This is a post I just wrote over at Yves Smith’s site Naked Capitalism in response to a reader request. Marshall Auerback has already written a reply as well and I will post this later today.

A reader at Naked Capitalism asked us to respond to a recent article from the Christian Science Monitor asking Does US need a second stimulus to create jobs?

Marshall Auerback has already done some heavy lifting. He says emphatically yes. Now I want to take a crack at this. My short answer is no. But before I go into this, as an aside, I wanted to mention Marshall’s new smiling, happy picture up at the great blog New Deal 2.0 where he now writes.  Earlier, when Credit Writedowns was hosted at Blogger, he used a picture best described as a mug shot in his profile, but he has changed that one too (although he smiles there a little less). He thinks we haven’t noticed this sleight of hand.  Well I have! Once upon a time, Marshall wrote with a man I called all bearish, all the time this summer. Take a look at that post; you don’t see him smiling now do you? We have Lynn Parramore, New Deal 2.0’s editor to thank for making Marshall Auerback into an optimist.

Different policy choices

But all teasing aside, I do want to take the opposite side of this trade.  You see I too was a deficit hawk. And while I may have been backing fiscal stimulus, I have felt conflicted for doing so. Here’s how I see it. 

You have four options:

1. No stimulus. Let the chips fall where they may. Yves Smith calls this the ‘Mellonite liquidationist mode.’ The thinking here is that trying to avoid the inevitable bust only makes it that much larger. And the economic policies during recessions in 1991 and 2001 seem to bear that out. The Harding Recession of 1921 is commonly seen as gold standard response.
2. Monetary stimulus only. Quantitative easing mania. My understanding is this is what Ambrose Evans-Pritchard has been advocating.   The thinking here is that the flood of money and the low rates will eventually jump start the economy. No deficit spending needed.
3. Monetary and fiscal stimulus.  Full tilt Keynesian. This is the Krugman view. The thinking here is that one needs to credibly commit to higher inflation and close the output gap to avoid a deflationary spiral. If that is insufficient, then one needs to go full bore on fiscal stimulus aka deficit spending. And if that doesn’t work, subsidize jobs. The New Deal is commonly seen as the gold standard response.
4. Fiscal stimulus only. Deficit spending. I have been talking up this view. The thinking here is that we need to both close the output gap to prevent a deflationary spiral and revive private sector savings in order to promote deleveraging.

There is no magic bullet here.  We are living through a situation unique in time with few historical precedents. And there are a lot of competing ideas being tossed about. So policy makers are groping around, desperately seeking the holy grail of depression-busting economic policy.  In that regard, I don’t envy them. They are certainly going to make a lot of mistakes. It may seem at times that I don’t realize this given the harshness of my critiques, but I do.

Deficit hawks are misguided

However, there are some policies which could work and others which are flat out wrong.  One policy which is flat out wrong is the concept that we need to reduce deficit spending in order to avoid a double dip recession. This flies in the face of basic economics which says that more spending and less taxes equals greater demand and recovery/boom. More taxes and less spending equals less demand and recession/depression.

Now, it’s not as if we didn’t see this line of argument coming. As far back as November 2008, I heard the chatter (see my post here). So you knew this we-have-to-stop-or-we’ll be-bankrupt nonsense was coming. The problem is it’s just not true.  Here are a few data points:

• Private sector debt (incl. financial firms) was 292% of GDP as of Q2 but public sector debt (incl. state and local municipalities) was 67.2%. Who’s more indebted – the private sector by a factor of 4.
• Adding unfunded liabilities to any public debt number when talking about spiking treasury rates is inaccurate and artificially inflates the number. A lot of people do this to make the public debt scenario look worse. The issue at hand is whether a supply/demand imbalance in Treasury securities spikes interest rates. Unfunded liabilities have absolutely nothing to do with this.
• Cash and bonds are fungible. They are both obligations of the federal government to be repaid in full with a specific sum of fiat money. The Treasury could literally stop issuing government debt altogether and just start crediting accounts electronically to ‘fund’ its purchases. There is no operational constraint to government spending. the U.S. government is not going broke involuntarily. See my post here.

The real issue with deficits causing a double-dip has to do with inflation and overheating. If inflation increases because the economy begins to overheat, interest rates spike and the Fed raises rates to choke off inflation. That’s not going to happen any time soon – although it may be a problem down the line.  The issue at hand now is deflation not inflation. At least Morgan Stanley understands this when they take a deficit hawk position.

And as for the Chinese, they are not going to pull the plug on Treasuries unless they want to tank their export boom. The reason they must buy Treasuries is the dollar peg; they must re-invest in U.S.-based assets in order to prevent their currency from appreciating. This has caused a huge rise in their U.S. dollar reserves. If they changed the peg, their currency would almost certainly rise and this would choke off exports.

No more stimulus, just jobs

I have said my piece about the need for stimulus in the past. So I won’t repeat it here. If you are interested, see my December 2008 posts “Confessions of an Austrian economist,” “What does Mises say about trying to stimulate the economy out of recession,” and “A brief philosophical argument about the role of government.”

But, on the whole, I look at long-term deficits in a dubious light. There are practical constraints to deficit spending – and they lead to inflation, currency depreciation and lower standards of living. This is not national bankruptcy but it is default by inflation and it makes you and me less well off.

This, of course, is over the long-run. In the short run, it is the spectre of a deflationary spiral we care about. Stimulus was important to stop this. I said in February that Obama was making a big mistake with his stimulus measures.

My view here is that Obama is forging a middle path that leads to a dead-end. The stimulus is not nearly enough by half to get the job done. The proposed deficit reduction measures for 2013 are outright scary as they risk repeating a mistake from the 1930s. And the banking sector and mortgage plans, both of which I failed to mention, are dubious half-measures as well. One needs to act aggressively and proactively or not at all.

If you are going to deficit spend you need to do it in a big way. You need to stop the deflationary spiral.  That means hitting the reset button by promoting private sector savings and deleveraging and purging all built-up malinvestments. The risk in addressing the situation this way, of course, is replacing the imperfect invisible hand of markets with the imperfect hand of politicians and legislative fiat.

This is a risk I no longer see as worth taking. I have bailout and deficit fatigue just like most Americans. It is abundantly clear that this Administration has absolutely zero intention of purging any malinvestment or promoting any deleveraging. All they want to do is continue business as usual and go back to the asset-based economy that caused this mess. This is why we have seen bailout after bailout coupled with easy money. It makes for record profits on Wall Street but it does nothing for the unemployed.

Moreover, the political process in the U.S. is such that any stimulus money will be diverted to pet projects and used to pay off political constituents. While this may increase aggregate demand, it does so at the risk of serious social unrest as the outrage will certainly spill over into populism.

So I say no to a second (third) stimulus package.  What the President needs to focus on is jobs. The reason Obama’s poll numbers are shrinking is because he now owns this economy.  And people are not benefitting from this fake recovery.  They are angry at the bailouts and distrustful of government – and with good reason.

Cut payroll taxes, subsidize job creation, divert some military spending to direct job creation by ending the foreign wars. But stop the madness.

Related posts:

• Japan does not demonstrate the failure of stimulus
• Don’t underestimate the power of printing money, part 2
• Inflation: The strategy that dare not state its name
• The inflation-deflation debate
• Barack Obama: “if we keep on adding to the debt… that could actually lead to a double-dip”

This comes via Gallup:

The latest Gallup Daily tracking results show 49% of Americans approving of the job Barack Obama is doing as president, putting him below the majority approval level for the first time in his presidency.

Although the current decline below 50% has symbolic significance, most of the recent decline in support for Obama occurred in July and August. He began July at 60% approval. The ongoing, contentious debate over national healthcare reform has likely served as a drag on his public support, as have continuing economic problems. Americans are also concerned about the Obama administration’s reliance on government spending to solve the nation’s problems and the growing federal budget deficit. Since September, Obama’s approval rating had been holding in the low 50s and, although it has reached 50% numerous times, it had never dropped below 50% until now.

Of the post-World War II presidents, Obama now is the fourth fastest to drop below the majority approval level, doing so in his 10th month on the job. Gerald Ford dropped below 50% approval during his third month in office, and Bill Clinton did so in his fourth month. Ronald Reagan, like Obama, also dropped below 50% in his 10th month in office, though Reagan’s drop occurred a few days sooner in that month (Nov. 13-16, 1981) than did Obama’s (Nov. 17-19, 2009).

But all presidents except John Kennedy dropped below the majority approval level at some point in their presidencies, and all recovered after the first time below this mark to go back above 50% approval.

The full article is linked below. Good data for political historians.

