Monday, 31 August 2009

Fiscal Stimulus Canadian Style

Price deflation is turning up in interesting places. Please consider Tickets To See Bill Clinton Slashed To $5.
A much-hyped appearance by a certain charismatic former U.S. President is receiving a cool reception in the city.

After two weeks of sluggish ticket sales to hear Bill Clinton speak, the Canadian National Exhibition has slashed prices from $20 to five dollars plus admission.

Organizers were hoping to fill the 25,000-seat BMO Field, but to-date have only sold 7,000.
Can someone please explain how promoting Bill Clinton in Canada was supposed to stimulate anything other than Pepto-Bismol sales and the pocketbooks of the organizers?

I suppose not. At least it's not as destructive as cash for clunkers. Then again maybe this is Canada's version of cash for clunkers.

Thoughts on the Canadian Housing Bubble

In response to Mish Videos - On the Edge with Max Keiser when I mentioned the Canadian housing bubble, I received numerous emails from people telling me that Canadian banks were in better shape than the US, that lending standards on houses were tighter, and how commodities would support home prices.

Perhaps banks are in better shape but that does not mean they are in good shape. But the real reason we can say Canadian housing is in a bubble is the same reason the US was in an identifiable bubble:

Home prices are standard deviations above rental prices and wages. That may not be true of every city Canada (it was not true in places like Danville, Illinois either), but judging from housing prices in Toronto, Vancouver, etc, it is crystal clear Canada is in trouble.

I cannot quantify exactly how many standard deviations above norm the major Canadian cities are, but a look at home prices and acceleration in appreciation is telling in and of itself. In the US, homes prices to wages and rent were a whopping 3.5 standard deviations from the norm at the peak.

Canadian home prices are a bubble waiting to pop. When the bubble does pop, it will take as long to fix as in the US, 6-8 years minimum, perhaps way longer, depending on how big the bubbles got in each location and the speed of the declines.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List

Yes, The Government Can!

Here is an entertaining video by Tim Hawkins called "The Government Can"



If you need an entertaining look on how the country is going to hell in a hand basket, that's the one. It's sure to make you laugh, although what he talks about in reality is no laughing matter.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List

Spending Collapses In All Generation Groups

It's no secret that boomers fearing an underfunded retirement have sharply cut spending. However, it's not just boomers cutting back. Consumer attitudes toward debt have changed across all age groups.

A recent Gallup Poll shows just how dramatic a spending shift has taken place. Please consider Boomers� Spending, Like Other Generations�, Down Sharply.
Baby boomers' self-reported average daily spending of $64 in 2009 is down sharply from an average of $98 in 2008. But baby boomers -- the largest generational group of Americans -- are not alone in pulling back on their consumption, as all generations show significant declines from last year. Generation X has reported the greatest spending on average in both years, and is averaging $71 per day so far in 2009, down from $110 in 2008.
Self-Reported Spending



Population Share By Age Group



The chart shows Boomers and Generation X are the two demographic largest groups. Spending is down by 34.7% among boomers and 35.4% in Generation X. Spending is down by 33.7% in generation Y, the third largest demographic group. That is a remarkably consistent decline in spending.

Spending by the "Greatest Generation" is down a whopping 44% but that group only constitutes 5% of the population.

Here are some more interesting charts from the article.

Annual Incomes - Boomers vs. Generation X



Surprisingly, annual incomes are nearly identical for boomers and generation X. However, Generation Y income is dramatically less as the following chart shows.

Annual Incomes -
Boomers vs. Generation Y



Bottom Line
Baby boomers have pulled back considerably on their spending this year, but they are not alone in doing so. Gallup finds significant declines among all generations in average reported daily spending in 2009 compared to 2008. Given that consumer spending is the primary engine of the U.S. economy, it's not clear how much the economy can grow unless spending increases from its current low levels. But spending may not necessarily be the best course of action for baby boomers as they approach retirement age and prepare to rely on Social Security and their retirement savings as primary sources of income. Indeed, the two generations consisting largely of retirement-age Americans consistently show the lowest levels of reported spending.
I can add to those thoughts. Boomers and Generation X are loaded to the gills with debt. Boomers in particular are downsizing and income growth is stagnating across the board.

Moreover, boomers headed into retirement are scared half to death about insufficient funds. Those boomers are not about to go on a spending spree.

Please consider the Incredible Shrinking Boomer Economy.

Boomer Statistics

  • $400 Billion: Amount that will come out of annual U.S. consumption as thrifty boomers push savings rate from 1% to nearly 5%.

  • 47%: Boomers share of national disposable income in 2005 before the bubble burst. Boomers contributed only 7% to national savings.

  • 2.4%: Forecasted GDP growth over the next three decades as boomers ratchet back. GDP has grown 3.2% a year since 1965.

  • 69%: Portion of boomers aged 54 to 63 who are financially unprepared for retirement.

  • 78%: Boomers' share of GDP growth during the bubble years of 1995 to 2005

Those stats are from a McKinsey study, and there is nothing remotely inflationary about boomer demographics.

Nor is there anything inflationary about Generation X demographics. Generation X's have seen boomers blow it. By sharply curtailing spending, generation X at least has chance to right the ship before retirement. It's too late for most boomers. Time ran out.

Now consider generation Y with 19% of the population. Think the income levels of generation Y are going to catch boomers or generation X?

When?

Finally, think about tightening lending standards and attitudes about debt in general. Because of lower incomes and tighter lending standards, it is unlikely that Generation Y will be either able or willing to carry debt burdens to sustain a strong recovery.

Distortionary vs. Inflationary

Bernanke can flood the world with "reserves" and indeed he has. However, he cannot force banks to lend or consumers to borrow.

Here is a simple analogy that everyone should be able to understand: You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink. And if the horse does not want to drink, it was a waste of time and energy to lead the horse to the water.

Yet every day someone comes up with another convoluted theory about how inflationary this all is. It is certainly "distortionary" in that it creates problems down the road and prolongs a real recovery by keeping zombie banks alive (as happened in Japan). However, it is not (in aggregate) going to cause massive inflation because it is not spurring the creation of new debt.

Consumers and banks both are suffering from a massive hangover. Their willingness and ability to drink is gone. No matter how many pints of whiskey Bernanke sets in front of someone passed out on the floor, liquor sales will not rise.

In a debt-based economy, it is extremely difficult to produce inflation if consumers will not participate. And as noted above, demographics and attitudes strongly suggest consumers have had enough of debt and spending sprees.

Those pointing to flawed measures of money supply as proof of inflation just don't get it, and likely never will.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List

Countdown To Dollar Implosion Madness

It never ceases to amaze me what hype people will believe. The latest is a series of posts by Jim Sinclair who on August 14, started a countdown to dollar oblivion.

Aug 14 2009: The Motivation Behind The Countdown
85 days to go!

The primary reason for this �out on the limb statement� is that the recent China/US financial Summit meeting in Washington which was requested by China, was not significantly pre-planned.

As I understand it there are two things wanted and one thing disapproved of.

The US financial leadership wants, but more so needs, Chinese buying of US Treasury offerings to remain at these levels but more so to increase to offset the wholly unavoidable increase in offering of US Federal Debt.

