Continuing credit disasters

An update from CFO.com on the federal government’s attempts to spur small business lending indicates that there’s a lot of fumbling and bumbling going on:

One proposal by the Obama administration is to take $30 billion of unused TARP money and create a Small Business Lending Fund for banks with less than $10 billion in assets. The amount of capital a bank could receive would be a percentage of its risk-weighted assets. The government would get at least a 5% dividend from the capital investment, but that rate would fall if the bank demonstrated an increase in small-business lending compared with a 2009 baseline. For every 2.5% increase in incremental business lending over a two-year period, the dividend rate would fall one percentage point. After five years, the dividend rate would increase to encourage timely repayment.

Assuming they’re looking for a five to ten year repayment, the government’s corresponding financing rate is between 2-4% (less than 1% if they borrow short), meaning a spread of 1-3%. Granted, there’s risk being taken “with taxpayers’ money”, but at a time when most economic theories say that the public sector should be dissaving (much less earning a fat spread on its existing funds), this kind of thinking is potentially disastrous (unless, of course, the dividends are going to be distributed to each citizen — read on once you’ve finished laughing).

Combined with the TARP stigma for recipient banks, we agree with critics of the idea who see it as a non-starter. This follows on the heels of what has begun to look like abject failure of the mortgage assistance programs enacted in 2009:

Earlier this year, the Making Home Affordable program was unveiled to help 3.2 million struggling homeowners stay in their homes either through a loan modification or a refinance…

…it’s not working.  This week, government officials reported to the House Financial Services Committee that 70 percent of borrowers who have signed up are not getting help…

Unfortunately, time is ticking and [better] ideas cannot be implemented quickly enough to keep up with the looming deadlines for these trial modifications, the increasing unemployment rate and rise in foreclosures.

As Rep. Barney Frank admitted in December, “no one can think we have done a satisfactory job.”

What can the feds do? Briefly, the best thing they could do is to minimize uncertainty for lenders and the entire private sector, and to ensure that fiscal policy is supportive – be it spending, tax cuts, or both (and ensuring that the TARP dividends distributed to its citizen-owners are tax free, ha ha ha…).

URLs:

http://www.cfo.com/article.cfm/14480869

http://www.credit.com/news/housing-market/2010-03-07/hamp-has-not-prevented-foreclosures-realtors-say.html

http://www.zillow.com/blog/mortgage/2009/12/09/hamp-harp-tarp-dud/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/08/AR2009120804194.html

The Deficit Commission: Hubris or Pandering?

The President signed an executive order yesterday to establish a deficit reduction commission headed by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson. Bowles was instrumental in the Clinton administration’s budget negotiations of the late 1990s, while Simpson helped ensure passage of the tax hikes in 1990 that torpedoed the first President Bush’s reelection.

Why do we think the commission is a display of hubris? Because there’s nothing in its mission about better understanding the nature of the problem, i.e., whether enlarged deficits and public debt ever make sense over a longer period of time, and if so, whether those conditions exist today. Instead, it seeks to cram macroeconomic orthodoxy down our throats, presumably in order to fatten up the livers of U.S. taxpayers by the arbitrarily imposed year of 2015.  But we predict that even in five years the fiscal foie gras will still be pretty lean.  According to the Washington Examiner:  

Here are the kinds of steps the panel is likely to consider as it seeks to tackle deficits that never dip below $700 billion under Obama’s budget:

_Raise the retirement age for full Social Security benefits to more than 67 years old and have benefits grow at a less generous inflation rate. Expose more income to Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes.

_Require seniors to pay more Medicare costs out of their own pockets and curb payments to health care providers.

_Raise taxes on people making less than $200,000 a year, requiring Obama to break a signature campaign pledge.

“You’re going to have to do all of the above,” said [Sen. Kent] Conrad. “You’re going to have to do all of the things that people don’t want to do.”

The first one isn’t a terrible idea, though its second part might constitute an overall tax hike on anyone earning over ~$100K per year, depending on how it is accounted for in income taxes.

The second one, although it’s a pressing issue given demographic projections, would have harsh consequences on seniors, not only in terms of out of pocket costs, but also in the availability of Medicare providers; it also renders the economics of a medical education far more difficult (if not impossible) for those who would be willing to administer primarily to the poor and the elderly.

The third one, depending on how big a hike is involved and how far down the income ladder it extends, could have negative economic consequences and profound political implications.

The long term structural issues do present a fiscal challenge. However, policymakers may be getting too far ahead of the problem, and if they are, the consequences could actually worsen the longer term fiscal outlook. And yet the president has charged the commission with lowering public deficits, period, without any consideration of what it could mean to the economy, or whether there’s any truth to his arguments that the government could “run out of money,” or that it’s subject to the same kinds of budget constraints as a household or business.

Obviously, given our take on the role of the federal budget, we would be relieved if the commission turns out to be little more than election year pandering. And the fact that it aims for budget normalization rather than budget balance, and shoots for it in five years rather than one or two, is a good sign. But based on U.S. demographic composition, we think 2018 to 2020 would make far more sense.

If the commission produces hawkish recommendations that are pursued vigorously in the coming years,  our strong dollar call will become stronger yet, and our willingness to wager on a double dip or ‘recession within a depression’ type of event would increase (2012-2013 could be interesting, and not in a good way).