Obama Job Approval Down to 49% – Gallup

See also It’s [Still] The Economy, Dumbass by Nate Silver and CNN Poll: Blame for recession shifting from GOP to Democrats

Related posts:

• 2010 elections: “Completely out of control” for Democrats
• Statistic of the day: George W. Bush’s ratings
• SNL skewers Barack Obama
• Barack Obama as Herbert Hoover
• Polls: George W. Bush at new low

Morgan Stanley’s piece on Treasuries Priced for Perfection…for Now! is pretty bearish. The basic gist is that while the ten-year represents fair value today, because inflation expectations have become unanchored, Morgan Stanley expects the yield to rise from 3.3% to 5.5%. That’s a disaster of 1994 proportions. Obviously, given some of my recent comments, this is not what I expect to happen, but be well aware of the risk; in this economic environment, it would be fatal.

Here’s an excerpt of what Manoj Pradhan had to say (emphasis added):

Fed Chairman Bernanke’s speech on Monday could not have been better tailored to keep bond markets happy. The commitment to keep policy rates "exceptionally low" for an "extended period" and the benign outlook for inflation were both very well received by bond markets, as well as other risky assets… Our proprietary model, MS FAYRE, shows a current fair value of 3.3% for the US 10-year Treasury yield – bang in line with actual yields…

Priced for perfection… MS FAYRE generates its fair value estimate using the real fed funds rate, 1-year ahead CPI inflation expectations from the SPF conducted by the Philadelphia Fed and the 5-year rolling standard deviation of inflation as a proxy for inflation volatility (for more details on the MS FAYRE model, see Fairy Tales of the US Bond Market, July 26, 2006). With the fed funds rate at 12.5bp, core PCE inflation tracking at 1.3% and the 4Q09 number for 1-year ahead CPI inflation expectations from the SPF coming in at 1.6%, MS FAYRE produces a fair value of 3.3% for 10-year bond yields, which is exactly where the 10-year yield is now (interested readers should contact us for a user-friendly spreadsheet for simulating the FAYRE model). Forward-looking bond markets thus seem to be pricing in altogether too rosy a scenario for the foreseeable future.

…for now: With actual bond yields bang in line with our fundamental fair value estimate, investors seem to be receiving no compensation for macroeconomic or fiscal risks..

Our forecasts look for bond yields to rise in 2010: Our US economics team expects bond yields to rise to 5.5% by the end of 2010 – an increase of 220bp that outstrips the 137bp increase in the fed funds rate expected over the same horizon (see Don’t Fear the Double-Dip, October 6, 2009). Our US interest rate strategy colleagues suggest that this bear steepening of the curve in 2010 may well be preceded by slightly lower 10-year yields in 2009 (see Liquidity Aplenty but Rising Sensitivity to Rates, October 22, 2009)…

Inflation expectations don’t seem to be anchored… The SPF measure of long-term CPI inflation expectations in the US has indeed remained stable, as claimed, since the median expectations have held steady for nearly a decade now. However…

…our conversations with clients also suggest a split into two fairly distinct camps. A smaller set of clients are bearish on the economic outlook and believe that inflation will be extremely low or even be outright negative for the next few years. The rest believe that inflation risks, and probably inflation itself, will rise within a year or so as the recovery becomes sustainable. The important point here is that it is difficult to find investors who believe that inflation over the medium-to-long run will be precisely in line with central bank targets. Both pieces of evidence do not support the argument that inflation expectations are anchored.

Obviously, Morgan Stanley is bullish on the economy because they are talking about a bear steepener across the Treasury curve. Their thinking on Treasuries is one reason you see Barack Obama talking about reeling in deficit spending. He obviously believes that an increase in interest rates would trigger a double dip recession.

My thinking goes more to bull flatteners where the two-year – ten-year spread decreases as expectations of a fed rate hike are countered by weak economic fundamentals.  This dichotomy points out some very real risks in the bond market right now.

Bill Gross his on the record expecting Treasuries to rally because he is cautious on the economic environment.

Gross has been talking about a “new normal” of deleveraging, deglobalization and reregulation. In his view, this means weak consumer demand counterbalanced only by heavier government intervention, leading to slow growth for the foreseeable future (See my post ‘Gross: The new normal for “the next 10 years and maybe even the next 20 years”’).  In essence, he sees a scenario that is bullish for bonds (especially longer duration types like the 10-year and the 30-year) but not particularly bullish for shares.

But we know that Gross loves to talk his book and he made billions from the Fannie/Freddie bailout doing so.  You have to make your own call here. It’s Morgan Stanley on one side of the trade and Pimco on the other.

Realistically, if rates spike to 5.5%, it would be a blood bath for insurers, and probably for pension funds (and hence municipalities as well). Mortgage rates would skyrocket and this would stop any housing recovery dead in its tracks. That sounds like double dip and depression to me; this is not an early 1990s economic environment. 

Ironically, 5.5% rates would sow the seeds of future 3.3% rates or lower. If you hold – and do not sell at the bottom – I don’t see how this induces a capital loss.

Related posts:

• Morgan Stanley: Recession will ‘end by mid-to-late summer’
• Morgan Stanley sees U.K. downturn worse than Great Depression
• Financial Alchemy at Morgan Stanley: Greywolf A3 CDOs now Aaa bonds
• Another take on the treasuries bubble
• Bill Gross: Fed on hold through 2010

Valero Energy has just announced it is shutting down its Delaware City Refinery.  This is a major news announcement because refiners should be seen as a canary in the coalmine for end-user demand and Valero is one company in the oil patch which has been loath to cut workers to improve the bottom line. This announcement is an indicator that, despite a technical recovery, the economy still has major obstacles to overcome.

Business Wire reports:

Valero Energy Corporation (NYSE: VLO) announced today it intends to permanently shut down its Delaware City refinery due to financial losses caused by very poor economic conditions, significant capital spending requirements and high operating costs. The shutdown will affect approximately 550 employees at the plant.

Valero notified refinery employees today of the impending shutdown, and will immediately begin negotiations with the refinery’s unions regarding the effects of the plant closure and the employees’ severance packages. A safe and orderly shutdown of the refinery will commence immediately. Valero remains committed to its marketing businesses in the Northeast and will continue to reliably supply its customers, partially through higher throughput rates at the company’s other refineries.

“The decision to permanently close the Delaware City refinery was a very difficult one,” said Valero Chairman and CEO Bill Klesse. “We have spent the last year diligently trying to avoid this situation, and I have worked closely with Gov. Markell in an effort to find a different outcome. Earlier this fall, we shut down the gasifier and coking operations in an attempt to improve reliability and financial performance, but the refinery’s profitability did not improve enough. Additionally, we have sought a buyer for the refinery, but feasible opportunities have not materialized. At this point, we have exhausted all viable options.

“We realize that the decision to close the refinery affects many employees, their families, and the community. We are thankful to our employees for their service, and we will treat them fairly during this difficult period.”

In the fourth quarter of 2009, the company expects to report a pre-tax charge of approximately $1.7 billion to $1.8 billion, or $2.00 to $2.15 per share after taxes, related primarily to asset impairment, employee severance and other shutdown costs. The company estimates the cash portion of the pre-tax charge will be in the range of $125 million to $150 million. The current and historical financial results of the affected operations will be shown as discontinued operations in the company’s financial statements.

The new CEO Bill Klesse came to Valero via Ultramar Diamond Shamrock (UDS), which Valero acquired at the top of the market in 2001. So, company ethos may be different than under Bill Greehey who was very committed to community. And Delaware City is an old Getty/Shell-Motiva oil refinery and a legacy asset of Blackstone-controlled Premcor, the company run by former Tosco head and Salomon Brothers commodities trader Tom O’Malley. So, it was not core to Valero’s operations. Valero already cut staff there in September. And the Shell-Motiva JV had serious operating difficulties with the asset before offloading it to Premcor.

Nevertheless, this was a refinery which has been upgraded significantly to process less expensive heavy, sour crude oil. The fact that Valero is laying off workers and shuttering the entire site tells you that the situation is bad. They are saying in effect “we cannot continue to operate at a loss through this business cycle.” If Valero can’t make money, no oil refiner can.

I see this in a macro context as a sign of cyclically weak end-user demand.  I do think peak oil is for real but the world is awash in oil and oil products right now.  Witness the recent post by FT Alphaville’s Izabella Kaminska, which points to a glut of distillate entering the season of high distillate demand:

We feel it’s Olivier Jakob at Petromatrix who really expressed the matter best on Friday. As he wrote (emphasis FT Alphaville’s):

As per our Tuesday ad hoc note on floating stocks; on a crude equivalent basis all of the OPEC and half of the IEA estimated oil demand growth for 2010 is already parked at anchor in floating stocks and these idled cargoes filled with oil are getting more and more attention.

By the end of the winter there is likely to be as much distillates afloat as in the total US at the end of winter 2007 and we expect that it will be more and more difficult for some of the Wall Street commodity banks to avoid mentioning the subject and to continue to hide the floating storage fill-up as “demand from emerging economies”.

