed can keep bond prices so high that the real interest rate is negative.
The hyped threat of the fiscal cliff is immaterial compared to the threat of the derivatives overhang and the threat to the US dollar and bond market of the Federal Reserve’s commitment to save four US banks.
Once again, the media and its master, the US government, hide the real issues behind a fake one. The fiscal cliff has become the way for the Republicans to save the country from bankruptcy by destroying the social safety net put in place during the 1930s, supplemented by Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” in the mid-1960s.
Now that there are no jobs, now that real family incomes have been stagnant or declining for decades, and now that wealth and income have been concentrated in few hands is the time, Republicans say, to destroy the social safety net so that we don’t fall over the fiscal cliff.
In human history, such a policy usually produces revolt and revolution, which is what the US so desperately needs.
Perhaps our stupid and corrupt policymakers are doing us a favor after all.
December 17, 2012 | Paul Craig Roberts
The “fiscal cliff” is another hoax designed to shift the attention of policymakers, the media, and the attentive public, if any, from huge problems to small ones.
The fiscal cliff is automatic spending cuts and tax increases in order to reduce the deficit by an insignificant amount over ten years if Congress takes no action itself to cut spending and to raise taxes. In other words, the “fiscal cliff” is going to happen either way.
The problem from the standpoint of conventional economics with the fiscal cliff is that it amounts to a double-barrel dose of austerity delivered to a faltering and recessionary economy. Ever since John Maynard Keynes, most economists have understood that austerity is not the answer to recession or depression.
Regardless, the fiscal cliff is about small numbers compared to the Derivatives Tsunami or to bond market and dollar market bubbles.
The fiscal cliff requires that the federal government cut spending by $1.3 trillion over ten years. The Guardian reports that means the federal deficit has to be reduced about $109 billion per year or 3 percent of the current budget. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/27/fiscal-cliff-explained-spending-cuts-tax-hikes
More simply, just divide $1.3 trillion by ten and it comes to $130 billion per year. This can be done by simply taking a three month vacation each year from Washington’s wars.
The Derivatives Tsunami and the bond and dollar bubbles are of a different magnitude.
Last June 5 in “Collapse At Hand” http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2012/06/05/collapse-at-hand/ I pointed out that according to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency’s fourth quarter report for 2011, about 95% of the $230 trillion in US derivative exposure was held by four US financial institutions: JP Morgan Chase Bank, Bank of America, Citibank, and Goldman Sachs.
Prior to financial deregulation, essentially the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act and the non-regulation of derivatives–a joint achievement of the Clinton administration and the Republican Party–Chase, Bank of America, and Citibank were commercial banks that took depositors’ deposits and made loans to businesses and consumers and purchased Treasury bonds with any extra reserves.
With the repeal of Glass-Steagall these honest commercial banks became gambling casinos, like the investment bank, Goldman Sachs, betting not only their own money but also depositors money on uncovered bets on interest rates, currency exchange rates, mortgages, and prices of commodities and equities.
These bets soon exceeded many times not only US GDP but world GDP. Indeed, the gambling bets of JP Morgan Chase Bank alone are equal to world Gross Domestic Product.
According to the first quarter 2012 report from the Comptroller of the Currency, total derivative exposure of US banks has fallen insignificantly from the previous quarter to $227 trillion. The exposure of the 4 US banks accounts for almost of all of the exposure and is many multiples of their assets or of their risk capital.
The Derivatives Tsunami is the result of the handful of fools and corrupt public officials who deregulated the US financial system. Today merely four US banks have derivative exposure equal to 3.3 times world Gross Domestic Product. When I was a US Treasury official, such a possibility would have been considered beyond science fiction.
Hopefully, much of the derivative exposure somehow nets out so that the net exposure, while still larger than many countries’ GDPs, is not in the hundreds of trillions of dollars. Still, the situation is so worrying to the Federal Reserve that after announcing a third round of quantitative easing, that is, printing money to buy bonds–both US Treasuries and the banks’ bad assets–the Fed has just announced that it is doubling its QE 3 purchases.
In other words, the entire economic policy of the United States is dedicated to saving four banks that are too large to fail. The banks are too large to fail only because deregulation permitted financial concentration, as if the Anti-Trust Act did not exist.
