Tag Archives: central bank policy

How Peak Debt Constrain the Fed from Moving Rates Higher, by Eugen

From Eugene Von Böhm-Bawerk, well-versed in debtonomics at bawerk.net:

We have argued for a long time that 2016 will probably be a year of recession in the US and the Federal Reserve’s intent on raising rates will only help expedite it. We believe the current rate cycle will be short lived as the Federal Reserve is constrained by the heavy debt load weighing on the US economy. Or more specifically, the large share of unproductive and counterproductive debt that drain the US economy for resources.

Source: Federal Reserve – Financial Accounts of the United States (Z.1), Bawerk.net

Since most added debt in the US economy, or the world for that matter, is consumptive in nature it adds nothing to the capital base and must therefore be repaid from legacy asset which were once put into productive usage. However, as the non-productive share increases relatively to the productive part, the system naturally comes under strain and will eventually reach debt saturation through capital consumption.

This process can be seen through different metrics, such as the fact that it takes ever more debt to “create” an extra unit of GDP, or the falling velocity of money; as more money get diverted toward unproductive debt servicing, less will be available for productive investments. That in turn, duly lowers GDP growth. Stated differently, lower velocity of money suggest the economy has reached debt saturation. If that’s the case, monetary policy becomes impotent. True; central bank balance sheet expansion may create the illusion that it isn’t, but that’s only because it helps to maintain funding for unproductive debt, which otherwise would be liquidated. This can only go on for so long though as avoiding consequences of reality is never a long term solution.

To continue reading: How Peak Debt Constrain the Fed from Moving Rates Higher

Advertisements

What China’s Stunning Announcement Means, by Tyler Durden

From Tyler Durden at zerohedge.com:

One of the catalysts for today’s selloff was the thoroughly unexpected announcement by the Chinese Foreign Exchange Trade System (part of the PBOC), which as we said earlier, hints at substantially more devaluation of the Chinese currency, a currency which as is well-known, is pegged to a dollar which has been soaring in the past year, and which many believe will continue to soar after the Fed hikes rates.

This is what the CFETS said:

… it is consistent with international practice that CFETS publishes its RMB exchange rate index. Since the beginning of 2015, the trend of this index has been relatively stable. The index is 102.93 on November 30th, appreciated 2.93% from the end of 2014. This shows that, even though RMB has depreciated against USD since the beginning of this year, it has appreciated modestly against a basket of currencies. Therefore, RMB is relatively a strong currency among the major international currencies.

Lots of words to say one thing, China has revealed its own trade-weighted index, and this is how we explained why first thing this morning: “the Trade-Weighted Yuan is still too strong.”

Yes, China will henceforth look at the Yuan not only relative to the USD but relative to the currencies of all its trade partners (since the USD keeps surging and on a relative basis, China’s deval to the USD means nothing at all relative to all other currencies).

Why is this a big deal? Because as frequent readers will recall, as we noted on August 11, just hours after China’s just as stunning one-time devaluation of the Yuan, the reality is that the Yuan… did not devalue much at all.

This is what we said precisely 4 months ago:

This morning’s Chinese record currency devaluation, in which the Yuan was devalued by 1.9% against the USD may sound like a lot… until one considers that the Chinese currency has been pegged to the US dollar, which as reported extensively over the past year, has exploded higher not so much due to the strength of the US economy but due to expectations of what may be the Fed’s biggest mistake in recent years: a rate hike which will assure the US economy’s tailspin into recession.

In effect what the PBOC did earlier today is inform the world it would no longer stay pegged to a Fed whose monetary intentions are complete lunacy for a mercantilist exporter, one whose economy is getting crushed as a result of the tight linkage between the USD and CNY, and even if it means massive capital flight as the opportunity cost, so be it. Furthermore, considering that the CNY was until recently the second most expensive currency according to Barclays, it is amazing it took Beijing this long to pull the plug.

We then accused the PBOC, which sought to assuage fears that it too was doing a “one and done” of lying:

how much more devaluation is in store for the CNY? Well, if one believes the PBOC, today’s intervention was a “one off.” The problem is that just like every central bank in modern history, the Chinese central bank is lying.

We proceeded to give a quick observation of what one can expect:

According to the PBOC press release, the unexpected change in fixing mechanism today was in response to the prospective Fed liftoff, which has the potential to cause further strengthening in the USD and capital flow volatility. The CNY on a trade weighted basis has appreciated sharply alongside the USD strength, and is still about 15% higher than a year ago after today’s move. However, we think a FX move of today’s scale, while significant by the standard of CNY’s historical movement, is unlikely to give a strong boost to growth.