URLs:

Shovel-ready news bits

It’s another shovel ready snow day in the mid-Atlantic, with our second two footer in five days. Too bad we can’t ship the stuff to Vancouver efficiently. A couple of interesting things on the wires today:

The Fed’s exit strategy

Ben Bernanke outlined the Fed’s game plan for tightening monetary policy when the time is right. In our judgement he said the right things for the most part. The relatively new policy tool that is getting the most attention is the payment of interest on excess reserves that member banks have on deposit with the Fed (“IOER”).

Our initial take on IOER when it was legislated in 2008 was that it offered a way around the zero bound on the Fed’s interest rate target, but that was wrong. We overlooked that (1) the interest is not necessarily paid with new USDs, but could be paid out of cash flows earned on the voluminous assets that have been taken onto the Fed’s books and (2) the incentive effect of the interest payments is to “tie up” banks’ reserves outside of credit creation channels.

Fortunately, the Fed’s current interest rate is not competitive with spreads on public and private sector credit; instead, it appears to compete solely on the basis of risk, as banks don’t have to worry about mismatching assets and liabilities (borrowing short term and lending long term). But overall, it’s hard to see how those two effects of IOER support economic activity in the present. Apparently we’re not the only ones trying to get our heads around this.

ABC News poll

Headline numbers from a recent ABC News poll look bad for President Obama and Democrats, but there are some interesting things under the hood. First the headlines:

• Trust in Democrats’ ability to handle critical policy issues such as the economy and terrorism gave decline steadily since last year, with the overall gap versus Republicans falling from roughly 25% to 5%. 
• Obama’s approval ratings are below 50% on creating jobs, the economy, health care, and the deficit (his approval on terrorism is a very healthy 56%).

Some of the nuances that should be very relevant for political strategists include:

• While the margin has dropped considerably from 13%, 49% of independents lean towards Dems, 45% towards the GOP (p.5).
• While respondents viewed the loss of the Dems’ Senate super majority positively, 58% view the GOP as obstructionist, and 68% say that obstructionism should only be used infrequently (p.4).
• 48% describe themselves as “anti-incumbent”, below the 54% and 53% that preceded the “throw the bums out” elections of 1994 and 2006.

Health care reform is especially interesting; while most respondents view the present outcomes negatively:

• 80% support banning limits on pre-existing conditions.
• 56% support a personal health insurance mandate, including public assistance.
• 65% say the current approach is overly complicated, and 59% say it’s too expensive.
• 74% of those with private insurance trust their carrier to handle claims fairly, and more of these folks oppose the current reform packages.

One takeaway is that there’s plenty of room for strategic and tactical maneuvering by both parties in the quarters ahead.

Another, based on that last bullet point on health care, is that there appears to be a powerful asymmetry at work, one that I’m much more sympathetic to nowadays: people who have satisfactory health coverage are going to have a harder time empathizing with the challenges faced by those who don’t. That seems pretty rational, if not a little cut throat – if it ain’t broke for me, why should I have to pony up for your troubles?

My wife, who has worked in architecture for almost twenty years, was out of work for most of 2009. If not for the COBRA subsidy, we would have been in a much deeper financial hole, to the tune of about $600+ per month. When the subsidy was set to expire in December, we applied for coverage with the carrier we had through her prior employer, but were denied coverage for preexisting conditions, namely minor wear and tear to one of my knees and heightened anxiety in a person who had just lost her job and income. Huh??? 

And if you’ve ever tried to purchase a policy as an individual, you know how frustrating it is to try making comparisons between apples, oranges, cumquats, dragon fruit, and a bunch of others (let alone issues like financial strength and ratings). You also have to be a very savvy insurance consumer to detect the coverage gaps at work in different kinds of policies.

The family’s now fully insured thanks to good news on the employment front, but this is an issue that we have a whole new perspective on — one that’s firmly supportive of well designed health care reform.  

URLs:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100210/ap_on_bi_ge/us_bernanke_exit_strategy

http://www.ny.frb.org/newsevents/speeches/2009/dud090729.html

http://www.newsneconomics.com/2008/12/why-exactly-does-fed-pay-interest-on.html

http://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1102a22010Politics.pdf

Krugman vs CNBC

A couple of CNBC commentators ripped Paul Krugman for today’s op-ed on budget deficits, with Rick Santelli saying something about lining a bird cage. We aren’t defending Krugman against charges of self-contradiction or factual inaccuracies, but we are definitely siding with him on the economic substance of his argument (the lonely wingnut’s sojourn continues).

Prevailing rhetoric holds that the U.S. government is over extended, and that there’s precious little room for additional economic stimulus. That would be true if US dollars could only be obtained by taking them from people who have them, or by digging new ones out of the ground. In that case, servicing our debts — both private and public — would be quite burdensome. But the reality is that in a modern monetary system, monetary units are simply ledger entries. Whether carried in hand as a Treasury obligation, or held digitally in a bank account, all dollars are created out of thin air by the Federal Reserve in response to demands of the banking system.

The federal government does not have direct control of the Federal Reserve, so its control of money creation is only indirect (if Congress wished, it could wrest control of USD creation from the quasi-private Fed, a measure that a small number of radical but diverse members might like to see). But existing arrangements do not change the basic fact that the U.S. has the capacity to print the money (the non-interest bearing debt) used to service its public debt. That means that the only meaningful constraint on the level of our pubic debt is people’s willingness to accept the USD. And despite the sophomoric rhetoric on that point, people are still overwhelmingly willing to accept USDs.

The claim that Congress is “spending money that we don’t have” is even more egregious. To reiterate: if USDs could only be dug out of the ground, or pulled out of taxpayers’ pockets, then the argument might make some sense. But as long as we have the ability to create USDs out of thin air, then Congress has the ability to spend new USDs instead of existing ones.