The purpose of QE is to keep the prices of debt, which supports the banks’ bets, high. The Federal Reserve claims that the purpose of its massive monetization of debt is to help the economy with low interest rates and increased home sales. But the Fed’s policy is hurting the economy by depriving savers, especially the retired, of interest income, forcing them to draw down their savings. Real interest rates paid on CDs, money market funds, and bonds are lower than the rate of inflation.
Moreover, the money that the Fed is creating in order to bail out the four banks is making holders of dollars, both at home and abroad, nervous. If investors desert the dollar and its exchange value falls, the price of the financial instruments that the Fed’s purchases are supporting will also fall, and interest rates will rise. The only way the Fed could support the dollar would be to raise interest rates. In that event, bond holders would be wiped out, and the interest charges on the government’s debt would explode.
With such a catastrophe following the previous stock and real estate collapses, the remains of people’s wealth would be wiped out. Investors have been deserting equities for “safe” US Treasuries. This is why the Fed can keep bond prices so high that the real interest rate is negative.
The hyped threat of the fiscal cliff is immaterial compared to the threat of the derivatives overhang and the threat to the US dollar and bond market of the Federal Reserve’s commitment to save four US banks.
Once again, the media and its master, the US government, hide the real issues behind a fake one. The fiscal cliff has become the way for the Republicans to save the country from bankruptcy by destroying the social safety net put in place during the 1930s, supplemented by Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” in the mid-1960s.
Now that there are no jobs, now that real family incomes have been stagnant or declining for decades, and now that wealth and income have been concentrated in few hands is the time, Republicans say, to destroy the social safety net so that we don’t fall over the fiscal cliff.
In human history, such a policy usually produces revolt and revolution, which is what the US so desperately needs.
Perhaps our stupid and corrupt policymakers are doing us a favor after all.
Sunday, May 8, 2011
A Short History of Bubblenomics
By MIKE WHITNEY
"Minimum leverage ratios" will not make the system safer and more stable?!? You gotta be kidding me?
Because Bernanke's job is to assure that Wall Street's massive looting operation continues apace. That's Job#1. And, while "systemic instability" may be a concern, it's largely irrelevant. Maintaining profitability for uber-rich speculators takes precedent over everything else. That's the way Bubblenomics is designed to work.
Assets bubbles require massive amounts of leverage. But too much leverage can destabilize the system, so it needs to be regulated. But Wall Street doesn't like restrictions on leverage because it can make more money by borrowing like crazy, inflating a ginormous bubble, skimming off the profits, and cashing in before the crash. So, the Fed ignores Wall Street's "gearing" operations and pretends not to see what's going on. It becomes a bubble "enabler" by lowering interest rates, easing credit and waving-off tighter regulations. It's all part of the game. The Fed works to help its core constituents while everyone else is put at risk.
But there's another reason for bubbles, too. Stagnation is a chronic problem in mature capitalist economies. As businesses become more efficient in their various widget-making operations, demand for their products drops off making it harder for owners to find profitable outlets for investment. And when investment starts to flag, then grip of economic inertia begins to tighten. As author Robert Skidelsky says, "investment fills the gap between production and consumption", so when investment hits a speed-bump, spending starts to wither and the economy slows to a crawl.
The Fed's remedy: Zero rates, easy money and more bubbles; Professor Bernanke's one-size-fits-all, magic elixir for sclerotic economies. In other words, the emerging stock and commodities bubbles are not a sign that the Fed is flubbing the policy. Bubbles are the policy, and have been for a very long time. Bernanke is no fool. He knows that each business cycle is weaker than the last, creating fewer jobs, more slack in the economy, and more anemic growth. His job is to endlessly tweak the process in order to maintain profitability for the people at the top of the economic foodchain, his real bosses.
