Stupid Comments by the FED (and others too)

Note: The following article was originally published in Whiskey & Gunpowder on June 9th.

Quite literally this was an amazing week for stupid comments by Fed officials, the California Building Industry Association, former FED officials, spokesmen for the US army, spokesmen for banks, and investment clubs appearing on CNBC. In aggregate it was a totally stunning and possibly unprecedented performance. Let's take a peek.

I will start off with one comment that is so blatantly stupid that it was instantaneously perceived as being completely stupid by practically everyone. I intended to do a blog on this one item alone but by the time I passed the comment around, three other blogs were already reporting on in. In case you missed it however, here it is: Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas President Richard Fisher said to CNBC TV on Wednesday "Where would the world be if Americans did not live out their proclivity to consume everything that looks good, feels good, sounds good, tastes good? We provide a service for the rest of the world. If we were running a current account surplus or trade surplus, what would happen to economic growth worldwide and what would be the economic consequences? So I think we are doing our duty there".

Wow, that is stunning! We provide a service to the world by consuming everything that "looks good, feels good, sounds good, and tastes good". Damn. That is quite a "service", and to get paid for it too. It's a tough job and since no one else wants it, I guess the US will just have to bear the sacrifice and pay it alone.

Let's now take a look at what Mr. Alan Nevin, chief economist for the California Building Industry Association had to say this week: "People have the ability to borrow against their homes. If times get tougher, they could borrow a sufficient amount to pay their mortgages."

Wow. Another startling revelation! Borrow money to pay your mortgage. Gee who woulda thunk that? Obviously many, given the cash out refis we have seen lately. In any other week the above comment would easily win hands down as the stupid comment of the week but unfortunately this was not any ordinary week. Mr. Alan Nevin had to compete and lose to Mr. Fisher. Such are the unpleasantries in life. This is kind of like losing to Tiger Woods on that incredible pitch shot in the Masters. Perhaps Mr. Nevin will be given another chance at the gold at a later date. On second thought, the perpetual motion device he is describing is just so absurd that I am going to proclaim a tie and award both Mr. Fisher and Mr. Alan Nevin gold medals for stupidity. Does anyone object?

Jumping on the stupidity bandwagon, the US Army blamed parents for recruitment problems. "Parents," said one recruiter in Ohio who insisted on anonymity because the Army ordered all recruiters not to talk to reporters, "are the biggest hurdle we face." Amazing.

Rumsfeld looks silly everytime he opens his mouth and the lastest is no different. Here is Rumsfeld's latest rant about China: "Since no nation threatens China, one must wonder: Why this growing investment? Why these continuing large and expanding arms purchases? Why these continuing robust deployments?". Note that this is coming from a nation that is spending more on "defense" than most of the rest of the world combined. Perhaps China fears us or perhaps China is attempting to spend the US into the ground like we did to Russia. Then again, perhaps Rumsfeld is just clueless. BTW, isn't Rumsfeld supportive of weapons in space? Hmmm. Is Mars planning to invade the US sometime soon?

A poster on the Motley Fool had this bit of wisdom to offer the world: "The only reason anybody on Earth talks about "evil America" is because it echoes the theme song of the press and the hysterical Democrat left." I offered a free shot to that person at taking it back but he repeated his comment to me in bold. Yes, readers this is yet another startling revelation. It is quite staggering the power the "hysterical Democrat left" has over world politics. Aparently this poster truly believes that US Democrats can control the attitudes of the entire world yet they can't even win an election in the US. Amazing.

OK enough of politics. Let's get back to the economy.

Mish, what are they saying about the yield curve? OK, that is a good question so I am glad you asked. I have no fewer that three select comments to offer: Here is the first: "It really depends on when you get the flat curve," said Mark Vitner of Wachovia Securities. "Right now with the low rates, I don't see dire implications from a flattening yield curve." Wow. The knowledge imparted this week is simply staggering. Here is the implication: "It's Different this time". That's a relief. I was sure starting to get worried about that flattening of the yield curve. I am relieved to know that it does not matter since interest rates are low.

Mr. Vitner's view was echoed by Bernard Baumohl, executive director of the Economic Outlook Group of Princeton, N.J. He said when the spread between long and short rates narrows but both remain below 4 percent it's "just not problematic for an economy with a low underlying rate of inflation and still healthy productivity growth. There's still plenty of liquidity out there and the cost of capital remains relatively cheap."

Not to be outdone on the implications of the yield curve flattening was former Fed Governor Laurence Meyer who offered this advice: "Be careful how you interpret a very narrow curve or even an inverted curve in the context of structural forces that may have flattened it," said former Fed Governor Laurence Meyer. "It doesn't mean the same thing that it used to mean."

If you were not relieved by the comments of Mr. Vitner or Mr. Baumohl, I am positive you feel better now. We have no fewer than three confirmations that when it comes to the yield curve that "It's different this time". I do not know about you but I will sure be sleeping easier this weekend since "Things don't mean what they used to mean".

