Recession Buzz: October 2010

How did the Dow break 10,000 when the rest of the economy is in the toilet?

1. Corporate earnings are up -- mainly because companies have been cutting costs. Payrolls comprise 70 percent of most companies' costs, which means companies have been slashing jobs. In the end, this is a self-defeating strategy. If workers don't have jobs or are afraid of losing them, they won't buy, and company profits will disappear.

2. Federal borrowing has filled the gap that consumers and businesses created when the latter began to reduce their debt. Federal debt, in other words, has kept the economy from tanking. Can't keep up forever, though.

3. With such horrid employment numbers, Wall Street figures the Fed will keep interest rates low for some time, and continue to flood the economy with money. That's good news for the Street because it means money stays cheap -- and with cheap money the Street can make lots of bets on almost everything under the sun and moon. As a result, the Street's earnings are way up. But this, too, is temporary. At some point the Fed is going to worry about inflation and a falling dollar.

4. Investors of all stripes want to get in early and ride the wave. Pension funds, mutual funds, and other institutional investors figure the bull market has more oomph in it because, well, other investors will jump in. Think Ponzi scheme. Nice for now, but watch out if you're one of the last in.

In other words, this is all temporary fluff, folks. Anyone who hasn't learned by now that there's almost no relationship between the Dow and the real economy deserves to lose his or her shirt in the Wall Street casino.

Spain is different. The slogan, which the tourism industry used in the 1950s to celebrate the country’s identity and culture, is nowadays something of a joke. Among Spaniards, the old line is an expression of self-deprecation, of a sentiment of quirkiness and inferiority, which constitutes a fundamental part of the Spanish ethos. When it comes to funding mortgages, however, Spain is different in a good way.

The health-insurance industry has finally revealed itself for what it is.

Background: The industry hates the idea that's emerged from the Senate Finance Committee of lowering penalties on younger and healthier people who don't buy insurance. Relying on an analysis by PricewaterhouseCoopers, insurers say this means new enrollees will be older and less healthy -- which will drive up costs. And, says the industry, these costs will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher premiums. Proposed taxes on high-priced "Cadillac" policies will also be passed on to consumers. As a result, premiums will rise faster and higher than the government projects.

It's an eleventh-hour bombshell.

But the bomb went off under the insurers. The only reason these costs can be passed on to consumers in the form of higher premiums is because there's not enough competition among private insurers to force them to absorb the costs by becoming more efficient. Get it? Health insurers have just made the best argument yet about why a public insurance option is necessary.

Right now they run their markets and set their prices, and pass on any increased costs directly to consumers. That's what they're threatening to do if the legislation attempts to squeeze, even slightly, the colossal profits they plan to make off of thirty million new paying customers.

They want every penny of those profits. They demand every cent. And if the government dares raise their costs a tad higher than they expected when they first signed on to support the bill, they'll pass those costs on to consumers in the form of higher premiums. They can carry out their threat only because they have unaccountable, untrammeled market power.

But they've now hoisted themselves on their own insured petard. They've exposed themselves. If they had to compete with a public insurance plan, they couldn't get away with this threat. They couldn't pass on the extra costs. They'd have to compete with a public insurance option that forced them to give consumers the best deals possible.

Now's the time for Congress and the White House to say to the insurance industry: You want to play hardball? Okay. We'll play it, too. You didn't want a public insurance option. That was one of your conditions for supporting the bill. You wanted gigantic profits from having thirty million new paying customers and the market to yourself. The Senate Finance Committee and the White House agreed because they wanted your support and were afraid of the negative ads and hurricane of opposition you could finance. But you're even greedier than we imagined. And now you've demonstrated that greed to the American people. They don't want to turn over even more of their hard-earned money to you. So, insurance companies, we've got news for you. We're going to make sure Americans have the freedom to choose a public insurance option that's cheaper and better, and you're going to have to work hard to keep them your customers.

Imagine if you didn’t have to file a tax return. Imagine if, come T-day, the only thing you needed to do to comply with your tax obligations was to sign a form and mail it. And imagine if this could be done without changing a comma of the tax code. This is not a pipe dream—millions of citizens in different parts of the world already do it.

Austan Goolsbee, professor at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business and head economic adviser to Barack Obama, is proposing to let the Internal Revenue Service, America’s tax man, put together drafts of individual tax returns and mail them to taxpayers. Experts know the system as “Tax Agency Reconciliation” (TAR). Goolsbee has had the good sense to re-baptize as “Simple Return.”

Tax collection agencies receive all the information they need to fill out the returns of many taxpayers. By law, employers and financial institutions send the data to them. The time spent by filers collecting statements, putting the numbers in the right boxes of the tax form, figuring out the standard deductions and exemptions, and calculating the tax bill--not to mention the fees paid to tax prepapers--are thus a waste.

Sweden and Denmark use the system. In Spain, with seven years of TAR experience, some filers can even request and confirm their pre-filled tax returns by sending a text message. Some Spaniards don’t even have to sacrifice precious TV time: they can do their taxes through their interactive, digital TV sets. (I encourage readers who know of other countries in the EZer Club to let me know in the comments or by e-mail. I’d like to make a list. If you respond, please specify whether the country does TAR or exact withholding.)