Here's a clip from an interview with history professor Robert Brenner who sums it up perfectly:
Robert Brenner:
"... Economic forecasters have underestimated how bad the current crisis is because they have over-estimated the strength of the real economy and failed to take into account the extent of its dependence upon a buildup of debt that relied on asset price bubbles. In the U.S., during the recent business cycle of the years 2001-2007, GDP growth was by far the slowest of the postwar epoch. There was no increase in private sector employment. The increase in plants and equipment was about a third of the previous, a postwar low. Real wages were basically flat. There was no increase in median family income for the first time since World War II. Economic growth was driven entirely by personal consumption and residential investment, made possible by easy credit and rising house prices. Economic performance was weak, even despite the enormous stimulus from the housing bubble and the Bush administration's huge federal deficits. Housing by itself accounted for almost one-third of the growth of GDP and close to half of the increase in employment in the years 2001-2005. It was, therefore, to be expected that when the housing bubble burst, consumption and residential investment would fall, and the economy would plunge." ("Overproduction not Financial Collapse is the Heart of the Crisis", Robert P. Brenner speaks with Jeong Seong-jin, Asia Pacific Journal)
Sound familiar? Flat wages, weak demand, slow growth and more and more debt? All signs of an aging, hobbled system that's slipping inexorably into stagnation. This is why the Fed adopted its present policy of bubblemaking, because the only way to avoid stagnation is by increasing the debt-load. Authors John Bellamy Foster and Fred Magdoff traced the origins of the policy back to the 1970s. They revealed what their findings in an article in The Monthly Review titled "Financial Implosion and Stagnation". Here's an excerpt:
"It was the reality of economic stagnation beginning in the 1970s, as heterodox economists Riccardo Bellofiore and Joseph Halevi have recently emphasized, that led to the emergence of "the new financialized capitalist regime," a kind of "paradoxical financial Keynesianism" whereby demand in the economy was stimulated primarily "thanks to asset-bubbles." Moreover, it was the leading role of the United States in generating such bubbles—despite (and also because of) the weakening of capital accumulation proper—together with the dollar's reserve currency status, that made U.S. monopoly-finance capital the "catalyst of world effective demand," beginning in the 1980s. But such a financialized growth pattern was unable to produce rapid economic advance for any length of time, and was unsustainable, leading to bigger bubbles that periodically burst, bringing stagnation more and more to the surface.A key element in explaining this whole dynamic is to be found in the falling ratio of wages and salaries as a percentage of national income in the United States. Stagnation in the 1970s led capital to launch an accelerated class war against workers to raise profits by pushing labor costs down. The result was decades of increasing inequality." ("Financial Implosion and Stagnation", John Bellamy Foster and Fred Magdoff, Monthly Review)
Foster and Magdoff do a fine job of explaining how the system has been rejiggered to overcome stagnation. Financial assets provide a place where surplus capital can go and grow via paper profits. But this type of investment does not add to productive capacity or real wealth; it merely enlarges the amount of money capital while creating the means for transferring wealth from one class to another. And that's the point. Every burst bubble thrusts middle class households further and further into the red, while bank moguls and Wall Street tycoons get even richer. It is all by design, nothing is left to chance.
It might surprise you to know that the Fed has become so skilled at bubble-making, that the condition of the underlying economy doesn't really matter any more. By fixing interest rates below the rate of inflation and attaching a liquidity-tailpipe to the stock market (QE2), the Fed has been able engineer a boom in equities, while the so-called "real" economy languishes in a near-Depression. In fact, consumer credit is actually shrinking (excluding student loans) while margin debt (the amount that speculators borrow to buy stocks) continues to soar. This is an astonishing development. The Fed has created a bifurcated market where bankers and hedge fund managers are able to rake in billions off their gaming operations while 300 million working Americans remain mired in debt.
But there are a few drawbacks to the Fed's policy. After all, one can only hollow out the economy for so long before the society begins to unravel. But, unfortunately, widening inequality and destitution don't show up in GDP, which continues to balloon even while working people slip further into debt. What's missing in the GDP-readings is the fact that we are getting poorer as a nation and weaker as an economic force in the world. Here's how Rob Arnott of Research Affiliates summed it up in an article in Fortune magazine:
"We are, in a word, considerably poorer than we imagine – something politicians of all stripes should, but probably won't, consider as they grapple with our massive deficit. GDP that stems from new debt — mainly deficit spending — is phony: it is debt-financed consumption, not prosperity," Arnott writes. "Net of deficit spending, our prosperity is nearly unchanged from 1998, 13 years ago."..."Instead of the financial world being the lubricant for business, they are out there manufacturing products with no utility whatsoever except for generating fees," he said. "Somebody's got to do something about Wall Street. It is destroying the country." ("Lost decade? We've already had one, Fortune)
The growth we see in rising GDP is mainly "attributable to debt-financed spending, rather than real wealth creation." Indeed, Bernanke is merely leveraging his way out of a Depression. But the calamitous downstream effects of the policy are obvious; the middle class is being decimated, the dollar is getting hammered, and the productive sectors of the economy are being cannibalized. These are the failures of bubblemaking, a theory whose sole purpose is to further enrich a tiny segment of the population that's already as rich as Croesus.