Even though we are now headed into Summer, I just caught a bad case of case of Spring Fever. Baseball is on my mind. The question I am most concerned with is this: What Inning Is It? Now if you are a baseball fan, and perhaps even if you are not, you just might be wondering the same thing. In that regard I am pleased to provide a set of opinions that will suit practically everyone.

Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas President Richard Fisher told CNBC TV on Wednesday, "I think we've room to tighten a little bit further," Fisher said, but, using a baseball analogy, added that the U.S. central bank is in the eighth inning of its tightening cycle and entering the ninth, and usually final, inning this month.

On the other hand Federal Reserve Governor Edward Gramlich when asked about what inning we were in had this to say: "I don't know what inning we're in, period." Now what kind of wimpy opinion is that?

Then again, Drew Matus, economist at Lehman Brothers had this to offer: It is "still the sixth inning in our view as we do not expect this one number will impact the Fed's thought process".

Fed Governor Susan Bies was clearly confused about what inning it is when she offered this statement: "At some point we do believe that the 10-year Treasury (note yield) will rise". Now that's commitment for you. I am 100% sure she is correct. It might be today or tomorrow or 20 years from now but I am sure the conundrum on low interest rates will eventually be resolved and that rates will rise. I am distraught however, that she did not offer an opinion as to what inning we are in.

Meanwhile I am very pleased to report that Fed Governor Stern is unfazed by relaxed credit standards. Like Susan Bies, he did not seem concerned about what inning this is. Here are his thoughts: Shifting trends in home mortgages and the increased use of adjustable-rate terms are not a huge risk to banks, Gary Stern, President of the Minneapolis Federal Reserve, said on Thursday. "It sounded to me like credit standards have been relaxed. Some people expressed concern then and continue to express concern. There's some smoke there, but is there a fire? Not yet, anyway," Stern said. Would you want your life in his hands if you were in a building billowing out huge clouds of smoke. What's the moral of this story anyway? Don't worry about smoke until fire is burning your house down?

Is there more? Yes of course. It seems that Mr. Fisher said we might go into Extra Innings if necessary. Wow. That's a relief!

Could the April job numbers possibly have been more horrid? I was stuck in gloomy woe on those numbers, saying woe woe woe, until I saw this analysis from Wachovia's chief economist John Silvia who had this bit of wisdom to offer: "Wages and unit labor costs rising and unemployment rates falling suggests we are running out of workers." Wow. We are running out of workers. That is staggering. I think this is a national disaster. Then again, if we are running out of workers why are we threatening China with 27.5% tariffs on grounds that they are stealing all of our jobs? OK Mr. Silvia I now have the dreaded CD (Conundrum Disease) on top of Spring Fever. This could be serious. Here is my question: How can China be stealing our jobs when we are running out of workers to fill them? Then again, that comment seems so blatantly stupid I must award it the silver medal.

CNBC was quite interesting on Friday. I hope everyone had a chance to catch the pearls of wisdom from a real estate investment club in LA in which members shared their investment strategies reminiscent of the stock euphoria of 2000. Said one club member "I am using negative amortization loans, and yes it adds $10 thousand to my loan, but the properties are appreciating $100-150 thousand." Another comment was "I quit my job that I had for thirty years and I am investing in real estate full-time. I am not just investing, I am investing smart." Gee, after a 20 year run up in housing prices that have gone parabolic in the last couple years, I am sure relieved to know that he is "investing smart". I have another question: Does negative amortization with leverage sound remotely like margin?

The following message goes out to Mr. Mogambo Guru should by some reason of temporary insanity he should happen to be reading this blog. OK Mogambo, if you are still reading this and somehow still breathing after reading all these award winning pearls of wisdom of the past week, I ask you kindly to take a swig of the strongest stuff you have before reading any further. My readers and your readers alike would hold me completely responsible if I posted something that caused you to keel over in fright, laughter, disbelief, outrage, disgust or shock. This news is so shocking that any combination of the above is possible. That said, I have a duty to report the news so here goes:

Federal Governor Gramlich reported today that nirvana was reached . Yes, I am sure you understand the implications, but if not I offer the following snips: "I would argue that we have achieved price stability," Gramlich said in answer to audience questions after a speech to a group of real estate editors. "To me, that is the ultimate test of price stability -- do you think that $10,000 goes farther this year than it did five years ago? I would argue in that sense we have achieved price stability. I would further tell you that we mean to keep at it, that other aspects of the economy don't suffer when we stabilize prices in this sense, and that's what we're going to do."

Mr. Mogambo, I have been looking for signs of "price stability" nirvana for quite some time. Unfortunately I have not found any. Since nirvana has now been reached, however, I am quite sure that a person of your stature can find some. Could you please run down your list of items and report to the kind readers of the Daily Reckoning your findings on "price stability" now that we have reached nirvana?

Here is my take: Even though we have reached nirvana, there sure seems to be an awful lot of conundrums running rampant. I would think that once nirvana was reached that conundrums would have long been resolved. Furthermore, it seems strange that even the FED does not know what inning we are in even though price stability has been reached. Could it be that the game being played is really football, not baseball? If so, perhaps the relevant question is not what inning we are in, but what quarter we are in and how much time is still left on the clock before this all blows up.

Mike Shedlock / Mish
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/