The conservative argument against this type of Keynesian activism rests on a couple of key pillars, and under certain conditions, they’re valid: (1) as long as government constraints on the private sector are moderate, an economy will grow at or near full capacity; (2) public demand for capital will always tend to ‘crowd out’ private sector borrowing; and (3) public sector allocation of capital is inevitably distorted, which imposes long run economic costs. 

As long as those assumptions are valid, then Congressional thrift, beyond a basic level of social insurance and national defense spending, is a desirable objective. However:

(1) History doesn’t lend strong support to the idea that an unbridled private sector will always and everywhere produce positive growth; and if monetary policy is constrained by a zero bound (i.e., interest rates can’t go below zero), then whenever growth is below potential, fiscal stimulus is appropriate (and can be enacted in myriad ways that appeal to lefties or righties). This is especially true for long economic cycles, such as the Great Depression, Japan from 1989 until 2008 or so, and several developed western economies since roughly 1999. Judging by the available empirical research, demographic composition could be the main driver of these cycles (and if the effect is strong enough, it might deemphasize the importance of rationality vs behavioralism in theory and policy making).

(2) When private sector demand for capital is contracting, as can happen in a long down cycle, then public sector demand for capital (i.e., deficits and debt issuance) is beneficial, and should foster rather than crowd out private sector credit demand. However, under certain conditions, this will only work if money creation is supportive of public sector credit demand, i.e, if new money is created to finance the public sector debt (the conservative point of view tends to see this as banana republic monetary policy, but that isn’t always the case). Today, banks are taking advantage of a steep yield curve to borrow funds from the Federal Reserve (which creates new USDs) to purchase higher yielding Treasury debt, i.e., a significant amount of our public debt is being ‘monetized’. While that would be a bad thing in an inflationary environment, it’s a good thing when it offsets deflationary forces. Almost everyone who parrots the prevailing rhetoric is overlooking this dynamic.

(3) Public sector capital allocation is certainly prone to distortion in as much as it is not subjected to competition and the judgement of diverse agents. But asymmetries in the private sector can have powerfully negative effects too (financial crisis, anyone?). And while there’s room in our political system for new institutions designed to allocate public resources more optimally, the existing ones, such as voting, negotiation, and oversight, should do a good enough job in the meantime.

Krugman wrote that “there’s no reason to panic about budget prospects for the next few years, or even for the next decade,” and apparently this has some pundits and analysts pulling their hair out. But if prevailing demographic ratios are going to drive another decade of subpar economic outcomes…then he’s absolutely right!  

When the real economy is humming along, we can leave the creation and allocation of new USDs to the private sector, and rein in public deficits without doing too much harm. But when the state of the real economy is uncertain, as it certainly is now (pun intended), the refusal to finance public spending, investment, and intermediation via the creation of new dollars (within the constraints dictated by inflation objectives and expectations) is inherently deflationary and destructive. And that is what undermines the sophomoric notion that we are “leaving a mountain of debt to our grandchildren.” If the public sector is not active enough to offset destructive forces acting in the economy today, then our grandchildren will be worse off. Like most economic variables, public debt levels mean nothing in isolation. And we shouldn’t just look at it relative to current GDP. We must also look at it relative to opportunity cost, or looked at another way, to future GDP. There are actions that the public sector can take today to favorably impact GDP in the future, but they all require financing, including deficit spending. We should only be frightened of deficits when they are scarier than the opportunity costs imposed by government saving. Today, that is simply not the case.

So Krugman is right to be concerned about the policy outlook, which he has a rather pessimistic view of:

Washington now has its priorities all wrong: all the talk is about how to shave a few billion dollars off government spending, while there’s hardly any willingness to tackle mass unemployment. Policy is headed in the wrong direction — and millions of Americans will pay the price.

We’ve expressed similar concerns since 2H09, but it now looks to us as though the Obama administration is “triangulating” on deficits and the federal debt, with no intention to substantially withdraw fiscal stimulus in the government’s 2011 fiscal year (though again, we’re still trying to figure out how the president’s emphasis on PAYGO fits into this). If we’re right, then the readjustments underway in exchange rates, specifically the Euro and USD, are being driven by the Euro and sovereign debt concerns, rather than from the USD side. That means we should settle into a new exchange rate equilibrium in the coming weeks, at which point risky assets should start to recover. It’s going to be a bumpy ride, but we’ll get there.

URLs:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/05/opinion/05krugman.html

IMPORTANT DISCLOSURES: Symmetry Capital Management, LLC is a state registered investment advisor. The foregoing information is for informational, educational, or entertainment purposes only. It does not constitute an offer to buy nor a solicitation to sell any security, or to engage in any investment strategy. Symmetry Capital Management, LLC is an Amazon.com associate, and earns a commission on sales generated through links from our website. At the time of writing, the firm, its principals, and its clients did not own any securities mentioned, or any securities issued by entities mentioned.

Obama Budget & 4Q09 GDP

We were feeling a little smug about Friday morning’s GDP print, given our argument in 2H09 that growth prospects were probably being under estimated. At 5.7%, it wasn’t quite the six handle that we thought we might see, but barring any significant downward revisions, it was closer than most expected, and nominal GDP did indeed have a six handle.