The ICE Gasoil contango is currently widening and this will not work towards the reduction of these floating stocks. In an environment of spare refining capacity the only solver to the growing floating stocks of Distillates is a sharp reduction in OPEC supplies [ahem…Daily Mail], but only lower prices would trigger that.

The only answer that we see to GOD (Glut of Distillate) is a flat price correction sharp enough to force more OPEC supply cuts.Starting 2010 with WTI at 80+$/bbl and a contango in a low demand environment there will not be much returns to be expected from commodities by some of the largest financial institutions; hence with the evidence of the GOD being harder and harder to hide we would not be surprised if in a few weeks some of the Wall Street commodity banks start to change their tune and start to publicize the GOD. A flat price correction would anyway be needed in the first quarter to allow a repositioning from the large financial players at better entry levels.

Which, of course, doesn’t mean banks have been hoarding oil in a bid to drive the prices up. It means, if anything, they’ve been too slow to acknowledge the extent of the oversupply in the market and degree of muted demand, as well as depended too much on the idea that economic recovery will help spur demand by the year’s end.

Meanwhile, as Jakob states, the solution to the glut lies in Opec shut-ins — not more output.

The fact that oil is trading at $80 a barrel in this climate should tell you that it is trading more as a financial asset than on supply/demand imbalances. Is this why Warren Buffett is buying yet more oil assets? Watch refining margins; they are telling indicators.

Disclosure: I have owned owned shares and call options in Valero and other refiners for a number of years, but I sold all positions in 2007.

Related posts:

• Refiners as proxy for demand: layoffs for first time at Valero
• Valero crushes earnings: I was wrong
• Refiners as a canary in the coalmine
• Stocks pummeled as value plays increase
• Germany: Hertie as a symbol of recession

• Nationwide Says British House Prices May Fall on Job Losses – Bloomberg.com
• Investors ask Goldman to be less greedy: report | Reuters
• BBC News – Tobacco firm Philip Morris to pay out $300m in damages
• Susan Boyle Makes Amazon History
• Execution Dignity – Robin Hanson
• Is the Fed Creating New Bubbles? – BusinessWeek
• Palinoia – Megan McArdle
• Liz Pulliam Weston – Bankruptcy, foreclosure, mortgage payments and debt – MSN Money
• Oprah Ends Talk Show: Twitter Erupts with 8,000 Tweets Per Hour
• How to tackle a deficit | Free exchange | Economist.com
• Department store sales dive by 10.5% | The Japan Times Online
• Just 62.5% of ‘10 university grads offered jobs next spring: survey | The Japan Times Online (It’s not just in California)
• Scientists crack corn code: Reference genome of maize, most important US crop (Get ready for cloned and seriously genetically-modified food)
• Lyme disease vaccine? Tick saliva found to protect mice from Lyme disease
• UK jobless ‘could hit 9.5% by 2011′ – Independent.ie
• Blindness causes structural brain changes, implying brain can re-organize itself to adapt
• Thierry Henry handball prompts Irish justice minister to demand replay | Football | guardian.co.uk (Hand of god worthy)

Distraction of the Day: California’s state universities jack up in-state tuition 32%

Related posts:

• News from around the web: 2009-10-29
• News from around the web: 2009-07-31
• Links: 2009-07-04
• News from around the web: 2009-08-19
• News from around the web: 2009-09-25

Video embedded below

Related posts:

• Bill Gross thinks the June unemployment data is bad
• Bill Gross: Fed on hold through 2010
• Bill Gross: Sell equities and buy Treasuries
• Bill Gross: “almost all assets appear to be overvalued on a long-term basis”
• The $1 trillion deficit: has Bill Gross gone crazy?

The Mortgage Bankers Association is reporting that nearly one in ten households with mortgages are at least one payment behind.  That is a record, my friends. And it certainly means we cannot believe house prices have permanently stabilized.

The New York Times says:

The delinquency figure, and a corresponding rise in the number of those losing their homes to foreclosure, was expected to be bad. Nevertheless, the figures underlined the level of stress on a large segment of the country, a situation that could snuff out the modest recovery in home prices over the last few months and impede any economic rebound.

Unless foreclosure modification efforts begin succeeding on a permanent basis — which many analysts say they think is unlikely — millions more foreclosed homes will come to market.

Translation: there are a lot writedowns in residential real estate still coming. This is one reason bank credit is not going up significantly despite zero interest rates. Remember when I wrote about “extend and pretend?” This is the kind of thing that is holding up bank balance sheets. The article I wrote in October on short sales in North County San Diego highlights the issues involved. But at some point banks will have to take the hit (unless house prices magically go up to near previous levels – what everyone except renters wants).

Ivy Zelman has the same sinking feeling I do here; we don’t think house prices are necessarily heading up permanently. She even throws in a mixed metaphor to get her point across. She says:

I’ve been pretty bearish on this big ugly pig stuck in the python and this cements my view that home prices are going back down.

Look, the fake recovery is now in full swing.  But I expect the recovery to hit a brick wall by 2011, if not earlier. While the proximate cause of my concern is the likelihood of increased taxes and/or reduced spending by the Obama Administration, it is jobs that concern me. See Calculated Risk’s post showing the correlation between unemployment and mortgage delinquency and you see the connection. The fact is we have a record number of foreclosures and that is a direct result of rising unemployment. Unemployed people don’t have any money, so they don’t pay mortgages. It’s as simple as that.

The interesting bit about the New York Times article was this:

The number of loans insured by the Federal Housing Administration that are at least one month past due rose to 14.4 percent in the third quarter, from 12.9 percent last year. An additional 3.3 percent of F.H.A. loans are in foreclosure.

The fact is the F.H.A is the next Fannie Mae. If you’re looking and wondering where the next bailout will be, take a good look at the F.H.A. Not only is this agency guaranteeing hugely delinquent loans, but the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 doubled the maximum loan that it could insure to $729,750 in order to cover jumbo mortgages common in cities like New York, San Francisco or D.C.. The purpose was to give liquidity to the frozen jumbo market in high-cost cities.  However, the net effect is that the F.H.A was expanding at exactly the time when loan quality was falling. There will be significantly more losses as delinquencies mount.

To make matters worse, the F.H.A. has an abysmally low 0.53% insurance reserve ratio – that’s the lowest ever. Yes, this ratio includes expected future losses, but you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to know any downside wipes these guys out. And that means more taxpayer money will be forthcoming.

Is this a pretty picture? No. But, is this what is going to happen? Of course it is.  So when the bailouts come because the foreclosures begin again in earnest and politicians start saying, “who could have known?” you will have every right to be disgusted.

Related posts:

• UK home prices fall in June
• A Home Price Firewall
• Can I borrow the full amount and an extra 25% too?
• Foreclosures hit a record in April
• Extend and pretend and the growing divide between delinquencies and foreclosures

I pick up Bill Gross where I left him on Friday.  He said in his monthly newsletter that the Fed is going to keep interest rates at zero percent through 2010. But, he is not willing to stick his neck out in a liquidity seeking return kind of way even though this is what reflation is all about. He advises lower risk assets over higher risk ones cognizant that this could mean under-performance.

What I found interesting is that Gross highlighted only two bits in his piece. That should lead you to believe these are the most important points he makes.  The first bit is the rationale behind why he thinks the Fed is on hold through 2010:

The Fed is trying to reflate the U.S. economy. The process of reflation involves lowering short-term rates to such a painful level that investors are forced or enticed to term out their short-term cash into higher-risk bonds or stocks. Once your cash has recapitalized and revitalized corporate America and homeowners, well, then the Fed will start to be concerned about inflation – not until.

This is what’s called an asset-based recovery and is exactly the same model we followed in 1992 and 2002. the Federal reserve lowers rates so much that the cash in your pocket burns a hole in it. Grandma may be stuffing her dollars in a mattress, but investors judged against an investment benchmark get fired if they don’t seek returns.  how did Chuck Prince put it: When the music’s playing…

If you are an insurance company, you have a ton of money invested expecting 6-7% nominal returns.  But, in a deflationary environment you have to be smoking something if you think you’ll get that return in low risk assets. So everyone is running the liquidity-seeking-return play. 

The Wall Street Journal mentioned this today:

Though insurers continue to buy bonds, the rally does "make it challenging in terms of getting yield," Steven Kandarian, chief investment officer at MetLife Inc., told analysts in an Oct. 30 earnings call.

Life insurers have long been one of the nation’s biggest bond buyers, currently holding about $1.78 trillion in corporate debt, or 16% of the total outstanding, according to industry group American Council of Life Insurers.