The Chinese wish to see the USA support the creation of a Super Sovereign Currency as an offset to dependence on the dollar for international settlements and national reserves.

The Chinese rightly feel that the greatest risk to their present dollar position�s valuation is quantitative easing. or simply put, the monetization of one�s own debt by the electronic creation of money for funding yourself.

I am informed that Chinese interests want to see both in 2009.

Tools of timing, some I have not shared with you, indicate a major potential turning point that could easily see a break below .7600 or .7200 coming in the final quarter of this year.

Add this all together and you get a November bull�s eye for a loss of confidence in the US dollar internally as well as externally. That will end the misguided belief that MOPE, via its tool SPIN, defeats economic law.
An 85 day countdown to a break on the US dollar below .76 from .78 hardly seems worthy of a countdown.

And it would be nice if Sinclair told us a bit more than "I am informed that Chinese interests want to see both in 2009."

Informed by who? A top ranking official? Minnie Mouse? Uncle Joe? At least give us a hint.

OK the US and China met in an unplanned meeting. This is grounds for a "November bull�s eye" collapse on the dollar? All the way to a shocking .76?

If you are going to hype about dollar implosions, please hype with dignity. Give us our hype's worth.

Aug 19 2009: The Countdown To The Implosion Of The Dollar
My Dear Friends,

You can take your waves, percentages, algorithms, quants and quarks and throw them directly into the basket. The time for lines and squiggles are behind us. The common shares of the US dollar are and have been in a long term downtrend. That downtrend is 81 days from implosion. The selling of the US dollar and US dollar instruments is increasing in international markets, making it ever more difficult to manipulate the popular US dollar index, the USDX.

COT has cooked its own goose.

China holds in its hands the future of the category, �Foreign Purchasers of US bonds.�

China wishes the annihilation of the Fed policy of �Quantitative Easing.�

The Fed wishes to accommodate China.

The US Treasury is absolutely opposed to any such consideration as it would cement the present Administration into a one term wonder.

The US Treasury must win this battle because the boss of this opposition has the power to appoint the new Chairman of the Fed, either Summers or Geithner.

China as spokesman for the BRICs has publicly stated their desire for the institutions of a Super Sovereign Currency. This is not an intended as an immediate substitute for the dollar as a reserve currency but rather an alternative in new commitments.

It is my understanding that the BRIC countries, not China alone, have given the US until early November to deliver.

As a result of the above I see 81 days left for the US dollar.

The gold price has but one criteria and that is the US dollar. Armstrong and Alf are correct on the levels awaiting the gold price.

I know $1224 and $1650 are certain.
Once again inquiring minds must ask the obvious "understanding from who?"

The odds that the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China) got together and gave the US an ultimatum on anything for November are none and none.

By the way, can I have a timeframe on that $1650 please? Is that also November?

Foreign Purchases and Sales of Long-Term Domestic and Foreign Securities by Type

Sinclair posted the following chart with this comment:

"I Find this simple chart so ominous I had to send it. Decelerating year-over-year inflows and outflows across the board. Stick your head in the sand if you like, but string this trend out a little longer and you�re going to have flight from the dollar."



click on chart for sharper image

Basic Math

That chart may look ominous but in fact it is returning to normalcy.

The amount of US securities foreign countries buy is directly related to the trade deficit as shown in the following chart.

US Trade Surplus vs. GDP




click on chart for sharper image

The above chart from New York Times, A Shrinking Trade Deficit, at Least for Now, May 1, 2009.

The trade balance has shrunk again and is now sitting at -27 billion as the following chart of U.S. International Trade in Goods and Services shows.



A year or so ago the US trade deficit was a whopping $77 billion. It has since shrunk to $27 billion. The chart shows exports have shrunk, but imports shrunk faster as the US consumer threw in the towel.

If the price of oil drops again, as I expect it will, the trade deficit is likely to shrink more, which would be US$ friendly.

Households Start to Rival the Chinese in Treasury Market

Inquiring minds are reading the Wall Street Journal Article Households Start to Rival the Chinese in Treasury Market.
China is center stage when it comes to fears that buyers will one day spurn U.S. Treasurys. The bond market has been the source of much political theater between the U.S. and China in recent months, with Chinese officials passing up few chances to lecture the U.S. on its profligacy.

But that has obscured an important change: The market for Treasury bonds is now more reliant on U.S. buyers -- including the Federal Reserve after its recent buying spree -- than the Chinese.

China held $801.5 billion in Treasury debt at the end of May. The Fed at that time held about $598 billion, although that has now risen to $704 billion. The latest figures for U.S. households, from the first quarter, showed holdings of $643.9 billion -- more than double the $266.6 billion in the fourth quarter of 2008.

The rising budget deficit, which has led to record issuance in recent months, doesn't necessarily mean the government is becoming more indebted to foreigners. While the U.S. government is borrowing furiously, the current account deficit has actually halved from an annualized $829 billion in mid-2005 to an annualized $409.5 billion in the first quarter of 2009. That shows the U.S. is now less dependent on external financing, because it is saving more domestically. The U.S. government may be in hock, but it is increasingly to its own citizens.
US doesn�t need foreigners to finance the US fiscal deficit

For those interested in China, I have a recommendation: The best financial blog on China, bar none, is Michael Pettis' China Financial Markets.

It has been banned in China. So has my blog.

Pettis posts infrequently but his latest happens to be on this subject. Please consider The USG doesn�t need foreigners to finance the US fiscal deficit? Who knew?

In referring to the Wall Street Journal article above Pettis says...
This shouldn�t be a surprise. The reason for the growing US fiscal deficit is to slow the economic impact of a rise in US household and corporate savings. This means that the period in which very high Asian savings were matched by very low US household savings is changing to one in which the pressures to save in Asia remain while US households are increasing their savings (or reducing their borrowing, which amounts to almost the same thing). The pool from which the US Treasury can borrow is increasing, not decreasing.

In addition, as the US current account deficit drops, foreign net purchases of dollar assets must also drop. The rising US fiscal deficit will increasingly be financed by Americans and less and less by foreigners, and the much-decried impact on US interest rates of the massive US borrowing turns out to be very small.

Although there are plenty of good reasons for China to worry about the value of its dollar holdings, and I hope many people, not just the Chinese, are looking warily at growing US fiscal deficits and making disapproving noises, the fact is that there is little China can do about its dollar holdings without either causing a damaging rise in trade tensions with Europe (or any other country whose currency is an alternative to the dollar) or causing a collapse in its export industry. As long as China�s trade surplus directly or indirectly is connected to the US trade deficit, China will have to recycle the surplus into the dollar pool that ultimately funds the US fiscal deficit, and it is in the best interest of the US that the US trade deficit decline smoothly, which means that it is also in the best interest of the US that foreigners, including the Chinese, buy fewer US dollar assets.

What is confusing is the conflict between China�s natural position and its stated position. Rather than demand reassurance that the US will control its fiscal spending, China should be secretly hoping that the US fiscal deficit will mushroom. It is after all largely the size of the US fiscal deficit that will determine the speed with which US imports and the US trade deficit contract, and it is in China�s best interest that these contract very slowly.
Pent Up Demand For Treasuries

In regards to the savings rate and US Treasuries, I have been saying the same things as Pettis for quite some time.