Interestingly, headline government spending added little to the quarter’s numbers, so there will be an interesting debate over how much of a role ‘fiscal demand’ is playing, but we’re cautious about that for a few reasons. First, the slower pace at which private inventories were liquidated was a large contributor to GDP, but sustainable private sector growth and employment are unlikely as long as inventory building remains anemic.  Second, federal spending was down due to a lower defense spend, while non-defense spending was up 8% versus 7% in 3Q09, so it’s hard to argue there was no fiscal component. Third, it ignores the possibility of lag effects between public sector spending or deficits and subsequent private sector activity. And if we’re right that fiscal expenditures are still playing a role, the GDP data could imply a very healthy multiplier, a possibility sketched out in this recent academic paper.

This leads us to the Obama budget released today, which will be a real tooth gnashing, garment rending piece of work to many. But it looks pretty good to us at first glance (see the criteria on page six of this Idle Speculator), far better than recent rhetoric led us to expect. The deficit is forecast to be a record $1.56T in 2010 and to remain above $1T in 2011, and it’s beginning to appear that Obama is “triangulating” on fiscal austerity measures, or at least on the time frame over which deficit reduction will occur (though it’s not clear how PAYGO fits into this).

The President’s budget will be tough for some to swallow, but as we’ve pointed out elsewhere, the belief that government is always and everywhere the problem, or that it cannot contribute to real economic growth, is based on a massive underlying assumption: that the private sector is always and everywhere able to grow. It’s not hard to reduce that position to an absurd one, e.g., if a natural or biological calamity were to severely impact private sector potential, a government with a monopoly over money creation could pick up some or perhaps all of the slack.

Reality is far more complicated of course, but since demographic ratios came to our attention, it seems patently clear that private sector potential can vary wildly over multi decade periods, especially in economies where a steep fall in childhood mortality occurred at some point in history. Japan is the most recent example of a two decade downswing in potential output, and its policymakers mistakenly approached the problem as a cyclical rather than a secular one. The U.S. and other western nations are roughly ten years behind Japan in demographic terms, so there’s still roughly a decade of slow, no, or even negative growth ahead of us, barring an active public sector (note: “active” can include tax cuts). As we wrote last November:

We’re familiar with the major [economic] catechisms; we’re just not sure that the evidence supports any one of them over another. Structural economic conditions can and do change — age structure is just one example of how this can come about — and different conditions may call for different approaches.

There are several economic measures that, when viewed over the last two decades, support our assessment that demographics are playing a powerful role in the performance of the U.S. economy (and by extension, these measures tend to undermine arguments against Republican budget profligacy in the 2000s). For example:

The year over year decline in state and local income tax revenue has never been so precipitous, and it has become far more volatile since demographic ratios first turned negative in the late 1990s;

The trend in real private inventories has also been declining since the late 1990s; and 

Equipment and software investment has been in a similar downtrend since the late 1990s.

Admittedly, we’re just eyeballing graphs here and speculating on whether they correspond well to more robust empirical analyses. But we’re fairly confident in our speculation, and this has led us to accept that we are in a Keynesian moment, or more accurately, two Keynesian decades with a Minskian moment in the middle. In such an environment, where private sector expectations are pessimistic, the optimal response is for the public sector to pick up the slack in consumption, investment, and intermediation, within the constraints set by inflation expectations (granted, inflation is a messier issue in a world where the USD is the global reserve currency, and based on a first cut view of today’s budget, we believe our tradable goods inflation thesis is back in play).

The Obama budget appears to pick up a healthy measure of private sector slack, and should thus be favorable overall for employment, asset prices, and economic output. The inflation issue will be far more slippery: on the one hand, a well designed federal budget gives the Fed more room to tighten, as private sector expectations improve; on the other, fiscal direction is uncertain, especially beyond 2011, and prone to shocks, so central banks will have to be rather nimble (more nimble than they were in 2003-05 and 2008) to avoid taking an overly easy or tight approach to policy.

Obama’s proposed tax increases on high income households will cause some resentment, but it’s hard to see how the income disparity pendulum could keep swinging on its current arc. The administration might also believe that higher tax rates on higher incomes will be supportive of state and municipal debt financing. We’d feel better about it if there were an accompanying reinvention of the corporate tax code, as we believe that would have some positive second and third order effects on lower and middle class incomes; first order effects could be achieved by instituting a payroll tax holiday as Warren Mosler has suggested.

Unfortunately, we place a zero probability on corporate tax reform happening any time soon (the budget calls for increasing taxes on certain sectors of the economy), and a near zero probability on a long payroll tax holiday. Despite that, the President’s budget does brighten the economic outlook a bit for 2H2010 and 2011, and the possiblity of a double dip might have been pushed back to 2012 or 2013 (which clearly calls the semantics of ”double dip” into question).

URLs:

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm

http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/~yona/research/Multiplier-version12.pdf 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/10/02/01/Introducing-the-2011-Budget/

http://symmetrycapital.net/idlespeculation/20100112.pdf

http://symmetrycapital.net/idlespeculation/20091109.pdf

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?chart_type=line&s[1][id]=ASLPITAX&s[1][transformation]=pc1

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?s[1][id]=CBIC1

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?chart_type=line&s[1][id]=NRIPDC96&s[1][transformation]=pc1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsky_moment

http://moslereconomics.com/2010/01/28/tea-party-plan-for-dems-cut-to-the-front-with-tax-cuts/

IMPORTANT DISCLOSURES: Symmetry Capital Management, LLC is a state registered investment advisor. The foregoing information is for informational, educational, or entertainment purposes only. It does not constitute an offer to buy nor a solicitation to sell any security, or to engage in any investment strategy. Symmetry Capital Management, LLC is an Amazon.com associate, and earns a commission on sales generated through links from our website. At the time of writing, the firm, its principals, and its clients did not own any securities mentioned, or any securities issued by entities mentioned.