Nouriel Roubini, a leading economist at New York University, is now saying that a US Recession is almost here:

"It is increasingly clear by now that a severe U.S. recession is inevitable in next few months. Those of us who warned for the last 12 months about a combination of a worsening housing recession, a severe credit crunch and financial meltdown, high oil prices and a saving-less and debt-burdened consumers being on the ropes causing an economy-wide recession were repeatedly rebuffed the consensus view about a soft landing given the presumed resilience of the US consumer."

"But the evidence is now building that an ugly recession is inevitable."

Roubini is a smart economist who often goes against the consensus view.

This morning's job numbers are bad enough -- 263,000 more jobs lost in September, and unemployment now at 9.8 percent -- but look behind them and the news is even grimmer. The only reason the numbers don't look worse is that 571,000 workers dropped out of the labor force. Remember, too, that the economy needs about 125,000 new jobs every month just to keep up with a growing population. So we're even further behind.

The numbers would be even worse but for the stimulus package. According to an analysis by the Economic Policy Institute, the stimulus is saving or creating between 200,000 and 250,000 jobs a month. Without it, job losses in September would have been nearly twice what they actually were.

State governments, meanwhile, continue to shed employees. Here's one of the most depressing statistics I've seen (if you need any additional ones): Some 15,600 teachers didn't return to work in September. They were laid off. So our classrooms are bigger, we have fewer teachers, and our students are presumably learning less -- at the very time when they need to be learning more than ever.

by Chris Tenove

Jul/Aug 2003 Issue

What does anybody know about the sugar industry? The people who put the frosting on the frosted flakes keep a low profile and are happy when folks are too busy eating to ask a lot of questions. Now, though, a dust-up with the World Health Organization (WHO) has flushed them into the limelight, where they're pitting profits against public health.

The conflict was inflamed by a new set of dietary guidelines drawn from two years of research by the WHO and the UN Food and Agricultural Organization. The guidelines are part of a worldwide strategy to tame the swelling epidemic of obesity, diabetes, osteoporosis and cardiovascular diseases. One recommendation is that free sugars (i.e. sugar added to foods) should make up no more than 10 percent of our daily caloric intake. The sugar lobby reacted to that suggestion like a toddler asked to hand back his Halloween booty...

'It was particularly stupid for them to put in writing that they're going to try to get Congress to take away WHO's money,' says Michael Jacobsen, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest. 'It gave consumers a chance to see the kind of bullying that is usually done behind closed doors.' [Adbusters]

With Federal Reserve and government doing their best to stimulate demand, people have started looking at inflation. The worry is that the economy is not as sick as our policymakers think, and so the fiscal and monetary medicines are excessive. Markets disagree.

Expected inflation is an important determinant of future inflation. If the public expects higher inflation, workers demand higher wages, prompting employers to raise the price of their goods, which results in higher actual inflation.

Markets in fixed-income securities provide timely information about inflation expectations. Treasury inflation-protected securities (TIPS) deliver interest and principal payments that are tied to inflation. Payments from regular Treasury notes, on the other hand, are not indexed to inflation. The difference between the yield rates of the two types of securities must be equal to the inflation rate expected by the markets—otherwise there would be an arbitrage opportunity. In practice, because of technical issues, the yield spread is only an approximation to expected inflation, and people call it the break-even inflation (BEI) instead. (More on this below.) From here on I use BEI and “expected inflation” interchangeably.

Because the Treasury has created notes with different maturities, we can use the spread between nominal and TIPS securities to gauge inflation expectations for different horizons. For example, today’s difference between the yield of five-year TIPS and that of five-year nominal notes is approximately equal to the inflation rate expected over the five years starting now (2008-2012).

The Fed is interested in long-term inflation expectations, because in the short term prices are affected by transitory or volatile factors, such as commodity prices. One measure of long-term expectations, which we can also derive from yields, is the five-year, five-year forward rate. That is an approximation to the rate of inflation expected for the five years starting five years from now. Today, that would be the period from 2013 through 2017.

* * *

Chart 1 (click to enlarge)

Here are the top risk factors for 2008 US Recession:

Continuing Housing Bust
High Oil Prices
Security Issues
Credit Crunch
High Consumer Debt
Large Trade Deficit
Consumer Spending is slowing (it makes up 70% of the US GDP)
Commercial Construction decline

On Friday, Denmark's climate and energy minister, Connie Hedegaard, who will be chairing U.N.-sponsored climate talks in December in Copenhagen, said President Obama needs to do more on climate. "It is hard to imagine that he will be receiving the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo on Dec. 10 and then come empty-handed to Copenhagen a week later," she said.

But there's no way between now and then Obama can get a strong climate bill through Congress.

Over the next months, the White House needs to focus on health care if it's to have any hope of coming up with anything more than Big Pharma and the private insurance companies want.

This is the cost of trying to do so much so quickly. Initiatives revert to powerful industry lobbyists because there's no time to organize countervailing power. When he's trying to do everything at once, the President can't mobilize public opinion behind any one thing. Progressive voices (which have difficulty being heard even under the best of circumstances) drown each other out because they're hollering over one another.

Climate change legislation is moving forward -- but big polluters have shaped much of it. As I noted recently, the Waxman-Markey climate bill, passed by the House last June, gives away 85 percent of pollution permits to the nation's biggest polluters, and the "cap" it proposes on overall carbon emissions would cut greenhouse gas emissions only by an estimated 2 to 4 percent by 2020 compared to the UN reference year of 1990. The Kerry-Boxer bill has a stronger cap on emissions but it's still far short of what's necessary -- and it leaves out the hardest part, which is the actual cap-and-trade mechanism.