But the Fed is not the worst offender in this regard. The real problem is the banks.
The Fed can induce spending by lowering interest rates, easing credit or buying bonds, but the banks do the heavy lifting. That's where the zillions in leverage are created via off-balance sheets operations, repo transactions and derivatives contracts. These asset-pumping operations remain largely concealed from the public, so no one really knows what's going on. That's why the connection between money supply and financial asset prices is so tenuous and misleading, because the banks create money that doesn't appear in the data. That's what off-balance sheets operations are all about. They generate unknown amounts of credit which stimulates activity, but remains invisible. The printing presses have essentially been handed over to private industry. Here's how it all works according to Independent Strategy's David Roche
"The reason for the exponential growth in credit, but not in broad money, was simply that banks didn't keep their loans on their books any more – and only loans on bank balance sheets get counted as money. Now, as soon as banks made a loan, they "securitized" it and moved it off their balance sheet.
There were two ways of doing this. One was to sell the securitized loan as a bond. The other was "synthetic" securitization: for example, using derivatives to get rid of the default risk (with credit default swaps) and lock in the interest rate due on the loan (with interest-rate swaps). Both forms of securitization meant that the lending bank was free to make new loans without using up any of its lending capacity once its existing loans had been "securitized."So, to redefine liquidity under what I call New Monetarism, one must add, to the traditional definition of broad money, all the credit being created and moved off banks' balance sheets and onto the balance sheets of nonbank financial intermediaries. This new form of liquidity changed the very nature of the credit beast. What now determined credit growth was risk appetite: the readiness of companies and individuals to run their businesses with higher levels of debt." ("The Global Money Machine", David Roche, Wall Street Journal)
The Fed is not the main culprit in this new paradigm where banks and shadow banks stealthily add to the money supply without any oversight. The problem is the lack of regulation. There needs to be strictly enforced guidelines on the amount of leverage a bank can use and--more importantly--any financial institution that acts like a bank must be regulated like a bank. (Dodd-Frank reforms don't fix this problem.)
The present system is doomed because it depends on the willingness of bankers to behave ethically when all the incentives are pulling them in the opposite direction. The rewards for gouging the public are just too great to resist. All one has to do is lend tons of money to people who can't repay the debt, sell those same loans to investors looking for higher yield, skim-off the profits in stock options and bonuses, and find a safe place when the bubble bursts. Wash, rinse, repeat.
The IMF released a report last week that confirms this basic theory. The report aptly titled "A Fistful of Dollars" shows how the worst offenders deployed their lobbyists to ease regulations in order to legalize the type of sleight-of-hand that triggered the crash. Here's an excerpt:
"We find that lobbying was associated with more risk-taking during 2000-07 and with worse outcomes in 2008. In particular, lenders lobbying more intensively on issues related to mortgage lending and securitization (i) originated mortgages with higher loan-to-income ratios, (ii) securitized a faster growing proportion of their loans, and (iii) had faster growing originations of mortgages. Moreover, delinquency rates in 2008 were higher in areas where lobbying lenders' mortgage lending grew faster. These lenders also experienced negative abnormal stock returns during the rescue of Bear Stearns and the collapse of Lehman Brothers, but positive abnormal returns when the bailout was announced. Finally, we find a higher bailout probability for lobbying lenders. These findings suggest that lending by politically active lenders played a role in accumulation of risks and thus contributed to the financial crisis......
