Category: Public Policy

At the Cato Institute?s 34th Annual Monetary Conference (Panel 3)

At the Cato Institute?s 34th Annual Monetary Conference (Panel 3)

Photo Credit: Frank N. Foode
Photo Credit: Frank N. Foode

==================================================

Moderator: Judy Shelton -?Co-Director, Sound Money Project, Atlas Network

Gerald P. O?Driscoll Jr.?-?Senior Fellow, Cato Institute

Kevin Dowd -?Professor of Finance and Economics, Durham University

Tyler Goodspeed -?Junior Fellow in Economics, University of Oxford

==========================

O’Driscoll — What CBs can’t do? They aren’t prescient. ?Policy discretion — results aren’t measured, and politicians blame the Fed when things go wrong, and take credit when things go right.

Politicians and Central bankers engage in “symbiotic rent-seeking.”

Fed reform would involve reducing the Fed’s scope, improving its performance and enhance?its accountability.

Fed should let assets roll off the balance sheet and even sell off securities on the long.

Eliminate Fed 13.3 powers to eliminate lender of last resort powers. ?Can’t implement a policy rule without that.

Wants to keep the regional Fed banks.

Dowd: “Money often costs too much” Ralph Waldo Emerson

John Law and money printing. ?Sir Robert Giffen: “Governments, when they meddle with money, are so apt to make blunders.”

Allowing people to use their money freely is often viewed with scepticism.

ZIRP is not stimulative. ?It is a trap.

QE/LSAP

QE — greatest Wall Street bailout of all time.

Argues that ZIRP causes productivity to drop. ?Real Private Non-residential investment has only now come back.

Can’t calibrate hedges because markets are too stable. ?In a crisis, that would shift.

QE has not worked in Japan. ?Policy is increasingly delusional.

NIRP [negative rates] — doesn’t make sense. ?If it makes your brain hurt you are sane.

Must abolish cash to do NIRP. ?The most vulnerable people depend on cash. ?Loss of cash is a loss of civil liberty. ?Bad guys use every amenity, including?cash.

Helicopter money is a form of redistribution, which should belong to Congress. ?End of sound money. Hyperinflation.

The most costly money is the money that is free.

Goodspeed: We all ought to read more financial history: Those sympathetic to the elimination of large institutions today will learn. ?Aids imagination. ?Gives you kind of a “control group” to work with.

Prior to 1863, the US states had a wide number of approaches. ?There was public, mutual, and no insurance for deposits. ?He looks at contiguous counties in different states with different insurance regimes.

They had no effect on bank failure initially. ?Over the long run, though, the more double liability resulted in less defaults. Public insurance — ?More exposure to real estate and interbank lending, and other types of opaque lending. ?Double liability took less risk prior to crises, but took more risk after crises, adding to system stability.

Seems to be that growth was the same across the counties with public vs double liability.

Scottish banks with unlimited liability. ?During a balance of payments crisis — uses an extension option against British speculators.

Upshot: Socializing losses does not work well in the long-term.

Q&A

1) Benefit of QE?

Banking system bailout, nothing else

2) Ed Teryakin — what should Congress do to change the mandate of the central bank to get a better outcome?

O’Driscoll — long weak recovery; U-3 unemployment low?because of people who have left the labor force

3) Walker Todd — lend in a panic only on collateral of recognizable value for lender of last resort powers?

O’Driscoll: Texas S&L crisis — collateral rules get fuddled.

4) Real purpose of stress tests?

To calm the public. ?The tests are bad, particularly in Europe.

5) John Flanders, Central Methodist University — Canadian experience many fewer defaults. ?Weren’t US banks over-regulated?

Unit banks less stable. ?Law of small numbers in Canada. ?But are fewer bank failures a good thing?

6) How did we end up with a central bank? ?George and Martha Washington owned shares in the Bank of England.

Goodspeed: US banking has always had more failures. MD & VA tobacco planters defaulting on Scottish banks in 1772.

Dueling notions on the need for central banks with the Founding Fathers. ?George Selgin tossed in a comment.

7) CPA — aren’t buybacks a waste of funds. ?Bernanke said there would be a wealth effect, and then spending will rise. ?Spending did not rise. ?Wealth effect is not big.

8 ) Isn’t it a bad thing that there were no Canadian bank failures — not enough risk taking? ?Morphed into a question on risk-based capital:

O’Driscoll: RBC is a disaster.

Goodspeed: Canada was not starved of capital. ?Banks regulations can lead to their own set of problems. (DM: RBC creates its own weaknesses, but the one covering insurance in the US is pretty good.)

 

At the Cato Institute?s 34th Annual Monetary Conference (Lunch)

At the Cato Institute?s 34th Annual Monetary Conference (Lunch)

Photo Credit: Luis Guillermo Pineda Rodas
Photo Credit: Luis Guillermo Pineda Rodas

==============================

LUNCHEON ADDRESS

Hon. Phil Gramm -?Former Chairman, Senate Banking Committee

Mark Calabria introduces him, maybe a little over the top — some clever comments and insightful, though. ?Gramm didn’t come to Congress to be loved. ?What does Mother think of your ideas, Gramm would often ask.

Gramm: A few key points, try to be brief…

1) Most of what you know is not so — echoing Twain

Quotes a book on Monetary Policy from the 19th century. ?Crisis: Obama: Greedy bankers took advantage of deregulation.

Insured commercial banks had high capital levels at the time of the crisis — 10% (DM: but look at the tangible capital ratios)

Government incented aggressive policies — highly levered with lots of Subprime mortgages as a result of CRA lending. ?(DM: note, I saw this in the low income tax credit business.)

