Distortions
and Unintended Consequences
by Sinclair Noe
DOW
+ 13 = 13, 577
SPX + 1 = 1461
NAS + 4 = 3182
10 YR YLD - .03 = 1.78%
OIL – 3.31 = 91.98
GOLD – 1.40 = 1770.70
SILV - .21 = 34.67
PLAT + 12.00 = 1647.00
SPX + 1 = 1461
NAS + 4 = 3182
10 YR YLD - .03 = 1.78%
OIL – 3.31 = 91.98
GOLD – 1.40 = 1770.70
SILV - .21 = 34.67
PLAT + 12.00 = 1647.00
It
was no surprise last week when the Fed announced a new quantitative
easing (QE) program. They had telegraphed the new QE. The Fed will
purchase $40 billion of agency and mortgage-backed securities (MBS)
per month until the labor market improves. This amounts to about half
a trillion dollars per year, give or take a few billion, and there is
no specific limit on how long the program will last. Toss in $85
billion a month in the still-in-effect Operation Twist and by 2015,
the Fed balance sheet would grow to $4 trillion, from under $3
trillion today.
And
the European Central Bank is on the path of its own quantitative
easing via open-end bond buying like our own Federal Reserve. Some
Euro countries are in a flat out depression and even the healthy ones
are looking at economic contraction at least through the end of the
year, with GDP forecast in the range of negative -0.6% to -0.2%.
Now,
the Bank of Japan has joined the party, announcing their own bond
buying program, hoping to avoid the appearance of a strong currency,
or maybe to stimulate economic growth. I don't know anymore. Pick a
reason that suits you. I suspect, the central bankers are doing a big
favor for the big banks, and that the balance sheets of the big banks
are far uglier than most people might suspect. The Peoples' Bank of
China is probably the next to join the party.
I
guess it's just business as usual. The Fed keeps rates low to avoid
the government going bust, which would happen if it had to pay too
much interest on its debt. The Fed has essentially promised to
destroy the dollar to keep supporting the banks and to keep the
government alive, with debts that the political parties have no way
of coming to an agreement on how to fix. And the situation is global
and the response has been coordinated. No surprise. The Fed has
clearly told us what to expect. At some point it might become a
surprise, but for now, it doesn't pay to fight the Fed.
So,
the Fed is going to add liquidity, which is another way of saying
they will print more dollars, which means it will take more dollars
to buy many things, such as commodities. When traders think the
dollar's in trouble their first instinct is to trade commodities.
Suddenly a bid is put in for silver, gold, oil, copper, natural gas;
basically anything bought and sold in International markets makes
sense when the greenback is in peril. Nothing goes up in a straight
line, but a funny thing is happening in the oil markets; the price is
dropping. We're not talking about a little consolidation. The price
is dropping; down 3.31 at 91.98. The global economy is slowing down
and that tends to push oil prices lower because people use less
energy in their businesses. Crude inventories increased much more
than expected last week, 8.4% higher than a year ago. The refineries
closed for Hurricane Isaac are getting back online. Saudi Arabia is
keeping production high to push oil prices lower. The Fed announces
QE3; risk on; oil prices drop. Go figure.
A
new survey from the American Payroll Association shows 68% of
Americans are living paycheck to paycheck; they say it would be
somewhat difficult or very difficult if their paychecks were delayed
for one week. The good news is that in 2010 there were 72% of
respondents who were living hand to mouth. Yea, it's kind of scary.
So,
this should remind us that policy intervention needs to point
directly to the problem, because the further away and more indirect
the policy intervention, the more likely that other distortions and
unwanted effects will occur. We can make some informed decisions
based upon general information and past performance; for example we
can fall back on the old adage “don't fight the Fed”; I think
it's a pretty safe bet that gold is going back to old highs and
probably higher; and since the Fed is jumping in with a half trillion
per year in MBS purchases, it's probably a safe bet that mortgage
rates are going to stay very low for a while; and I think it's a safe
bet there will be distortions and some strange twists along the way.
These
bond buying operations lower the respective currency relative to
other currencies and tend to lift equity and commodity prices in the
short term as the additional liquidity finds a new home. The overall
outcome of these side effects is inflationary pressures in food and
energy that potentially decreases consumption and therefore reduces
overall economic activity.
What
you may have also noticed about these programs is that it is possible
that there is no overall direct effect on the public. Unless a
household or business themselves happen to be a holder of a
particular type of financial asset then the public doesn’t actually
receive any of this money. In the case where a bank is the owner of
an asset all that occurs is an asset swap which creates excess
reserves in the banking system. That is, in either case the major
outcome of these policies is simply a change in composition of the
asset side of commercial bank’s balance sheets. For households and
businesses the real outcome is potentially interest rates are lower
than they otherwise might be.
Bernanke
has used the depressed state of the US economy to justify QE, but the
monetary expansion could have been achieved by purchasing government
assets rather than buying mortgage backed securities. It is also a
bit odd that a federal agency proposes to fine-tune the housing
sector even though there has been no movement to clean up the banks
that have abused the housing market.
Today,
a law firm that won an $8.5 billion settlement from Bank of America
tied to faulty mortgage bonds is going after Wells Fargo and Morgan
Stanley for failure to service $73 billion in residential mortgage
backed securities. While Bank of America’s deal is awaiting court
approval, attorneys general from New York and Delaware have
intervened for more information. New York has said there are serious
questions about the fairness and adequacy of the accord, which covers
a small fraction of the losses, which by some estimates were closer
to $420 billion.
And
this is the sector the Fed is pumping up.
And
while the Fed's balance sheet grows to astronomical proportions we
should wonder if the Fed isn't creating a new bubble. Is there reason
to believe that another venture into developing the housing sector
will be more successful than the last one? If the economy recovers,
and it is time for the Fed to reverse the monetary expansion, how
anxious will the Fed be to sell mortgage-backed securities and slow
housing expansion? Who buys all those mortgage backed securities? At
what price? In the US it has been far easier to add subsidies to
housing than to withdraw them. For example, look at the now
untouchable mortgage interest rate deduction.
So
anyway, the idea is to get households and businesses to borrow more
money from commercial banks and spend their savings in the economy;
the money moves around, the velocity increases and – voila – an
economic recovery. But fiscal policy continues to lower private
sector wealth, at least for most people (who are living paycheck to
paycheck), and in turn there is a reduction in demand for credit,
which in turn is further weakening the economy. And the weaker
economy offsets any monetary expansion program. It’s a little like
Sisyphus rolling the boulder up the hill.
And
the idea of open-ended Fed intervention is a little scary. How far
will they have to go? Congress procrastinates on fiscal policy while
simultaneously demanding more and more drastic action from the Fed.
So Bernanke tries to pound nails with a handsaw; without the aid of
fiscal policy, he tries to drive down unemployment by pumping up the
housing sector, which is the long and winding path of policy
intervention, and we know that indirect path leads to distortions and
some funny unintended consequences.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.