CONCLUSION.....We carefully construct a database at the lender level combining information on loan characteristics and lobbying expenditures on laws and regulations related to mortgage lending and securitization. We show that lenders that lobby more intensively on these specific issues engaged in riskier lending practices ex ante, suffered from worse outcomes ex post, and benefited more from the bailout program."("A Fistful of Dollars: Lobbying and the Financial Crisis", Deniz Igan, Prachi Mishra, and Thierry Tressel, Research Department, IMF
There it is in black and white. The bankers gamed the system and raked in trillions, all according to plan. Not surprisingly, they used their political clout to create a safety net for themselves (TARP) when the bubble burst, while everyone else watched as their retirement savings and home equity went up in smoke.
There's no disputing that massive leverage played a critical role in the crash of '08. Nor is there any doubt that hawking mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and other garbage assets (CDOs, ABS) to credulous investors was the main vehicle for executing the heist. So, why hasn't the Fed acknowledged its mistakes and stepped up its supervision of the banks? Is Bernanke so "captured" by Wall Street that he'd rather see another meltdown than take steps to reign in leverage? That seems to be the case.
Here's how Bernanke responded to Keith Ellison, when the congressman explicitly warned Bernanke of "excessive leverage" that had reached "stratospheric levels" putting the entire system in danger.
Bernanke: "The Board's authority and flexibility in establishing capital requirements, including leverage requirements, have been key to the Board's ability to require additional capital where needed based on a banking organization's risk profile...
We note that in other contexts, statutorily prescribed minimum leverage ratios have not necessarily served prudential regulators of financial institutions well." ("Excessive Leverage Helped Cause the Great Depression and the Current Crisis ... And Government Responds by Encouraging MORE Leverage", Washington's blog)
This is Bernanke's way of saying that he understands the risks, but plans to do nothing.
But, why?
Sunday, February 13, 2011
More Welfare for Wall Street
QE 2 Sets Off Inflation Alarms
By MIKE WHITNEY
By MIKE WHITNEY
Ever since he launched the second round of his bond-buying program (QE2), Ben Bernanke has been on a roll. The S&P has gained 10 percent and the economic data has improved dramatically. Manufacturing and retail have rebounded, consumer confidence has started to brighten, and personal consumption (PCE) is on the rise. Car sales, hotel occupancy and exports are all up, too. Even the banks seem to be more eager to lend than they were just a few months ago. Only housing is still in the doldrums and the Fed chairman probably has something up his sleeve for that, too.
Perma-bear Marc Faber thinks he's figured out the secret of Bernanke's recent successes. He says, "Never underestimate the power of printing money." Indeed. Only, in this case, an asset swap of US Treasurys for bank reserves works just as well as a printing press. Bernanke simply buys up boatloads of Treasurys from the banks and, "Voila", investors flock to riskier assets like lemmings to a cliff. And, just look at the results. Stocks keep climbing higher and higher, and everyone is happy. Well, almost everyone.
Richmond Fed President Jeffrey Lacker is not happy and he's taken his grousing to the press. Lacker thinks that Bernanke should heed the market's warnings and back off while he still can.
"The distinct improvement in the economic outlook since the program was initiated suggests taking that re-evaluation quite seriously," Lacker said in a speech in Newark, Delaware. "That re-evaluation will be challenging, because inflation is capable of accelerating, even if the level of economic activity has not yet returned to pre-recession trend."
Bernanke has brushed off Lacker's inflation handwringing saying that he has matters under control. But does he? That's not what the bond market is saying. Here's the Wall Street Journal's Mark Gongloff with the rundown:
"The U.S. bond market has begun sending a message that inflation risks are rising and the Federal Reserve may be too slow to act, potentially marking a significant turning point in the economic recovery. In the past week, Treasury-bond yields have jumped to their highest levels since last spring. Yields on 10-year Treasurys surpassed 3.5% and 30-year yields broke through 4.7%, which makes some worry could mean rates will march even higher.
