Category Archives: Federal Reserve

On the Problem Rising Oil Prices Pose for Central Banks

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard of the Telegraph voices his concern that central banks are going to misread the impact of rising oil prices and therefore make the wrong interest rate decision. Bear in mind that Evans-Pritchard called the 2008 oil spike correctly, deeming it to be a bubble, and was also in the minority then in arguing that deflation was a bigger risk to the economy than inflation.

One leg of his argument is that oil price increases slow economic growth. That’s hardly startling; indeed, this concern has been echoed widely in the last few days. For instance, as David Rosenberg notes, courtesy Pragmatic Capitalism:

Gillian Tett on Losses at Central Banks

Is the old Gillian Tett back? The one-time Financial Times capital market editor has taken to writing less frequently (understandable now that she has head the US operation) and less intrepidly (much of her commentary was prescient, particularly on my pet topic, collateralized debt obligations).

But her latest piece sounds a wee warning, and it’s one we’ve commented on as well, namely, that central banks are vulnerable to losses, and just like the banks they mind, may need a rescue by taxpayers if the err badly enough.

Her object lesson is the Swiss National Bank. Unlike most central banks, the SNB is quite transparent, and publishes periodic statements of the value of its assets on a mark to market basis. The usually conservative SNB made a uncharacteristically aggressive move last year, intervening in currency markets in an effort to suppress the value of its levitating franc.

Even though the locals applauded the move, the central bank was outgunned by currency traders and threw in the towel mid year. As the swissie continued to rise, the bank showed losses at the end of 2010 of SFr 21 billion. The only saving grace was that the gains on the bank’s hefty gold positions exceeded the damage. But that does not reassure its shareholders, who have become accustomed to annual payments out of bank “profits”, and are concerned that the profits this year will be too meager for them to enjoy their customary level of income.

Mortgage Fraud Whitewash: $20 Billion “Get Out of Jail Free” Settlement Floated

American leadership is reliable in one respect: it consistently undershoots my already low expectations.

Or maybe I have it backwards because I keep forgetting who the authorities are really serving, and it clearly isn’t you and me. As we will discuss below, the latest scam is that the banking regulators are finalizing a mortgage “breakdown” settlement, and they’ve evidently decided to let the industry off the hook for a mere $20 billion.

In Saudi Arabia, the royal family has just offered $36 billion worth of concessions in an effort to placate an increasingly unruly public (this appears to be in addition to pledges to spend $400 billion on education, health care, and infrastructure by 2014). This is in a country with a population just under 26 million, including over 5 million non-nationals who presumably aren’t eligible.

Now you can easily pooh pooh this comparison, since Saudi Arabia is an autocratic country desperately throwing around money to buy off dissidents, right? But this is the kind of money a leadership group will shell out when pressed to defend an existing order. And the US was very quick to hand out funds right, left, and center during the financial crisis. It’s continuing to do so now in less obvious ways, by continued life support for the mortgage market through Fannie and Freddie, the Fed’s super low interest rates and QE2, and non-monetary measures, most important its refusal to make any sort of serious investigation into what happened in the crisis and prosecute key actors.

Bill Fleckenstein and Dylan Ratigan Discuss Commodities and “Individually Smart, Collectively Stupid” Regulators

This is a particularly crisp and straightforward discussion between money manager Bill Fleckenstein and Dylan Ratigan about central bank actions and commodities inflation. Enjoy!

Further Discussion of Krugman on Mervyn King, Greenspan, and Bernanke

Paul Krugman was kind enough to link to me with respect to a Guardian article pointing to his criticism of the fiscal stance, and arguably more important, the political role that the Bank of England governor Mervyn King is taking. However, Krugman said I was in error in claiming he never criticized Greenspan for compromising Fed independence.

As an aside, I’m taking King’s side a bit more than I might otherwise. Yes, I agree fully with Krugman that austerity is a bad idea in the UK and pretty much anywhere still in a hangover after the global financial crisis. But there seems to be a lot of opportunism in the broadsides against King. He is the only central banker that has stood firm against the bad practices of the major dealer banks. And his dim view is reportedly widely shared among Bank of England staff. My sense (which UK readers confirm) is that the piling on seems unduly aggressive, and looks to be an effort to discredit King in order to weaken him (and as much as possible, the Bank) as a reformer.

I’m still going to quibble a bit. The NC remark in question about Krugman was: “And he’s said nothing about the “political” Greenspan and Bernanke.”