Their frustrations in finding investment opportunities signal how far and fast the bond market has recovered from the dark days when markets were frozen and insurers were diverting almost all incoming premiums and investment income into cash accounts.

But, it sounds like Gross is having none of this.  He asks a rhetorical question about overpriced assets in nearly every asset class:

Do you buy the investment grade bond market with its average yield of 3.75% (less than 3% after upfront fees and annual expenses at most run-of-the-mill bond funds)? Do you buy high yield bonds at 8% and assume the risk of default bullets whizzing at you? Or 2% yielding stocks that have already appreciated 65% from the recent bottom, which according to some estimates are now well above their long-term PE average on a cyclically adjusted basis?

Answering his own question is the only other part he highlights in his essay – one doubting the elevated price of risk assets. He says:

In a low growth environment, it seems to me that a company’s stock should yield more than its less risky debt, and many utilities provide just that opportunity.

Gross goes on to recommend high dividend safe stocks like utilities.  But, I did get the sense he was talking out of both sides of his mouth.  For months now, Gross has been advocating reflation as an economic policy. He has advocated massive deficit spending too.  Back in June of 2008, he was the first one I knew who was talking about deficits in the trillions. Yet, here he is cautioning us about inflated asset prices.  Well, zero rates and inflated asset prices go hand in hand. And I’m sure Bill Gross knows this.

Source

Anything but .01% – Bill Gross, Pimco

Related posts:

• Bill Gross: Sell equities and buy Treasuries
• Bill Gross: the new normal means investors should shun risk
• High yield is back in business in Europe
• Another take on the treasuries bubble
• Bill Gross: “almost all assets appear to be overvalued on a long-term basis”

I have written extensively about how I believe the bank bailouts were the worst of all possible solutions – fixes that perpetuate too big to fail, moral hazard and crony capitalism.  That ship has sailed, but the questions still linger – in large part because the fix has not trickled down to common folk to better their lot.  Rising unemployment is but one demonstration of this.

Arnold Kling writes a post that goes beyond banking to AIG, mortgages and Fannie and Freddie. He offers real world solutions that don’t require creating special resolution authority, buying toxic assets or orchestrating bailouts.  While there would certainly be costs to these solutions as well, they would be far less than what we are paying now.

The interesting bit is he proposed them in the moment when the bailouts were ongoing. Don’t let anyone tell you that there weren’t other options available because there were in spades.

1. Existing Mortgages and home owners.

Actual policy: attempts to implement loan modification programs

My policy: pay the moving expenses of homeowners who default on their mortgages. But do not interfere with the foreclosure process.

2. Mortgage Markets

Actual policy: keep Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae going, and we now have 90 percent of mortgage loans made by federal agencies.

My policy: Limit Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to their existing book of mortgage loans (I wrote this in September of 2008) and not allow them to purchase any new mortgages. Let banks take up the slack in mortgage lending.

3. AIG

Actual policy: creditors bailed out 100 percent.

My policy: Send in a "stern sheriff" to protect the liquid assets of AIG from creditors making "collateral calls." I was thinking of a government-suggested mediator, perhaps a former bankruptcy judge. If the parties did not like it, they could go to court. But my guess is that the parties would have preferred a mediated solution.

4. Big banks

Actual policy: bailouts of nearly all of them

My policy: Triage. Shut down the ones that have clearly failed, using FDIC procedures. Those that are clearly solvent should be allowed to proceed. Those that are neither clearly failed nor clearly solvent should be given forbearance, but with tight supervision to ensure that they do not use this forbearance to expand their risk-taking. Again, this was what I advocated in September of 2008.

Why proposals of this sort were not followed is the subject of much debate.

Source

Was TARP Necessary? – Arnold Kling

Related posts:

• Fannie, Freddie to get $15 Billion from U.S. government
• Federal takeover of GSEs now in the works
• A quick note on corporate bankruptcy and bailouts
• Treasury to Consider Further Measures to Halt Housing Slide
• Dean Baker: I saw this scenario in 2002

Video embedded below.

See also Democratic Rep. DeFazio Calls for Geithner and Summers to Be Fired – Yves Smith

Related posts:

• Geithner testifies before Congress on financial reform
• Weekend Video: A Conversation with Tim Geithner at CFR
• Geithner is open to suggestions
• Did Tim Geithner blow it?
• How did economists get it so wrong (parody version)?

Here’s another interesting piece from Randall Wray, the economics professor from University of Missouri-Kansas City (that same school which employs Bill Black of “The Best Way to Rob a bank is to own one” fame).

Wray has a lot to say most, but not all, of which I found convincing – but that’s a story for another day.

This is what I found most interesting:

Here is what I propose: let’s support Senator Bayh’s proposal to “just say no” to raising the debt ceiling. Once the federal debt reaches $12.1 trillion, the Treasury would be prohibited from selling any more bonds. Treasury would continue to spend by crediting bank accounts of recipients, and reserve accounts of their banks. Banks would offer excess reserves in overnight markets, but would find no takers—hence would have to be content holding reserves and earning whatever rate the Fed wants to pay. But as Chairman Bernanke told Congress, this is no problem because the Fed spends simply by crediting bank accounts.

This would allow Senator Bayh and other deficit warriors to stop worrying about Treasury debt and move on to something important like the loss of millions of jobs.

What the good Professor is suggesting is that the Treasury doesn’t have to issue bonds at all.  In fact, since the Treasury does control the electronic printing press, it could legitimately buy stuff with money it prints out of thin air.

Sounds a bit like counterfeiting, doesn’t it?  But, let’s step back for a second:  what is the functional difference for the federal government between Treasury securities and bank notes? Both are liabilities of the federal government. But liabilities of what? The only obligation they enforce on the government is the promise to repay with more paper (or electronic bank credits, if you will). For all intents and purposes, bank notes, reserve deposits, and Treasury securities are fungible: they are obligations to be repaid in the same fiat currency.

I’m looking at a five dollar bill right now.  It says “Federal Reserve Note" across the top. It has an oversized picture of Abraham Lincoln in the middle.  It also says “this note is legal tender for all debt, public and private” in the lower left, signed “Anna Escobedo Cabral, Treasurer of the United States.”  On the back, I see “The United States of America” up top and “In God We Trust” underneath with a picture of the Lincoln Memorial in the middle, labelled “Lincoln Memorial” for those who don’t know what it is. But, I’m trying to figure out why Geithner and the gang couldn’t just reel off a bunch of these and some Jacksons and Benjamins and pay people?

Now I’m looking at a Canadian Twenty. It sure is colourful. It has a bunch of French on it and a picture of the Queen. But, other than that, it’s really no different than the American fiver. “Ce billet a cours legal/ This note is legal tender.”

I have some Euros and Mexican pesos too. But these central banks don’t say anything about their obligations.  Very dubious! At least they’re colourful like the Canadian money.

How ‘bout a British tenner? Dickens on the front, and the Queen on the back (she’s everywhere). A-ha. Here’s what I’m looking for. It says “Bank of England. I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of ten pounds.” 

I think that gets me to my point, actually.  From the government’s perspective, there is no functional difference between any of its obligations like bank notes, electronic credits, or treasury bills and bonds. As the Ten pound note says, “I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of [fill in the blank sum][fill in the blank fiat currency].”

So, the U.S. government could legitimately stop issuing bonds altogether if it wanted to.  When people complain about the admittedly enormous government debt, they don’t think of the mechanics of the issue. As I see it, in a fiat money environment, the first function of the Treasury bonds is to serve as a vehicle to add or subtract reserves in the system to help the Federal Reserve hit a target Fed Funds rate. The second is to give holders of government obligations a return on their investment. After all, bank notes or bank reserves don’t pay much if anything.

Am I missing something?

Source

Memo to Congress: Don’t Increase the Government’s Debt Limit! – L. Randall Wray

Related posts:

• Russia, sovereign debt defaults, and fiat currency
• Interest rates up in the US as investors choke on supply
• Quote of the day: Stephen Roach
• Another take on the treasuries bubble
• Mea Culpa: The Fed is not going to buy treasuries

• The Rise and Fall of Empires – Paul Kedrosky (cool visual)
• FT Alphaville – A Minskian roadmap to the next gold mania
• At Failed Banks, Post-Mortems Disclose Excessive, Yet Obvious, Risk – NYTimes.com
• Economic Perspectives from Kansas City: Should America Kowtow to China?
• FT.com – Fears of China property bubble
• The Ayn Rand revival | Jennifer Abel | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
• BBC News – Will Ferrell named ‘most overpaid film star’
• Obama’s Vietnam syndrome | The Japan Times Online
• FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: The Palin Calculus: A Rejoinder
• FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: 10 Reasons That Sarah Palin Could Win the Republican Nomination
• FT Alphaville – The return of capital controls, Indonesia edition
• Continuity You Can Believe In? (Voices for and against Obama’s econ policy.)
• oftwominds: The Fantasy of an Export-Led Recovery
• Paulson on Bank of America: Stock Could ‘Almost Double’ – MarketBeat – WSJ (He likes Citi too.)
• California faces a projected deficit of $21 billion — latimes.com
• The Financial Regulatory Chess Game, Arnold Kling | EconLog

Distraction of the Day: This cow thinks he is a dog

Related posts:

• Links: 2009-01-09
• Links: 2009-11-13
• News round-up: 30 Sep 2008
• Links: 2009-07-16
• Links: 2009-03-14

Initial jobless claims for the past week were 505,000, tied with last week for the lowest since January. This brings the 4-week average down to 514,000, the lowest since November of last year and the 11th consecutive week of declines. 