I’ll see your PAYGO and raise you a double dip

A key objective raised by President Obama in his state of the union address was to address the ‘fiscal hole’ of the federal government. His rationale was that “like any cash strapped family, we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice what we don’t.” he asked Congress to reinstate PAYGO, which reportedly helped the federal government “record surpluses in the 1990s,” and advocated investing in people “without leaving them a mountain of debt.” He closed on this point by saying that it’s just common sense.

Culturally, these ideas resonate with Americans. And for a business or household, budget constraints are a matter of common sense (even though we don’t always adhere to them). But there is no budget constraint on a government that can create money, i.e., non-interest bearing debt, out of thin air. The only meaningful constraint to the level of non-interest bearing debt is inflation, which occurs when a government creates more money than the economy requires, causing its non-interest bearing debt to lose value against most goods and services. Thus, while it may score some political points (thanks to our primary educational system’s lack of a financial and economic curriculum?), it’s absurd for the president to embrace the common sense that households and businesses use in setting budgets. The federal government faces an entirely different kind of budget constraint.

Instead, given the government’s power to create money, common sense would hold that the amount of money supplied to the economy should be equal to the amount of money required by the economy (please note, this simplification is not an attempt to resurrect the policy prescriptions of old school monetarism). Thus, the proper approach to budgets at the federal level is to ask whether there is currently a surfeit or deficit of USDs in our economy. Given the number of private financial commitments that were entered into in the past decade, and dramatic declines in economic activity, it’s difficult to argue that there’s currently a surfeit of dollars. And if recent political rhetoric is any indication, dollars are likely to become scarcer in the years ahead (it would be ironic if, instead of inflation, deflation became the motivating force behind a move away from the USD as global reserve currency).

The president did set forth some positive ideas, such as a zero capital gains tax on small business investment, capital investment incentives for companies of all sizes, and infrastructure investment. Assuming these are financed at least in part by new money creation, they would help to prevent a renewed liquidity crunch. But to the extent that they are “offset” by cuts or freezes elsewhere in the name of closing fiscal gaps and filling in budget holes, or by higher taxes on other activities, the net short term effect on the economy will be nil or worse. And like Japan, we’ll be in for our second lost decade out of two. As we’ve pointed out, leaving future generations without a “mountain of debt” sometimes means leaving them with equivalent (or greater) opportunity costs. We should strive to avoid both of those outcomes. To do so, we have to rethink the cultural common sense that debt is always and everywhere to be avoided.

From an investing standpoint, if vigorous policy actions follow the path being laid out by the rhetoric and “common sense” emanating from so many quarters, then the USD will continue to strengthen, the real economy will stagnate or weaken further, and nominal asset values will fall for all but the highest grade government paper. In that scenario, we would be lucky to tread water and leave only 16% of the country underemployed.

Mr. President, I’ll see your PAYGO and raise you a double dip recession.

RELATED READING (file under confirmation bias): 

We’re well aware that our current view of things puts us shoulder to shoulder with some members of the “loony left”, but the macroeconomics of this stuff are fairly straightforward. Our lonely wing nut sojourn continues, placing us in lockstep with one Mr. Paul Krugman: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/obama-liquidates-himself/.

The Fed is seeking an exit strategy from its liquidity programs and low interest rate policy. The impact of that exit can be either muted or amplified by Congressional actions. If Congress becomes hawkish, there is no reason for the Fed to do so. If they both begin tightening, it’s hello 1937: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601015&sid=aXeUAV7_bz_o

An excellent idea from Warren Mosler — a full payroll tax holiday — that has yet to fall on the radar of federal policymakers: http://moslereconomics.com/2010/01/28/tea-party-plan-for-dems-cut-to-the-front-with-tax-cuts/. Here’s how Mosler describes the cause of poor economic policymaking: “…so-called economic experts have confused themselves and their political masters with contrived explanations for the way the economy works, and their limited vision has limited the range of policy choice. The result has been a monumental economic and social disaster caused by an obvious shortage of aggregate demand. The spending power needed to make mortgage payments, car payments, and do a bit of shopping- all of which would fix the economy and end the financial crisis- just isn’t there.”

Marshall Auerback writes that “Any kind of spending cuts in the middle of the worst recession since the Great Depression is insane.  What we are beginning to see is the return of Herbert Hoover and the ‘liquidationists.’” http://www.newdeal20.org/?p=7731

Ed Harrison posts an email exchange with Auerback, in which the latter wrote: “What the US government is now in danger of repeating is taking its economy down the fast track to a double-dip recession.  With investment still flat, consumers trying to increase their saving ratio and net exports making a negative contribution to growth – the President and his advisors evidently believe the persistently high unemployment is something the private sector has to deal with.”  http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2010/01/what-president-obama-can-do-to-improve-the-economy.html. As we’ve noted elsewhere, the demographic research of folks like John Geanakoplos, Diane Macunovich, and Ajay Kapur implies that for the next decade, the U.S. private sector is not going to behave as the baby boomer decades have conditioned us to expect. Hence the case for a more activist — and just as importantly, ’self-financing’ – public sector. ‘Self financing’ today means the Federal Reserve creating the dollars that enable primary dealer banks to absorb Treasury offerings at auction via direct bids.  For that process to continue, the federal government must continue to issue debt, rather than shoveling dirt on the people and institutions that are still near the bottom of our deep ’fiscal hole’.