Long-term rates have been gradually moving higher in response to an improving economy and rising commodity prices. But in recent days the increases in yields accelerated, a move many say is due to the worry that the Federal Reserve may be underestimating inflationary pressures in the economy, and may act too slowly to tame them.....While raising alarm bells about inflation, the bond market is also indicating it sees no signs that the Fed will intervene. Short-term rates, which are most sensitive to Fed moves, have held relatively steady, causing the difference between two-year and 10-year notes to reach its steepest level since February 2010....The yield on the 30-year Treasury bond ended Friday at 4.732%, its highest since last April. Adding to the almost-panicky feel in the bond market on Friday, traders circulated a chart of 30-year-bond yields showing that the yields had broken out of a 30-year trendline—a sign that the decades-long bull market in Treasurys may be drawing to a close...." ("Bond Market Flashes Inflation Warning", Mark Gongloff, Wall Street Journal)
Investors want some indication from Bernanke that if inflation does takes root, he'll fight back and raise rates. But Bernanke will have none of it. He's focused laser-like on deflation and is determined to stay the course until unemployment drops. (Or so he says)
And he's more confident in QE2 than ever. Just listen to him pat himself on the back in this clip from a speech he gave last week to the National Press Club:
"More recently, however, we have seen increased evidence that a self-sustaining recovery in consumer and business spending may be taking hold. Notably, we learned last week that households increased their spending in the fourth quarter, in real terms, at an annual rate of more than 4 percent....
A wide range of market indicators supports the view that the Federal Reserve's securities purchases have been effective at easing financial conditions. For example, since August, when we announced our policy of reinvesting maturing securities and signaled we were considering more purchases, equity prices have risen significantly, volatility in the equity market has fallen, corporate bond spreads have narrowed, and inflation compensation as measured in the market for inflation-indexed securities has risen from low to more normal levels....The fact that financial markets responded in very similar ways to each of these policy actions lends credence to the view that these actions had the expected effects on markets and are thereby providing significant support to job creation and the economy." (National Press Club address, Fed chairman Ben Bernanke)
While it's a bit premature to boast about a "self-sustaining recovery" when rates are at zero and the Fed has affixed a $1 trillion liquidity pipe to the markets, Bernanke clearly believes in the policy. And, notice how he points to "rising stock prices" as a barometer of success even though he has repeatedly said that the Fed does not deliberately target the stock market. Now we have Bernanke's own words to prove the opposite.
Also, it doesn't take a genius to see that if someone buys tons of Treasurys, the money that was in those Treasurys, will go somewhere else. And, so it has. It's gone into stocks, commodities and emerging markets. But how does that help to increase aggregate demand, lower unemployment, or improve household balance sheets? It doesn't. It just creates more liquidity in the financial markets chasing more paper assets. And that is precisely the problem.
It also increases risk appetite which paves the way for another asset bubble. Is that what Bernanke wants, another economy-crushing meltdown? Here's an excerpt from the Wall Street Journal which shows how Bernanke's low rates and bond buying program are pushing investors into riskier and riskier assets:
"The average junk-bond yield fell below 7% for the first time in more nearly six years, moving within striking distance of its all-time low, as bond buyers are willing to take on more risk in order to boost returns....Yields under 7% are more commonly associated with investment-grade bonds, but investment-grade bonds currently yield only 4.89% on average, according to J.P. Morgan. That is because market forces are squeezing the premium that high-grade bonds enjoy over Treasurys, and the Federal Reserve is suppressing short-term rates on Treasury securities to spur job growth." ("Yield on 'Junk' Approaching All-Time Low", Wall Street Journal)
So, the Fed's low rates are forcing investors (including many fixed-income retirees) into more dangerous assets in an attempt to get some measly return on their savings. This exposes them to even greater losses when the Fed is forced to raise rates and the market tumbles. Here's more from the article:
"Money continues to pour into junk bonds, with high-yield mutual funds recording $5.4 billion of net inflows since early December, according to Lipper FMI, a unit of Thomson Reuters.
Bank loans, a kindred market to high-yield bonds, have seen even greater inflows, of $6.7 billion, in that time. Similarly elevated flows into emerging markets have caused countries such as Brazil to adopt measures aimed at curbing inflation, which can result from torrents of incoming capital.The cash influx into junk bonds has driven up prices and caused yields to drop over the past two months, even though yields on underlying Treasurys have risen sharply during that time....Issuers continue to take advantage of elevated demand and falling yields, with $34 million of new high-yield bonds being sold in January, according to Dealogic. Six of the past 12 months have now recorded more than $30 billion in issuance, a threshold that had only been reached once before 2010. ("Yield on 'Junk' Approaching All-Time Low", Wall Street Journal)
So the big banks are making money hand-over-fist, while the mom-and-pop investors--trying to eek-out some small return on his skimpy retirement savings--are hung out to dry. If that's not class warfare, than what is? (Keep in mind, the banks borrow money from you, the depositor, for roughly 1% (1-yr CD) and then lend it back to you at 18% via your credit card. It's a bigger ripoff than student loans.)