Why has so little been accomplished? Because coal, shale, oil, big manufacturers, and utilities -- the big old polluters (BOPs) -- have beaten back anything better.

The only real countervailing powers on climate change are industries that stand to gain from stronger legislation -- mostly nuclear and ethanol, along with a smattering of companies that have invested in wind, biomass, and solar. But they're no match for the BOPs. Nor do their bottom lines necessarily match what's good for the world.

Yes, the Environmental Protection Agency is moving forward on its own efforts to reduce greenhouse gases, and the White House is quietly using the threat of the EPA doing more as a prod to get the BOPs on board with legislation that the White House says will be easier on them than what the EPA comes up with. But that's no real threat. The BOPs know they can keep the EPA tied up in litigation for years.

So here's my suggestion. The White House should tell Congress it's raising the bar on climate change but is simultaneously putting the current legislation on hold -- until it can focus the public's attention on it. That is, until after a worthy piece of healthcare legislation is on the President's desk.

Arriving in Copenhagen strongly committed to fight for a large reduction in greenhouse gases, even if that means empty hands at the time, is better than arriving there with a weak and ineffective law.

After reading comments from readers and doing my homework I've made some changes to the previous post, where I describe recent innovations in the Federal Reserve's modus operandi. The text in bold face is either new or has been rewritten from the previous version. I've also added a couple of tables to illustrate what happens to the balance sheet in the case of TSLF and PDCF loans.

This is a summary of the changes:

1. The range of collateral for TSLF loans is the same as that for TAF loans, which is the same as for the discount window. This range is wider, however, than for repurchase agreements.

2. The TSLF is a bonds-for-bonds transaction, and therefore doesn't change the monetary base. The Federal Reserve takes possession of the borrower's securities for 28 days, and lends government securities. The PDCF is a cash-for-bonds transaction, which does change the monetary base. The Fed will offset PDCF loans by conducting direct purchases of government securities, reverse repos, or by letting its Treasurys expire.

Thanks to everyone who left a comment or sent me an e-mail.

President Obama's only real diplomatic accomplishment so far has been to change the direction and tone of American foreign policy from unilateral bullying to multilateral listening and cooperating. That's important, to be sure, but not nearly enough. The Prize is really more of Booby Prize for Obama's predecessor. Had the world not suffered eight years of George W. Bush, Obama would not be receiving the Prize. He's prizeworthy and praiseworthy only by comparison.

I'd rather Obama had won it after Congress agreed to substantial cuts in greenhouse gases comparable to what Europe is proposing, after he brought Palestinians and Israelis together to accept a two-state solution, after he got the United States out of Afghanistan and reduced the nuclear arm's threat between Pakistan and India, or after he was well on the way to eliminating the world's stockpile of nuclear weapons. Any one of these would have been worthy of global praise. Perhaps the Nobel committee can give him half the prize now and withhold the other half until he accomplishes one or more of these crucial missions.

Giving the Peace Prize to the President before any of these goals has been attained only underscores the paradox of Obama at this early stage of his presidency. He has demonstrated mastery in both delivering powerful rhetoric and providing the nation and the world with fresh and important ways of understanding current challenges. But he has not yet delivered. To the contrary, he often seems to hold back from the fight -- temporizing, delaying, or compromising so much that the rhetoric and insight he offers seem strangely disconnected from what he actually does. Yet there's time. He may yet prove to be one of the best presidents this nation has ever had -- worthy not only of the Peace Prize but of every global accolade he could possibly summon. Just not yet.

The latest economic data show that output growth has weakened and unemployment is creeping up. The government is worried, with good reason, that the economy is going through a pronounced slowdown, perhaps even a recession. To limit the damage, Congress yesterday approved a battery of fiscal measures. By my reckoning, however, the plan will at best provide a short-lived nudge to consumption, but not employment; at worst, it’ll do nothing.

Starting in May, the government will send $600 checks to individuals ($1,200 for couples and an extra $300 for each child). People who earn too little to pay income taxes, but make more than $3,000, will receive a $300 payment. Payments will total $106 billion and will add to the budget deficit.

Cash outlays are supposed to boost private consumption expenditures and accelerate overall growth. $106b may seem a small stimulus for a $14 trillion economy, but the payments are expected to have a “multiplier effect”: higher demand will prompt businesses to hire more workers, and increased employment will further stimulate private consumption, which in turn will induce more hiring. The process continues ad infinitum. The outlays, therefore, can have a final effect on aggregate demand that is many times bigger than the initial stimulus —hence the name “multiplier.”

The effectiveness of the measure hinges on two factors. First, the fraction of the government outlays that will be spent immediately. According to Bruce Bartlett, previous experiences with tax rebates in 1975 and 2001 indicate that it's small. The recent study by Elmendorf and Furman indicates that it's a 50 percent.

The second requirement, which has received less attention, is that businesses will respond to the initial surge in demand by hiring new workers. If they don’t, then the fiscal package will have no second-round impact on demand, and the stimulus to consumption will total just $50b.