Jonathan Zasloff writes (TOH Krugman) that “At some point someone must make an argument for government.” http://www.samefacts.com/2010/01/politics-and-leadership/obamas-self-inflicted-lobotomy-proceeds-apace/  Why are Democrats today so afraid to make that argument? Like the health care debacle, could the lessons learned in the Clinton years be ill suited to today? As for the GOP, our take is that by harping on government in all its forms (besides those forms that help favored firms and industries collect their share of rents from the rest of us, of course), Republicans leave the door open to the development of increasingly socialist policies. In fact, if our take on the state of the private sector in the coming decade is accurate, they will practically mandate it.

State unemployment insurance tracker at Pro Publica (TOH Credit Writedowns) shows how critical federal government support currently is for many states: http://projects.propublica.org/unemployment/

George Soros thinks that premature budget tightening could be bearish for gold prices: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/davos/7085504/Davos-2010-George-Soros-warns-gold-is-now-the-ultimate-bubble.html. Reminiscent of Jon Nadler’s argument last fall against gold: http://symmetrycapital.net/index.php/blog/2009/11/a-gold-bears-comments/

Finally, in what might be a mirror image of our loney wing nut position, Bill Gross seems to be exhibiting a profound case of anti-Keynesianism: http://www.pimco.com/LeftNav/Featured+Market+Commentary/IO/2010/February+2010+Gross+Ring+of+Fire.htm

Volatility? Shocking!

The news flow this week has put equity markets into one of their periodic panics. It’s been almost a year since the last one, so in the long term, this might be healthy. Healthy or not, it’s peculiar how closely these shakeouts have coincided with the political calendar, and judging by available academic research, the market should be better prepared for air pockets like the current one. For example, according to a 1997 study by Lamb et al:

Almost the entire advance in the [stock] market since 1897 corresponds to the periods when Congress is in recess. This is an impressive result, given that Congress is in recess about half as long as in session. Furthermore, average daily returns when Congress is not meeting are almost thirteen times greater than when Congress is in session. Throughout the year, cumulative returns during recess are eight times that experienced while Congress is in session. [emphasis added]

Or this 2006 study by Michael Ferguson and H. Douglas Witte:

We find a strong link between Congressional activity and stock market returns that persists even after controlling for known daily return anomalies. Stock returns are lower and volatility is higher when Congress is in session. This “Congressional Effect” can be quite large—more than 90% of the capital gains over the life of the DJIA have come on days when Congress is out of session. The Effect varies systematically with the public’s opinion of Congress: returns are lower and volatility higher when a relatively unpopular Congress is active. Public opinion appears to play a fundamental role in market prices. This is consistent with a mood-based explanation that sees Congress as ‘depressing’ the average investor. Alternatively, our results can also be reconciled with rational explanations that view Congressional activity as a proxy for regulatory uncertainty or rent-seeking behavior. [emphasis added]

Federal policies have a powerful effect on asset prices, and risk aversion has been very low until this week. With Congress back in town, the President on the war path, and widespread gnashing of teeth and rending of garments over budget deficits and the federal debt, volatility had nowhere to go but up. Our advice? Don’t worry about it (too much). It would be great if our elected leaders inspired more confidence and certainty, but political noise happens — the current bout might even need to happen in order to get satisfactory regulatory reforms enacted. However, we have one of the best (if not the best) political systems for correcting political errors. 

The big question ahead of us is how closely we’ll skirt a 1937 outcome, which shouldn’t be a material risk until 2011-12. The Treasury yield curve will probably provide the best clues. If longer term yields come down considerably in 2010, watch out. 

IMPORTANT DISCLOSURES: Symmetry Capital Management, LLC is a state registered investment advisor. The foregoing information is for informational, educational, or entertainment purposes only. It does not constitute an offer to buy nor a solicitation to sell any security, or to engage in any investment strategy. 

URLs:

http://www.unf.edu/~rlamb/Docs/FinServRev.pdf

http://www.fma.org/Orlando/Papers/Congress_and_the_Stock_Market.pdf

Bookstaber: ‘Controlled Burn’

Rick Bookstaber put forth an interesting argument about easing debt burdens on the public and private sectors through “controlled burn” inflation. If creditors aren’t willing to take large enough haircuts, that’s pretty much what you have to do to get aggregate credit burdens to a more manageable or desirable level.

There are a lot of misperceptions around this issue. FDR allegedly devalued the dollar c. 1934 by repegging it to gold at $35, instead of the $20 that prevailed before WWI. But if you look at the historical data, the USD was powerfully deflationary in the years leading up that action. And at best, the repegging only stemmed the rate of deflation. It did not create any inflation at all. In fact, the more closely we look at the data, the more closely aligned we become with folks who argue that the New Deal didn’t go far enough.  Paul Krugman’s warning in 2008 is looking fairly prescient:

…Barack Obama should learn from F.D.R.’s failures as well as from his achievements: the truth is that the New Deal wasn’t as successful in the short run as it was in the long run. And the reason for F.D.R.’s limited short-run success, which almost undid his whole program, was the fact that his economic policies were too cautious.

[I would add that other FDR actions were too bullheaded and hasty, errors that Obama also risks repeating.]

During the recent crisis and recession, plenty of pundits argued that USD devaluation would be the order of the day. We saw some risk of that, but not as much as those who pointed repeatedly to the Federal Reserve’s unprecedented balance sheet expansion of 2008-2009, or the federal government’s enlarged deficits. That’s because those factors are meaningless if the private sector is not taken into account (i.e., the effects of monetary policy and public and private sector borrowing are not independent). If there’s intensive deleveraging and a rising desire for saving in the private sector, then expansive actions by the central bank and federal government are merely going to absorb some slack. Ony if they absorb more slack than exists will there be any risk of inflation.