Clearly, fewer people are losing their jobs.  But, 505,000 is still a large number – one consistent with a net loss of 150,000-200,000 jobs per month. And there are still 5.6 million people with continuing unemployment insurance claims, 1.8 million more than at this time last year.

I see this as reflective of an inexorable but slow decline in layoffs complicated by a lack of new jobs, which will keep unemployment elevated as far as the eye can see. So, yes, the employment market in the United States is improving. But it is improving slowly, leaving many long-time unemployed workers bereft. This is what is called structurally high unemployment – and its happening at a level much higher than even I thought likely.

Here are two nuances in the data flow.

Dichotomy in seasonal and non-seasonal data.

All of the numbers above are seasonally-adjusted data. But, I tend to think they overstate the number of job losses (this particular point puts me somewhat at odds with David Rosenberg).  My reason is simple: we are in the recovery part of the business cycle, which means that any seasonal adjustment bias will tend to elevate the numbers.

For example, when you look at year-on-year numbers, the seasonally adjusted continuing claims data show an average 1.82 million more workers filing claims. But, the non-seasonally adjusted data show 1.56 million.  That’s a pretty sizable difference. This leads me to conclude that the seasonal adjustments may be overstating continuing claims.

Year-on-year data much worse for continuing claims

On the other hand, the initial claims numbers are flat with year-ago levels. While, as I indicated above, continuing claims are greatly elevated. To me, this points to the likelihood that the unemployment rate will rise much higher. Last year, we were seeing 500,000 layoffs as well. Yet non-farm payrolls were declining at a greater rate (380K in October, almost 600K in November and almost 700K in December). I see only two ways this is possible: 1. more people are getting hired today so the net job loss is less; or 2. more likely, non-farm payrolls understate the number of job losses because of losses not tracked in small businesses.

I have not been able to reconcile these two points. I hope to see a trend which explains both points develop in the coming weeks.

Related posts:

• US Jobless claims decline in latest week
• Initial and continuing jobless claims decline
• Jobless claims in second week just over 600K
• Jobless claims fall again due to seasonality
• Jobless claims rise 30,000 from artificially low number

I want to take a break from banking and macro stuff and talk a little bit about technology. I wrote an article about Android a few weeks back. That was a more personal account on why I was switching from a Windows Mobile phone to Android, the latest whiz-bang operating system running mobile phones. (Don’t ask me why I stuck with Windows Mobile for so long – even I don’t know any more). This article is looking at the Android phenomenon more from a strategic perspective.

You may have seen the Verizon commercials on TV. They’re everywhere: Droid has arrived. And this happens to be a big problem for Apple Computer.

(In case you haven’t seen the commercials, here is one embedded below)

As you probably know, I am a bit of a technophile.  I’m that guy you remember from high school who was taking AP Computer Science and programming in Pascal, the guy you remember who always had the latest gadget. And I’ve done my stint in technology companies too. But, at heart, I am a finance guy and when I look at technology, I do so from a finance guy’s point of view.  That’s why I see the emergence of Android phones as significant. The recent flurry of announcements about hardware manufacturers adopting the Android platform has me thinking about Apple Computer and the 1990s again – and that’s not good for Apple.

The Macintosh

From the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s, I was a Macintosh user and an avid fan of Apple Computer and its products. I started using PCs only because incompatibility with my colleagues’ work product forced me to do so.  The Macintosh was miles ahead of the PC in user-friendliness and platform robustness. And Apple is a company that cares about customer service too.

But, forced to do so or not, I did switch to the PC, as did millions of others.  The reason: one company cannot compete against 100s. Apple refused to open its system and that limited production to Apple alone. Meanwhile, in PC world, you saw Compaq, Gateway 2000, HP, Dell, IBM, Toshiba, NEC, Packard Bell and a host of other vendors jumping onto the PC platform. Eventually, the PC was ubiquitous – and often incompatible with the Macintosh. How could Apple compete?  It couldn’t. Eventually, the Macintosh lost market share and became a niche product for die-hards, education and design.

Digital Music

But, Apple maintained its core competencies of user-friendliness, platform robustness and customer service. While PC makers were technology companies run by engineers, Apple was a consumer product company run by design and marketing. So, when Apple hit upon the digital music scene with iTunes and the iPod, it instantly became a success.

I am a big music fan. Because I tend to be an early adopter, I went all-in for digital music and CDs, buying my first CD player in 1988 – a top-rated Kyocera DA-610cx. When digital music hit the portable device market, I was there as well with my portable supposedly skip-free CD player plus car adapter. But, eventually I switched to Mini Disc and then on to Digital Audio Players. Remember the Diamond Rio 500?

The iPod

Then came the iPod. This was a ground-breaking product which was to digital music players what the Macintosh was to computers. It revolutionized the industry, bringing Apple Computer back to prominence as a technology company. The iPod became the dominant digital audio player (the hardware) – and with it, iTunes became the dominant digital music player (the software). It was almost like Intel and Microsoft rolled into one. Again, it was the product design and robustness of the iPod and the user-friendliness of Apple which made the difference.

Since then, Apple has successfully branched out into all manner of related spheres: video, podcasts, and most crucially digital music purchases and mobile telephones. They have also been very successful at integrating all of the platforms.

The iPhone – Android wars

But, everyone knows the standalone digital music player is passé. And iTunes, the digital music software application is free, a loss leader. The real money is going to come from digital music purchases and Apple’s mobile telephone, the iPhone. So, strategically speaking, this is why I see the flurry of announcements about Android phones as a problem for Apple.

Android is the Linux-based operating system developed by Google. it is now being implemented on a number of different platforms from internet tablets to low-end personal computers to mobile telephones. 

What I question is how Apple is going to compete in mobile telephones. Don’t let the hype around the Verizon Droid fool you. The phone, manufactured by Motorola, is a very good phone. But, it is only one of many that are now coming to market. There are also phones in the works from Sony Ericsson, Samsung, HTC, Dell, Garmin, LG, and a host of other manufacturers. Even Google is supposed to be coming forth with the much anticipated Google Phone – the phone designed to prevent the splintering of Android which doomed Unix as a consumer-based operating system.

To my eyes, this is looking like a repeat of the Macintosh-PC Wars of the 1990s which Apple lost. On the one side, you have Apple, competing at the high end and very concerned about platform integrity and control, and preventing other manufacturers from building its hardware. On the other side, you have another operating system designed for the lower end and installed on a host of manufacturer systems – which may or may not cause serious platform integrity problems down the line.  Who wins that battle?

In the 1990s it was Intel and Microsoft. And they went on to reap massive rewards as Apple foundered.  Today, Apple risks a repeat of this if it does not come out with a credible solution to deal with its burgeoning Android problem.

Related posts:

• Android gaining momentum on Apple’s iPhone
• Yahoo: run into the ground
• Walt Mossberg says Apple’s new browser Safari is fast
• eBay to cut 10% of its workforce
• Porsche and VW merge as auto consolidation continues

Hat tip Rolfe Winkler.

Related posts:

• Steve Keen and the spectre of terminal debt
• Steve Keen: On the Edge with Max Keiser
• Bloomberg News is still after the Fed for more disclosure
• Dilbert on the asset-based economy
• What does Mises say about trying to stimulate the economy out of recession

After a huge fall off in credit consistent with the fall in nominal GDP, we are seeing credit stabilise at a lower level. Debt to GDP ratios may not be lower, but as GDP is lower, so too is credit in the system.  Yet there is a large difference between the haves and the have-nots, largely due to a difference in which banks received government largesse and which did not.

Bank analyst Don Coxe puts this in perspective for us:

A sustained U.S. economic recovery is unlikely until all banks, and not just the big institutions bailed out with government funds, start to recover from the effects of the financial crisis, according to longtime investment strategist Don Coxe.

Many banks that got funding from the government have seen their shares soar, while smaller, regional banks have not.

That’s a sign that investors believe the smaller banks are less well placed to participate in, and contribute to, the economic recovery, said the chairman of Coxe Advisors LLC in Chicago, who advises clients of the BMO Financial Group.