Because the first two quarters of 2008 will be marked by considerable uncertainty about the course of the economy in the medium term, the announcement of the fiscal plan will not have an immediate effect on hiring. Manufacturers may ratchet up their inventories, in anticipation of the small jolt of demand in May, but they will do so by using overtime and temp workers, rather than hiring permanent employees. In the services sector, we won’t see any change in employment until the late spring, and even then employers will similarly meet spikes in demand with overtime hours and temp workers, at least initially. If, come June, forecasts have improved, we may see employment pick up over the fall. But by then the effect of the government checks will have played out. In conclusion, the fiscal package won’t provide any significant boost to employment.

A less obvious reason to reject the stimulus is that the slowdown in aggregate demand is necessary, even healthy. Most of the growth experienced between 2002 and 2006 was based on low interest rates, over-valued real estate, and loose lending standards.

Chart 1, from a story by Michael Mandel at BusinessWeek, tells it all. Mandel estimates that, “if consumer spending had tracked the overall economy over the past decade as it has in the past, Americans today would be spending about $600 billion less a year. The extra spending has amounted to a total of about $3 trillion since 2001.” That extra spending was financed with debt. Quite literally, Americans were borrowing their prosperity from the future —not exactly a sustainable growth path.

Chart 1 (left) and 2 (right). Click to enlarge.

Reuters reports that "Unsold goods are piling up in warehouses as the housing meltdown and soaring oil prices strain consumers, raising fears that already glum fourth-quarter growth prospects may tip toward recession."

"The sluggishness is apparent in the retail sector, where 70 percent of chain stores posted weaker-than-expected October sales results, according to research firm Retail Metrics.

"We expect the challenging retail environment to continue for the foreseeable future," Mike Ullman, chairman and chief executive officer of department store chain J.C. Penney (JCP.N: Quote, Profile, Research), said last week. He added that the company would keep inventory levels tight through 2008."

Respected economist Nouriel Roubini writes "Any recession call for the U.S. is clearly dependent on US consumption faltering. Since residential investment is only 5% of even a worsening housing recession cannot – by itself – trigger an economy-wide recession. Rather, since private consumption is over 70% of aggregate demand a sharp and persistent slowdown in consumption growth – below 1% or even negative - is necessary to trigger a full blown recession

Last January, as I understand it, the White House promised Big Pharma, big insurance, and the American Medical Association the moral equivalent of what Joel Halderman allegedly demanded of David Letterman: hush money. The groups agreed to stay silent or even be supportive of healthcare reform, as long as they were paid off.

But now that it's time to collect, the bill is larger than the White House expected, and it's going to fall like an avalanche on middle class Americans in coming years. That could mean an ugly 2012 election (read Sarah Palin).

So the President has to do what Letterman did: Refuse to pay.

Big Pharma is on the road to getting its deal: not only 25 to 30 million more paying customers, but also a continued ban on Medicare using its bargaining clout to reduce drug prices, a bar on genetic drug manufacturers introducing similar biologic drugs until the originals have been on the market at least twelve years, and no public insurance option to negotiate low drug prices. (Big Pharma did agree to $80 billion of cost cuts over the next ten years, to be sure, but its hush money payoffs far exceeded that sum.)

Big insurance is well on the way to getting what it wants: 25 to 30 million more paying customers (many of them young and healthy), a requirement that almost all businesses "pay or play," and no competition from a public option.

Doctors (that is, the American Medical Association) are on the way to getting what they want: Instead of a temporary patch on scheduled decreases in Medicare reimbursements to them, a permanent fix that would change the reimbursement formula altogether and reward them $240 billion over the next ten years.

But when they all get paid off, who will do the paying? Middle-class Americans who are already in a financial squeeze -- whose wages are lower, adjusted for inflation, than they were thirty years ago, and whose jobs are disappearing. They'll face still higher premiums, co-payments, and deductibles; and they'll pay higher drug prices, Medicare premiums, and taxes to cover the rest.

That's because these payoffs make it next to impossible to contain the wildly escalating costs of health care. And 25 to 30 million additional Americans will be covered.

The only thing in the emerging bills that's related to cost containment is a proposed excise tax on so-called "Cadillac" insurance plans, priced over a certain threshold amount (the threshold is now up for grabs). But because the costs of health care are likely to rise faster than inflation, whatever the threshold, the middle class will get socked again.

So Obama has to forcefully weigh in with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid as the two try to cobble together passable bills for each chamber -- demanding real cost containment.

The three big means of containing costs: (1) A true public option (better yet, one that allows anyone now holding private insurance to opt into; (2) authority for Medicare to negotiate low drug prices; and (3) lower Medicare reimbursement rates to doctors (in other words, no "doctor fix").

In addition, the so-called "medical exchanges" in the emerging bills (as well as the public option, which hopefully will be included) should give preference to pre-paid heathcare plans, like Kaiser Permanente, whose doctors are on salary and have every incentive to keep people healthy rather than charge for more services and tests.

But if Obama doesn't weigh in forcefully and say "no" to the hush money for Big Pharma, big insurance, and the AMA, America's middle class will get walloped. And if the walloping starts before 2012, Sarah Palin or some other right wing-nut populist will wallop Obama. And after she or he wallops Obama, America will get walloped even worse.

by Thomas Croft

02 Jul 03

In the last three years, a 'perfect storm' of rising energy costs, record consumer and corporate debt and massive trade and current account deficits joined with unsustainable investment practices, and resulted in an economic collapse. The first recession since 1929 to be primarily caused by over-investment, these 'collateral damage' investing schemes-in overseas boondoggles and sweatshops, extreme mergers, absurd dot-coms and derivative scams-all came home to roost. Enron used all of these investment tricks and more. The corruption scandals of 2001-2 completed the melt-down. Now, the world is probably in a double-dip recession, thanks partly to the scandal and continuing international disruptions.