In other words, today’s “devaluation” is a tiny pinprick in the grand scheme of the CNY’s revaluation since the USD surge started in 2014. This becomes especially apparent when one sees the impact of the CNY’s peg to the soaring USD, and last night’s shocking announcement, in context.

We then answered how much more downside in the CNY there is: “now that the PBOC has thrown in the towel and will aggressively devalue the currency, the answer is somewhere between 10 and 15% more if China wishes to regain its competitive status as of just last summer!”

To continue reading: What China’s Stunning Ammouncement Means

He Said That? 12/8/15

From Ben Bernanke, at the time Chairman of the Federal Reserve, “Remarks by Governor Ben S. Bernanke at the Conference to Honor Milton Friedman, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois,” federalreserve.gov (2002-11-08), commenting to Milton Friedman’s public statement that the Great Depression was caused by the Federal Reserve Bank:

Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve System. I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You’re right, we did it. We’re very sorry. But thanks to you, we won’t do it again.

Bernanke was wrong on both counts. The new Federal Reserve stoked the monetary fires and turned the 1920s into the Roaring Twenties (see America’s Great Depression, Murray N. Rothbard). The music stopped when the Fed began raising interest rates, but that should have led only to a recession. The Fed had little to do with turning that recession into the Great Depression by excessive monetary stringency, contrary to Friedman and Anna Schwartz’s thesis (see America’s Great Depression and The Great Deformation, David Stockman). Herber Hoover, Franklin Roosevelt and their brainless trusters can take the credit for that one.

However, the Fed’s quantitative easing and interest rate suppression policies have laid the groundwork for a Depression that will rival and probably surpass the Great Depression. So, to sum up SLL’s complete contradiction of Bernanke: the Federal Reserve did not cause the Great Depression, but its policies since the financial crisis will cause an even Greater Depression. Judging by the stream of articles on economic and financial deterioration around the globe, featured on SLL every day (and SLL culls those articles from a much broader universe), and noting their recent intensification, it looks like that Greater Depression has arrived.

The Lull Before The Storm—–An Ideal Chance To Exit the Casino, Part 1, by David Stockman

From David Stockman at davidstockmanscontracorner.com:

Last night’s Asian action brought another warning that the global deflation cycle is accelerating. Iron ore broke below $40 per ton for the first time since the central banks kicked off the world’s credit based growth binge two decades ago; it’s now down 40% this year and 80% from its 2011-212 peak.

As the man said, however, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet. That’s because the above chart is not merely reflective of too much supply and capacity growth enthusiasm in the iron ore industry or even some kind of worldwide commodity super-cycle that has gone bust.

Instead, the iron ore implosion is symptomatic of a much deeper and more destructive malady. Namely, it reflects the monumental malinvestment generated by two decades of rampant credit expansion and falsification of debt and equity prices by the world’s convoy of money printing central banks.

Since 1994 the aggregate balance sheet of the world’s central banks has expanded by 10X—— rising from $2.1 trillion to $21 trillion over the period. This rise does not measure any kind of ordinary trend which temporarily got out of hand; it represents an outbreak of monetary insanity that is something totally new under the sun.

What it means is that the Fed, ECB, BOJ, People’s Bank of China (PBOC) and the manifold lesser central banks purchased $19 trillion of government bonds, corporate debt, ETFs and even individual equities and paid for it by hitting the electronic “print” button on their respective financial ledgers.

This central bank balance sheet expansion, in fact, represented 70% of the world’s entire GDP as of the time the print-fest began in 1994. Yet as an accounting matter this monumental expansion was inherently suspect .

That’s because the asset side was mushroomed by the acquisition of already existing assets——-financial claims which had originally funded the purchase of real goods and services.

By contrast, the equal and opposite liability side expansion consisted of newly bottled monetary credit conjured from thin air; it represented nothing of tangible value, and most especially not savings obtained from the prior production of real economic output.

To continue reading: The Lull Before The Storm

Salting the Economy to Death—-Lessons From The San Joaquin Valley, by MN Gordon

There’s nothing here on central bank policy that you haven’t read on SLL before, but the analogy to San Joaquin Valley water and agricultural policies is quite clever. From MN Gordon at davidstockmanscontracorner.com:

One popular delusion that won’t seem to go away is the notion that policy makers can stimulate robust economic growth by setting interest rates artificially low. The general theory is that cheap credit compels individuals and businesses to borrow more and consume more. Before you know it, the good times are here again.