And big finance is not just scarfing up junk bonds either. They're also adding to their trove of garbage adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs), the notorious MBS that sent the housing market into freefall. Here's a clip from Businessweek:
"Home loans that inflated the U.S. housing bubble...are fueling the fastest gains in the mortgage-bond market....Prices for senior bonds tied to option adjustable-rate mortgages, called "toxic" by a government commission, typically jumped 6 cents to 64 cents on the dollar in the past month, according to Barclays Capital.
Rising values show Federal Reserve efforts to stimulate the economy by purchasing an additional $600 billion of Treasuries and holding interest rates near zero percent are driving investors into ever-riskier securities.....The market is pricing in defaults on option ARMs of about 75 percent, according to hedge fund Metacapital Management LP in New York. As the worst housing slump since the Great Depression deepened, assumptions reached as high as 90 percent, said Whalen, who's based in Los Angeles."("'Toxic' Mortgages Rally as Resets Accelerate: Credit Markets", Businessweek)
Got that? Investors are loading up on these garbage bonds even though they expect 75% of them will go belly-up. Hey, it's a Bernanke gold rush! Is it any wonder why QE2 does not inspire confidence? It's just more bubblenomics.
And Bernanke's pledge to reduce unemployment is pure hogwash. In fact, the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco even admits that the effects of QE on unemployment will be negligible at best. Here's an excerpt from the FRBSF's Economic Letter:
"By 2012, the ... program's incremental contribution is ... 700,000 jobs generated ... by the most recent phase of the program. Increased hiring lowers the unemployment rate by 1.5 percentage points compared with what it would have been absent the Fed's asset purchases... Based on other simulations, providing an equivalent amount of support to real economic activity through conventional monetary policy would have required cutting the federal funds rate approximately 3 percentage points relative to baseline from early 2009 through 2012, an obvious impossibility because of the zero lower bound."
"700,000 jobs" in two years. Big deal. That winnows unemployment down to 8% by 2012. It's a drop in the bucket, but it does show that Bernanke's QE2 has nothing to do with jobs. It's just more welfare for Wall Street.
So, where is all this headed? It's not hard to figure out. For one thing, Bernanke will have to tap on the brakes a lot sooner than he thinks. Economic activity is picking up, the banks have started lending again, oil is rising sharply, and Wall Street speculators are snatching up every crummy bond in sight. Even consumer credit is expanding, which is a miracle given the dismal debt-to-disposable-income ratio that's still way above trend.
Also, inflation expectations are on-the-rise along with food and oil prices. At the same time, the yield on the 30-year Treasury is inching higher because investors doubt that Bernanke will defend the dollar by raising rates. It's a question of credibility.
Does this mean that deflation is no longer a problem?
Not at all. In fact, deflation is the main problem, but QE2 is sending false signals that are adding to the confusion. Unemployment is still very high, the output gap still very wide, and housing is in a historic slump. Consumers are still retrenching, households still deleveraging, and defaults, bankruptcies, and foreclosures are still at record highs. In other words, deflationary pressures are still strong and likely to stay that way through 2011.
On the other hand, things look altogether different in the financials, where a feeding frenzy is underway for everything from junk bonds to toxic ARMs. This hyperactivity is the result of flawed monetary policy, hundreds of billions of dollars are shifting out of risk-free Treasuries into other assets. Naturally, that's driving up stock prices and sparking fear of inflation. But, unfortunately, it's not doing anything for the real economy. The excess liquidity in the financial system is merely chasing paper assets, which is why yields on junk bonds continue to fall.
To fully appreciate the magnitude of the Fed's failure to direct stimulus where it's needed, consider this: Investors are now choosing to buy toxic ARMs (which are set to default at a 75%-clip) rather than plants, equipment, real estate or hard assets. That's a good indication of how weak demand really is, and how inadequate the Fed's attempts to fix the problem have been.