The problem with casino bets and Russian Roulette is that somebody always loses. [CounterPunch]

UPDATE: I wrote an expanded, better version of this post, in two parts: Part I and Part II.

The Federal Reserve used to have only a few tools to do its job —that is, until it got the genie out of the bottle. Sometimes quietly, other times conspicuously, the Fed is surely changing the way it creates liquidity.

(Jim Hamilton has been narrating these changes since the summer. Part of this post is my one-stop account. Jim’s posts, which are much better, are here: September 23, December 14, December 16, March 15.)

The central bank has a balance sheet, just like any other bank. As assets, it holds government securities, loans to depository institutions (banks), and other assets. As liabilities, it has currency (the cash in your pockets) and reserve balances. Reserves are deposits that banks keep at the central bank. When a bank needs currency it withdraws from its deposit, effectively turning it into bills and coins that you and I can use.

Until now, macroeconomics textbooks have been telling us that central banks use three tools to control the amount of currency in circulation. Looking at them from an accounting perspective will help us understand what the Federal Reserve has been up to recently:

1) Open market operation. This is an outright purchase of government securities from banks. When conducting this operation, the central bank increases its assets and credits banks’ reserve balances. Eventually, banks withdraw from their reserves at the central bank and turn them into cash. So an open market operation amounts to withdrawing government securities from the economy and replacing them with cash. The central bank can also reduce the amount of cash in circulation, by doing just the opposite: selling government securities and absorbing cash. By far, an open market operation is the best-know of the central bank’s tools.
This is a simplified version of the U.S. Federal Reserve’s balance sheet on August 15, 2007:

Federal Reserve's balance sheet, $ millions (Aug. 15, 2007)
Assets	US government securities	789,601
	Repurchase agreements	24,000
	Reverse repurchase agreements	-31,941
	Direct loans	264
	Other assets	37,058
Liabilities	Currency in circulation	813,085
Liabilities	Reserve balances	5,897

Source: Federal Reserve, H.4.1 release.

(For the moment, regard “repurchase agreements” as government securities.)
Suppose that on August 16, 2007, the Fed pumped $1,000 million in the system through an open market operation. The Fed’s balance sheet would experience the following changes, once banks have withdrawn the new funds from their reserve accounts:

Changes in the Fed's balance sheet after a $1,000M open market operation
Assets	US government securities	+1,000
	Repurchase agreements	0
	Reverse repurchase agreements	0
	Direct loans	0
	Other assets	0
Liabilities	Currency in circulation	+1,000
Liabilities	Reserve balances	0

2) Direct loan. This tool is usually referred to as the “discount window.” The central bank simply lends money to a bank. The borrower must pledge collateral with a value that exceeds that of the direct loan. The central bank increases its balance of loans, and simultaneously credits the reserves of the borrowing bank. Then the bank withdraws from its reserves, effectively turning them into currency in circulation. Asking for a direct loan usually means that the bank was not able to obtain liquidity in the inter-bank market. Moreover, borrowers are also subject to scrutiny by the central bank, and watched by other banks. And the interest rate charged for direct loans is higher than the inter-bank rate. For those reasons, the discount window is used rarely and in small amounts.

3) Reserve requirements. Banks are required to keep a certain amount of reserves at the central bank. If the central bank increases that requirement, banks are forced to withdraw currency from the economy and put it in their reserve account. The central bank can also do the opposite, i.e. increase the amount of currency in circulation by lowering the reserve requirement. This tool is the least often used.

Normally banks obtain liquidity for their daily operations in the inter-bank market, where they borrow from and lend to each other at the going interest rate. Last summer some U.S. banks started experiencing losses from their portfolios of mortgages and securitized mortgages. Nobody knew which banks would suffer losses in the future, or how large they could be. So banks starting growing wary of lending to each other, and it became more expensive—or just plain impossible—to raise as much liquidity as needed.

The Fed stepped in to help. Instead of providing liquidity through outright open market operations, it increased the use of an operation that is more frequently used, yet less well known: repurchase agreements. These are short-term loans, usually overnight, extended by the Fed to banks. As collateral, banks transfer high-quality securities to the central bank for the duration of the loan. At expiration, the loan is repaid and the bank takes back its securities.

From an accounting perspective, the repo increases the central bank’s assets and potential currency in circulation, much like an open market operation does. This, for example, is what happened between August 8 and August 15.

Soon after, the Fed decided that it didn’t want to increase the potential amount of liquidity in the system, which affects short-term interest rates and inflation. So it offset the repurchase agreements by selling some of its own government securities (or letting them expire without purchasing more), and thus withdrawing cash from the system. So the repos didn’t have any bottom-line effect on liquidity: they merely changed the composition of the Fed’s assets and provided temporary cash to the borrowing banks. This is why Jim Hamilton writes that the Fed has been doing monetary policy using the asset side of the balance sheet. Another way to see it is that the Fed has been conducting money-less monetary policy, because its actions barely affect the monetary base (reserves plus currency in circulation).