Unfortunately, of late, the messages coming out of almost all political quarters is that the slack in the real economy is going to increase — and that means higher deflationary risk, and conversely to Bookstaber’s argument, rising real credit burdens. That, in turn, will lead to credit after shocks and rising unemployment. Granted, to the extent that people’s nominal income stays the same, real incomes rise in a deflationary environment, so this would be good news for pensioners, savers, and highly valued employees. But we shouldn’t overlook the real opportunity costs that deflation implies.

We see a threat of increasing slack because there’s a rising chorus of fiscal hawkishness all around us. Today, Rep. Chris Van Hollen, chairman of the Democratic caucus, told a CNBC interviewer that the government ”need[s] to get every penny back” from TARP. Yesterday, Republican Rep. Jeb Hensarling said that the election of Scott Brown was a sign that voters cared about debt and deficits (to be fair, he did mention lowering capital gains and payroll taxes, but debt and deficits seemed to be on the top of his mind). Today, a CNBC commentator referred to “your [taxpayers'] money” leading into a report on pending transportation spending. Policymakers are treading the line between semi-sensibility and madness.

First, Congress and the Administration should look forward. That requires changing the regulatory framework in a way that will prevent excessive systemic fragility in the future, and that’s the direction that Obama laid out in his remarks yesterday, with Paul Volcker, who imposed a massive deflationary contraction as Fed chairman in the early 1980s,  smiling in the background. But all else equal, this will lower overall credit capacity, and demanding full repayment of TARP will will make it worse. In order to avoid a double dip, the federal government has to act as the borrower of last resort, i.e., run larger deficits. To us, that’s the real problem with the path being laid out by Obama and Democratic leaders — taking with one hand, and not giving with the other, means economic contraction, all else equal.

Second, debt and deficit hawkishness could not be more untimely. We should pay serious attention to where and how public expenditures are directed, but we need to be honest about the need for significant deficit financed expenditures. Looking at underlying demographic structure, we probably shouldn’t concern ourselves with lowering the federal debt until the end of this coming decade.

Finally, the dollar is ”our money” in the sense that we use it to pay our tax liabilities to a government that has monopoly power to create it. Better yet, it creates it out of thin air (yes, if that power is abused or misused, it can lead to inflation, even hyperinflation, but the risk of such an outcome right now is very, very low). If fiscal policy does indeed swing in a more hawkish direction, then there’s going to be a surfeit of monetary units. And the more we taxpayers or our elected representatives grab for ”our money”, the worse it’s going to get. This ‘chartalist’ view is also somewhat complicated by the fact that our money creation process is controlled by the quasi-public Federal Reserve system. That means that the federal government can only issue interest bearing debt to finance its deficits. It sells those securities to primary dealer banks at auction. And the primary dealers rely on the Federal Reserve system to create the monetary units (the non-interest bearing debt of the U.S. government) that are used to purchase its interest bearing debt.

Keeping those last three sentences in mind, consider that:

• The President intends to tighten the tax and regulatory collars on the banks
• Fed Chairman Bernanke’s confirmation by the Senate is now in serious doubt
• Government spending and investment are especially critical in this recession (see here and here)
• Policymakers are clearly signalling that they’re going to get serious about “fiscal responsibility” 

The clear implication is that USDs are more likely to increase in value. So while Rick Bookstaber is right about the ability of inflation to lower existing debt burdens, it looks to us like we’re headed in the opposite direction, at least for now. The consequences will be discouraging to just about everybody.

URLs:

http://rick.bookstaber.com/2010/01/controlled-burn-inflation.html

http://www.aei.org/article/26390

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/opinion/10krugman.html

http://research.stlouisfed.com/recession/gdpdata.html

http://research.stlouisfed.com/recession/indicators.html

Dollar Strength & Foreign Credit

We came across an interesting piece on the relationship between the USD and commercial credit activity outside the U.S., as shown in the chart below. The implication, based on a quick and dirty visual analysis, is that if USD strengthening continues (the red line, which is plotted inversely), then foreign commercial paper (the blue line) is likely to contract. In other words, a dearer dollar could spell trouble for foreign economies, and that would have negative implications for economic activity, commodities, and risky assets abroad, all else equal.

This piece of evidence, combined with our strong dollar call yesterday, raises some fascinating possibilities. A rush to the USD was not on many strategists’ radar in 2009, or even to this point in 2010. Judging by markets’ performance today and yesterday, we could be seeing a significant break from those views. Then again, we might just be seeing the first notable stock market correction since last year; a USD squeeze might also be a short lived phenomenon.

We see too many moving parts to make a firm call either way. The markets continue to face the spectre of tightening federal purse strings and a ‘less easy’ Federal Reserve in 2010, and as of this week, they are now sitting in the middle of the open conflict that has broken out between the administration and the financial industry.  

We also see complexities in that battle that make it hard to come down on either side. We offered criticism of Obama’s initial remarks on the financial assets tax, though we later qualified it, and some of his remarks today were spot on. And while government policies and institutions certainly set up incentives to greed and stupidity, the actions embodying greed and stupidity (and the massive trading of rents that did little or nothing — arguably less – for economic welfare) were taken by individuals and organizations in the financial industry. And yet the overall tone of hawkishness from policymakers has negative implications for everyone, regardless of what street they make a living on.