2) Banks have been deregulated over the last half-century. ?No, at least not on net. FIRREA, Sarbox, and many others (of course look at Gramm Leach Bliley).

Glass Steagall existed prior to the Great Depression. ?Glass believed in the real bills doctrine. ?No evidence for banks overdoing margin lending. ?The Fed started eroding Glass Steagall prior to GLB. ?The only thing GLB did was allow banks to participate in a wide number of different businesses in separate subsidiaries. ?Argues that it clarified regulatory authority.

GLB made banks more stable. ?Clinton saw this in diversity of revenue streams. ?Argues that GLB had nothing to do with crisis.

3) Financial crisis occurred because of institutions too big to fail. ?940+ institutions were bailed out. ?Many large firms did not need the bailouts, and it was forced on them. ?Lehman was not too big to fail.

4) The bailouts were large and costly. ?S&L bailout $258B. ?Depositors bailed out. ?Current bailout: US Govt made $24B on the bailout.

5) What turned the crisis into the Great Recession? Obama pursued bad economic policies that overcapitalized the banks. ?As such the banks don’t lend, and the recovery was weak.

6) Worried about two hidden costs of Obama policies. a) run-up in the debt, which may lead to much high costs when interest rates normalize. ?b) explosion of the monetary base — IOER and reverse repos ameliorate, but what if we had a real recovery?

Government might find itself competing with private sector for capital then.

Q&A

1) Erin Caddell, Capstone LLC — how would you modify Dodd-Frank?

He would eliminate most of it, except that banks have to take back mortgages that default early.

2) Student from Georgetown: Major headwinds for debt reduction, what will happen?

Debt reduction won’t be top priority. ?Doesn’t get infrastructure investment. ?Either get rid of Obamacare or not. ?There will be people that lose as deregulation if it occurs.

Likes Pence and Priebus. ?(for now)

At the Cato Institute?s 34th Annual Monetary Conference (Panel 2)

At the Cato Institute?s 34th Annual Monetary Conference (Panel 2)

Photo Credit: Jeff Upson
Photo Credit: Jeff Upson

============================

PANEL 2: MONETARY MISCHIEF AND THE ?DEBT TRAP?

Moderator: Josh Zumbrun -?National Economics Correspondent, Wall Street Journal

Athanasios Orphanides -?Professor of the Practice of Global Economics and Management, MIT Sloan School of Management

H. Robert Heller -?Former Member, Federal Reserve Board of Governors

Daniel L. Thornton -?Former Vice President and Economic Advisor, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Zumbrun introduces the panel, saying they are monetary policy practitioners.

Athanasios Orphanides begins by praising Friedman, mentioning the book Monetary Mischief. (Note: Amazon Commission)

Limited space for fiscal policy given high debt levels. ?Monetary and fiscal are always linked, though central bankers are loath to discuss it. ?Puts up a graph of rising government debt 1998-present. ?Also graphs Italy, Germany, Japan. ?Is there a debt trap now? ?Is there monetary mischief, inflation, now?

(DM: Phil Gramm just sat down next to me.)

Can debt be sustainable over the long run? WIll there be policies that kill growth? ?Inflation is too low? ?Are there policies that raise the cost of financing debt? (Financial Repression)

Japan was already experiencing deflation prior to the crisis. ?ECB gets its own crisis as a result of their structure.

Puts up a graph of policy of ECB, BOJ, and Fed. ?Suggests that quantitative easing was warranted, and other abnormal monetary policies. ?Suggests that BOJ QE was mild until 2013.

Puts up a graph of Central Bank balance sheet sizes. ?Then one of average interest rates for government debt. ?Then one of real per capita GDP, suggests that Japan has not done much worse than the US, though demographics are a problem.

Comments that QE is a help to governments in financing their debts. ?Look at gross debt net of central bank holdings.

ECB great for strong economies, and poor for weak economies.

Fed — should we be concerned about the balance sheet? ?IMFsays we can grow out of the huge balance sheet if the balance sheet does not grow.

Unsound fiscal policy overburdens central banks.

Heller: everything I want to say has been said already. ?Monetary mischief: Monetary policy does not serve the nation. ?Debt trap: the det grows faster than GDP inexorably.

Suggests that a 0-2% target would be better than 2% for inflation. ?2% consensus under Greenspan — but that is not price stability — eventually Bernanke defines 2% as price stability.

QE was ineffective, and the Fed always overestimated its value. ?Limited room for future stimulus. Perverse effect on savings. ?Must save more to get the same amount of future funds. ?Growing income and wealth inequality.

Hyman Minsky: “Every expansion creates the seeds of its own destruction.”

Pension funds suffer and are underfunded. ?Life Insurers suffer a little. ?Stock market tracks QE. ?The rich do well as a result.

Moving closer to a Federal Debt trap. ?(Guy next to me says “Kaboom” when looking at the debt graph.) ?Interest payments double as interest rates normalize. ?(DM: that’s why they won’t normalize — at least not willingly.)

Thornton: The Fed’s policies are a disaster, and they are ongoing. ?QE and forward guidance on long-term yields. ?Risk-taking is reduced, and GDP grows more slowly. ?No empirical support for QE. ?Keynesian economics have led to a credit trap.

Puts up a graph of CD rates versus t-bills. ?Then Baa yields minus Aaa yields — markets had stabilized by 2010 by these measures. ?Bernanke also argued that QE reduced term premiums, but markets are not segmented.

That said, FOMC’s low interest rate policy, helped make long rates low. ?As the ’90s progressed, Fed funds became uncorrelated with long Treasuries. ?Detrended, after May 1988, behavior changed because the FOMC used the Fed funds rate as the main policy tool, which affects short rates predominantly.

Graph with high negative correlation between the Fed funds rate and the spread between 10 and 5-year Treasury yields. ?Quite striking. ?(DM: this is all bond math)

Graph of household net debt as as fraction of disposable income. ?New bubble of stocks plus real estate.

Argues that credit trap has been going on for 50 years or more. ? Reliance on credit is evident from the growth ?in government debt, which is a function of Keynesianism.

Q&A

Q1 Chris Ingles, CPA: Isn’t the Fed enabling the growth of a socialist state? ?Isn’t growth coming from government deficits?

Orphanides says blame governments, not central banks. ?CBs get forced into enabling the politicians in order to keep things stable.

Q2: Mike Mork, Mork CApital Management — wouldn’t it be better to let interest rates float to aid the market’s allocation of capital?

Thornton: Fed can’t really control interest rates. ?We could get out of the zero lower bond at any point by selling bonds and adjusting policy. ?Take away the excess reserves and the market will find its own level.

Orphanides: can use balance sheet or rates — focus on the results of price stability

Heller: Money supply prior to mid-80s under Volcker gave way to Fed funds under Greenspan. ?Existence of money market funds was a reason for that.

Patricia Sands from George Mason U: ?Were the central banks really surprised? ?Why do Central Banks exist in the first place?

Orphanides: we want to avoid inflation via monetizing the debt. ?We sometimes get second and third best solutions. ?We want to avoid the worst cases.

Heller: CBs can’t bail out governments without risking hyperinflation.

Thornton: interest rates are not the solution. ?They don’t create big changes in spending. ?(DM: Yes!)

At the Cato Institute?s 34th Annual Monetary Conference (Panel 1)

At the Cato Institute?s 34th Annual Monetary Conference (Panel 1)

Luis Guillermo Pineda Rodas Follow
Photo Credit: Luis Guillermo Pineda Rodas?

Moderator: Craig Torres -?Financial Reporter, Bloomberg News

John A. Allison?-?Former President and CEO, Cato Institute, and former Chairman and CEO, BB&T Bank

Mark Spitznagel -?President and CEO, Universa Investments, LP

James Grant -?Editor, Grant?s Interest Rate Observer

John Allison: Talk about Monetary vs Real economic effects. ?Wall Street did not cause the crisis. ?Was a combination of CRA and the GSEs, aided by the Federal Reserve.

When the dot-com bubble deflated, Greenspan ran monetary policy too loose, and deliberately inflated a housing bubble. ?Greenspan (DM: Bernanke) talked about the global savings glut. ?When rates rose, they rose rapidly in percentage terms rapidly.

Bernanke inverts the yield curve, incenting banks to take undue credit risk. ?Bernanke said that there would be no recession amid all of the bubbles. ?Many mainstream businessmen felt fooled by the Fed.

Average businessmen expect businessmen expect inflation, but it is not happening. ?Now they behave conservatively.

Regulation was worse than monetary policy. ?Risk-based capital. Privacy act. Sarbox.

A big deal, and I am the only one talking about it: Early ’80s: attacked bad banks and they failed — a good thing. ?Good banks kept operating. ?This time regulators saved bad banks and regulated good banks more heavily — perverse. ?Totally irrational.

Sheila Bair should not be viewed as a hero. ?Closed barn door after cow got out. ?Later “solutions” not useful.

Bernanke’s book: on the verge of global armageddon… JA thinks contagion was far smaller than perceived.

Liquidity requirements are restraining lending. ?Thinks that banks can’t aid in creating jobs. ?Lending standards are tight.

Likes a bill coming out that would loosen matters. ?Talks about the ’90s when BB&T opposed regulation on supposed racial discrimination in lending.

(DM: What a dog’s breakfast of clever and stupid)

Mark Spitznagel — management and hedging of extreme risks.

Mises — No laboratory experiments can be performed with respect to human action.

Talks about equilibria, correcting processes, etc. ?(DM: Loquacious, not going anywhere… boring.) ?Mentions Tobin’s q-ratio.

(DM: I remember that I didn’t give his book a good review. ?His talk validates that review.)

Tobin, a Keynesian, looked at the q-ratio as a monetary policy tool. ?But investment doesn’t get affected much by the q-ratio.

Shows how the q-ratio is negatively correlated with future returns, and the left tails get bigger as q-ratios get higher.

Trump can stimulate, but crashes will bring correction.

James Grant: Gruber, Obamacare founder said that it passed because the American people are stupid.

New ideas: what to do now after the election? Grant suggests older policies that existed over one century ago. ?Or, more modern: Taylor Rule? ?Friedman’s constant growth rate of money…

Monetary policy has been debated for the last 250 years… the Fed was viewed as a solution to the Money Trust, but brought its own problems. ?Pension fund problems…

The Fed has paid no price for its manifold failings. ?Double Liability would be a better method. ?Bank shareholders should bail out, not taxpayers. ?Monopoliies: PhD economists w/tenure, Federal Reserve.

$15 Trillion of government bonds have been sold with negative yields. ?A promise to store fiat money at a loss.

Panics used to occur at 10-year intervals, w/gold backing and double liability. ?The economy grew rapidly then.

Overstone: “the trouble with money is credit, and the trouble with credit is people.”

We like being spared volatility. ?How many truly want to have a Old Testament-level bear market?

Swiss National Bank? Creates francs to tamp down the currency and buys up euros, dollars, then stocks.

QE is a cautionary tale. ?It failed politically because it did not work. ?Failure of the PhD standard will lead to new thinking.

Q&A

Mark Q1: Trump sounds monetarist, not radical. ?Who will bring change? ?Who will swim against the tide of Statism?

Grant: Will swim against statism. ?Yeah!

Q2: Could gold trading be viewed by the US as a currency exchange? (lower taxes)

Grant: would be easy to do, but difficult to get done politically.

Q3: Isn’t the cost of funny money low productivity growth? ?(True everywhere it has been done)

Allison agrees. ?So does Spitznagel.

Q4 Julie Smith: recent events in India — the war on cash. ?Comments?

Grant talks about Ken Rogoff, and remove $50 and $10 bills so that negative rates can prevail. ?Someone picked up a copy in India — and it will be self-destructive. ?It murders the cash system, which is the real banking system in India.

Q5: Alex Billy Grad Student at Georgetown: Did the Mexican crisis in 1995 have an impact on future developments?

Allison: big New York banks got bailed out of an irrational risk. ?The cure for too big banks is to let them fail. ?Wall Street was bailed out at the cost of Main Street.

Bert Ely Q6: Support for Basel III is sagging. ?What would the effects be?

Allison: Great. ?Let’s just have a leverage ratio.

Me Q7: ?Risk based capital vs liquidity Life insurers vs Banks?

Allison: doesn’t see it that way. ?Insurers are very different than Banks. ?Buying too much MBS at banks as a result.

Q8: “Ships are safe in harbors, but that is not what ships are for.”

Grant: agrees. Goodhart: Banking and the finance of trade in New York. ?Banks had to remain liquid and well capitalized in order to survive. ?It was a good system.

Q9 (Torres): What should we do now?

Allison: Modify Dodd-Frank such that bank with a 10% leverage ratio could opt out of Dodd-Frank.

Grant: How to modify the Fed: End Humphrey-Hawkins. ?Don’t take a poison chalice… reform wisely after there has been a real crisis and want real solutions.

Spitznagel: end low rates so that economic actors don’t take marginal risks.

At the Cato Institute’s 34th Annual Monetary Conference (Prologue and Keynote)

At the Cato Institute’s 34th Annual Monetary Conference (Prologue and Keynote)

Photo Credit: Shawn Honnick
Photo Credit: Shawn Honnick

==============================

Hi. For long-term readers of Aleph Blog, when I am at this Conference, there are a lot of posts. If you tire of monetary policy, or my view of it, you can leave me for a day, or, read the summary that I will write this evening.

I got here early for once, taking Google Maps’ pessimistic estimate a little too seriously. ?That said, I ran into more jams going early (6:40-8:10) than when I used to work in DC. ?In a little bit,?James A. Dorn,?Vice President for Monetary Studies at the Cato Institute should open the program. ?When I get spare moments, I will be tweeting at @alephblog. ?You can also watch the hashtag CatoMC16.

(Note: what you will get from me in the next series of posts is basically a series of my notes on what is said at the conference. ?I will highlight my thoughts with “DM”)

(Hey! James Grant just walked next to me. ?I got to greet him.)

James Dorn is introducing the program and other affiliated programs. ?Mentions unconventional monetary policy — low rates, negative rates, big balance sheets for central banks. ?Do financial markets lead the Fed or vice-versa? ?How can markets play a greater role in monetary policy? (DM: perhaps those are opposed to each other.) ? He now introduces:

Thomas M. Hoenig –?Vice Chairman, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

Talks about monetary policy and macroprudential supervision. Suggests that policy has been too short-run focused, leading to less stability. ?The dual mandate sometimes leads to short-run behavior, though it does not have to. ?(DM: politics leads that.)

End of Glass-Stegall with lower levels of capital led to the crisis, with Commercial and Investment Banks seeking financial protection amid risky activities. ?Monetary policy was very accommodative leading up to the crisis. ?The system was more sensitive to shocks. ?Central Banks and government pumped in a great deal to stem the crisis. ?(DM: badly targeted)

The Fed and other central banks discovered the asset side of their balance sheets, and began to allocate credit to non-standard assets.

Macroprudential policy is touted as something to undo excesses of monetary policy, but it will not undo inequities stemming from wealth effects.

We now experience low real growth. ?Arguments are coming now to weaken macroprudential policy to goose growth. ?He argues that that would be long-run foolish. ?The system is fragile enough already, so don’t undo what little progress has been made to make things more stable.

(DM: mentions rising interest rates as a threat, but if banks are doing asset-liability management right, that should not be a risk.) ?Argues that rates should rise at a transparent and deliberate rate.

Argues that the industry should pay out less of their earnings, and retain them as working capital, and aid in increase of lending. ?The government safety net should not be an implicit subsidy to big banks. ?Long-term growth will be best achieved with strong banks.

Q&A

Thomas Attaberry FPA Advisors: Nonbanks are providing a lot of finance. ?How do you work with that?

Banks lend to nonbanks. ?We should regulate that lending.

Q2: Different capital for different classes of assets. ?Why can’t we change that?

Not a fan of Risk-based capital. ?(DM: !) Good as internal tools, but not as an external measure. ?Would simply use the leverage ratio.

Victoria Guido, Politico: How does the election change your view/practice of regulations?

He’s going to follow the law. ?It’s all he can do.

Guy at US Bureau Labor Statistics: What do you mean about labor normalizing?

Not sure what the guy is talking about. Finds it difficult to believe that zero interest rates for 8 years is normal. ?Misallocation of capital. ?Look at long term history — eventually move to a policy that reflects that. ?Will not be simple to undo zero rates. ?Quick? Slow?

Walker Todd, Middle TN State U: Professors talking about ETF market — isn’t this like CDOs etc. prior to the crisis.

Does not know what to say, will look at it. ?(Lousy question and answer.)

Carl Golvin Fed.info: How can fiat money lead to a stable economy? ?Why can’t we go back to gold/silver — constitutional money?

There are still bank crises under gold standards. ?Supports central banks with greater limits.

Max Gilman U Missouri — Mentions Bagehot and reserves held at bank of England. ?Why doesn’t FDIC set up a safety net for all financial institutions on a risk-based basis?

We get lobbied on all sorts of things. ?We provide capital on a legislated basis. ?Shareholders and bondlholders should absorb loss first and second (DM: good answer).

The Sun Will Rise Tomorrow, DV

The Sun Will Rise Tomorrow, DV

Photo Credit: MDV
Photo Credit: MDV?|| May you live to see many beautiful sunrises!

=============================

Regardless of your political point of view, life will go on after the election. ?Truth, given the two leading candidates, I get why many feel bad — they are both personally flawed to the degree that we shouldn’t want to entrust them with power. ?We all are sinners, myself included. ?That said, those who lead scandalous lives are unfit to lead society.

But under most conditions, cultures, economies, and governments survive bad leaders. ?This is true globally. ?This has been true in the US historically.

And guess what? ?The markets really don’t care that much about current politics. ?Markets in aggregate react to changes in the long-term view of economic activity. ?The only things that interfere with economic activity to that degree are:

Sudden

  • Wars (think of the World Wars, or the Thirty or Hundred Years Wars)
  • Plague (think of the Black Death, severe as it was the influenza epidemic of 1918 was just a speed bump in comparison)
  • Famine (usually associated with severe Socialism… think of the Ukraine in 1932-33, the Great Leap Forward 1958-61, Pol Pot in Cambodia, present-day North Korea or Venezuela…?and there is more)

Gradual

  • Changes in human fertility
  • Technological change
  • Gradual increasing willingness for people to be trusting in economic relationships, leading to investment, lending and trade on a wider scale, leading to lower costs of capital. (That included ending the teaching of Aristotle that money is sterile, which happened among Christians at the Reformation, and among Muslims in the late 20th century in some convoluted workarounds)
  • Cultural changes such as the willingness to not engage in subsistence agriculture, and trust the division of labor. ?Willingness to educate children (including women) rather than use them for immediate productive purposes.
  • Desire of the governing powers to wall off resources for their private use or non-use ?(think of governments owning huge amounts of land, and denying use of the land to most. ?Same for technologies?and resources.)

I’m sure there are things I left out, which could make for a lively conversation in the comments. ?But note this: in general, though the sudden events may have severe effects on economies and markets, they tend to be the most transitory. ?It’s the gradual changes that have the most effect in the long-run.

Also note that most of these do not get affected much by normal politics. ?Yes, the “one child policy” affected human fertility, but look at efforts by governments to get husbands and wives to have children and the effects are tiny at best. ?And even the “one child policy” is partially reversed, and I expect that it will be dropped in entire. ?(And then the Christians and Muslims can stop hiding their children…)

Governments can intervene in economies lightly or moderately, and people adjust. ?Overall productivity doesn’t change much. ?At severe levels of intervention, it ?changes a lot. ?Intelligent people look for the exits, even at the cost of being exiles.

Governments can go to war, and if it is small relative to a country that is involved, the effects are light. ?Big wars are different, and can destroy productivity for a generation, or permanently, if the culture doesn’t survive.

The Great Depression, bad it was, and loaded with policy failures of Hoover and FDR, ended in less than a generation. ?The markets recovered as if it had never happened, and then some.

Are our government policies, including those of the central bank, lousy? ?Yes. ?WIll they get worse under Trump or Clinton? ?Sure.

Things won’t likely be bad enough to derail the economy and the markets for more than a generation, so invest for the future. ?The Sun will rise tomorrow, Lord willing.

But,?the Son of God will reign forever.

 

Afterthought

The collapse of debt fueled bubbles can only affect less than a generation. ?Why? ?They don’t affect productive capital assets, they only affect who owns them, and receives benefits from them. ?That is why depressions have far less effect than major wars on your home soil or major plagues. ?Eventually a new group of people pick up the pieces at reduced prices, and use the capital to new and better ends.

Redacted Version of the November 2016 FOMC Statement

Redacted Version of the November 2016 FOMC Statement

Photo Credit: Norman Maddeaux
Photo Credit: Norman Maddeaux

Information received since the Federal Open Market Committee met in JulySeptember?indicates that the labor market has continued to strengthen and growth of?economic activity has picked up from the modest pace seen in the first half of?this year. Although the unemployment rate is little changed in recent months,?job gains have been solid, on average.Household spending has?been growing stronglyrising moderately but business fixed?investment has remained soft. Inflation has continued to runincreased?somewhat since earlier this year but is still below the Committee’s?2 percent longer-run objective, partly reflecting earlier declines in energy?prices and in prices of non-energy imports. Market-based measures of inflation?compensation have moved up but remain low; most?survey-based measures of longer-term inflation expectations are little changed,?on balance, in recent months.

Consistent?with its statutory mandate, the Committee seeks to foster maximum employment?and price stability. The Committee expects that, with gradual adjustments in?the stance of monetary policy, economic activity will expand at a moderate pace?and labor market conditions will strengthen somewhat further. Inflation is?expected?to remain low in the near term, in part because of earlier declines in energy?prices, but to rise to 2 percent over the medium term as the?transitory effects of past declines in energy and import prices dissipate and?the labor market strengthens further. Near-term risks to the economic outlook?appear roughly balanced. The Committee continues to closely monitor inflation?indicators and global economic and financial developments.

Against?this backdrop, the Committee decided to maintain the target range for the?federal funds rate at 1/4 to 1/2 percent. The Committee judges that the case?for an increase in the federal funds rate has strengthenedcontinued to?strengthen but decided, for the time being, to wait for some?further evidence of continued progress toward its objectives. The stance of
monetary policy remains accommodative, thereby supporting further improvement?in labor market conditions and a return to 2 percent inflation.

In?determining the timing and size of future adjustments to the target range for?the federal funds rate, the Committee will assess realized and expected?economic conditions relative to its objectives of maximum employment and 2?percent inflation. This assessment will take into account a wide range of?information, including measures of labor market conditions, indicators of?inflation pressures and inflation expectations, and readings on financial and?international developments. In light of the current shortfall of inflation from?2 percent, the Committee will carefully monitor actual and expected progress?toward its inflation goal. The Committee expects that economic conditions will?evolve in a manner that will warrant only gradual increases in the federal?funds rate; the federal funds rate is likely to remain, for some time, below?levels that are expected to prevail in the longer run. However, the actual path?of the federal funds rate will depend on the economic outlook as informed by?incoming data.

The?Committee is maintaining its existing policy of reinvesting principal payments?from its holdings of agency debt and agency mortgage-backed securities in?agency mortgage-backed securities and of rolling over maturing Treasury?securities at auction, and it anticipates doing so until normalization of the level?of the federal funds rate is well under way. This policy, by keeping the?Committee’s holdings of longer-term securities at sizable levels, should help?maintain accommodative financial conditions.

Voting?for the FOMC monetary policy action were: Janet L.?Yellen, Chair; William C. Dudley, Vice Chairman; Lael?Brainard; James Bullard; Stanley Fischer; Jerome H.?Powell; Eric?Rosengren; and Daniel K. Tarullo. Voting against the action were: Esther L. George, and?Loretta J. Mester, and Eric Rosengren,?each of whom preferred at this meeting to raise the target range for the?federal funds rate to 1/2 to 3/4 percent.

Thoughts

If the FOMC wanted to throw a curve ball at the markets (not that they have had the courage to do that in some time), there’s a simple thing that they could do, and it is not that big: ?Stop reinvesting the maturing proceeds from the Treasury debt, agency debt, and agency MBS. ?It would be an interesting test of the markets, and if things go nuts, they could always reverse direction.

As it is, with a flattish yield curve and financial companies hungry for safe yield, it would be a low cost way to estimate what normalization of policy might do. ?After all, the maturing proceeds are short duration assets; the investments of the Fed in longer duration securities would be mostly untouched. ?As the Fed receives “cash” and reduces bank deposits at the Fed, banks would look for replacement assets.

Just a thought. ?As for today’s announcement, it was a nothing-burger — not much change aside from Rosengren switching sides. ?After all, you can’t make that much out of seeming economic changes over a 6-8 week period. ?They are typically just noise that the FOMC over-interprets in their statement.

Personally, I think that the FOMC will do nothing in December. ?Remember, they always talk a good game, but bow to loose policy in the end. ?There will come a time when they surprise and tighten, but that time may come sometime in 2017, if not later.

Of Milk Cows and Moats

Of Milk Cows and Moats

Photo Credit: Alison & Orlando Masis
Photo Credit: Alison & Orlando Masis

============================================

Before I write my piece, I want to say a word about the virtue of voting for third party candidates for President. ?Personally, I would like to see an option where we can vote for None of the Above, on all races. ?That would allow us to break the duopolistic power of the Democrats and Republicans without having to have a viable third party. ?The ability to reject all of the candidates so that a new election would have to be held with new candidates would be powerful, and would make both parties more sensitive to all of the voters, not just minorities on the left and right.

Still, I’m voting for a third party candidate mostly as a protest. ?I consider the protest to be an investment, because it has no value for the current election, but may have value for future elections if it teaches the two main parties that they no longer have a stranglehold on the electorate. ?The cost of doing so in this election for President is minuscule, because both candidates are dishonest egotists.

Character matters; if a person is not honest you will not get what you thought you were voting for. ?In this election, more than most, people are projecting onto Hillary and Donald what they want to see. ?Trump is not a man of the people, and neither is Clinton. ?They are both elitist snobs; they are members of rival cliques that dominate their respective parts of the main country club that the privileged enjoy.

There is no loss in not voting for them. ?If you want to send a message, vote for someone other than Clinton or Trump.

==============================

Of Milk Cows and Moats

It’s become fashionable to talk about moats in investing as an analogy for sustainable competitive advantages. ?Buffett popularized it, and many use it in investment analysis today. ?Morningstar has made a lot out of it.

I’d like to talk about the concept from a broader societal angle. ?This may look like a divergence from talk on investing, but it does have a significant influence on some investing.

I live in the great state of Maryland. ?A while ago, I wrote an award-winning piece on publicly traded companies in Maryland. ?My main conclusion was that many corporations are?in Maryland because the founder lived here. ?Other corporations were in Maryland because of the talent available to manage healthcare firms, defense firms, hotels, and REITs. ?Only the last one, REITs, had any significant advantage imparted by the state itself — Maryland was the first state with a statute allowing for REITs.

Why do corporations leave Maryland? ?Well, when a merger takes place, the acquirer usually figures out that the company would likely be better off reducing its presence in Maryland, and increasing its presence elsewhere. ?Costs, taxes and regulation will be lower. ?The countervailing advantage of an educated workforce is usually not enough to keep jobs here, unless that is the main input to what the firm does, such as biotechnology — hard to beat the advantage of having Johns Hopkins, NIH, and the University of Maryland nearby.

All of this suggests a model of businesses and people entering and leaving an area that is akin to the moats we describe in business. ?Most businesses know that it will be expensive to move.

  • They will lose people, or, it will be costly to move them
  • There will be an interruption to operations in some ways.
  • The educational quality of people might not be as great in the new area.
  • Some taxes and regulations could be higher.

Thus to induce a move, another municipality might offer incentives of tax abatement, a low interest loan, etc. ?The attracting municipality is making a business decision — what do they give up in taxes (and have to spend on services) versus what they gain in other taxes, etc. ?The attracting municipality also assumes that there will be some stickiness when the incentives run out. ?If you need an analogy, it is not that much different than what it takes to attract and retain a major league sports franchise.

What municipalities lose businesses and people? ?Those that treat them like milk cows. ?Take a look at the states, counties and cities that have lost vitality, and will find that is one of the two factors in play, the other being a concentrated industry mix in where the dominant industry is in decline.

The more a municipality tries to milk its businesses and people, the more the businesses begin to hit their flinch point, and look for greener pastures. ?With the loss of businesses and people, they may try to raise taxes to compensate, leading to a self-reinforcing cycle that eventually leads to insolvency.

A municipality can fight back by offering its own incentives to retain companies and people. ?This can lead to a version of the prisoners’ dilemma, or a “race to the bottom” as corporations play off municipalities against each other in order to get the best deal possible. ?There is an analogy to war here, because the mobile enemy has significant advantages. ?There is an analogy to antitrust as well, because municipal governments are allowed to collude against corporations, and it would be to their advantage to do so, if they could agree.

In a game like this, the healthiest municipalities have the strongest bargaining position — they can offer the best deals. ?There is a tendency for the strong to get stronger and the weak weaker. ?Past prudence has its rewards. ?Present prudence is costly, both economically and politically, is difficult to achieve, and?future people will benefit who will not remember you politically.

One more note: Maryland has another problem, which affects some of my friends in the industry who have Maryland-centric.investment management practices. ?(My firm is national. ?More of my clients are outside of Maryland than inside.) ?When wealthy people in Maryland retire, their probability of leaving Maryland goes up, as the “moat” of their Maryland job disappears. ?Again states can adjust their tax policies to try to retain people in their states. ?On the other hand, some attempt to tax former residents who earned their pensions in their states, and things like that.

This is just another example of how municipalities have limits to the amount they can tax before the tax base erodes.

(Dare we mention how the internet is still costing states some of their sales taxes? ?Nah, too well known.)

Upshot

When considering businesses that rely on a given locality, ask how the health of the locality affects the business. ?It’s worth considering. ?For those who invest in municipal bonds, it is a critical factor. ?Particularly as the Baby Boomers age, weak municipalities will come under pressure. ?Stick with strong municipalities, and services that would be impossible to do without.

Finally, think about your own life. ?Is it possible:

  • that your firm could move and leave you behind?
  • that your taxes could rise significantly because businesses and people are leaving?
  • that your taxes could rise significantly because state employee benefit plans are deeply underfunded?
  • that your municipal job could be put in danger because of prior weak economic decisions on the part of the municipality?
  • that real estate prices could fall if the exodus of people from your area accelerates?
  • Etc.

Then consider what your own “plan B” might be, and remember, earlier actions to leave are better actions if you are correct. ?The options are always lousy once an economic bust arrives.

On the Decline of Lifestyle Employment

On the Decline of Lifestyle Employment

Photo Credit: Paul
Photo Credit: Paul

=====================

Industries come and industries go. Jobs come and go, and they morph. ?Perhaps we should take heart that politicians don’t change. ?Most still think that certain types of jobs need to be preserved and protected. ?Also, politics doesn’t ever seem to have productivity improvements, such that the same things could get done (or not) with fewer people.

Looking at the history of the past 200 years, and the?jobs that existed then and exist now, you would conclude that less than 10% of people working in the US today occupy jobs remotely similar to what was done 200 years ago. ?(I exclude homemakers who do valuable work for their households that is blissfully untaxed.)

There are places that had prosperity for a time because an industry grew large, and then that industry went into decline, or at least, increased labor productivity reduced employment in that industry. ?I’ll toss out a few:

  • Agriculture generally
  • Coal mining
  • Iron ore mining
  • Steel
  • Auto production
  • Construction
  • Newspapers
  • Magazines
  • Bookstores
  • Textiles
  • Telephones
  • Apparel
  • Family farms
  • Many industrial jobs

The last two are notable for the passion that they generate. ?Politicians will say that family farms have to be protected and that we need more good industrial jobs. ?Both are hopeless causes. ?Farms benefit from scale in general, though small farms can do well if they have a specialty where?people are willing to pay up to gain the quality of the product.

Industrial employment is going down globally. ?The application of information technology to industrial processes allows as much or more to be made, while hiring fewer workers.

The politicians may as well beg that we could stop time or reverse it. ?Absent some astounding catastrophe it is hard to see how productivity would decline such that more workers ?are needed in industrial jobs. ?”Ned Ludd” lost that war over 200 years ago.

Politicians might be able to shift where jobs are located, but not the total amount that gets produced or the number hired globally. ?Anytime you hear them say that they will increase the quantity, quality or pay of jobs, it is best to ignore the politicians. ?They are?promising something that they can’t control. ?The same is true of central bankers; if they can do anything about the number of jobs, it is highly transitory, as policy loosens and tightens; jobs flow and ebb.