Here’s how a repurchase agreement would change the Fed’s balance sheet, after offsetting it with an open market operation:

Changes in the Fed's balance sheet after a $1,000M repurchase agreement, offset by an open market operation
Assets	US government securities	-1,000
	Repurchase agreements	+1,000
	Reverse repurchase agreements	0
	Direct loans	0
	Other assets	0
Liabilities	Currency in circulation	0 (-1,000 + 1,000)
Liabilities	Reserve balances	0

After doing this for months, and aware that banks were not getting as much liquidity as they wanted, in December the Fed unveiled the Term Auction Facility (TAF). As its name suggests, this is an auction for a limited amount of Fed’s loans. Just like a repo, loans through the new facility require borrowers to use assets as collateral to the Fed for the duration of the loan. But the TAF represents an improvement with respect to repos in their capacity to provide liquidity. First, it lowers the bar for the type of assets that the Fed accepts, which are the same as those for the discount window. Second, it is more targeted than repos: the bidding system ensures that the limited loans go to the banks that value them most.

By themselves, TAF loans would increase both assets and liabilities of the Fed, just like open market operations and repos. But, once again, the Fed partially offset those loans by selling securities and withdrawing cash from the system. Here’s the simplified balance sheet on December 26 and August 15:

Federal Reserve's balance sheet, $ millions
Assets		Aug. 15, 2007	Dec. 26, 2007
	US government securities	789,601	754,612
	Repurchase agreements	24,000	42,500
	Reverse repurchase agreements	-31,941	-40,542
	Term Auction Facility loans	0	20,000
	Direct loans	264	4,535
	Other assets	37,058	52,869
Liabilities	Currency in circulation	813,085	829,193
Liabilities	Reserve balances	5,897	4,781

Source: Federal Reserve, H.4.1 release.

The balance of TAF loans grew from $20bn to $60bn between December 26 and March 12.

Still, all these liquidity venues are available only to members of the Federal Reserve system, which I have been calling “banks” and whose proper name is “depository institutions.” There is another set of financial intermediaries and investors, such as Bear Stearns or Lehman Brothers. They have been as affected by the liquidity crisis as much as banks have, but don’t have direct access to neither the discount window nor TAF.

So the Fed has announced two new facilities for those institutions. The first one is the Term Securities Lending Facility (TSLF), to open on March 27. At this new window, all primary dealers -all banks and brokers that trade in government securities with the Fed- are allowed to borrow up to $200bn of government securities for 28 days. The minimum quality of the assets seems to be the same as those for than for the TAF (they include federal agency debt, federal agency residential-mortgage-backed securities (MBS), and non-agency AAA/Aaa-rated private-label residential MBS). But in contrast with TAF this new facility lends government securities, not cash. Through the TSLF the Federal Reserve will be temporarily swapping safe government securities for risky assets. This is how these loans would look like on the balance sheet:

Changes in the Fed's balance sheet after a $1,000M TSLF loan
Assets	US government securities	-1,000
	Repurchase agreements	0
	Reverse repurchase agreements	0
	Direct loans	0
	TSLF loan	+1,000
	Other assets	0
Liabilities	Currency in circulation	0
Liabilities	Reserve balances	0

The second institution is the Primary Dealer Credit Facility (PDCF), which started operating on March 17. This venue provides overnight cash loans to all primary dealers, at the discount window interest rate, and accepts ~~even riskier~~ the same type of collateral. ~~they accept all collateral eligible for repos, plus investment-grade corporate securities, municipal securities, MBS and asset-backed securities.~~ With the PDCF, all primary dealers have de facto access to the discount window, from which only depository institutions could borrow before. The loan will increase the monetary base (read the PDCF FAQ). To offset the increase, the Fed will utilize "a number of tools, including, but not necessarily limited to, outright sales of Treasury securities, reverse repurchase agreements, redemptions of Treasury securities, and changes in the sizes of conventional RP transactions." Here's what a PDCF loan looks like, after it has been offset:

Changes in the Fed's balance sheet after a $1,000M PDCF loan, offset by an open market operation
Assets	US government securities	-1,000
	Repurchase agreements	0
	Reverse repurchase agreements	0
	Direct loans	0
	PDCF loan	+1,000
	TSLF loan	0
	Other assets	0
Liabilities	Currency in circulation	-1,000 + 1,000
Liabilities	Reserve balances	0

In fact, the Federal Reserve has included PDCF as a sub-entry within "Other loans" in the balance sheet, next to the discount window loans, because PDCF and discount window are in fact one and the same facility.

Unlike the TAF, neither TSLF nor PDCF will increase the assets of the Fed. It will temporarily decrease balances of government securities, and increase those of sketchy securities. And because participant institutions don’t have Fed reserves, TSLF loans don’t affect the monetary base. These two venues circumvent the necessity to conduct open market operations so that the monetary base doesn’t change.

Here’s the balance Fed again, in December and after the PDCF opened:

Federal Reserve's balance sheet, $ millions
Assets		Dec. 26, 2007	Mar. 19, 2008
	US government securities	754,612	660,484
	Repurchase agreements	42,500	62,000
	Reverse repurchase agreements	-40,542	-46,143
	Term Auction Facility loans	20,000	80,000
	Primary Dealers Credit Facility	0	28,800
	Direct loans	4,535	125
	Other assets	52,869	36,603
Liabilities	Currency in circulation	829,193	818,362
Liabilities	Reserve balances	4,781	3,507

Source: Federal Reserve, H.4.1 release.