Profits increase. Jobs are created. Wages rise. A new cycle of expansion takes root. These are the supposed benefits to an economy that central bankers can impart with just a little extra liquidity. Unfortunately, this policy antidote doesn’t always work out in practice.

Certainly cheap credit can have a stimulative influence on an economy with moderate debt levels. But once an economy has reached total debt saturation, where new debt fails to produce new growth, the cheap credit trick no longer works to stimulate the economy. In fact, the additional credit, and its counterpart debt, actually strangles future growth.

Present monetary policy has landed the economy at the unfavorable place where more and more digital monetary credits are needed each month just to stand still. After seven years of ZIRP, financial markets have been distorted to the point where a zero bound federal funds rate has become restrictive. At the same time, applications of additional debt only serve to further the economy’s ultimate demise.

The fundamental fact is that the current financial and economic paradigm, characterized by heavy handed Federal Reserve intervention into credit markets, is dying. Debt based stimulus is both sustaining and killing the economy at the same time.

No doubt, this is a strange situation that has developed. For further instruction, let’s look to California’s San Joaquin Valley…

To continue reading: Salting the Economy to Death

Does the Bell Toll for the Fed? by Ron Paul

From a guest post by Ron Paul on theburningplatform.com:

Last week Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen hinted that the Federal Reserve Board will increase interest rates at the board’s December meeting. The positive jobs report that was released following Yellen’s remarks caused many observers to say that the Federal Reserve’s first interest rate increase in almost a decade is practically inevitable.

However, there are several reasons to doubt that the Fed will increase rates anytime in the near future. One reason is that the official unemployment rate understates unemployment by ignoring the over 94 million Americans who have either withdrawn from the labor force or settled for part-time work. Presumably the Federal Reserve Board has access to the real unemployment numbers and is thus aware that the economy is actually far from full employment.

The decline in the stock market following Friday’s jobs report was attributed to many investors’ fears over the impact of the predicted interest rate increase. Wall Street’s jitters about the effects of a rate increase is another reason to doubt that the Fed will soon increase rates. After all, according to former Federal Reserve official Andrew Huszar, protecting Wall Street was the main goal of “quantitative easing,” so why would the Fed now risk a Christmastime downturn in the stock markets?

Donald Trump made headlines last week by accusing Janet Yellen of keeping interest rates low because she does not want to risk another economic downturn in President Obama’s last year in office. I have many disagreements with Mr. Trump, but I do agree with him that the Federal Reserve’s polices may be influenced by partisan politics.

Janet Yellen would hardly be the first Fed chair to allow politics to influence decision-making. Almost all Fed chairs have felt pressure to “adjust” monetary policy to suit the incumbent administration, and almost all have bowed to the pressure. Economists refer to the Fed’s propensity to tailor monetary policy to suit the needs of incumbent presidents as the “political” business cycle.

To continue reading: Does the Bell Toll for the Fed?

Crisis Progress Report (13): Time for the Crash, by Robert Gore

From the last Crisis Progress Report, dated October 1: “Assume a rally like the one in 2008 is in the offing. If the 2008 rally’s timing is any guide, this one will start between now and New Year’s, but there are no assurances; it may begin next year.” SLL did not know then that the rally was already underway, the market having made its recent closing low on September 28. Now that the market has rallied, in the perverse way that markets work, Friday’s employment report, the best in some time, may well kick off the next down leg. October has had its share of market crashes, so with fear high at the beginning of the month, the market rallied and October was its best month in years. November and December are often strong, marked by end-of-the-year “Santa Claus” rallies. Again, in their perverse way, markets this year may leave a lump of high-sulfur-content, CO2-releasing, soon-to-be-outlawed coal in investors’ stockings.

This latest employment report will be revised multiple times; it is subject to a variety of abstruse statistical criticisms; it is seasonally and birth-death-model adjusted; it shows that almost all the jobs in October were taken by older workers, and finally, employment is, as any economist will tell you, a lagging indicator. Whatever the ambiguities in the employment report, there is no gainsaying that debt contraction is rolling through, and roiling, the global economy in textbook fashion. Global debt, central bank and government-force fed, approaches $225 trillion and has grown faster than global GDP for decades. It is the most massive in history, measured in either absolute terms or in relative terms against global GDP.

Debt is close to or at a high point that may not be exceeded for decades, but the underlying forces of contraction are in full flower. They first appeared in the most leveraged sector relative to its ability to repay: natural resources. China blew a debt-fueled bubble, and its economic “miracle” stoked investment in natural resources around the world. That investment binge was aided mightily by artificially low, central-bank suppressed interest rates. Once China’s bubble started to deflate, as all such bubbles must, investment that looked “opportunistic” on the way up has became malinvestment, with gluts in oil, iron ore, coal, aluminum, nickel, fertilizer, and a host of other raw materials.