Flashback January 20, 2008: Time To Short Treasuries?
Kass: Central banks are diversifying away from U.S. government bonds. With the creation and proliferation of sovereign wealth funds, a growing portion of central bank reserves are being invested in non-bond assets. So, over time, central banks (especially of an Asian kind) could be lowering their U.S. bond purchases.

Mish: China is diversifying away from U.S. government bonds right now. It did not stop treasuries from rallying. Furthermore, the pent up demand for treasuries in the US is enormous. They are despised by nearly everyone here. This internal pent up demand can easily pick up any slack from reduced purchases by foreigners. 2.5% yields may looks measly, but not vs. 15% declines in the stock market. 30%? 50%? Most are severely underestimating the potential for enormous stock market declines here.

Virtually no one, including Bernanke thinks deflation can happen in the US. My position is that Things That "Can't" Happen are about to. The result will be Deflation American Style.
Predictably Wrong

Maybe something happens in November, maybe not, but this dollar implosion countdown based on unnamed sources regarding impossible to believe demands and a trade chart interpreted assbackwards is more than just a bit silly. Yet, every day someone asks me about it, thus this reply.

The thing about these kind of predictions is how predictably wrong they have all been.

Based on interpretations of the Commitment of Traders Reports (COT) we have see a couple countdowns to running out of gold and or silver on COMEX by various people. Those never happened. We have seen "gold to the moon" hyperinflation calls based on backwardation. Those never happened, either.

There is also a bunch of hype going around right now about bank holidays and a devaluation of the dollar vs. all major currencies coming up this Autumn. The across the board dollar devaluation idea is potty because the US dollar floats. There is nothing to devalue it to. And even if there was, Europe and Japan do not want stronger currencies and would not go along. For that matter the US would not want to do it either fearing a market crash. Yet, the theories persist.

If something does happen in November, it will not be because some blogger knows something. It will be happenstance.

But for those counting, it's about 70 days. I can hardly wait.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List

Sunday, 30 August 2009

What Barney Frank Really Said About Ron Paul's HR1207

On Friday, I stated Barney Frank Says Ron Paul's Audit The Fed Bill Will Pass In October.

Quite a few others made the same mistake as noted by RonPaul.Com in Misinformation Alert: Barney Frank Never Said That HR 1207 Will Pass In October.
Several blogs and forums reported during the past 24 hours that Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Barney Frank, said that Ron Paul�s bill to audit the Federal Reserve, HR 1207, will pass in October.

Incorrect Reports about Barney Frank�s Statement on HR 1207

* Washington Times: Barney Frank says Ron Paul bill will pass
* Politico: Barney: Fed audit bill will pass in October
* Business Insider: Barney Frank: Yes, We Will Pass Ron Paul�s �Audit The Fed� Bill
* United Liberty: Frank: Vote on HR 1207 in October
* Daily Paul: Video: Barney Frank Says House Will Pass HR1207 in October
* ZeroHedge: Barney Frank Says The House Will Pass HR 1207 In October
* Mish: Barney Frank Says Ron Paul�s Audit The Fed Bill Will Pass In October
* Washington Independent: Ron Paul�s �Audit the Fed� Bill to Get October Vote?
RonPaul.Com notes a key sentence was missing from the end of the transcript. Indeed there was.

The sentence, �That will be part of the overall federal regulation that we are redacting,� is for some reason missing from the widely distributed transcript, and has therefore been completely ignored by bloggers and commentators.

The article attributed the error to the Washington Times.

The incorrect transcription was mine, not the Washington Times'. I transcribed that on the road, in a quite noisy place and Barney Frank mumbles.

There were many sentences I played over and over and over attempting to understand his mumbling. I easily spent 30 minutes playing and replaying a 3-minute video. I could not make out that second to last sentence, at least the last word "redacting". Moreover, I am not the only one who could not figure out "redacting" either.

Calculated Risk missed it as well (now corrected on his blog). However, I should have handled it the way Calculated Risk did initially: Put in the sentence leaving out unintelligible words and placing an interpretation or [unintelligible] in brackets. I was concentrating so much on figuring out the word, that I missed the context of the sentence. At any rate, that is how the sentence was dropped.

The concern now is that Barney Frank intends to put together some legislation, possibly containing dramatically watered down or altered language from Ron Paul's legislation.

In theory "the overall federal regulation" of which Barney Frank speaks could contain everything in Ron Paul's bill. However, many are fearful of something watered down, and rightfully so.

Amanda Carpenter at The Washington Times (see Barney Frank says Ron Paul bill will pass) is guilty of lifting my transcript, word for word including several typos such as "power to go consumer protection" which should read "power to do consumer protection". I also said, "Federal Reserve buys itself" which should have been "Federal Reserve buys and sells".

Carpenter said "Below is a complete transcript of Mr. Frank's remarks concerning the bill." That is clearly a falsehood.

Opportunity Knocks

Whether or not you are in Barney Franks district, please call Barney Frank at

DC Phone: 202-225-5931
DC Fax: 202-225-0182

In your own words ....

Tell Barney Frank you heard his latest Town Hall video and you are not interested in some watered down version of Ron Paul's HR 1207 legislation. Mention that you want HR 1207 passed as is, stand-alone.

Whether Frank is your Rep or not, please call Barney Frank today. Then call again tomorrow and for good measure once later in the week.

Put the pressure on. Opportunity is knocking.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List

Mish Videos - On the Edge with Max Keiser

On August 23 I was On the Edge with Max Keiser in a pair of videos discussing deflation and the state of the US economy.

Part One



Part Two



Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List

Survival Of The Biggest

On account of Fed sponsorship, Banks 'Too Big to Fail' Have Grown Even Bigger.
When the credit crisis struck last year, federal regulators pumped tens of billions of dollars into the nation's leading financial institutions because the banks were so big that officials feared their failure would ruin the entire financial system.

Today, the biggest of those banks are even bigger.



J.P. Morgan Chase, an amalgam of some of Wall Street's most storied institutions, now holds more than $1 of every $10 on deposit in this country. So does Bank of America, scarred by its acquisition of Merrill Lynch and partly government-owned as a result of the crisis, as does Wells Fargo, the biggest West Coast bank. Those three banks, plus government-rescued and -owned Citigroup, now issue one of every two mortgages and about two of every three credit cards, federal data show.

"It is at the top of the list of things that need to be fixed," said Sheila C. Bair, chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. "It fed the crisis, and it has gotten worse because of the crisis."

Fresh data from the FDIC show that big banks have the ability to borrow more cheaply than their peers because creditors assume these large companies are not at risk of failing. That imbalance could eventually squeeze out smaller competitors. Already, consumers are seeing fewer choices and higher prices for financial services, some senior government officials warn.

Officials waived long-standing regulations to make the deals work. J.P. Morgan Chase, Bank of America and Wells Fargo were each allowed to hold more than 10 percent of the nation's deposits despite a rule barring such a practice. In several metropolitan regions, these banks were permitted to take market share beyond what the Department of Justice's antitrust guidelines typically allow, Federal Reserve documents show.

