A few comments on the news today regarding China.

• What appears common from all news sources is that by 2029/2030, China could eclipse the US as the world’s largest economy. As far as I can tell, this would require China to sustain an 8% growth rate for 20 years, assuming the US will sustain a 3% growth rate over the same period.

Really? I mean - really?

I have no doubt that China could pass the US as the world’s largest economy at some point in the future.  But doing it by sustaining a further 20 years of 8% annual growth? This is the same logic that got us into the housing crisis: assuming linear or consistent growth patterns that appear wildly out of balance with what will probably be a lot more random of a future.

Secondly, what no article did was discuss what this new economy would look like:

• Assuming the US and China had similar size economies, could China sustain a 6-10% current account surplus annually? This would mean in dollar terms a current account surplus annually of $800 million to $1.4 trillion.
• Where would this surplus come from? Japan does not run a current account deficit, neither does Europe on a whole. So that would point to the US, a consistent current account deficit country.
• But the US, while running a current account deficit, has never run a deficit this high. The highest the CA deficit has reached is roughly 6%.
• Current account deficits this high would point to one thing: A currency devaluation. Not just a gradual adjustment, but probably a shock. But a shock would not be good for China, which pegs its currency to the Dollar and relies on the US as one of its largest trading partners.
• A massive US devaluation would boost exports doing three things simultaneously - boosting US growth, decreasing its current account deficit, further increasing US growth, and finally, decreasing Chinese growth by increasing its imports.

All three effects would make it further difficult for China to overtake the US, especially assuming consistent growth under current policy regimes. Consistent growth doesn’t assume a shock, as discussed above. See the last two years as a current example. A faster way for China to overtake the US is to not only grow fast, but let its currency appreciate, as what we’re really discussing is GDP in Dollar terms. Letting its currency appreciate may slow down the export machine, but hopefully it will provide greater per capita wealth across the population.

Four data points (from the Market Data section of the Financial Times) start the discussion:

1. Today, the US Dollar to Euro exchange rate is ~$1.29.
2. The one year (longest published out) Dollar Spot Forward is ~$1.29 as well
3. The ~ 1 Year US Treasury Yield is 2,99
4. The 10 Year Yield on a German bond is 2.75

Multiplying (1+.0299)^10 * 1.29 Divided by (1.0275)^10 = $1.32 to the Euro, suggesting the Euro is long term undervalued.

However, what about the following other Euro countries? Here are the following ten year yield and percentages of Euro Currency 2009 GDP:

• Austria - 3.13 (3%)
• Belgium - 3.36 (4%)
• Finland - 2.93 (2%)
• France  - 3.03 (22%)
• Germany - 2.75 (27%)
• Greece - 10.53 (3%)
• Ireland - 5.42 (2%)
• Italy - 3.99 (17%)
• Netherlands 2.94 (6%)
• Portugal 5.52 (2%)
• Spain 4.28 (12%)

By averaging the ten year yield based on the gdp of all Eurozone countries, we find the Eurozone 10 year yield is 3.57%

Multiplying (1+.0299)^10 * 1.29 Divided by (1.0357)^10 = $1.22 to the Euro, suggesting the Euro is long term overvalued. Adjusting this calculation for % of Public Debt to GDP, the value of the Euro drops to $1.21 to the Euro

What is the explanation?

Countries in crisis (such as Portugal, Spain, Greece and even Italy) have taken advantage of Eurozone financing for government financing. This purchasing has negated the need to tap domestic and foreign capital markets for purchases. This lack of foreign exchange has created a void for deciphering where the euro is truly in demand. This is further evidenced by an officer of BBVA’s notorious quote earlier this summer.

What this essentially means is that current account surplus countries such as Germany are forced to help out current account deficit countries such as Greece and Ireland. Yet the Eurozone has a current account deficit. If Germany and German banks are bailing out Greece and Ireland, countries such as China are only buying German bonds. This makes German sovereign bonds the “on the margin” security denominated in Euros sold and traded in foreign currency and not just in Euros.

The “marginally available” security is probably the major explanation why the Dollar Spot is valued closer to the Covered Interest Parity Calculation using the German 10 Year Bond than the composite of European Bonds.

Martin Feldstein’s column, (June 29, 2009) on inflation opines that while federal stimulus is still necessary, a combination of looming deficits, federal reserve bond purchases, and skittishness of foreign investors are pushing yields on the 10 Year Treasury up to alarming levels.

Feldstein’s major premise is detailed in the second paragraph of his column: Higher Yields have led to higher mortgage rates, reducing home buying, depressing net worth tremendously in the last six months. Further, lower home prices have caused more defaults and “weakened bank balance sheets”.

Lets correct some facts: Between 2006 and Six Months ago (December 2008), house prices dropped 27 percent. From December 2008 to March 2009 - the latest month of data,  housing prices fell comparatively 7%. Further, August 2009 Futures for Case-Shiller Composite index is currently trading at 152.0 slightly above where the index level stood in December of 2008, bookmarking the recent rise in treasury yields.

Feldstein, in his column, notes that the current spread between 10-year TIPS and 10 year Treasuries shows an inflation expectation of 2% annually. That inflation predictions have “jumped” to slightly over 2% per year is hardly alarming. 2% is often seen as an inflation target. That the jump in rates is perpetrated by fears foreign investors may no longer continue to buy US debt is simply not true.

China, most notably, while making loud noises is in a “dollar trap”, argued most notably by Paul Krugman. Fail to purchase US Treasuries, and decline the dollar’s value, making our goods cheaper and China’s goods more expensive, ending China’s competitive advantage in manufacturing.

At a high-level, if manufacturing in China continues to keep durable good costs down, and the Federal Stimulus package will improve roads and cargo lines, reducing transportation costs, price increases outside of energy spikes are hard to imagine for durable goods measured in CPI.

Perhaps Feldstein’s view of investor skittishness and his call for the Fed to assure the markets it will curb future “inflationary lending” are really directed at asset inflation: Perhaps investors believe that while policy makers are acting vigorously, nothing structurally has or is going to change to prevent another asset bubble similar to house price inflation witnessed over this past decade.

Asset inflation, be it houses or equities, is much harder to prevent than inflation in durable goods. Let us hope our fiscal stimulus and monetary policy are giving the economy surer footing to produce more, sharing those productivity gains across a wider spectrum, ensuring a diverse economy in the odds of preventing future asset bubbles.

The Federal Reserve released its combined 2008 Financial Statements on April 20, 2009. 2008 was stunning, with the balance sheet growing from $915 billion to $2.245 trillion. The major increases were in the commercial paper facility, foreign currency swaps, and term asset backed facility. Essentially - stabilizing mechanisms for short term market operations (both foreign and domestic) to continue.

The increase of $1.33 trillion is slightly larger than the gain in US GDP from $13.178 trillion to $14.264 trillion from 2006 to 2008. Essentially, the gains in US GDP from 2006 - when the Case-Shiller Composite Housing Index reached its peak - to 2008 are now sitting on the Fed’s books when they should be out in the private economy, on the balance sheets of companies, creating the next wave of products and services.

There are those who have argued the Fed’s actions will cause tremendous inflation. It is important to remember the major actions of the Fed are all preventing short term credit disruptions, which if not collectively implemented,  would have all lead to price declines, deflation.

Currency Swaps, worth roughly $553 billion or 1% of world GDP, are held against a basket of G-20 currencies, have most likely prevented an increasing demand for dollar. In the fall of 2008, the demand for the dollar reached a recent record high. Further appreciation would have further pressured US producers, unable to compete on price for various goods/services. The only solution would have been to cut costs to reduce prices.

Commercial Paper, worth $333 billion, is necessary to keep working capital afloat. Without it, the only solution to meet existing funding needs or return previously funded commercial paper would have been to liquidate existing inventory at reduced prices.

Term Asset-Backed Facility (TAF), worth roughly $450 billion, is further short term financing to allow banks to continue liquidity while suffering losses on their longest duration assets - CMOs. Without access to short term financing, again the only choice would be asset liquidation, further forcing price declines.

True, CPI did not increase in 2008. But added together, the Commercial Paper and TAF are roughly 5% of US GDP. As most companies were levered to the tilt, if the Federal Reserve funding was not there, the US price and consequentially unemployment situation would have been far worse.

As to worries of runaway inflation, the jury is still out. My belief is that the capital these facilities are replacing - in a sense - is now shoring up the balance sheets of various banks and companies. By increasing  equity ratios at companies and banks, future invested dollars from these newly shored up institutions will need higher returns on capital (all else equal), which is equivalent to the Fed raising fed funds rates to control inflation.

Until a recovery though, it is a good thing our economy has not faced deflation, certainly a real possibility in the fall of 2008.

Paul Krugman writes this week about the Irish Economy. In his column and blog, Paul notes Ireland is painfully transitioning, raising taxes to keep its fiscal position in line.

Let’s pause. If you have not read Lords of Finance yet by Liaquat Ahamed, stop reading this blog (or any other) and give the book a go. It is the cornerstone to understanding the current economic/financial crisis and comprehending possible solutions of both short and long duration.

In Lords of Finance, Ahamed writes of an eerily similar situation during the 1920s when Great Britain, starved for credit to funds its fiscal deficits, had to seek tacit approval from the House of Morgan on its proposed budget. Upon approval, Morgan helped raise a consortium of funding to help Great Britain stay afloat.

No doubt the same conversation was probably occurring in Ireland before it made its proposed increase in taxes. In the months since the world Financial Meltdown, Ireland raised debt in November 08 ($4bn),  January (Euro 6bn), and February (Euro 4bn). Then on March 30, 2009 Standard and Poors dropped Ireland’s sovereign credit rating from AAA to AA+ with a negative outlook. Since then, Ireland has not tapped the capital markets and has now tightened its fiscal belt.

This is now the choice of Ireland and other European Countries with current account deficits.  There is an immediate need to shore up the balance sheet, repay existing debts, and wait until domestic prices decline to a point where goods and services are competitive enough to be readily exported, regrowing the economy.  But waiting for prices to decline is a very painful phenomenon. Prices only decline when demand drops and a drop in demand across the board is synonymous with higher unemployment.

Ireland may be a small country (GDP wise), but its decisions are no different than California’s or many other states and municipalities here in the US. Without complete currency control, acting prudently (although potentially not economically), is the only choice to continue to tap existing capital markets, paying teachers, fire fighters and policemen. Economies in trouble and with a net debt position and complete currency control would either see a currency devaluation (in the form of a crash) or would choose to devalue their currency. Currency devaluation would hopefully occur faster than responsive domestic inflation allowing goods to be exported at a more competitive basis. Yet without currency controls, deflation is the only mechanism to getting prices to a point where exports can repay existing net debts (assuming those debts are denominated in the domestic currency).

Ireland is being used as an example of when economies are too reliant on the financial sector. To be clear, robust capital markets are critical to any functioning economy. Yet it is also important to note the following function: The limits to the magnitude (1x, 2x, 3x) of a sale of any business are equivalent to its estimated Rate of Return on Assets divided by its weighted average cost of capital - In a simpler Mogdliani Miller world this is the rate of asset return divided by the sum of the funding spread above the risk free rate and the risk free rate of return. In other words, the numerator to any business sale is the Rate of Return on Assets and the denominator is the return a new buyer is willing to accept. In the last eight years, we’ve grown because of the denominator: capital became cheap and offered increasingly attractive multiples for business transactions. In the next eight years, we must focus on the upper bound, the return on assets, the productivity of the country and its ability to make goods and services, representative of its currency.

It is time to take stock of where the market sees the economy moving in 2009. Let’s examine

• Overnight Index Swap (OIS) Futures - tracking the effective Federal Funds rate
• Three-Month Eurodollar Futures - tracking three month LIBOR - the base private lending rate
• Oil Futures - tracking energy
• Dow Futures tracking industrial performance

2009-economic-indicators1

Let’s start with the base of the economy, the effective Fed Funds rate. By reviewing OIS Futures, the Market believes by the fall of 2009, the Fed will have increased the target funds rate to 0.5%. Further, economic activity will be strong enough that the effective rate will mirror the target rate by both the midyear and by the end of the year. Treasuries expiring in December 2009 yield 0.41%, according to the Wall St. Journal, close to the effective funds rate Dec-09 futures.

Three Month Eurodollar futures, a mirroring instrument to 3 month LIBOR trading on the CME state marginal increases in lending cost.  Considering treasuries expiring in March 2010 yield 0.4% (compared to treasuries expiring in December 2009), there is still a very high TED Spread - the private capital trust spread -by the end of 2009.

Oil futures-according to the Wall St. Journal-  show robust increases in energy cost. Further, according to the WSJ, there is no change in Dollar futures against a world currency basket through 2009. This shows a pickup in world oil demand, potentially a pickup in global economic growth.

The Dow, however, points down. This could be explained in two ways:

• The first is inflation. According to the FT, the Five Year Treasury Bond trades at 1.51%.  According to the WSJ, Five Year TIPS trade at 2.65%. Declining prices mean declining profits, which pushes down share prices. Declining prices coupled with increasing energy further pressures profits.
• The second - compounded with deflation - is the cost of debt. Fair to say, this fall was miserable for bond offerings. This past week was positive - companies actually went to market- weekly-bond-issues-ft-january-5-9-2009 - but for those companies able to issue debt, it is expensive, especially relative to treasuries -as mentioned before - of similar duration.

In 2009, the market predicts a start to economic recovery. That the fed funds effective rate will mirror the target rate and that the target rate will increase by end of 2009 shows positive economic activity. While 3-month LIBOR is low through 2009,  the actual cost of debt to firms - both in spreads and the growth/contraction in inflation - still puts long term pressure on economic growth.

First off, Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours!

Last week Goldman Sachs became the first “bank” to float a bond issue guaranteed by the FDIC.   A look at the weekly debt issues from the Financial Times shows US banks springing back into action, all issuing FDIC guaranteed debt. As I can tell, these are the first bond issues of any major financial institution in Dollars since Lehman’s declaration of bankruptcy.

(For the purposes of this post, all noted bonds sold close enough to par that coupon yields as first order approximations for true yields will suffice. Sorry Professor Jenter!)

• Goldman Sachs issued $5 billion due in June 2012 yielding 3.25%
• Morgan Stanley issued $2.25 billion due in Dec 2010 yielding 2.90% and $2.5 billion expiring in December 2011 3.25% and $1 billion due in June 2011, half of which has a known floating rate of   1 month LIBOR plus 74 bp.
• JP Morgan issued $5 billion due in December 2011 yielding 3.125% and $1billion due in December 2010 with floating rate interest of 3 month LIBOR plus 50bp .

Thanks to the FDIC guarantee, the yields on these bonds are very low, making them very favorable for the issuing banks. Yet the FDIC has only $34.6 billion in funds for this purpose or general insurance on accounts up to $250,000.

I would argue the FDIC’s funds are too small to take on insuring now larger accounts as well as guaranteeing bank bonds. So, the taxpayer is on the hook for  $16.75 billion of new bank debt.

Let’s put that amount in perspective.

• GM, Ford, and Chrysler are asking for $25 billion
• The net CDS exposure on GM and Ford amounts to $9.6 billion
• As I wrote in Note Four A, as part of the TARP program, the tax payer is due to receive roughly $18 billion in dividends from the first $250 billion the Treasury is injecting as preferred equity capital into these same banks.
• John McCain railed against earmarks all campaign long. President Elect Barack Obama said earmarks amount to $18 billion a year.

Further, it is important to compare the incredibly low yields on these bonds:

• In the week of November 7, 2008 Ireland, a sovereign euro denominated nation that stated it would guarantee all deposits from six of its largest financial institutions, sold 4 billion of euro debt, due in November 2011, yielding 4.0%

And during the Year of Cheap Credit, Fall of 2006-Spring of 2007 (without any FDIC backing)

• In September of 2006, Goldman Sachs issued 750 million euros due in October, 2021 yielding 4.75%
• In September of 2006, Citi issued 1.25 billion euros due in October, 2013 yielding 3.95%
• In February of 2007, three banks no longer in existence in the same form issued long duration debt:

1. Wachovia issued 1 billion euros due in February 2014 yielding 3 month Euro LIBOR plus 15 bp.
2. Lehman Brothers issued 1 billion euros due in March, 2019 yielding 4.625%
3. Merrill Lynch issued 1 billion euros due in February , 2012 yielding 3 month Euro LIBOR plus 18 bp.

Side Note: it is amazing reviewing that year of cheap credit how few bonds were issued in dollars relative to Euros and Sterling. It made me believe Mayor Mike Bloomberg was right to worry New York was losing out as the capital of global finance.

IN SUM: This is new uncharted waters for the US Taxpayer. What if one of the banks uses the funding to underwrite new acquisitions that create “synergies” resulting in laid off workers? What if the funds are used  to lever up a commodities bet? I do not believe banks raised enough capital to make single bets of that systemic threatening magnitude, but the overall point is this:

• In large part, banks and autos are short term inelastic industries. Without a bank, its hard to save currency and its hard to do commerce. Without a car in the USA, its hard to travel from point A to B.
• There are plenty of foreign banks and plenty of foreign car companies.
• I reckon between the FDIC, Treasury and Fed plans, we are spending close or guaranteeing close to $2 trillion, ~15% of GDP, for our private sector banking industry. While congress has made “noises” on insufficient bank lending, there is no plan attached to this funding. Yet produce autos and ask for $25 billion, you’d better have a plan.
• Bottom line for CEOs learning how to manage through a future crises: It sure pays to be the industry first in line for help.

On November 3rd, I wrote that the market was already stating deflation in the US was on its way. TIP yields were priced way above treasury yields, even correcting for recent large capital flight into the US.

Today, the market reacted to the  price declines in the UK and the US for the month of October:

• For the US, prices declined by 1% for the month of October
• For the UK, October hosted the steepest drop in prices since 1997

Lesson one: even in illiquid times, its hard to bet against the market.

Here are a few reasons why it is not surprising to see price declines of this magnitude in either country.

• I would argue most importantly, both countries have witnessed massive home value declines. Essentially, every family in each country was forced to estimate their now reduced net worth (with great uncertainty) and reign in spending on everything from cars to consumer durables.

• Oil, which both countries import, has declined almost $100 a barrel in the last few months. The fact that oil has declined has two profound effects:

1. While the FED dismissed energy as part of core inflation, increases in energy increase the cost of goods produced and sold (including food), increasing prices throughout the economy. In turn, a decline in energy should result in a decline in all prices.
2. Increases in import prices put stress on the balance of accounts, forcing currency devaluation, which in turn increase prices in the short term. Therefore, a decline in imports (as oil has declined) should improve the current account balance, improve currency (as the dollar has strengthened) and reduce prices.

However, now the UK and the US are in two different positions.

• The UK has a base rate of 3%

• The US has a base rate of 1%

The UK therefore has greater room to maneuver. The US has all but exhausted its monetary toolkit to fight deflation and grow our economy. All but certain, the Fed will slash rates by 50 basis points this December, and perhaps provide guidance it will not increase rates anytime soon.  When Obama assumes office, the new administration can only (and must) invoke a massive fiscal stimulus to revive the economy, hopefully in the form of infrastructure spending and tax cuts.  Across the pond, The UK still has the ability to do both to fight deflation and revive its economy. Further, a decline in rates for the UK should further reduce the Pound, allowing the UK to help export its way out of this malaise. The US does not have this luxury.

While many in the US are against government spending, I hope they realize that as of now, we do not have a choice.

Is the liquidity crunch over?

Here is my thinking:

Let’s review treasury rates (aka, the “riskless” rates) for the US and UK over the next six months. According to the Financial Times data on November 14^th, 2008:

• US treasuries set to expire in six months yield 87 basis points (Deflation).
• UK treasuries set to expire in six months yield 199 basis points (who knows)
• One British Pound today is worth 1.4827 US Dollars
• One British Pound’s worth in six months as of today’s spot forward is 1.4807 US Dollars

The rates for sovereign taxpayer debt and the interlinking value in currency should display the differences in risk of each country.

• $100 invested in US treasuries vs. $100 invested in UK treasuries and converted at the corresponding spot and forward rates should yield the same rate of return.
• Converting $100 to pound equivalents, investing in UK treasuries, and returning those pounds to US Dollars six months from now returns a dollar more (.98 US cents) in value.

In normal times, no way. Someone in any trading house would be looking for the “blips” to quote Michael Lewis from Liar’s Poker. Here are a two observations why this opportunity exists today:

• As discussed in previous posts, we’ve witnessed massive flight to quality recently, as capital has left emerging markets and safe harbored itself in US Treasuries
• The REPO market continues to be stressful. Again, as discussed in previous posts, the lack of shorting treasury opportunities has caused massive spreads differences in otherwise equally risky cash flows.

What is interesting though is that the link between currency and risk still exists for the most part. For the UK though, that means its current treasury yields are tied far more to the US and the Dollar than they are to their own interest rate policy (currently at 3.00%). While the Bank of England has been aggressive in rate reductions, its own government bonds in no way reflect this.

Remember the good old days of 2006-07?

On a random January 17th, 2007 3-Month LIBOR was 5.36%. Yet two treasuries were bidding 4.91%. The Fed Funds target rate was 5.25%. In short, spreads were short.

More amazing were Emerging Market Bonds and the market’s confidence in sovereign performance.

• On that same January 17th, 2007, the Ukraine’s debt expiring in June, 2013 was priced only 1.35% higher than US government bonds of the same duration.
• South Africa was only 0.97 basis points more and
• Russia, the country that would 18 months later invade Georgia, had debt set to expire in March, 2030 only 100 basis points more than the US treasuries.

(sigh)

The picture is significantly different today.

• At market close on November 12th, Ukraine’s debt noted above is now 18.13% more than US treasuries.
• South Africa’s is 6.61% greater .
• And Russia’s debt is 5.45% higher.

Why?

Current Account Deficits are the place to look.

• Ukraine: At the end of 2006, 3.71% of GDP. Today,  the IMF estimates it is 7.2% of GDP
• South Africa: At the end of 2006, 7.26% of GDP. Today,  the IMF estimates it is 8.0% of GDP
• Russia: At the end of 2006, it had a surplus of 9.50% of GDP. Today,  the IMF estimates it had dropped to 6.4% of GDP.

In general, owing more to debtors outside your own walls creates one of two possibilities:

1. Default (as in the case of Argentina)
2. Currency devaluation, which when importing basic staples or other durables, causes inflation, making the bond payments less valuable

But further, this massive spread increase could also be caused by a flight to “quality” of US Treasuries. Capital is simply skittish of anything but the US Taxpayer. Which, at this point, should give us all pause.

Regardless, the bailout the G1, G3, G7 are trying is crimping the ability for emerging markets to raise capital, increasing strain on IMF funding and solvency.  Crowding out 101 is in effect.