Bernanke Blames the Global Financial Crisis on China

They must put something in the water at the Fed, certainly the Board of Governors and the New York Fed. Everyone there, or at least pretty much everyone who gets presented to the media, seems to have an advanced form of mental illness, namely, an pronounced inability to admit error. While many in public life suffer from this particular affliction, it appears pervasive at the Fed. Examples abound including an overt ones like an article attempting to bolster the party line that no one, and hence certainly not the central bank, could have seen the housing bubble coming, or subtler ones, like a long paper on the shadow banking system that I did not bother to shred because doing it right would have tried reader patience Among other things, it endeavored to present the shadow banking system as virtuous (a necessary position since the Fed bailed it out) because it was all tied to securtization and hence credit intermediation. That framing conveniently omits the role of credit default swaps and how they multiplied the worst credit risks well beyond real economy exposure levels and concentrated them in highly geared financial firms.

Another example of the “it is never the Fed’s fault” disease reared its ugly head in the context of the G20 meetings.

So Why is the FCIC Protecting Bernanke & Co?

Yes, the question in the headline is rhetorical. We know that great efforts have been made and are continuing to be made not to reveal certain aspects of the financial crisis, and the only rationale that makes an iota of sense is the information would embarrass certain people in power.

The latest object lesson is the failure of the FCIC to post the full recording of its 2009 interview with Bernanke. The rationale is that the interviews contain “legal or proprietary information”, so it is being withheld for five years. Are these people unable to use a calendar? The critical phase of the crisis was pretty much over as of end of 2008. Any sensitive customer or transaction position information from that period is now stale.

GSE Headfake: Yet More Looting Branded as “Reform”

As time goes on, the various Ministries of Truth just get better and better at their stock in trade. We’ve gone from artful obfuscation like “extraordinary rendition”, and “Public Private Investment Partnerships” to stress free “stress tests” (particularly the Eurozone version) designed to get bank stocks up and credit default swap spreads down, to even grosser debasement of language. What passes for the left has for the most part been dragged so far to the right that the use of once well understood terms like “liberal” and “progressive” virtually call for definition. And the word “reform” has virtually been turned on its head. Financial services reform was so weak as to be the equivalent of a jaywalking ticket; health care reform was a Trojan horse for even large subsidies to Big Pharma and the health care insurers. But GSE reform takes NewSpeak one step further by turning the “reform” concept on its head and using the label to describe an effort to institutionalize even bigger subsidies to the mortgage industrial complex.

While Team Obama appears to have backed down from the trial balloon floated by the Center for American Progress (note that press reports give another rationale) and is expected to offer a menu of choices for “reform” in its overdue white paper on Friday, don’t be fooled. The proposals coming from the lobbyists expected to have real influence on which ideas get the green light are virtually without exception serving up such a narrow menu of choices as to constitute unanimity. We offered our take as of the release of the CAP report; a subsequent proposal by Moody’s Mark Zandi (see details here) is more of the same.

It’s as if a population suffering from a toxic reaction to mustard was now offered options ranging from Dijon to pommery to spicy brown as meaningful improvements.

Exclusive: Harvard Economists Prove that Bankruptcy is Mythical

This document was leaked to Naked Capitalism by a university economics student who has asked to remain anonymous

Background

Mixed reactions have followed the recent brilliant demonstration by a pair of young Harvard economists that bankruptcy cannot occur. While the community of economists has generally affirmed the correctness of the reasoning at issue, various individuals already distinguished for their carping attitudes have willfully misunderstood the theorem; for example, the controversial blogger Yves Smith has publicly labeled the proof ‘yet another demonstration that economics is the ugly stepsister of astrology.’

This sort of obscurantism is hardly surprising – as Ludwig von Mises pointed out in 1956 in The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality, ‘economics is so different from the natural sciences and technology on the one hand, and history and jurisprudence on the other hand, that it seems strange and repulsive to the beginner.’ Ms. Smith is evidently one of the people who experienced as a student this natural but irrational feeling of aversion, and has since refused to make the effort to think with true economic rigor.

The insight incorporated in the recent theorem is not difficult to explain, although for a full understanding, knowledge of the relevant mathematical techniques is, of course, essential.

Goldman “Partner” Hedging Circumvents Intent of Pay Reforms

While I don’t want to overdo the criticism of Wall Street pay practices (on second thought, I am not sure such a thing is possible), I’d be remiss if I neglected to highlight a very good job of analysis and reporting by Eric Dash of the New York Times (and Footnoted.org) on this topic.

The Times has been picking apart a partnership that Goldman preserved after it went public in 1999 and is the vehicle that holds stock options and shares allotted to the top producers of the firm, a 475 member group. It already holds 11.2% of the firm and its share is likely to increase as options vest.