"There's been a significant consolidation among the big banks, and it's kind of hollowing out the banking system," said Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Economy.com. "You'll be left with very large institutions and small ones that fill in the cracks. But it'll be difficult for the mid-tier institutions to thrive."

"The oligopoly has tightened," he added.

Last October, when the Fed was arranging the merger between Wells Fargo and Wachovia, it identified six other metropolitan regions in which the combined company would either exceed the Justice Department's antitrust guidelines or hold more than a third of an area's deposits. But the central bank thought local competition in each of those places was sufficient to allow the merger to go through, documents show.

Camden Fine, president of the Independent Community Bankers of America, said those comments reveal the government's preferential treatment of big banks. He doubted whether the Fed would approve the merger of community banks if the combined company ended up controlling more a third of the market.

"To favor one class of financial institutions over another class skews the market. You don't have a free market; you have a government-favored market," he said. "We will never have free markets again if you have the government picking winners and losers."
At times Shelia Bair seems to have a clue, other times not. Judging from her comment on too big to fail: "It fed the crisis, and it has gotten worse because of the crisis", she once again shows signs of intelligent thought.

There's lots more to see in the article including a link to charts showing Residential Mortgage and Bank Deposit Market Share.

For more on how too big to fail is creating winners and loses, please see Tale of Two Economies.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List

Saturday, 29 August 2009

Tale of Two Economies

How well corporations have fared in the recovery depends largely on two factors.

1) How much cash on hand they had and how conservative they were heading into the recession

2) How much Uncle Sam (taxpayers) bailed them out

The Wall Street Journal has the story in Halting Recovery Divides America in Two.
The U.S. recovery is a tale of two economies.

At one extreme of Corporate America is a cadre of companies and banks, mostly big, united by an enviable access to credit. At the other end are firms, chiefly small, with slumping sales that can't borrow or are facing stiff terms to do so.

On Main Street, there are consumers with rock-solid jobs -- but also legions of debt-strapped individuals struggling to keep their noses above water.

This split helps explain the patchiness of the recovery that appears to be taking hold after the worst recession in a half-century.

The split between companies that can borrow and those that can't shows the extent to which any recovery depends on reviving the nation's ailing banks and squeamish credit markets. Until that happens, the vigor of the economy will remain in doubt.

"If you're not making money, you need to borrow money," says John Graham, a finance professor at Duke University's Fuqua School of Business. But "you need to be creditworthy in order to borrow, and if you're not making money, you're creditworthiness isn't very strong."

Mr. Graham, who oversees a quarterly survey of CFOs, says more companies are doing better than they were a few months ago. Still, he estimates, one in four is in "dire straights due to lack of profits combined with not being able to borrow."

Companies big enough to bypass banks and go directly to capital markets are finding a warmer reception. That's because the markets are showing more willingness to make risky loans: In January, only eight of the 56 companies that sold bonds were rated below-investment-grade, or "junk," according to Dealogic. In August, by contrast, 24 of the 60 deals had junk ratings.

Since the start of the year, companies have been increasingly turning to the bond markets to raise money. Through August thus far, companies have issued $395.4 billion in bonds over 512 deals, according to Dealogic, a healthy increase from the second half of last year when the markets went months with fewer offerings and less than a handful of junk bond deals.



In the business of finance itself, a divide between early winners and others appears to be opening up as well. Many of the nation's biggest financial institutions, benefiting from federal-government backing, have been able to raise equity and debt from private investors. Some large money-management companies such as BlackRock Inc. are profiting by helping the Treasury with the clean-up from the burst bubble.

Some of the nation's largest banks could, in fact, emerge from the crisis stronger than they entered it. While they have suffered huge losses on complex financial products, and are still facing mounting loan defaults, they were stabilized with tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer money. In the second quarter, the seven largest commercial banks earned more than $14 billion, even as thousands of smaller banks were in the red.

Big lenders are currently enjoying an advantage in their "cost of funds" -- the raw material of a bank, which is in the business of borrowing cheaply and lending at a higher rate. The handful of banks with more than $10 billion in assets were paying 1.18% to borrow money in the second quarter, the FDIC said in data issued Thursday. By contrast, banks with $100 million and $1 billion in assets were paying 1.97%, a big difference in a business where tenths of a percentage point translates into millions of dollars in profits.

As of June 30 the three largest banks -- Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and J.P.Morgan -- collectively had $2.3 trillion in domestic deposits, or 31% of the industry total, according to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Two years earlier, the top three had only 20% of the industry total.
There is much more in the article including some winners and losers. Panera Bread, having no debt is a winner. Panera franchisees have a tougher go.

And the biggest of big banks, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and J.P.Morgan appear to be doing well thanks to bailouts and low costs of funds. Because those banks are regarded as "well capitalized" they pay a smaller insurance rate to the FDIC. "Regarded" is the key word. They can continue to be regarded as "well capitalized" but commercial real estate loans, credit card defaults, and pay option ARMs problems are the 800 pound gorillas in the room.

When it comes to deposits, the big got bigger. Too big to fail is now "Too Bigger To Fail".

However, as long as the corporate bond market holds together, equities will fetch a bid. How much longer that can last is anyone's guess. I suspect not much longer. The pool of greater fools is not unlimited.

In the meantime ponder the key sentence in the article by Mr. Graham, who oversees a quarterly survey of CFOs "one in four [businesses] is in dire straits due to lack of profits combined with not being able to borrow."

That is in addition to: Greater Than One in Four FDIC Insured Institutions are Unprofitable; Bank Problem List at 15 Year High.

The best all this world record stimulus could do is create a bifurcated economy leaving one in four businesses and banks on the brink of disaster. Meanwhile there is no recovery in jobs, and no relief for cash strapped consumers.

In due time this "recovery" is going to start flying apart.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List

Paul Krugman: "Deficits Saved The World"

Dateline August 27, 2009
Paul Krugman: "Deficits Saved The World"

Inquiring minds are reading Till Debt Does Its Part
So new budget projections show a cumulative deficit of $9 trillion over the next decade. According to many commentators, that�s a terrifying number, requiring drastic action � in particular, of course, canceling efforts to boost the economy and calling off health care reform.

The truth is more complicated and less frightening. Right now deficits are actually helping the economy. In fact, deficits here and in other major economies saved the world from a much deeper slump. The longer-term outlook is worrying, but it�s not catastrophic.

If governments had raised taxes or slashed spending in the face of the slump, if they had refused to rescue distressed financial institutions, we could all too easily have seen a full replay of the Great Depression.

As I said, deficits saved the world.

In fact, we would be better off if governments were willing to run even larger deficits over the next year or two. The official White House forecast shows a nation stuck in purgatory for a prolonged period, with high unemployment persisting for years. If that�s at all correct � and I fear that it will be � we should be doing more, not less, to support the economy.

But what about all that debt we�re incurring? That�s a bad thing, but it�s important to have some perspective. Economists normally assess the sustainability of debt by looking at the ratio of debt to G.D.P. And while $9 trillion is a huge sum, we also have a huge economy, which means that things aren�t as scary as you might think. ....
Dateline November 3, 2004
Paul Krugman: "[The Budget Deficit] is comparable to the worst we've ever seen in this country. It's bigge[r] than Argentina in 2001."

Inquiring minds are reading Krugman calls on Bush to reign in the red.
TONY JONES: Well, the US is not just labouring under a record trade deficit, there are warnings tonight that its budget deficit could precipitate a Latin American style financial crisis.

Influential economist Paul Krugman says the US will face a severe downturn before the end of the decade unless the $500 billion fiscal debt is rectified.

In his latest book, The Great Unravelling, the Princeton University economist is calling on President Bush to abandon his program of trillion dollar tax cuts, otherwise, he claims, there may not be enough funds to pay for the waves of baby boomers who will soon retire.

I spoke to Paul Krugman a short time ago.

TONY JONES: Paul Krugman, history proved your predictions right over the Asian financial crisis.

You're now warning essentially that the engine of the world economy, the United States itself, is heading for a South American style financial crisis.

What's the evidence for that?

PROFESSOR PAUL KRUGMAN, PRINCETON ECONOMIST: Well, basically we have a world-class budget deficit not just as in absolute terms of course - it's the biggest budget deficit in the history of the world - but it's a budget deficit that as a share of GDP is right up there.

It's comparable to the worst we've ever seen in this country.

It's biggest than Argentina in 2001.

....

TONY JONES: It's a bit more than arithmetic though, isn't it?

Would you agree with the proposition that you're slowly transforming yourself, in a way, from a pure economist into also something of a political activist?

PROFESSOR PAUL KRUGMAN: Well, yeah, I mean, it's not what I intended. But I came in writing as a journalist, writing occasional columns in the 90s, mostly about economical fears with a political tinge.

I came to the New York Times intending to do pretty much the same thing.

But then it became clear very early on that the President of the United States was irresponsible and dishonest on matters economic and it turned out that what I learned there was true of other kind of policies as well.

So, I was forced, if you like, just by the arithmetic of understanding how the budget works into a much broader critique of this really kind of scary thing that's happening to my country.
Q. What's different?

A: Politics: a democrat ultra-liberal is in the White House.

Krugman is not only a Keynesian Clown, but a hypocrite.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List

Friday, 28 August 2009

Whirlpool Plant in Evansville, Ind. Shuts Down, Taking 1,100 Jobs to Mexico

Evansville, Indiana continues to suffer from jobs and population flight. It's population was 121,582 in 2000, falling to 113,627 in 2006.

Tonight Evansville is taking another hit as Whirlpool to shut Indiana plant, cut 1,100 jobs.
Whirlpool Corp. announced Friday it will close its Evansville, Ind., factory next year, moving the plant's production of top-freezer refrigerators to a facility in Mexico.

Citing the need to trim manufacturing capacity, Whirlpool said the mid-2010 plant closure will eliminate 1,100 full-time jobs.

Whirlpool (WHR) , like most manufacturers, has seen its sales slump over the past year as a global economic recession and housing market slump hurt demand for home appliances. Whirlpool's latest revenue numbers show sales in the second quarter fell 18% to $4.17 billion from the second quarter of 2008.

Closing the Evansville plant is part of Whirlpool's ongoing drive to consolidate its North American manufacturing operations.

The company said it is also considering relocating its Evansville refrigeration product development center, a move that would affect another 300 jobs. "A decision is expected in the near future," the company said.

"This was a difficult but necessary decision," Al Holaday, Whirlpool vice president of North American manufacturing operations said in a statement.

"To reduce excess capacity and improve costs the decision was made to consolidate production within out existing North American manufacturing facilities. This will allow us to streamline our operations, improve our capacity utilization, reduce product overlap between plants, and meet future production requirements," he added.

Whirlpool has been busy downsizing its operations for several years. Last fall it announced plans to ax about 5,000 jobs, or 7% of its workforce, by the end of 2009. The cuts include 500 salaried positions in North America and another 1,900 jobs abroad, mostly in Europe.
Evansville, Indiana Demographics



Demographics from MuniNet Guide.

This is a huge loss for a relatively small town far from major population centers. 1,100 jobs (more likely 1,400 if the refrigeration unit goes as well) will not easily be replaced.

At least those employees have a year to prepare.

Consolidation is a One-Way Street

Consolidation is a one way street with a fork in the road. One fork heads to Mexico, the other to India or China. No consolidation roads lead to the US.

Outsourcing and global wage arbitrage are major deflationary forces that have still not finished playing out.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List

Greater Than One in Four FDIC Insured Institutions are Unprofitable; Bank Problem List at 15 Year High

The second quarter 2009 Quarterly Banking Profile has some interesting charts and facts that inquiring minds will be interested in.
Insured Institution Performance

  • Higher Loss Provisions Lead to a $3.7 Billion Net Loss
  • More Than One in Four Institutions Are Unprofitable
  • Charge-Offs and Noncurrent Loans Continue to Rise
  • Net Interest Margins Show Modest Improvement
  • Industry Assets Decline by $238 Billion
  • The Industry Posts a Net Loss for the Quarter

The Industry Posts a Net Loss for the Quarter

Burdened by costs associated with rising levels of troubled loans and falling asset values, FDIC-insured commercial banks and savings institutions reported an aggregate net loss of $3.7 billion in the second quarter of 2009. Increased expenses for bad loans were chiefly responsible for the industry�s loss. Insured institutions added $66.9 billion in loan-loss provisions to their reserves during the quarter, an increase of $16.5 billion (32.8 percent) compared to the second quarter of 2008. Quarterly earnings were also adversely affected by writedowns of asset-backed commercial paper, and by higher assessments for deposit insurance.

Almost two out of every three institutions (64.4 percent) reported lower quarterly earnings than a year ago, and more than one in four (28.3 percent) reported a net loss for the quarter. A year ago, the industry reported a quarterly profit of $4.7 billion, and fewer than one in five institutions (18 percent) were unprofitable. The average return on assets (ROA) was -0.11 percent, compared to 0.14 percent in the second quarter of 2008.

Net Charge-Off Rate Sets a Quarterly Record

Net charge-offs continued to rise, propelling the quarterly net charge-off rate to a record high. Insured institutions charged-off $48.9 billion in the second quarter, compared to $26.4 billion a year earlier. The annualized net charge-off rate in the second quarter was 2.55 percent, eclipsing the previous quarterly record of 1.95 percent reached in the fourth quarter of 2008.

The $22.5 billion (85.3 percent) year-over-year increase in net charge-offs was led by loans to commercial and industrial (C&I) borrowers, which increased by $5.3 billion (165.0 percent). Net charge-offs of credit card loans were $4.6 billion (84.5 percent) higher than a year earlier, and the annualized net charge-off rate on credit card loans reached a record 9.95 percent in the second quarter. Net charge-offs of real estate construction and development loans were up by $4.2 billion (117.0 percent), and charge-offs of loans secured by 1-4 family residential properties were $4.0 billion (41.1 percent) higher than a year ago.

Noncurrent Loan Rate Rises to Record Level

The amount of loans and leases that were noncurrent (90 days or more past due or in nonaccrual status)increased for a 13th consecutive quarter, and the percentage of total loans and leases that were noncurrent reached a new record.

Institutions Continue to Add to Reserves

The industry�s reserves for loan losses increased by $16.8 billion (8.6 percent) during the second quarter, as loss provisions of $66.9 billion exceeded net charge-offs of $48.9 billion. The ratio of reserves to total loans and leases set another new record, rising from 2.51 percent to 2.77 percent. However, the pace of reserve building fell short of the rise in noncurrent loans, and the industry�s ratio of reserves to noncurrent loans fell from 66.8 percent to 63.5 percent, the lowest level since the third quarter of 1991.

�Problem List� Expands to 15-Year High

The number of insured commercial banks and savings institutions reporting financial results fell to 8,195 in the quarter, down from 8,247 reporters in the first quarter. Thirty-nine institutions were merged into other institutions during the quarter, twenty-four institutions failed, and there were twelve new charters added.

During the quarter, the number of institutions on the FDIC�s �Problem List� increased from 305 to 416, and the combined assets of �problem� institutions rose from $220.0 billion to $299.8 billion. This is the largest number of �problem� institutions since June 30, 1994, and the largest amount of assets on the list since December 31, 1993.
FDIC Problem Institutions At 15 Year High


click on any chart for sharper image

Troubled Loans Still Growing But At Slower Pace




Provision Expenses As Percent Of Operating Revenue



Noncurrent Loan Growth Outpaces Reserve Growth


Fed Fails To Recapitalize Banks

In spite of mammoth injections of cash by the Fed, huge efforts by banks to raise capital, a Fed swap-o-rama of biblical proportions, monetary printing by the Fed, and capital injections from the Treasury, and a massive 50% stock market rally, noncurrent loan growth still outpaces reserve growth.

Excess Reserves Revisited

Let's review Creative Destruction

Reluctance to lend can easily be seen in a chart of bank reserves.

Excess Reserves of Depository Institutions



Conventional wisdom regarding money supply suggests there is massive pent up inflation in the works as a result of the buildup of excess reserves. The rationale is that 10 times those excess reserves (via fractional reserve lending) will soon be working its way into the economy causing huge price spikes, a collapse in the US dollar, and possibly even hyperinflation.

The reality is excessive debt and falling asset prices have rendered the best efforts of the Fed impotent.

Banks are not well capitalized, they are insolvent, unwilling and unable to lend.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List

Barney Frank Says Ron Paul's Audit The Fed Bill Will Pass In October

Occasionally, even the most hopeless of politicians get something right. Here is stunning proof:



Barney Frank:
I have been pushing for more openness from the Fed. I want to restrict the powers of the Federal Reserve. First of all, the Fed will be the major losers of power if we are successful, as I believe we will be, setting up a financial product protection commission.

The Federal Reserve is now charged with protecting consumers. They were supposed to do subprime mortgage restrictions.

Congress in 1994 gave the Fed powers to ban subprime mortgages. Alan Greenspan refused to do it. They had the power to ban credit card abuses. Under Greenspan they did nothing. Under Bernanke they started but only after Congress acted.

That's one of the reasons why in the new consumer protection agency, we will take away from the Federal reserve the power to go consumer protection.

Secondly, they have has since 1932 a right under Herbert Hoover to intervene in the economy whenever they could. Last September, the Federal Reserve they were going to advance $82 billion to AIG.

I was kind of surprised and said Mr Bernanke do you have $82 billion? Mr. Bernanke replied I have $800 billion and under section 13.3 of the Federal Reserve Act they can lend anything they want.

We are going to curtail that lending power. We are going to put some restrictions on it.

Finally we will subject them to a complete audit. I have been working with Ron Paul, who is the main sponsor of that bill. He agrees that we don't want to have the audit appear as if influences monetary policy as that would be inflationary.

One of the things the audit will show you is what the Federal Reserve buys itself. And that will be made public, but not instantly because if it was made instantly people would be trading off it, so the data would be released after a time period of several months, enough time so it will not be market sensitive.

This will probably pass in October.
This is clearly not perfect. However, it is a step in the right direction. The only reason it it may happen is people are overwhelmingly in support of it. Change is possible, over time, at least occasionally, if public opinion is solidly behind something.

If you have not yet done so, or even if you have (please do it again) Speak Out - Audit the Fed, Then End It!

Important Addendum:

Barney Frank did not quite say that "HR 1207 Will Pass In October". A key sentence was missing.

Please see What Barney Frank Really Said About Ron Paul's HR1207 for complete details.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List

Thursday, 27 August 2009

California State Income Taxes Rise Because Of Deflation; Federal Status In Question

California state income taxes are indexed to the CPI. As a result of the the recent unprecedented drop in the CPI, taxes are going up.

Please consider State taxes going up because of deflation.
California taxpayers just got hit with another increase in state income taxes, and it didn't require a vote from a single legislator.

The culprit: deflation.

In 1982, California voters approved a proposition that indexed state income tax rates to inflation. So each year, the California Franchise Tax Board adjusts tax brackets and certain deductions and credits for inflation. The annual adjustment is tied to the California Consumer Price Index, and it usually goes up. Indexing is designed to prevent people from paying higher taxes as their incomes rise proportionately with inflation. But when inflation turns negative, indexing works in reverse. Tax brackets and credits are adjusted downward. If your income remains the same, the result is a tax increase.

The Franchise Tax Board has just released adjustments for 2009, and for the first time since 1983 they are down, reflecting a 1.5 percent drop in the California Consumer Price Index between June 2008 and June 2009.

Proposition 13 limited the annual increase to 2 percent but didn't say exactly what would happen if there was deflation. The California Board of Equalization expects to announce next week whether property taxes will go down next year if the CPI is negative.

Some seniors are complaining because they probably won't get an increase in Social Security benefits next year because of deflation. Benefits are indexed each year to inflation, but by law can never go down.

Federal taxes also are indexed to inflation. Adjustments for 2009 were announced in October and were based on the change in U.S. CPI for the 12 months that ended Aug. 31, 2008. Inflation during that period was positive, so adjustments were up. It's not clear what will happen in 2010 if inflation for the 12 months ending in August is negative.

"It's likely it would be down about 1.7 percent," says Mark Luscombe, principal tax analyst with publishing company CCH. Technically, the IRS could adjust brackets down, "but there is speculation the IRS might have enough wiggle room to leave it the same," thus preventing a tax increase.

"The IRS is aware of the issue, but we are not speculating at this time," says IRS spokesman Jesse Weller.
I have the CPI at negative 6.2%, but the official CPI is -2.1%. Please see What's the Real CPI? for details.

Given that -2.1% is the largest drop since the 1950's, I do no see what "wiggle room" Mark Luscombe is talking about. Nonetheless, the IRS "refuses to speculate".

Technically there is nothing to speculate about. With a month to go, it is a certainty the CPI will be negative year over year.

Politically
is another matter. Obama will not want to raise taxes on the lower and middle classes, even by a slight amount. It will be interesting to see what magic the Administration comes up with.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List

Fed's Dual Mandate Is Mission Impossible

While market participants are giddy with thoughts of a V-Shaped Recovery, and Bernanke is taking victory laps celebrating Orwellian Madness "We Saved The World" other members of the Fed are a bit more realistic.