With its new tools, the Fed has provided liquidity without printing much money. It has temporarily absorbed risky and illiquid securities, and supplied government securities, which are risk-free. So instead of monetary policy, in the sense we traditionally have thought about it, the Fed has become a risk-absorber (temporarily, we hope). Or, to put it less kindly, a pawnbroker.

Will these new tools make it to the textbooks? It’s hard to tell whether the particular facilities (TAF, TSLF, etc.) will survive. I think that some unified, generalized form of credit to non-depository institutions will stay. But I’ll have to write about that another time.

Addendum:

Somebody asked me how the Fed conducts an "offsetting" open market operation when the Fed extends a TAF loan. This table summarizes it:

Changes in the Fed's balance sheet after a $1,000M TAF loan with an offsetting open market operation
Assets	US government securities	-1,000
	Repurchase agreements	0
	Reverse repurchase agreements	0
	Teerm Auction Facility loans	+1,000
	Direct loans	0
	Other assets	0
Liabilities	Currency in circulation	(-1,000 + 1,000)
Liabilities	Reserve balances	0

The Fed extends the loan, which is an asset for the lender, and credits the bank's reserve account. (In the table I assume that the borrower withdraws the funds from the reserve account, so they're turned into currency in circulation.) The collateral doesn't show up in the balance sheet, because the Fed does not take ownership of it. At the same time, the Fed sells $1,000M worth of government securities, absorbing that same amount of cash from the banking system.

Subscribe to EconWeekly

The Senate Finance Committee is set to vote Tuesday on a healthcare bill that just got a seal of approval from the Congressional Budget Office and is very likely to garner the vote of Republican Senator Olympia Snowe -- a twofer that gives the bill preeminence over four other healthcare bills that have emerged from House and Senate committees over these long months. Unlike those bills, though, the Senate Finance bill won't it have a public insurance option to compete with private insurers. Nor does it allow Medicare to use its bargaining power to negotiate lower drug prices, or adequately subsidize millions of middle-class families who will be required to buy health insurance that will be hard for them to afford. In short, it's a great deal for private insurers and Big Pharma but not such a great deal for middle-class Americans.

Meanwhile, the House Banking Committee is quietly circulating a draft set of reforms of financial markets likely to become the basis for whatever legislation emerges to fix the Street. Barney Frank, who heads the Committee, is a thoughtful progressive. But the draft has gaping loopholes that will let most financial firms escape -- such as one that exempts corporations that deal in financial derivatives from any requirements for capital, business conduct, record-keeping, and reporting if they use derivatives for the purpose of "risk management," which is the very thing they all claim they're doing. Neither the draft bill, nor the Committee, nor anyone on the Hill having anything to do with financial regulation, is raising what I consider to be the two key reforms necessary for avoiding another financial meltdown -- resurrecting the Glass-Steagall Act that once separated commercial from investment banking, and applying antitrust laws to the remaining five biggest Wall Street banks so none is "too big to fail."

At the same time, environmental legislation is now slinking its way through Congress. The Waxman-Markey climate bill was passed by the House in June; John Kerry and Barbara Boxer have now released a Senate version. All four legislators claim to be progressives concerned about the environment, but the bills are, frankly, far short of what's needed. Waxman-Markey gives away 85 percent of pollution permits to the nation's biggest polluters, and the "cap" it proposes on overall carbon emissions would cut greenhouse gas emissions only by an estimated 2 to 4 percent by 2020 compared to the UN reference year of 1990. (If America was to play its appropriate role in a global climate deal, the reduction would be more like 40 percent, and the U.S. would also provide financing and technology so developing countries could reduce their emissions by a comparable amount.) The Kerry-Boxer bill has a stronger cap on emissions but it's still far short of what's necessary -- and it leaves out the hardest part, which is the actual cap-and-trade mechanism. Kerry and Boxer are leaving that to the Senate Finance Committee, of all places.

And what's happening on the job's front? Nothing except a blip of interest in tax credits to small businesses that create new jobs. That's not a bad move (I suggested it myself), but it's rather like bailing out the ocean with a teacup. If that's all there is, we're headed toward two years of double-digit unemployment. No one on the Hill or in the Administration is yet willing to say openly and clearly that the stimulus plan must be larger, and continued through 2010 and 2011.

My friends in the Administration and on the Hill repeatedly tell me "don't make the perfect the enemy of the better," or words to that effect. Politics is the art of the possible, blah blah blah. True. But in each of these areas -- healthcare, financial regulation, environment, and jobs -- the "better" is really not that much better. Forget perfect; anything that offered real reform would suffice for now. But in every case, what should be the centerpieces of reform are being left out.

Why? Congress is overwhelmed with corporate and Wall Street lobbyists (far too many of whom are former Democratic office holders). The White House is trying best it can to push and prod in the right direction but there's too much going on, too many arenas where private interests are framing the debate and stifling major reform, and too many friends of friends and relations of relations who are making tons of money working for the other side. The public doesn't know what's going on because the national media would rather report on the sexual escapades of famous people or social trends or high finance (a recent Pew study of economic reporting shows the vast majority of stories about the Great Recession have focused on Wall Street rather than Main Street). And progressives -- that is, progressive organizations in our nation's capital -- have been remarkably and consistently outgunned, outmaneuvered, or just plain ineffectual. This is largely due to the fact that they're sitting in Washington rather than organizing and mobilizing the rest of the country.