Think big banks – big business, small banks-smaller business.  In effect, the credit flow for large multinationals is now back to normal.  However, like consumers, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are finding a tougher reception. Revolving credit lines are being cut and loans are harder to come by (one reason Warren Buffett and Goldman Sachs are stepping into this space in this crucial holiday season).

This is a case of supply and demand constraints. One the one hand, credit supply is constrained because regional financials are loaded down with bad debts and have not received the same measure of bailout money that big banks have.  On the other hand, SMEs are having to downsize and are demanding less credit.

"The thousands of regional U.S. banks on which an economic recovery depends have not participated in the sudden explosion of trading profits" of the biggest five U.S. banks, he said.

The state aid granted to large banks during the financial crisis has convinced investors the government will step in again in future to save the behemoths if needed. That has helped pull share prices back up from the 12-year lows hit in March.

By contrast, as more commercial real estate loans turn bad in the still-feeble economy, regional and community banks are struggling.

A key gauge of the gulf between big banks and smaller lenders is the KBW Regional Bank Index exchange traded fund (KRE.P). The ETF’s recovery has lagged the rebound in shares of the biggest five U.S. banks, said Coxe.

"There will not be the kind of sustained U.S. economic recovery that will drive a sustained U.S. bull market until the shares of the Main Street (KRE) banks begin to outperform" both those of the biggest five banks and the S&P 500 index .SPX, he said.

Small bank index suggests recovery is elusive – Reuters

Related posts:

• More warnings on regional banks
• Regionals are exposed to credit crisis
• Michael Panzner: regional banks in trouble
• Relative value in financial services
• Fifth Third takes on assets of Freedom Bank

Barack Obama has now come clean about his thinking on why his administration has decided to focus first on reducing the deficit and next on jobs. He fears a double-dip recession will occur if foreigners lose confidence in the U.S. dollar, causing interest rates to spike. 

This is nonsense and it demonstrates how much at odds Obama’s economic thinking is with reality. This is the clearest indication that the Obama Administration doesn’t understand how modern money works. In fact, by focusing on deficit reduction, he has increased the chances of a double dip instead of decreasing them.

If he wants to reduce deficits, knowing it will precipitate a double dip and would decrease malinvestment. Fine. That’s not my solution, but it is accurate view of the economics.

What Obama actually said

At issue is whether the federal government’s enormous debt burden in the U.S. could cause investors to lose confidence in the U.S. government and shun its debt.

In an interview on Fox News today, the President said the following:

I think it is important though to recognize that. If we keep on adding to the — Even in the midst of this recovery that at some point. People could lose confidence in the US economy in a way that could actually lead to a double dip recession.

Is this really true though?

How deficits really work

Think of an economy this way: the people in any economy buy goods and services from one another and from the outside. In any given time period, one person, one company or one group/sector might use credit in order to buy more goods and services than it makes in income. It’s like spending future income by using credit. This puts that individual, company or group/sector in deficit i.e. they have spent more money than they have earned. Now obviously, if one sector is in deficit in a given period (i.e. they have spent more capital than they have earned), then the other sectors are in net surplus (i.e. they have received more cash than they have earned).

Let’s give these groups/sectors of the economy names: the private sector, the public sector and the foreign sector.  Giving the groups names makes it plain that if the public sector is in deficit, the combined foreign and private sectors must be in surplus.  Simply put, if you look at all of the households and businesses that make up the private sector and aggregate them together, you can determine if the private sector has a net surplus or a net deficit in any individual time period. And if the private sector has a net surplus, the combined foreign sector and public sector must have a deficit for that time period. The sector financial balances move in concert.

What this means for today is that a government which reduces its deficit in a given time period is forcing an equal reduction in surplus in the private and foreign sectors. So that means, in aggregate, the private sector and the foreign sector will reduce the surplus cash it is taking in over what it spends.

Scott Fullwiler has a good graph depicting how the private sector surplus/deficit moves in concert with the public sector deficit/surplus, the difference being the current account deficit:

We can look historically at how these sector financial balances have moved over time. Figure 2 shows how closely the private sector surplus and the government sector deficit have moved historically, which isn’t surprising given they are nearly the opposing sides of an accounting identity. The difference between them, more visible starting in the 1980s, is the current account balance.

Figure 2: Historical Behavior of Private Sector Surplus and Government Sector Deficit as a percent of GDP

Below, I am now providing figure three from Fullwiler’s post at reader request, as it shows the current account deficit as the missing link since the 1980s.

Unless the increasing current account deficit switches direction violently, this can only mean that reducing the government’s deficit reduces the private sector’s surplus. Net-net, the government’s decreased deficit spending will decrease savings in the private sector. And no deleveraging can occur if savings in the private sector are reduced.

Is that what we want? Reduced private savings means continued high private sector leverage. In the U.S., the private sector has much greater debt burdens relative to the size of the economy than the federal government does. You would think we want the private sector to reduce leverage more than the public sector.

Long-term deficit reduction

What I have suggested is long-term deficit reduction.  If the President is concerned about deficits as far as the eye can see, he might want to look at retiree healthcare costs.  In June I said:

Yesterday, I argued that the United States faced a policy dilemma in avoiding debt deflationary forces while maintaining fiscal prudence.  The reality is that President Obama faces political constraints in Washington right now in regards to budget deficits.  He is not likely to get another stimulus package through the Congress unless he can credibly demonstrate a longer-term deficit reduction outlook.  In my view, this necessarily means changes to Social Security and/or Medicare.

But, of course, President Obama is not going to do that because this would mean cutting Medicare benefits, a political loser.

This looks like Hoover more every day

The President just doesn’t seem to understand how the economy works frankly. Reducing deficits by cutting spending or raising taxes decreases aggregate demand. And it is a decrease in aggregate demand which would induce a double-dip recession. So, the President’s logic just doesn’t work.

But what about a strike on U.S. government debt?  As you probably surmised from the above, if the U.S. private sector is increasing its savings, there is automatically a greater domestic bid for U.S. treasury securities.  So, it is a misnomer to say the U.S. is dependent on foreigners, thinking that this must continue. If the private sector saves more, a larger percentage of government bonds will be bought with domestic savings. In Japan, interest rates did not spike when the government increased deficit spending for this very reason.

The only question we have to ask ourselves is whether we want to reduce debt by:

1. The Liquidation Scenario. decreasing aggregate demand and precipitating a major depression in order to liquidate zombie companies and malinvestment. This would cause a massive wave of defaults and decrease debt burdens significantly through bankruptcy and debt repudiation. or;
2. The Glide Path Solution. increasing aggregate demand by maintaining government spending while trying to liquidate zombie companies and malinvestment. This would allow the private sector to decrease debt burdens significantly over time through increased savings. It also has the benefit of reducing dependency on foreign sources of capital. The downside is a major increase in government debt, the spectre of big government and a long muddle through.

As I have said previously, the Obama Administration is doing neither of the above. It has opted for a third Herbert Hoover solution:

• The Hoover Status Quo. decreasing aggregate demand and precipitating a double dip recession in order to reduce government deficits. This would cause a wave of defaults and decrease debt burdens through bankruptcy and debt repudiation. Meanwhile they will try to prop up zombie companies and maintain malinvestment. This would simultaneously prevent the private sector from decreasing debt burdens through increased savings and maintain dependency on foreign sources of capital – all without ending the spectre of big government.

I have advocated the glide path solution. But I see the liquidation scenario as much better than the present path – especially since, with the present course, we are witnessing crony capitalism on a massive scale. The problem with the liquidation scenario is a lower standard of living and the prospect of geopolitical tension, social unrest, poverty, and war.

The Herbert Hoover solution we are now using leads to a Japanese outcome at best or a Great Depression outcome at worst.

Obama: Debt Could Fuel ‘Double-Dip Recession’ – FOXNews.com

Related posts:

• Minsky: Turning neoclassical economics on its head
• The choice is between increasing or decreasing aggregate demand
• I am now moving from multi-year recovery to a double dip baseline
• Barack Obama as Herbert Hoover
• Japan does not demonstrate the failure of stimulus

• Josh Reviews Everything: And then he took his pants off. Again.
• frontline: a class divided: watch the program | PBS
• In Case Someone Says You Couldnt See This Coming – Yves Smith
• U.S. conservatives: Obama bowed too deeply to Emperor | The Japan Times Online
• Bankruptcy Experts Challenge Obama’s ‘Too Big To Fail’ Plans – Deal Journal – WSJ
• The effectiveness of fiscal and monetary stimulus in depressions | vox
• Chance of Great Depression Now 5%… – Brad DeLong
• Slashdot Your Rights Online Story | Chinese Court Rules Microsoft Violated IP Rights
• Cassandra Does Tokyo: Balderdash (n) – fiddle-faddle, piffle (trivial nonsense), hokum
• Goldman Sachs, Buffett Said to Plan Aid for Small Businesses – Bloomberg.com
• Geithner in the doghouse over AIG debacle | guardian.co.uk
• UK house prices: peak for affordability ‘now over’ – Telegraph
• Buffett’s Berkshire Discloses Exxon, Nestle Stakes – Bloomberg.com

Distraction of the Day: US razing dams to restore waterways

Related posts:

• Links: 2009-04-08 – European edition
• News from around the web: 2009-07-29
• News from around the web: 2009-11-08
• News from around the web: 2009-11-05
• Links: 2009-03-02

Credit Suisse has a note out urging caution on Citigroup shares due to regulatory hurdles.  Their logic bears noting as it can be useful for other U.S.-based banks.