The report published tonight reveals that members of the Goldman partnership would routinely hedge their Goldman exposures. That defeats the purpose of share grants and equity linked pay.

Floyd Norris Makes Bizarre Comparison to 1983 to Put Smiley Face on Job Outlook

Ben Bernanke was talking up the economy yet again yesterday, and it appears Floyd Norris got the same memo.

I must digress a tad by giving The Daily Capitalist’s translation of Bernanke’s remarks:

Since August when we began to flood our primary dealers in Wall Street with newly printed money the market went up because they used the money to buy financial products, including stocks. We are trying to cause price inflation because the majority of the FOMC is concerned about price deflation. If we cause price inflation then we will fool everyone into thinking that because prices are going up, such as in the stock markets, that it is real growth even though it’s just price inflation. Even better the national debt can be paid down with cheap dollars. Yields on Treasurys initially went up because the bond vigilantes aren’t stupid: they know it will cause inflation so they wanted higher yields. But, ha, ha, the Euro went into the tank because of the PIIGS and money flooded back in to the US and drove Treasury yields back down, for the time being. Screw the vigilantes. The same thing happened when we tried QE1, but as we all know, that failed and we are desperately trying again because we don’t have too many arrows left in our quiver. Hey, if it had worked, would we be doing QE2? We are desperate because if unemployment doesn’t come down, the Obama Administration will be screwed and I’ll lose my job. We are ready to do QE3 because we don’t have a clue what else to do.

Now to Norris’ truly bizarre column, in which he argues that circumstances now are very much like those of 1983, when forecasters were not optimistic about the odds of unemployment falling quickly, when lo and behold, it did.

The problem is that there are some of us who are old enough to remember 1983, like yours truly. And 1983 has about as much resemblance to today as a merely badly out of shape athlete does to one who is in the hospital and is refusing surgery (or in our case, structural change).

We Speak on BNN About Bernanke, Inflation, China

We had a wider ranging chat than usual at BNN today.

Screen shot 2011-02-04 at 12.47.21 AM

Wall Street Co-Opting Nominally Liberal Think Tanks; Banks Lobbying to Become New GSEs

One of my cynical buddies often remarks, “Things always look the darkest before they go completely black.”

His gallows humor comes to mind as a result of the hushed conversations inside the Beltway around GSE reform. While the shiny bright object these days in DC is health care repeal, or perhaps Egypt, in quiet corners in think tanks and trade associations the bankers and their allies are getting ready to appropriate themselves a permanent US credit card worth trillions of dollars. The dynamic that became all too familiar during the bailouts is about to repeat itself.

Barney Frank’s great moral passion is low-income housing, and that’s not an accident. The traditional alliance in financial politics since the 1950s was between liberal low-income housing advocates and Wall Street financiers. Since the 1970s, Democrats tried to balance the two sets of interests by creating consumer protections but allowing the capital markets to manage themselves. This dynamic has created a serious political problem in the last four years, because complete capitulation to the banks in the capital markets has pillaged the low-income and middle-income communities the Democrats thought they were standing up for.

It’s not that the people who made this Faustian bargain are bad so much as they are fundamentally irresponsible and childish. The breakdown of law and order in the capital markets arena has created predatory lending, and ultimately has subverted any attempt to implement new laws. Dodd-Frank not just a weak response to the crisis, but actually downright pathetic thanks to the lack of prosecution for anyone who breaks the rules set forth in the bill.

And so, we return to the reform of the GSEs.

Josh Rosner and Your Humble Blogger Discuss the Roots of the Financial Crisis on Radio Free Dylan

In addition to his weekday television show, MSNBC host Dylan Ratigan also has a regular radio/podcast. He interviewed Josh Rosner and yours truly on the origins of the financial crisis, which we both agreed started well before the housing bubble.

You can read the transcript at the site, but it has quite a few errors, and I’d recommending listening instead. Rosner is an emphatic, almost theatrical speaker, so I think you will enjoy the conversation.

Get the podcast here: http://www.dylanratigan.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/RFD-Ep-25-Rosner-Smith.mp3

More Evidence of Undercapitalization/Insolvency of Major Banks

Even as we and other commentators have noted the underlying weakness of major bank balance sheets, which have been propped up by asset-price-flattering super low interest rates and regulatory forbearance, we still witness the unseemly spectacle of major banks keen to leverage up again. The current ruse is raising dividends to shareholders, a move the Fed seems likely to approve. Anat Admati reminded us in the Financial Times on Wednesday that we are about to repeat the mistakes of the crisis: