Monthly Archives: June 2010

FOMC: No Change in Interest Rate or Policy at June 2010 Meeting

The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) of the Federal Reserve has left the target federal funds rate at a range between 0 and 0.25 percent, signally no change in its policy to keep the rate at the present level for “an extended period.”

After getting through the opening sentences of the statement, in which the FOMC expresses a somewhat rosy outlook on the economy, comes the real concerns: “Housing starts remain at a depressed level. Financial conditions have become less supportive of economic growth on balance, largely reflecting developments abroad. Bank lending has continued to contract in recent months.”  Certainly, the FOMC does not want to add fear to the markets, so it downplays these developments by burying them in the statement.  However, the astute reader will note that there remain significant problems with the nascent economic recovery.

The full text of the FOMC statement follows:

Information received since the Federal Open Market Committee met in April suggests that the economic recovery is proceeding and that the labor market is improving gradually. Household spending is increasing but remains constrained by high unemployment, modest income growth, lower housing wealth, and tight credit. Business spending on equipment and software has risen significantly; however, investment in nonresidential structures continues to be weak and employers remain reluctant to add to payrolls. Housing starts remain at a depressed level. Financial conditions have become less supportive of economic growth on balance, largely reflecting developments abroad. Bank lending has continued to contract in recent months. Nonetheless, the Committee anticipates a gradual return to higher levels of resource utilization in a context of price stability, although the pace of economic recovery is likely to be moderate for a time.

Prices of energy and other commodities have declined somewhat in recent months, and underlying inflation has trended lower. With substantial resource slack continuing to restrain cost pressures and longer-term inflation expectations stable, inflation is likely to be subdued for some time.

The Committee will maintain the target range for the federal funds rate at 0 to 1/4 percent and continues to anticipate that economic conditions, including low rates of resource utilization, subdued inflation trends, and stable inflation expectations, are likely to warrant exceptionally low levels of the federal funds rate for an extended period.

The Committee will continue to monitor the economic outlook and financial developments and will employ its policy tools as necessary to promote economic recovery and price stability.

Voting for the FOMC monetary policy action were: Ben S. Bernanke, Chairman; William C. Dudley, Vice Chairman; James Bullard; Elizabeth A. Duke; Donald L. Kohn; Sandra Pianalto; Eric S. Rosengren; Daniel K. Tarullo; and Kevin M. Warsh. Voting against the policy action was Thomas M. Hoenig, who believed that continuing to express the expectation of exceptionally low levels of the federal funds rate for an extended period was no longer warranted because it could lead to a build-up of future imbalances and increase risks to longer-run macroeconomic and financial stability, while limiting the Committee’s flexibility to begin raising rates modestly.

Geithner, Summers Outline Agenda for G-20 Meeting

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Lawrence Summers, director of the White House National Economic Council, are urging leaders from the Group of 20 nations to keep the economy growing by avoiding significant budget cuts. “We must demonstrate a commitment to reducing long-term deficits, but not at the price of short-term growth. Without growth now, deficits will rise further,” the officials wrote in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece.

The op-ed piece defines the struggle central banks and governments face in the current environment between providing sufficient liquidity for the economic recovery with banks and corporations still reeling from the credit crisis and maintaining fiscal responsibility so that the cost of issuing debt does not skyrocket and begin bankrupting whole countries.  Europe is worried more about the latter issue than the former.  Does anyone believe that the current political and central bank leaders have the competence to walk this tightrope without making severe policy mistakes?

The Treasury Department released the text of the piece as follows:

Our Agenda for the G-20

By Timothy Geithner and Lawrence Summers

This week, President Obama will travel to Toronto for the G-20 Summit. Engagement with the G-20 has been a key component of the administration’s strategy to defuse the global financial crisis and ensure economic recovery. Stronger growth with solid job creation here in the U.S. depends on an expanding global economy, and this year’s G-20 provides an important opportunity to focus on the policies required to reinforce growth.

In London last spring, the G-20 embraced an unprecedented and coordinated strategy to end this crisis. In Pittsburgh last fall, we established a new framework for global growth, and we designated the G-20 as the premier forum for international economic cooperation. In Toronto, we will take steps to ensure that the current recovery is self-sustaining.

Thanks to strong, decisive and coordinated action, President Obama and the other G-20 leaders have achieved significant progress since the London meeting. The global economy, which was then contracting at an unprecedented rate, is now expanding, and world trade has increased by more than 20% over the last 15 months.

This turnaround has been especially dramatic in the United States. At the time of the London summit, the U.S. economy was shrinking at an annual rate of 6%. Now it is growing at a rate in excess of 3%–the largest swing in U.S. growth in 50 years.

At the start of last year, the U.S. was losing more than 700,000 jobs a month, and today the private sector is generating new jobs. Recovery was only possible because we took action to repair our financial system, driving down borrowing costs for homeowners, consumers and businesses, and put in place the Recovery Act, which increased demand by cutting taxes for families, helping unemployed workers, and investing in public infrastructure.

We still face enormous challenges. To maintain the momentum of the U.S. recovery, we need strong, balanced and sustainable global growth. Global growth will help double U.S. exports over the next five years, supporting several million American jobs, a key goal of the president’s export initiative. The G-20 is critical to ensuring that global growth, and three priorities must be at the center of our agenda in Toronto.

First, the G-20 must continue to work together to secure the global recovery it did so much to bring about. We must ensure that global demand is both strong and balanced. While the U.S. was the major source of demand for the world economic growth before the crisis, global demand must rest on many pillars going forward. That is why the G-20 must support Europe’s reform program and the financing that Europe and the IMF will provide to countries facing acute fiscal challenges. There is a broad consensus about the importance of fiscal sustainability, but the precise timing and sequencing of that consolidation should vary across countries and be calibrated to maintain the momentum of private sector recovery.

Countries must put in place credible plans to stabilize debt-to-GDP levels and set a pace of consolidation that reinforces the momentum of growth. We must demonstrate a commitment to reducing long-term deficits, but not at the price of short-term growth. Without growth now, deficits will rise further and undermine future growth.

Emerging economies can help strengthen the global recovery by strengthening domestic sources of growth and by allowing more flexibility in their exchange rates. We welcome China’s recent decision to do so and look forward to its vigorous implementation.

Second, we need to accelerate efforts to establish a global framework for financial regulation. Here at home, we are on the verge of completing the most sweeping financial reform in more than 70 years. This reform will curb excessive risk-taking, reduce leverage, reform compensation, protect consumers, bring transparency and more competition to derivatives markets, address the problem of firms that are too big to fail, and make sure taxpayers do not bear the costs when firms do fail.

The world should welcome Europe’s announcement to bring greater disclosure to its banking system, which provides further momentum for the G-20 work to bring all global institutions and markets within a more transparent regulatory system. Critically, we need to reach agreement internationally on reducing leverage and raising capital requirements, improving both the quantity and quality of capital. While new measures must be phased in over time so as not to interfere with the flow of credit, establishing those rules now can be an important source of certainty and confidence.

Third, we need to make progress on other global challenges that are essential to the future security and prosperity of the world. Alongside our efforts to lay a new foundation for economic growth, we must follow through on our common commitment to raise living standards across developing countries and to make smarter investments in areas like agricultural development and food security.

In addition, we must address the urgent challenge of our energy needs, as the current disaster in the Gulf makes clear. In Pittsburgh, the G-20 countries agreed to phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies over time. The U.S. has laid out how it intends to achieve this goal, and we urge other G-20 countries to demonstrate their commitment to this critical objective by detailing how and when they plan to eliminate policies that encourage the overconsumption of fossil fuels.

In this new era, when emerging markets account for two-thirds of global growth, concerted action by the G-20 is the only effective way to confront the challenges that lie ahead. As world leaders arrive in Toronto, we must renew the sense of common purpose and collective urgency that has served the world so well over the past year and a half.

Banking Analyst Latest to Warn That Financial Reform has Dire Consequences

It has been outlined here in previous posts how the rush for Congress to finish a bill to reform the U.S. financial regulatory system (Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009, H.R. 4173) raises the specter of unintended consequences due to provisions that have not been well thought out and those that seek to punish the industry that drives the economy.  Now, add banking analyst Dick Bove to the list of those who believe that the legislation will have dire consequences for the financial industry and the economy as a whole.

According to a CNBC story, Bove said the financial-regulatory reform on which lawmakers are working would be so disastrous and damaging that Congress eventually would be forced to repeal it. Bove, an analyst at Rochdale Securities, said the changes would result in reduced competitiveness of financial institutions in the global system, loss of banking accounts for millions of consumers and other problems. “The Congress has created legislation to solve problems that may not exist and has not created legislation to deal with real problems,” Bove wrote in a note to clients.

One example is the imposition of higher capital requirements on banks still recovering from the credit crisis. Higher capital requirements will shrink the money supply, which in turn will trigger deflation, lower incomes, unemployment and a contracting economy, Bove said.

Moreover, the additional restrictions on deposit and credit accounts and increased regulation of consumer products will force bank to charge fees for routine services, which would spell the end of free checking accounts, for example.  Banks may also cut services as a result. “Millions of people will lose their bank accounts,” Bove said. “The cost of banking will go up for everyone as the banks apply monthly maintenance fees to all of their customers. Credit availability will be reduced and credit, which is available, will cost more to everyone.”

With the financial reform bill due to be completed by the end of this week, investors will want to avoid consumer-oriented financial firms, and that includes some of the largest institutions like JPMorgan Chase (JPM) and Bank of America (BAC).

China’s Currency Policy Shift Not as Positive as Markets Think

The People’s Bank of China (PBoC) announced on Saturday evening that its currency, the yuan or renminbi, was to exit the peg to the US dollar, and, so far, equities around the world are rallying on the news.  However, the markets knee-jerk reaction may be too much too early.  The move does not necessarily mean that the yuan will appreciate rapidly and offer the kind of windfall to companies that generate revenues in yuan but pay debt in dollars that the markets expect.

The shift in currency policy means China will now determine its exchange rate with reference to a basket of currencies, with the trading band for USD/CNY the same as the one that existed before the global financial crisis.  China allowed a managed floating exchange rate for three years, 2005-08. From the PBoC’s perspective, the resumption of the dollar peg helped mitigate the impact of the global financial crisis on China, helping China and Asia lead the world towards an economic recovery.

The assumption that a return to the pre-crisis regime will result in yuan appreciation may not be correct.  The workings of China’s renewed currency basket may, at least in theory, lead to periods of yuan depreciation against the dollar.  For example, the currency regime may be the same as the pre-financial crisis level, but the world is not.  Demand worldwide is nowhere near what it was in 2005.  Moreover, the problems with the euro, which is part of the currency basket, could cause the yuan to depreciate.

Then, there is also the issue of China following through on its word at a time when protectionism seems to be taking hold.  The PBoC did not alter its yuan-dollar reference rate today.  Why make an announcement and then fail to act?  Only China knows, and that’s the potential problem.

Tax-Free Money Market Funds: The Other Safe Haven

Europe’s sovereign-debt crisis and financial-market malaise are boosting key short-term interest rates, such as the London Interbank Offered Rate, improving the situation for tax-free money-market funds. “For the last nine months to a year, taxable money-market managers have been looking at that crossover rate and have been buying more munis than they ever have,” said Craig Mauermann, manager of the Marshall Tax-Free Money Market Fund at M&I Investment Management, according to a report in The Bond Buyer. “As we started to see that tick-up in Libor, that caused some of those taxable buyers to go back to [taxable] Libor-based floaters.”

The same widening of credit spreads that has the market living in fear offers up an opportunity outside of U.S. Treasuries for investors seeking safety from the economic, financial and public debt storms.  Below is a look at two key credit spread measures and how they have been returning toward the dangerous highs of the credit crisis:

Libor-OIS Spread

The LIBOR-OIS spread is used by economists and financial analysts as a measure of the availability of cash among banks.  The higher the spread, the fewer available dollars. The London Inter-Bank Offered Rate (LIBOR) is the interest rate that banks charge each other for three-month loans in U.S. dollars.  The rate is set by a panel of banks in a survey by the British Bankers’ Association each day around noon in London.  LIBOR is also used as a benchmark for approximately $360 trillion of financial products across the globe.  The overnight indexed swap (OIS) rate is an interest rate swap transaction in which the overnight rate is exchanged for a certain fixed rate.

The spread has improved dramatically from the height of the credit crisis.  However, with the recent turmoil in Europe, the spread has spiked up again.  As of June 17, 2010, the spread was .32 percent.

TED Spread

The TED spread, which is the difference between what the government and companies pay for three-month loans.  It recently dropped below its historical average since hitting a record high of 464  basis points (4.64 percent) on Oct. 10, 2008.  The gap averaged 27 basis points (0.27 percent) from 2002 through 2006, before the credit crisis began in 2007.  Since hitting lows in March, the TED spread has spiked upward a bit due to the turmoil in Europe. As of May 17, 2010, the spread is at 44.89 basis points, above the historic norm.