So, what does it all mean?
It means we've reached the limits of monetary policy. The stimulus that's pushing liquidity into the markets, is not being transmitted to the real economy. It's stuck financial La-la land where it can't do any good. The problem is not that Bernanke is dropping money out of helicopters. The problem is that his helicopter never stops circling Wall Street.
The Fed's exalted QE experiment is coming to an end. Bernanke has restored large parts of the Ponzi finance system that collapsed after Lehman, but the real economy is still mired in recession. It looks like Keynes was right after all. Trying to use monetary policy to revive the economy, when households and consumers are still underwater, is like pushing on a string.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Sunday, June 13, 2010
What are Crashes and Bubbles?
by Investopedia
A bubble is a type of investing phenomenon that demonstrates the frailty of some facets of human emotion. A bubble occurs when investors put so much demand on a stock that they drive the price beyond any accurate or rational reflection of its actual worth, which should be determined by the performance of the underlying company. Like the soap bubbles a child likes to blow, investing bubbles often appear as though they will rise forever, but since they are not formed from anything substantial, they eventually pop. And when they do, the money that was invested into them dissipates into the wind.
A crash is a significant drop in the total value of a market, almost undoubtedly attributable to the popping of a bubble, creating a situation wherein the majority of investors are trying to flee the market at the same time and consequently incurring massive losses. Attempting to avoid more losses, investors during a crash are panic selling, hoping to unload their declining stocks onto other investors. This panic selling contributes to the declining market, which eventually crashes and affects everyone. Typically crashes in the stock market have been followed by a depression.
The relationship between bubbles and crashes is similar to the relationship between clouds and rain. Since you can have clouds without rain but you can't have rain without clouds, bubbles are like clouds and market crashes are like the rain. Historically, a market crash has always precipitated from a bubble (pun intended), and the thicker the clouds or the bigger the bubble, the harder it rains.
It is important to note the distinction between a crash and a correction, which can be a bit sticky at times. A correction is supposedly the market's way of slapping some sense into overly enthusiastic investors. As a general rule, a correction should not exceed a 20% loss of value in the market. Surprisingly, some crashes have been erroneously labeled as corrections, including the terrifying crash of 1987. But a "correction," however, should not be labeled as such until the steep drop has halted within a reasonable period.
Now that we're familiar with the definitions of crashes and bubbles, we can look at how they occurred throughout history:
A bubble is a type of investing phenomenon that demonstrates the frailty of some facets of human emotion. A bubble occurs when investors put so much demand on a stock that they drive the price beyond any accurate or rational reflection of its actual worth, which should be determined by the performance of the underlying company. Like the soap bubbles a child likes to blow, investing bubbles often appear as though they will rise forever, but since they are not formed from anything substantial, they eventually pop. And when they do, the money that was invested into them dissipates into the wind.
A crash is a significant drop in the total value of a market, almost undoubtedly attributable to the popping of a bubble, creating a situation wherein the majority of investors are trying to flee the market at the same time and consequently incurring massive losses. Attempting to avoid more losses, investors during a crash are panic selling, hoping to unload their declining stocks onto other investors. This panic selling contributes to the declining market, which eventually crashes and affects everyone. Typically crashes in the stock market have been followed by a depression.
The relationship between bubbles and crashes is similar to the relationship between clouds and rain. Since you can have clouds without rain but you can't have rain without clouds, bubbles are like clouds and market crashes are like the rain. Historically, a market crash has always precipitated from a bubble (pun intended), and the thicker the clouds or the bigger the bubble, the harder it rains.
It is important to note the distinction between a crash and a correction, which can be a bit sticky at times. A correction is supposedly the market's way of slapping some sense into overly enthusiastic investors. As a general rule, a correction should not exceed a 20% loss of value in the market. Surprisingly, some crashes have been erroneously labeled as corrections, including the terrifying crash of 1987. But a "correction," however, should not be labeled as such until the steep drop has halted within a reasonable period.
Now that we're familiar with the definitions of crashes and bubbles, we can look at how they occurred throughout history:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)