For example, Fed's Lockhart sees protracted high unemployment.
"My forecast envisions a return to positive but subdued gross domestic product growth over the medium term weighed down by significant adjustments to our economy," Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta President Dennis Lockhart said in prepared remarks.

"My forecast for a slow recovery implies a protracted period of high unemployment," said Lockhart, a voting member of the Fed's policy-setting committee this year.

"The challenge my colleagues and I face is navigating between the risk that early removal of monetary stimulus snuffs out the recovery and the risk that protracted monetary accommodation stokes inflation expectations that could ultimately fuel unwelcome inflationary pressures," he said.

"The Fed must deal with this tension, particularly in coming quarters, as we pursue our dual mandate of price stability and maximum employment," Lockhart added.
Dual Mandate Equals Mission Impossible

Here's the deal.

1. The Fed can control money supply but it will have no control over interest rates (or anything else).

2. The Fed can control short-term interest rates, but then it would have no control over money supply (or anything else).

That is the full and complete extent of the Fed's "control". Note that neither price stability nor unemployment is in either equation. The reason is the Fed controls neither.

Sure, the Fed can increase money supply but all those who thought it would necessarily cause prices to rise sure got it wrong.

The CPI is now a negative 2.1% year over year and my preferred measure called Case-Shiller CPI is running at negative 6.2% year over year. Please see What's the Real CPI? for details.

The simple truth of the matter is the Fed can print money, but it cannot control where it goes, or even if it goes anywhere at all. Indeed the Fed can encourage but not force banks to lend, and encourage but not force consumers to borrow.

The result of all the recent Fed printing is a big yawn, otherwise known as excessive reserves as the following chart shows.

Excess Reserves of Depository Institutions



Does that chart look like the Fed is in control? If so, control of what?

Bear in mind that those excess reserves are a mirage. They do not really exist. Pending writeoffs in foreclosures, bankruptcies, credit cards, and especially commercial real estate will eat up those reserves and then some.

Although the Fed's "Dual Mandate" is complete nonsense, I do agree with Lockhart on one key point: The US economy will suffer with Structurally High Unemployment For A Decade.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List

Landlord From NYC Chimes In On Falling Rents

In response to NYC Apartment Rents Drop 7-10 Percent, National Vacancies Highest in 22 Years I received an interesting Email from a landlord in NYC about how much rents are really falling. JAL Responds:
Hi Mish,

I'm a landlord here in NYC (as well as an avid reader of your blog) and I actually feel the 7-10% drop mentioned in the article understates the case somewhat. First off, many landlords in order to keep their rent rolls higher (possibly for mortgage purposes) will give incentives such as the free month mentioned in the article quoted, but this lowers the effective rent by 8.5% in itself. (Needless to say, those incentives are not mentioned to potential lenders, it's the civilian equivalent of "don't ask, don't tell".) In addition they also have to reduce the asking price to get that apartment rented which is why the 7-10% drop is a bit dubious.

Based on what I'm experiencing, I'd say that rents are down 10 to perhaps as high as 20% from their peaks. Keep in mind that rent stabilization and rent control the two programs we have in place on Moscow by the Hudson, distort the figures somewhat as tenants who have been in an apartment for many years may have still-below market rents and those will continue to climb but obviously that shouldn't be taken as evidence that rents are firm.

JAL
New York, NY
Thanks JAL

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List

Creative Destruction

Van Hoisington and Lacy Hunt have figured out what few others have, that excessive debt and falling asset prices have conspired to render the best efforts of the Fed impotent.

Please consider the Hoisington Second Quarter 2009 Outlook.
One of the more common beliefs about the operation of the U.S. economy is that a massive increase in the Fed�s balance sheet will automatically lead to a quick and substantial rise in inflation. [However] An inflationary surge of this type must work either through the banking system or through non-bank institutions that act like banks which are often called �shadow banks�. The process toward inflation in both cases is a necessary increasing cycle of borrowing and lending. As of today, that private market mechanism has been acting as a brake on the normal functioning of the monetary engine.

For example, total commercial bank loans have declined over the past 1, 3, 6, and 9 month intervals. Also, recent readings on bank credit plus commercial paper have registered record rates of decline. The FDIC has closed a record 52 banks thus far this year, and numerous other banks are on life support. The �shadow banks� are in even worse shape. Over 300 mortgage entities have failed, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are in federal receivership. Foreclosures and delinquencies on mortgages are continuing to rise, indicating that the banks and their non-bank competitors face additional pressures to re-trench, not expand. Thus far in this unusual business cycle, excessive debt and falling asset prices have conspired to render the best efforts of the Fed impotent.
With that, we can safely add Hoisington to the small group of people who understand that Belief In Wizards Is Misguided. Continuing with a discussion from Hoisington:

The Complex Monetary Chain
The link between Fed actions and the economy is far more indirect and complex than the simple conclusion that Federal asset growth equals inflation. The price level and, in fact, real GDP are determined by the intersection of the aggregate demand (AD) and aggregate supply (AS) curves. Or, in economic parlance, for an increase in the Fed�s balance sheet to boost the price level, the following conditions must be met:

1) The money multiplier must be flat or rising;
2) The velocity of money must be flat or rising; and
3) The AS or supply curve must be upward sloping.

The economy and price changes are moving downward because none of these conditions are currently being met; nor, in our judgment, are they likely to be met in the foreseeable future.
Note that lower velocity does not cause anything to happen. Lower velocity is a result of increasing demand for money (i.e. a reluctance by consumers to borrow, and banks to lend).

Reluctance to lend can easily be seen in a chart of bank reserves.

Excess Reserves of Depository Institutions



With reserves rising the following chart should not be so surprising.

M1 Money Multiplier



The M1 multiplier is the ratio of M1 to the St. Louis Adjusted Monetary Base. Please see Money Multipliers, Velocity, and Excess Reserves for more on these phenomena.

Money Multiplier Theory

Conventional wisdom regarding money supply suggests there is massive pent up inflation in the works as a result of the buildup of those reserves. The rationale is that 10 times those excess reserves (via fractional reserve lending) will soon be working its way into the economy causing huge price spikes, a collapse in the US dollar, and possibly even hyperinflation.

However, conventional wisdom regarding the money multiplier is wrong. Australian economist Steve Keen notes that in a debt based society, expansion of credit comes first and reserves come later.

Indeed, this is easy to conceptualize: Banks lent more than they should have, and those loans are going bad at a phenomenal rate. In response, the Fed has engaged in a huge swap-o-rama party with various banks (swapping treasuries for collateral of dubious value) in addition to turning on the printing presses.

This was done so that banks would remain "well capitalized". The reality is those excess reserves are a mirage. Banks need those reserves for credit losses coming down the pike, as unemployment rises, foreclosures mount, and credit card defaults soar.

Banks are not well capitalized, they are insolvent, unwilling and unable to lend.

Global Debt Bubble, Causes and Solutions

If you have not yet done so, please read Global Debt Bubble, Causes and Solutions with a reference to a very interesting video by Keen.

Inquiring minds may also consider my theory on credit and debt as presented in Fiat World Mathematical Model.

Steve Keen's thinking helped me finalize that model.

Debt Deflation and Bonds

Returning once again to Hoisington:
Total U.S. debt as a percent of GDP surged to 375% in the first quarter, a new post 1870 record, and well above the 360% average for 2008. Therefore, the economy became more leveraged even as the recession progressed.

An over-leveraged economy is one prone to deflation and stagnant growth. This is evident in the path the Japanese took after their stock and real estate bubbles began to implode in 1989. At that time Japanese debt as a percent of GDP was 269% (Chart 5).

Japanese Debt - Total, Public, Private



This 1998 when it peaked at 345%, below the current level in the U.S. While the Japanese increased leverage for nine years after the bubble highs, neither highly inflated stock and real estate prices nor economic performance could be sustained as
debt repayment became more burdensome.

In several years, real GDP may be no higher than its current levels. However, since the population will continue to grow, per capita GDP will decline; thus, the standard of living will diminish as unemployment rises. These conditions will produce a deflationary environment similar to the Japanese condition.

Presently the 10-year yield in Japan stands at 1.3%. Ultimately, our yield level may be similar to that of the Japanese.
Buy and Hold Still Bad Advice

Hoisington's observations are something I have mentioned on numerous occasions.

In regards to treasuries, I agree with Hoisington that long-dated treasuries are attractive at this level. However, I do entertain the idea, and have done so ever since the December, that the bottom in yields may be in. For more discussion, please see U.S. Treasuries Yields - Where To From Here?

In regards to equities, please consider the following snip from Buy and Hold Still Bad Advice:
Clearly stocks are a better buy now than in 2007 or 2008. But that does not mean stocks are cheap. Indeed, by any realistic measure of earnings, stocks are decidedly not cheap. Then again, 6-month treasury yields are yielding a paltry .31%.

Can equities easily beat that? Yes they might, but that does not mean they will!

Fundamentally, the S&P 500 can easily fall to 500 or below, a massive crash from this point.
Alternatively, stocks might languish for years.

Two Lost Decades



The Japanese Stock Market is about 25% of what it was close to 20 years ago! Yes, I know, the US is not Japan, that deflation can't happen here, etc, etc. Of course deflation did happen here, so the question now is how long it lasts. Even if it does not last long, there are no guarantees the stock market stages a significant recovery.
Comments From "BC"

A friend, "BC" sent the following comments in regards to chart 5 (shown above) from the Hoisington article.

BC writes:
See chart 5 illustrating the conditions persisting during Japan's slow-motion, deflationary, debt-deleveraging depression from the mid-to-late '90s when the Japanese Boomer demographic drag and persistent price deflation took hold. I strongly suspect that we will experience a similar pattern between private and public debt/GDP.

We could see bank lending/GDP return to the 30% long-term average area from today's peak of 50-51% (and bank real estate loans/GDP of 27% vs. the long-term average 10-11%).

If so, we are likely to see little or no bank lending growth, which in a debt-money economy means little or no GDP growth and further mass-consolidation of capacity and debt defaults or gradual pay down.

Instead of "recovery" or "expansion", we should think in terms of a Schumpeterian Depression phase of the Long Wave trough, characterized as a debt-deflationary, deleveraging, demographics-induced no-growth regime.

Long-term 3.3% real GDP growth has decelerated to ~1.5%, and I expect average growth from the '00 peak to the mid- to late '10s to decelerate further to 1% or below.

The bottom line is that private debt-based growth is simply not possible, whereas any "growth" we do experience will be as a result of incremental government borrowing and spending, most of which will be in the form of war spending, bailouts, and social service transfers at very low GDP multiplier.
Schumpeterian Depression

Inquiring minds might be interested in concepts like Creative Destruction.
The economic concept of creative destruction was first introduced by the Austrian School economist Joseph Schumpeter.

Theory and Examples

Companies that once revolutionized and dominated new industries � for example, Xerox in copiers or Polaroid in instant photography � have seen their profits fall and their dominance vanish as rivals launched improved designs or cut manufacturing costs. Wal-Mart is a recent example of a company that has achieved a strong position in many markets, through its use of new inventory-management, marketing, and personnel-management techniques, using its resulting lower prices to compete with older or smaller companies in the offering of retail consumer products.

Just as older behemoths perceived to be juggernauts by their contemporaries (e.g., Montgomery Ward, FedMart, Woolworths) were eventually undone by nimbler and more innovative competitors, Wal-Mart faces the same threat. Just as the cassette tape replaced the 8-track, only to be replaced in turn by the compact disc, itself being undercut by MP3 players, the seemingly dominant Wal-Mart may well find itself an antiquated company of the past. This is the process of creative destruction.

Other examples are the way in which online free newspaper sites such as The Huffington Post and the National Review Online are leading to creative destruction of the traditional paper newspaper. The Christian Science Monitor announced in January 2009 that it would no longer continue to publish a daily paper edition, but would be available online daily and provide a weekly print edition.

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer became online-only in March 2009. Traditional French alumni networks, which typically charge their students to network online or through paper directories, are in danger of creative destruction from free social networking sites such as Linkedin and Viadeo.

In fact, successful innovation is normally a source of temporary market power, eroding the profits and position of old firms, yet ultimately succumbing to the pressure of new inventions commercialized by competing entrants. Creative destruction is a powerful economic concept because it can explain many of the dynamics of industrial change: the transition from a competitive to a monopolistic market, and back again.

Creative destruction can hurt. Layoffs of workers with obsolete working skills can be one price of new innovations valued by consumers. Though a continually innovating economy generates new opportunities for workers to participate in more creative and productive enterprises (provided they can acquire the necessary skills), creative destruction can cause severe hardship in the short term, and in the long term for those who cannot acquire the skills and work experience.
There is much more in the article for those interested in history or book references.

This blog, Calculated Risk, Minyanville's News and Views, Big Picture, Naked Capitalism, Zero Hedge, Market Ticker, Life After The Oil Crash, The Oil Drum, Financial Sense, Patrick, Piggington, and numerous other widely read sites are all part of the Creative Destruction process.

High quality content is now available for free. In many instances it's far better than what you can pay for.

Factors Sealing The Deflationary Fate

The five month, 50% rebound in the S&P 500 was certainly spectacular. However, the more important question is where to from here?

Take a look at Japan's "Two Lost Decades" for clues.

Creative destruction in conjunction with global wage arbitrage, changing demographics, downsizing boomers fearing retirement, changing social attitudes towards debt in every economic age group, and massive debt leverage is an extremely powerful set of forces.

Bear in mind, that set of forces will not play out over days, weeks, or months. A Schumpeterian Depression will take years, perhaps even decades to play out.

Thus, deflation is an ongoing process, not a point in time event that can be staved off by massive interventions and Orwellian Proclamations "We Saved The World".

Bernanke and the Fed do not understand these concepts, nor does anyone else chanting that pending hyperinflation or massive inflation is coming right around the corner, nor do those who think new stock market is off to new highs. In other words, almost everyone is oblivious to the true state of affairs.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List