And I haven't even brought up Afghanistan.

...on EconWeekly: A generous reader gave me a tip today.

If you visit the website you'll see this at the end of each post:

starting with my post from last week. (For people reading this on an RSS reader: there's a link to the tipping button at the end of the post. The company that created the tipping system still needs to figure out how to "embed the button" in the RSS feed. There's also a permanent link near the top right corner of www.econweekly.com.)

This is a service provided by tipjoy and makes it significantly easier to tip the creators of online content. It is more convenient than the "tip jars" that blogs and websites have used so far.

Felix Salmon and Aaron Schiff explain how it works. Here is tipjoy's FAQ.

Basically, the first time you want to give a tip you enter your e-mail address. Tipjoy will later request that you confirm your account, and they'll add the tip to your tab. The amount of the tip depends on what the tipped person specified. It can be $0.05, $0.10, $0.25 or $0.50.

You can pay your tab at any time, in amounts no smaller than $5 (you can have a credit and deduct the tips you give from there). Tip owners can collect their money as soon as they have a $5 balance in paid tips. For now, tipjoy can only pay in the form of gift cards at Amazon or by giving the money to charities. In the future, it looks like they'll be able to pay cash. Oh, and they keep 3% of earned tips.

When will this take off? There need to be enough websites that receive tips to make it worthwhile for readers to sign up for the service. For authors, there need to be enough tippers around to make it worthwhile to insert the buttons. On both sides, however, transactions costs are small.

My main concern is that users will neglect to pay their accumulated tab. Because the payment of individual tips is deferred (the tipper's credit card is not charged immediately) it's easy to imagine that tippers can accumulate unpaid tips and postpone the actual payment indefinitely. If tipjoy has no way to enforce the payment, the tipping never actually happens.

We'll see. For the moment, I'm letting the (still virtual) dough roll in, one dime at a time.

(Clicking that button gives $0.10 to Francisco.) Join tipjoy! How does tipping work?

Happy Thanksgiving to everyone! Enjoy!

In his Saturday radio address, President Obama acknowledged the White House is exploring "additional options to promote job creation.” It's about time. This is the worst job market in seventy years -- including the longest duration of steep job losses.

If anyone had any doubt that something far more dramatic must be done, listen to former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan. He warned Sunday against further stimulus because “we are in a recovery, and I think it would be a mistake to say the September numbers alter that significantly.” Greenspan has turned into an inverse soothsayer. After his cataclysmic error about where the economy was headed before the meltdown, his views about the future should be carefully noted as being the exact opposite of what's likely to be in store.

The economy may be in a technical recovery but this is not a real recovery and the "green shoots" or "positive signs" that Wall Street cheerleaders love to shout about are phantoms of their ever-optimistic imaginations. The stimulus is working but it is far from adequate. Before the stimulus, we were losing more than 500,000 jobs a month. Now that 40 percent of the stimulus has been spent, we are losing more than 250,000 jobs a month.

What to do? With the debt ceiling approaching and the gravitational pull of the 2010 elections increasing, the White House can't go back to Congress with a formal bill to enlarge the stimulus package. Four simpler moves would be to:

(1) Use existing authority under both the stimulus package enacted earlier this year and the nefarious TARP bailout fund -- extending and combining them into a fund to make up for state and local cuts in public school budgets, childrens' health, public health (we need workers to administer swine flu vaccine) and public transportation. Instead of bailing out banks and giant automakers, we should switch to bailing out public services that average people need.

(2) Propose a one-year payroll tax holiday on the first $20,000 of income. Republicans as well as Blue Dog Dems could go along with this, and it would be a highly progressive tax cut since 80 percent of Americans pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes.

(3) Give small businesses a "new jobs tax credit" for every net new job created over the next year. Granted, under normal circumstances this sort of jobs credit doesn't have much effect, and it's difficult to separate hires that would have happened anyway from net new ones. But we're not in normal circumstances; small businesses, which are responsible for most new jobs, still aren't hiring. They need a boost.

(4) Dramatically expand the Small Business Administration's lending programs and have the Fed buy up the SBA's debt. Big banks are not lending to small businesses. TARP has been an utter failure in this regard. The SBA and the Fed should circumvent them and help small businesses get the capital they need, so they can start hiring again.

The politics of these four steps aren't difficult. It would be hard to get a new stimulus package through Congress, but no member who's up for reelection next year when unemployment is likely to be in double digits wants to be accused by rivals of voting against steps to help small businesses, public schools, childrens' health, and average working people who need a tax cut.

Sunday, October 31, 2010

Saturday, October 30, 2010

Friday, October 29, 2010

Thursday, October 28, 2010

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Tuesday, October 26, 2010

Monday, October 25, 2010

Sunday, October 24, 2010

Saturday, October 23, 2010

Friday, October 22, 2010

Thursday, October 21, 2010

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

Sunday, October 17, 2010

Saturday, October 16, 2010

Friday, October 15, 2010

Thursday, October 14, 2010

Wednesday, October 13, 2010

Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Monday, October 11, 2010

Sunday, October 10, 2010

Saturday, October 9, 2010

Friday, October 8, 2010

Thursday, October 7, 2010

Wednesday, October 6, 2010

Tuesday, October 5, 2010

Monday, October 4, 2010

Sunday, October 3, 2010

Saturday, October 2, 2010

Friday, October 1, 2010

Blog Archive