On Monday the CS analysts met with Citi management, who were somewhat cautious. The CS note indicates that regulatory changes in the U.S. are likely to mandate higher capital ratios and this necessarily will constrain returns on capital, not just at Citigroup but elsewhere in banking.

Another question involved deferred tax assets (DTAs), which I brought up last week. Citi said only $13 billion of the $38 billion in DTAs were counted against Tier 1 capital, meaning any writedowns to capital will have much less affect on Tier 1 capital. About $14 billion in DTAs were related to Citi’s burgeoning loan loss reserves; so the tax losses have not yet been triggered. This may give Citi time to earn money in order to use the DTAs. Again, the key with Citi’s DTAs has to do with how much it earns going forward. If it does not earn enough money, the deferred assets will have to be written down.

In general, banks are now entering a less favourable regulatory environment.  Moreover, in March, many bank stocks were trading below tangible book for the first time since 1990, at the height of the last major credit crunch in the U.S.. After a more than doubling in bank stocks from March lows, this is no longer the case and it will be harder to beat now elevated earnings estimates.

Meredith Whitney has said she expects the large cap bank stocks to underperform due to some of these hurdles and sees a relative value play in regionals.  However, a lot of CRE and loan construction exposure remains at regionals and the continued seizure of 3 or 4 banks every week by the FDIC points to distress.

I continue to believe upside in bank shares is limited all around.

Related posts:

• How well capitalized is Citigroup?
• How is Citi going to deal with $38 billion in deferred tax assets?
• The Citigroup Bailout: a blogosphere post-mortem
• Citigroup and Redecard: shedding international assets
• Rubin resigns from Citigroup

This excerpt comes from the blog News from 1930 which gives us a day-to-day account of what was being reported in 1930 before the worst of the Great Depression hit.

“The unemployment situation in New York is critical. Unless it is speedily met, we face a winter of hunger and distress for families whose bread-earners are without work and without funds. The great majority of family men now unemployed are asking not for charity, but for a job. In the richest city of the world, where the vast majority are at work, it is unthinkable that anyone should be permitted to starve. The Emergency Employment Committee is composed of New York business and professional men, formed at the request of experienced welfare organizations of the city. It is raising funds which will be used by these organizations to give temporary work to heads of families and to relieve distress caused by unemployment without regard to race, creed, or color.” Followed by endorsement from Pres. Hoover and appeal for funds.

Sen. Smoot denies tariff is retarding business recovery, says it has saved thousands of jobs and helped maintain wages and preserve farm purchasing power; points out only one country has increased its tariff since US adopted revisions; says question now is whether tariff is high enough, not whether it is too high.

I find the parallels to present day frightening to say the least. Let’s hope for some serious divergence.

Related posts:

• Black humor on Wall Street circa 1930
• Unemployment: U-6 data versus the Great Depression
• Food insecurity: alternative measure of economic distress skyrockets
• “That’s what happens when a town full of broke people gets a whiff of free money”
• When is the next panic?

Is this propaganda? I just received this e-mail from the FDIC’s consumer news with the title above. Personally, I never doubted that unbrokered deposits under $250,000 are safe at U.S. depositary institutions. But, the natural sceptic in me doesn’t like to see someone reaffirm what I thought I already knew.

As bank failures are in the news, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation is helping consumers understand why, as Chairman Sheila C. Bair has said, "there’s no safer place in the world for their checking, savings or retirement money." The Fall 2009 issue of FDIC Consumer News gives facts and figures explaining the agency’s financial resources run deep and that insured deposits are fully protected.

"Depositors should understand that the chances of their bank failing are low, and even if their bank does fail, depositors have nothing to worry about," said Chairman Bair. "The FDIC fully guarantees their insured deposits and provides them with seamless access to their money. For the insured depositor, a bank failure is a non-event."

The newsletter gives these reasons why consumers can trust the ironclad protection of FDIC insurance:

• By law, federal deposit insurance is backed by "the full faith and credit of the United States government." It means that the financial resources of the U.S. government protect federally insured depositors. "In short," said Chairman Bair, "we cannot run out of money."
• If needed, the FDIC can quickly borrow money from the U.S. Treasury. However, Chairman Bair has stressed that the FDIC expects to continue to collect premiums from the banking industry to pay for banking industry problems — without borrowing from U.S. taxpayers.
• Federal law also requires that all insured deposits be paid "as soon as possible." If a bank fails, the FDIC has always paid every penny of insured deposits, up to the insurance limit, including principal and any accrued interest through the date of the closing. In most cases, the FDIC provides access to accounts on the next business day by arranging with a healthy institution to assume the insured deposits. .

According to Chairman Bair, the bottom line for consumers is this: "No insured depositor has ever lost a penny of insured deposits — and none ever will. The FDIC was created specifically for times like these. Our resources are strong. Your insured deposits are absolutely safe."

A related article reminds consumers that the basic maximum insurance amount under current law is $250,000 through year-end 2013, but that, as always, customers may qualify for much more protection at the same bank depending on the types and ownership of their accounts. The same article highlights FDIC resources that can help answer consumers’ questions about deposit insurance coverage.

Also in this issue are tips for paying with plastic. One article helps consumers understand the potential benefits and concerns when choosing and using debit cards versus credit cards. Another article examines prepaid cards, which have evolved from gift cards sold by individual retailers to multi-purpose, "reloadable" cards that can be used to pay for purchases and access cash at ATMs around the world.

Another article offers five things to know about safe deposit boxes and home safes. Among the tips: Bank safe deposit boxes are good choices to store originals of key documents, such as birth certificates and property deeds, but probably not for anything someone might need to access quickly on a night, weekend or holiday. Also, people are better off stashing their cash in a bank deposit account than in a home safe or a safe deposit box, where the money can’t earn interest and won’t be protected by FDIC insurance.

The goal of FDIC Consumer News is to deliver timely, reliable and innovative tips and information about financial matters, free of charge. The latest issue can be read or printed atwww.fdic.gov/consumers/consumer/news/cnfall09. To find current and past issues, including special editions, visit www.fdic.gov/consumernews or request paper copies by contacting the FDIC’s Public Information Center toll-free at 1-877-275-3342, by e-mail to publicinfo@fdic.gov, or by writing to the FDIC Public Information Center, 3501 North Fairfax Drive, Room E-1002, Arlington, VA 22226.

There are two ways to subscribe to the quarterly FDIC Consumer News. To receive an e-mail about each new issue with links to stories, go to www.fdic.gov/about/subscriptions/index.html. To receive the newsletter in the mail, free of charge, contact the Public Information Center as listed above.

Source

No Safer Place in the World for Your Money – FDIC

Related posts:

• Westsound Bank seized by FDIC
• SunTrust Bank receives insured deposits of Omni National Bank
• FDIC Friday Night Special: Lincolnwood
• FDIC shuts down Haven Trust and Sanderson State
• FDIC moves in at Great Basin Bank

The US Department of Agriculture highlights how the United States in the last decade, despite increased aggregate wealth, slid back significantly in terms of food insecurity as measure of poverty. With everyone now focused on the unemployment situation, it bears noting that even before the downturn in the economy there had been a large surge in food insecurity nationwide.

The Guardian says:

Food insecurity – defined by the USDA as when "food intake … was reduced and their eating patterns were disrupted at times during the year because the household lacked money and other resources for food" – afflicted 14.6% of Americans in 2008. ie, some 50 million people were too poor to guarantee being able to put food on the table.

The table below, also from the Guardian, shows where food insecurity is highest. While much of the distress is concentrated in the South, there are plenty of states in the Southwest and West as well. Maine has the highest food insecurity in the Northeast.

My interpretation of the data goes to income inequality. I see this as evidence that the last decade of growth in the U.S. has not been beneficial for poorer Americans. However, I would go further in saying that the downturn in the U.S. and rising unemployment, bankruptcy and foreclosure in the middle class has made plain that the middle class has also been left behind. While distress amongst poorer Americans is plain from these numbers, the diminished position in the middle class was masked by a surge in debt. This was made plain only as a result of a drop in asset prices.