Anyone looking seriously over the last 200 years should conclude that in this modern world with the extended division of labor that jobs will continue to morph, appear, and disappear. ?The internet has led to the disappearance and creation of many jobs, and I don’t think that that trend is complete yet.

My best advice to you is this: learn, grow, be flexible, and be willing to work in ways that you never imagined. ?The clock will not be turned back on technology, which is the main factor affecting employment. ?You must be your own defender, because the factors affecting employment are bigger than that which governments can control. ?Finally, as an aside, don’t trust the politicians (from any party) who say they will improve your economic prospects. ?Aside from reducing what the government does, they haven’t succeeded in the past; they will not succeed in the present.

Thinking About Monetary Policy: A Counterfactual

Thinking About Monetary Policy: A Counterfactual

Photo Credit: Daniel Mennerich || A bridge described in fiction to bridge me to the counterfactual argument of this post
Photo Credit: Daniel Mennerich || A bridge described in fiction to bridge me to the counterfactual argument of this post

==============================

I received an email from a longtime reader:

 

David, here is a (possibly useless) thought experiment.

In 2005, PIMCO’s Paul McCulley was begging Ben Bernanke to halt the on- going quarter-point raises in the Fed Funds rate at 3.5 percent. I forget his exact reasoning, but he clearly thought that the financial markets couldnot accommodate short-term rates above 3.5 percent without substantial disruptions.

Suppose that Bernanke had listened to McCulley and capped the Fed Funds rate at 3.5 percent until it was clear how the markets would fare at that level. Would that alone have been sufficient to postpone or even avert the housing crisis? Or would it have made the crash even worse?

According to FRED, the Funds rate reached 3.5 percent in August 2005, and as we know housing prices nationally peaked about one year later, just as the Funds rate was topping out at 5.25 percent. Question is, did the additional 1.75 percent of increases serve to tip the housing market into decline, or was the collapse inevitable with or without the last seven quarter-point raises?

Any thoughts?

Here was my response:

I proposed the same thing at RealMoney, except I think I said 4%.? My idea was to stop at a yield curve with a modestly positive slope.? It might have postponed the crisis, and maaaaybe allowed banks and GSEs to slowly eat up all of the bad loan underwriting.

I had Googlebots tracking housing activity daily, and August 2015 was when sales activity peaked.? I announced it tentatively at RealMoney, and confirmed it two months later.? From data I was tracking, housing prices flatlined and started heading down in 2006.? The damage was probably done by 2005 — maybe the right level for Fed funds would have been 3%.

The trouble is, hedge funds and other entities were taking risk every which way, and a mindset had overwhelmed the markets such that we had the correlation crisis in May 2005, and other bits of bizarre behavior.? Things would have blown up eventually.? Speculative frenzy rarely cools down without the bear phase of the credit cycle showing up.

So, much as it would have been worth a try, it probably wouldn’t have worked.? The housing stock was already overvalued and overleveraged.? But it might have taken longer to pop, and it might not have been as severe.

But now for the fun question.? Is the Fed trying to do something like that now?? Are they so afraid of popping any sort of asset bubble that they have to be extra ginger in raising rates?? It seems any market “burp” takes rate rises off the table for a few months.

I don’t know.? I do know that the FOMC has only 1% of tightening to play with before the yield curve gets flat.? Also, obvious speculation is limited right now.? There is a lot that is overvalued, but there is no frenzy… unless you want to call nonfinancial corporation and government borrowing a frenzy.

Thanks for writing.

=============================================

The FOMC is Afraid of its own Shadow

If I were the Fed, I would end the useless jabbering that they do. ?I would also end the quarterly forecasts and press conference. I would also end publishing the statement and the minutes, and let people read the transcripts five years later. We would go back to the pre-Greenspan years, when monetary policy was managed better. ? Before I did that I would say:

The Fed has three responsibilities: controlling inflation, promoting full employment, and regulating the solvency of the banking system. ?We are not responsible for the health and well-being of financial markets. ?The ‘Greenspan Put’ is ended.

We will act to limit speculation within the banks, such that market volatility will have minimal impact on them. ?We want our pursuit of limited inflation and full employment to not be hindered by looking over our shoulder at the boogeyman that could affect the banking system. ?To that end, please realize that we will not care if significant entities lose money, including countries that may get whipped around by our pursuit of monetary policy in a way that benefits the American people.

We are not here as guarantors of prosperity for speculators. ?Really, we’re not here to guarantee anything except pursue a stable-ish price level, and to the weak extent that monetary policy can do so, aid full employment.

We hope you understand this. ?We do not intend to use our “lender of last resort” authority again, and will manage bank solvency in a way to avoid this. ?We may get called ‘spoilsports’ by the banks that we regulate, but in the end we are best served as a nation if solvency concerns dominate over the profitability of the banking industry.

As it is, the present FOMC fears acting because it might derail the recovery or spark a bear market in risky assets. ?Going beyond the mandate of the Fed has led to bad results in the past. ?It will continue to do so in the future.

The best way for the Fed to maintain its independence is to act independently and responsibly. ?Don’t listen to outside influences, particularly when hard things need to be done. ?Be the adult in the room, and tell the children that the medicine that you give them is for their good. ?Recessions are good, because they clear away bad uses of capital from the ecosystem, and make room for new more productive ideas to use the capital instead.

As it is, the Fed is afraid of its own shadow, and will not take any hard actions. ?That will either end with inflation, or an asset bubble that eventually affects the banks. ?A central bank like that does not follow its mandate does not deserve its independence. ?So Fed, if you won’t act for our long-term good, will you act to preserve your existence in your?present form?

Theme: Overlay by Kaira