There’s also a little noted irony in the apparent desire of some Democrats to constrain the size and activities of the financial sector. If Ajay Kapur’s research is on the mark, the sector is going to be shrinking in the years ahead regardless of regulatory changes, due to the shrinking ratio of middle aged adults.  A more interesting thing to speculate on, given the continuing centrality of the USD in the global economy, is how well those faster growing regions of the world will cope with tigher global liquidity. 

[UPDATE 1/21/2010 - In a CNBC interview moments ago, House Financial Services Commitee chairman Barney Frank put a far kinder and gentler spin on the recent presidential bluster, saying that a regulatory regime shift would have to be drawn out over several years and do a minimal amount of harm. This appears to have calmed frayed nerves in the market, and is a nifty scoop for Burnett and Cramer. Cramer's inferring that Paul Volcker (a man with a history of bull-in-a-china-shop approaches to policy) has the President's ear, while Frank comes down with the more nuanced regulatory views of Fed and Treasury, which could make for some political drama in the year ahead. It could even be a high stakes game of good cop, bad cop -- time will tell.]

http://shadowcapitalism.com/2010/01/20/the-implications-of-a-dollar-squeeze-on-foreign-banks-credit-access/

http://www.miraeasset.com/data/download.jsp?file_path=upload&file_name=MiraeAsset_TheGlobalInvestigator_20090812.pdf

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1340630859

http://www.cnbc.com/id/34979114/site/14081545

A Strong Dollar Call

President Obama, continuing his recent streak of verbal fiscal hawkishness (our view is admittedly contrarian) signed a memorandum today regarding tax delinquencies among government contractors. To the extent that federal contracts are awared to tax evaders and tax cheats due to poor information sharing or availability, this is a good initiative, and it’s based on analyses from the GAO like this one.

It was the President’s remarks that were most telling, especially his argument that the federal government needs to align itself with the values and norms that tax paying households live by (of course, this completely ignores the fact that only the federal government can create the money required to fulfill tax, debt, and other financial obligations, not just of the public sector, but of the private sector as well). The underlying message of recent remarks by the President is that tightening via “fiscal discipline” is very likely in the months and years ahead; Obama is clearly signalling that he has staked out a very center-right position among Democrats, similar to the Blue Dogs and Democratic Leadership Council, as summed up in this recent piece by Harold Ford, Jr:

The ability of the private sector to produce new jobs — our economic future — depends on how quickly we can get back on the path to fiscal responsibility. This means that any health-care reform plan should be paid for — a promise that President Obama has made, and one that his predecessor should have made.

Ford’s assertions are based on the rather shaky assumption that they hold under all economic conditions. But as we’ve noted recently, there are only some environments where this holds true, while there are other environments where it does not. In the former, fiscal conservatism may be appropriate due to “crowding out” and other concerns. In the latter, the private sector’s capacity to produce jobs actually depends on public sector demand, investment, and intermediation, i.e., deficits. 

Most people, Ford included, accept this idea in the short run, e.g., during a financial crisis or a sharp economic downturn. But what we’re arguing, essentially, is that pessimistic expectations are sometimes rational, and that the factors driving them can theoretically remain in force over fairly long cycles of ten, twenty, or thirty years, even longer.  In the situation at hand, when we look at demographic shifts in the U.S. and residual damage from the financial crisis, we think the decade ahead will be of the latter variety in both the U.S. and mature European economies.  So the message of Ford, his fellow Blue Dogs, the DLC, and President Obama (especially of late) might be a suboptimal direction for policy, however well it might have worked in the 1980s and 1990s. [1/20/2010 UPDATE - well written piece here on how public thinking about policy is heavily informed by experiences since the 1980s, which might be akin to driving by the rear view mirror]

As a result, we now see several forces at work that lead us to expect a strengthening USD, all else equal. First, the prevailing view among Democrats appears to be that voters will favor fiscal hawks in midterm elections, and they will respond accordingly. Second, we expect upside volatility in the real economy in 2010 (due in no small part to public sector demand), which will relax pressures for additional fiscal stimulus. Third, invoking the ideas of the neo-Chartalists, we’d argue that when the federal government places a high value on “fiscal responsibility” or “fiscal conservatism”, it implies that monetary units are going to become more scarce, and thus more valuable. In other words, if the President’s recent signalling is sincere, the USD is likely to appreciate (as will Treasuries, despite their compressed yields), and commodities and other carry trade and risky assets are likely to suffer (today’s market movements seem to support this argument).

While most pundits are attributing today’s market developments to the Republican capture of Kennedy’s senate seat yesterday, and/or to policy tightening in China, which are almost certainly factors, we would argue that far too many are overlooking the impact that President Obama’s current policy tenor is having on the USD. He’s essentially promising that the “tokens” required to settle economic transactions and engage in productive activity are going to become scarcer.

This implies some important changes in who the marginal actors are in the political economy. After the 2008 election, we asserted that the Blue Dogs would be the marginal player in setting the course of economic policy. The President’s upcoming budget will give us a clearer idea of whether their fiscal conservatism, as Obama’s current rhetoric implies, has indeed become dominant. If it has, then we think the Fed becomes the marginal factor in policy direction and economic outcomes. How soon and how sharply they tighten will determine the risk of a 1937 or Japan style recession, and it will also have critical implications for the performance of emerging market equities and other risky assets in the short to intermediate term.

URLs:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/memorandum-heads-executive-departments-and-agencies-1

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07742t.pdf

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=255070&kaid=85&subid=65

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartalism

http://www.cfeps.org/pubs/wp-pdf/WP10-Wray.pdf