Earlier this year, it was possible, if one was completely ignorant of debt dynamics, or “debtonomics” as SLL has christened them (see Debtonomics Archive), to argue that the raw materials situation would be contained. The same assurances were given in 2007 about the pending collapse of the housing and mortgage finance markets, and the present assurances will prove as spot off as those were. Natural resources are a far larger part of the global economy than the what proved to be earth-shaking US housing and mortgage finance market was in 2007. There are too many debt contraction ripples rippling out; the only way the contained argument can be made now is through willful ignorance. (SLL has been glutting its blog postings with stories on those ripples. Rather than clutter up this article with a multitude of links, readers who have missed those stories and are interested should scan through the blog over the last month.)

The glut of raw materials has led to a glut in raw materials transport. Tankers, bulk shipping vessels, and container ships are in oversupply and shipping rates have collapsed, in some cases to all time lows. China’s exports and imports are shrinking, as is overall global trade. The ripples are reaching US shores, where railroads are reporting shrinking volumes of not just natural resources, but chemicals, containers, and industrial products. The trucking industry is following suit; the US load-to-truck ratio just hit a 33-month low. Neither US railroads nor trucks are directly tied into China, but they are nevertheless being affected by reduced demand from China that is anything but “contained.”

Notice that the contraction has moved beyond raw materials. Cheap money and China’s supposedly perpetually expanding demand prompted fervid increases in Chinese and global industrial capacity, now overcapacity. Exhibit A is the steel industry, burdened with massive oversupply. Its raw material, iron ore, has gone from $154 per dry metric ton in February of 2013 to its current price below $50 per dry metric ton. It’s the same story with cement, finished aluminum and copper products, industrial machinery, tractors, and engines, to name a few. The segment of the global economy that makes things, especially the segment that makes things for other industrial users, is looking at gluts as devastating as those faced by producers of raw materials. Last month, Daniel Florness, the CEO of Fastenal, a US company that makes nuts, bolts, and other fasteners said, “The industrial environment is in a recession—I don’t care what anybody says, because nobody knows that market better than we do. You know, we touch 250,000 active customers a month.” (“‘Our Data Is Not Good’ – US Companies Warn That A Recession Is Coming,” by Tyler Durden, SLL, 10/26/15).

The fashionable refrain is that none of this will put the US in a recession because the US economy is based on services, not mining, manufacturing, and exports. The stock market has recovered most of its August and September losses, the housing market is holding up, and service sector statistics still show growth. This optimism is misplaced. The things-you-can-touch economy buys legal and financial services, communications, technology, insurance, consulting, office space, real estate, and advertising. The idea that significant cutbacks by America’s mining, manufacturing, transport, and distribution companies will have minimal impact on its service companies ignores the extensive commercial relationships between the two groups.

Layoffs have begun in mining, oil, and gas and will spread. The newly unemployed cut back on store trips, restaurants, entertainment, and other discretionary spending in the service economy. They may, heaven forbid, even cut back on their smart phone usage. Then we’ll know that things are really, really bad. About the only sector that may appear immune, at least for a while, is the government, but the relative health of this nonproductive—or more accurately, counterproductive—sector, will come, as it always does, at the expense of the rest of the economy.

One of the US’s world-beating service industries—the production, packaging, and distribution of debt—is already showing the strain. Fracking and mining companies are seeing their credit lines curtailed or eliminated, and bond financing unavailable or prohibitively priced. What started in the oil and gas corner of the bond market—widening credit spreads—has spread out to a general increase. The ultra-cheap interest rates that allowed companies to finance shareholder friendly dividends and buybacks are ratcheting up. Banks are cutting their commitments to both the investment grade and high-yield corporate bond markets. Constriction in credit markets often precedes significant stock market declines, but hey, things are different this time. Flinty creditors spend all their time looking at boring old balance sheets, revenues, expenses, and cash flows. Equity markets have hope and faith and central bank pixie dust!

They can ignore the writing on the wall, but not the wall. That would be the one into which the global economy is smashing. Pixie dust has probably taken US equity markets about as far as they’re going to go. A crash that begins before Christmas will surprise only those who still believe in Santa Claus.

DON’T YOU DESERVE TO READ SOMETHING

YOU’LL ACTUALLY ENJOY?

TGP_photo 2 FB

AMAZON

KINDLE

NOOK