At present, U.S. policy makers are trying to make this problem go away by reflating an asset bubble, but continued high unemployment is the elephant in the room which higher asset prices can not make disappear.

As for the poor, a related Guardian article gets to the heart of things:

The report said 6.7 million people were defined as having "very low food security" because they regularly lacked sufficient to eat. Among them, 96% reported that the food they bought did not last until they had money to buy more. Nearly all said they could not afford to eat balanced meals. Although few reported that this was a permanent situation throughout the year, 88% said it had occurred in three or more months.

Nearly half reported losing weight because they did not have enough money to buy food.

The number of children living in households where there were shortages of food at times rose by nearly one-third to 17 million. The report says that most parents who did not get enough to eat ensured their offspring received sufficient food but that more than 1 million children still suffered outright hunger.

The worst affected states are in the south with Mississippi having the largest proportion of its population enduring shortages of food followed by Texas and Arkansas. More than half of those affected are minorities, principally black people and Hispanics.

Millions more Americans do not go hungry only because they are so poor they receive government food stamps or rely on handouts from food banks such as Feeding America. In some states, such as West Virginia, one in six of the population is on food stamps.

This is certainly the stuff of depressions more than V-shaped recoveries. The first Guardian article has links to the data for downloading.

Source

Hungry America: food insecurity, state by state – Guardian

Record numbers go hungry in the US – Guardian

Related posts:

• News from 17 November 1930: “we face a winter of hunger and distress”
• If you can’t afford food, steal it: lessons from Japan
• “That’s what happens when a town full of broke people gets a whiff of free money”
• Massive U.S. job loss of 598,000 in January
• 467,000 jobs lost in the U.S. in June 2009

• Economist’s View: "China and the American Jobs Machine" (And don’t fall into the Blame Asia Meme http://bit.ly/pseaY)
• 买黄金! | egghat’s blog (This German post says that owning gold was illegal in China six years ago. Now the message to get into gold is everywhere there.)
• Toddlers insensitive to fear go on to commit crimes – New Scientist
• Lack of Open Seats Could Complicate GOP Math – Roll Call
• General Electric Pursues Pot of Government Stimulus Gold – WSJ.com
• How To Prevent the Next Financial Crisis – CBS MoneyWatch.com
• The one thing depleting faster than oil is the credibility of those measuring it
• Get tough with China how? | Free exchange | Economist.com
• Pension deficits in Britain underestimated by £268bn – Telegraph
• FT Alphaville – Bringing it back on balance sheet, by the numbers (Will this make return on assets lower?)
• A Minsky Recovery? – Arnold Kling | EconLog
• Canadian homes sales hit record high; outlook upgraded
• You’re Backing Up Your Data the Wrong Way – Lifehacker
• Digital Domain – Apple Wouldn’t Risk Its Cool Over an Ad Gimmick, Would It? – NYTimes.com
• U.K. Home Sellers Cut Asking Prices 1.6% in November – Bloomberg.com (Is this a sign of seasonal weakness or more?)
• Capital One, Discover credit card defaults lower

Distraction of the Day: People are stealing everywhere

It reminds me of this post: If you can’t afford food, steal it: lessons from Japan

Related posts:

• Links: 2009-03-23
• Links: 2009-03-28
• Links: 2009-03-26
• News from around the web: 2009-09-10
• Links: 2009-10-28

Below is a CNBC video with Meredith Whitney in which she joins Nouriel Roubini on the doom and gloom parade.  Over the summer, both Whitney and Roubini were fairly optimistic. In June I said:

Think of the consensus forecast as an anchor which restricts the outlook of any individual forecaster afraid of failing unconventionally.

In Roubini’s case – and this logic also applies to media darlings like Meredith Whitney – it does NOT pay to up the ante.  What Faber is saying is that they have already benefitted from the bold and unconventional contrarian market call they initially made.  There is little payoff and much risk from continuing on that path.

To wit, Whitney upgraded Goldman Sachs to a buy and by July she almost sounded bullish. But, things are vastly different now. The banking index is up some 136 percent, with many stocks doubling and tripling. Some are up nine times. This is way over the top.

In her interview with Maria Bartiromo, Whitney gives ample reason to expect significant headwinds in the financial services industry and the economy more generally. While I am less certain that we are presently seeing a secular move to consumer deleveraging yet as evidenced by recent retail sales and current account deficit numbers, there is no doubt that credit lines to small businesses and consumers have been cut as Whitney details. 

I have also been getting much gloomier about the prospect of a sustainable recovery as a result.

With fiscal belt-tightening on the agenda at states and municipalities and, now, federally, I expect a double dip in 2011 – a view Whitney shares.

The key question in financial services?

Maria Bartiromo: Do you think that the sector is adequately capitalized today?

Meredith Whitney: No way.

Maria Bartiromo: No way?

Meredith Whitney: No way.

She is bearish on bank stocks generally. As for relative value trades, Whitney says the trade was large cap banks over regionals until now. However, she says now is the time to reduce weight in large cap banks as the outperformance due to government backstops may be about to disappear.

A lot more in the video below. The interview with Whitney runs 11:47.

Related posts:

• Bill Miller and Meredith Whitney: The Bull and the Bear
• Meredith Whitney: “I would diversify out of financials here”
• Meredith Whitney seems onboard with the fake recovery
• Meredith Whitney: more bearish than ever, but…
• Is Meredith Whitney bullish now?

Marc Faber is in a bullish mindset, particularly on gold. In a wide-ranging interview with CNBC TV-18 in India, Faber talked about where he sees markets headed and why he thinks gold will never drop below $1,000 an ounce.

Private sector contracting while public sector expanding

This is the frame that Marc Faber puts on recent events post 2008 panic, namely that we are likely to see an era of increased government intervention. This is an echo of comments Bill Gross has been making for some time. We are seeing this stimulus on both the fiscal and monetary sides through fiscal stimulus programmes and quantitative easing worldwide.

The economy has not responded robustly given the size of stimulus, Faber says. Asset markets, on the other hand have. This sets up a clear dichotomy between ordinary citizens and those who benefit most from asset price appreciation on Wall Street and elsewhere in the financial sector. Moreover, the spill-over of asset price appreciation into commodity prices further constrains purchasing power for ordinary citizens.

Less certain about carry trade

Faber is less certain about the U.S. dollar carry trade. He sees a dollar overhang due to the enormous U.S. current account deficit and $7.7 trillion in U.S. dollar reserves as more the issue. Many are looking to sell these dollars and hedge their exposure in precious metals and other currencies.

Treasury bearish

The one area where Faber is bearish is U.S. treasuries. He says:

There is a risk that at some stage in 2010, the government bond markets (would) weaken considerably because I don’t understand why anyone who would now buy a 10-year US treasury at a yield of less than 3.5%. It’s a losing proposition. I also don’t understand why anyone could buy a 30-year US treasury at a yield of 4.4%. So I think that eventually yields will go up and this could disturb the stock market.

Not as bullish on equities

Given the huge uptick in share prices globally, Faber believes there is now limited upside going forward.  He says the risk/reward in equity markets at present is not favourable. Moreover, profit margins are cyclically high due to cost-cutting. Faber anticipates weakness in profits in 2010, causing earnings to disappoint and precipitating a correction.

Bullish on commodities and precious metals

His logic is as follows: cash is now trash with zero interest rates. So holding cash means underperforming.  Bonds present an unfavourable risk/reward.  Therefore, commodities and precious metals look attractive. One must also have equities exposure.

Interestingly, he makes a fairly explicit statement in favour of peak oil from about 1:40 in the second video below. The world is adding less in oil reserves than it consumes. That necessarily means a tighter supply/demand dynamic, especially given the demand in emerging economies for oil.

He uses a technical argument to make his money quote (in bold):

I believe that whereas in the past the USD 1000 per ounce level was kind of a resistance level, now it becomes a support level. I don’t think that you’ll see gold below a USD 1000 per ounce probably ever again.

So I’m actually quite positive. Maybe gold at this level is a better buy than it was at USD 300 per ounce in 2001.

Much, much more below.

(videos embedded below)

Marc Faber Interview: Part 1 (6:19)

Marc Faber Interview: Part 2 (5:42)

Sources

Gold will never fall below $1,000 an ounce: Faber – Live Mint

Gold won’t fall below $1000/oz level ever again: Marc Faber – Money Control

Related posts:

• Marc Faber says avoid financials and buy gold
• Marc Faber: I advise every American to hold his gold outside of the United States
• Marc Faber makes bullish comments on Bloomberg
• Marc Faber: “Monetary policy in the United States will stay expansionary”
• Marc Faber: “I am 100% sure that the U.S. will go into hyperinflation”