As a follow up to my post yesterday on the Laffer Curve and Arthur Laffer’s defense of tax cuts spurring the economy, here is Paul Krugman today saying the same thing.

Look, three weeks ago, we couldn’t pass unemployment benefits (basic economic assistance) because it was a budget buster. Today,  Alan Greenspan thinks tax cuts will not pay for themselves. Yet the lobbying for tax cuts for the top 2% goes on.

C’mon. Enough is enough.

I’m still blown away by Arthur Laffer and others espousing the benefits of tax cuts.  Here is discussing the benefits of the Reagan tax cuts, courtesy of the Wall St Journal:

“In 1981, Ronald Reagan—with bipartisan support—began the first phase in a series of tax cuts passed under the Economic Recovery Tax Act (ERTA), whereby the bulk of the tax cuts didn’t take effect until Jan. 1, 1983. Reagan’s delayed tax cuts were the mirror image of President Barack Obama’s delayed tax rate increases. For 1981 and 1982 people deferred so much economic activity that real GDP was basically flat (i.e., no growth), and the unemployment rate rose to well over 10%.

But at the tax boundary of Jan. 1, 1983 the economy took off like a rocket, with average real growth reaching 7.5% in 1983 and 5.5% in 1984. It has always amazed me how tax cuts don’t work until they take effect. Mr. Obama’s experience with deferred tax rate increases will be the reverse. The economy will collapse in 2011.”

Fair enough, but aren’t we forgetting Paul Volcker and his “War on Inflation”?

Look at fed funds rates during 1981, 1982 and 1983. We go from 19% in 1981 to 8.51% in 1983.

And CPI? We go from 10.3% in 1981 and 6.2% in 1982 to 3.2% in 1983.

So, I mean - C’mon.

But here are my two favorite responses to this:

• From Capital Gains and Games
• And Alan Greenspan from this Sunday’s Meet the Press:

“MR. GREGORY:  You don’t agree with Republican leaders who say tax cuts pay for themselves?

MR. GREENSPAN:  They do not. ”

So, let’s focus on job creating government policy that will get the economy going, without breaking the bank.

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.

Much concern exists over Obama’s proposal to make tax cuts a major portion of fiscal stimulus.  Through a tax cut, we (the government) are increasing the income of those still employed. Hopefully, tax savings will buy goods and services, increasing GDP. In today’s environment, we’re not enacting a stimulus to buy goods, we’re enacting a stimulus to buy jobs.

GDP = government spending + investment + consumption + net exports. The marginal dollars in a tax cut will either be saved or spent.

While savings should be encouraged in the long term, a savings glut currently exists. Fed Funds rate trades near zero, while cash reserves within the Fed have ballooned.

More damaging, marginal spending could be directed at imported goods. From Martin Wolf to Warren Buffet, many shudder at no improvement in our trade balances. Dollars used for imports are either locked up as foreign reserves or exchanged for investments in future US cash flows. Those future cash flows are either US tax receipts or profits distributed as interest or dividends. Those tax receipts could have put new teachers in the class room. Those profits could have built new factories. Those cash flows will never to be re-invested in the US.

By definition then, an increasing current account deficit means the same standard of living - GDP - costs more. If this is not the purest form of inflation, I do not know what is.

Many believe  too great a mismatch exists between jobs lost and jobs needed for “shovel ready”.  Cokie Roberts on “This Week” opined on finance professionals helping on infrastructure: “Well maybe instead of going to their personal trainers, they can actually get out there and start digging.”

The purchase of infrastructure projects buys jobs across the food chain.  Almost every project will go out for private competitive tender. Forget defunct residential home construction (shovel ready employees), companies bidding will require talent to prepare bids, obtain financing, manage payroll, and review costs. Every contract guarantied by the government (state or federal) will give lenders the confidence to finance, spurring new growth.

The long term benefits (aside from jobs) are then improved transportation, reduced energy costs and reduction of barriers to education. Thus reduction of risks for future runaway inflation - those risks prevalent in increasing current account deficits. Faith in government is presently difficult yet now we must make our congress the direct investors of last resort.

The Yield Curve is increasing in discussion as a predictor of the US Economy.

First, in defense of the Yield Curve, it is a good predictor of future short term interest rates. Let’s take the UK and the US current short term Yield Curves, courtesy of the Financial Times.

The UK Yield Curve:

The US Yield Curve:

• The official UK Central Bank interest rate stands at 2.00%
• The Fed Funds target rate stands at 0.25%

With similar economies -troubled financial sectors, and nerve racking current account deficits -there is almost no question the UK will mimic its “special relationship” counter part and further slash interest rates to boost its economy. Hence, the UK curve slopes down in the short term.

Recovery:

Now, let’s read the yield curve tea leaves for the US economy:

• The Cleveland Fed votes yes
• Paul Krugman votes no

Paul is right. That the “effective rate” of Fed Funds trades at 0.14%, mirroring overnight Treasury Bills means the yield curve can only slope positively (The UK curve highlights why Paul is correct). Two years ago, life was much different.

• Fed Funds “effective rate” was 5.30%.
• Overnight 3m Treasury Bills traded close to 5.00%.

That the 30 Year Treasury Bond trades today at 2.81% shows a very weak economy, regardless of the slope of the curve. Further, it shows a long time until economic recovery. Larger economies require larger yields to balance the supply and demand of money.

When investors resume believing in corporate bonds, the yield curve will start to increase in slope. Treasuries will be sold and corporates will be bought. The key to economic recovery will not be the purchase of existing corporates - most of those were sold when yields were low. Rather, the key will be when new corporates are issued and issued cheaply (low yields). This will start putting new profits (more return on equity) back to companies for investment and further economic growth. Unfortunately, it has been a very light fall and continues to be a light winter for new debt issuances.

While this is way outside the scope of this blog, a vocal “boo!” to this growing trend: 401K Matching Cuts

• Essentially guarantees Americans will retire later in life.
• For everyone hoping Federal Fiscal Stimulus will pull us out of economic morass, this will only decrease already skittish household consumption as families will no doubt save more, lowering GDP growth.

As predicted, the Federal Reserve Open Market Committee (FOMC) dropped its core interest rate by 75bp. A surprise to many, not to this blog. Enough bragging, these are scary times:

• The first reason is the FOMC statement: “The Federal Open Market Committee decided today to establish a target range for the federal funds rate of 0 to 1/4 percent”

A target range? This is the first time in recent memory the FOMC has stated it would establish a range and not a specific rate for its open market operations.  The minutes of this meeting will be very interesting:

• This blog will predict that the FOMC will admit it has lost control of the Fed Funds rate.

And that is very scary. Even though the Fed now pays interest on reserves, instead of only buying short term treasuries -, the actions to control the Fed Funds rate are not working: There is no demand to use capital in this economy: From the Financial Times:

• The Fed Fund rate sits at 0.12%, remaining unchanged from before the rate cut.
• Overnight LIBOR is 0.0115% (because the Fed pays interest on reserves)
• Overnight 3m Treasuries are 0.01%

Deflation:

Reserves sitting at the Fed have ballooned to almost $700 billion, comparable to envisioned TARP program.  Yet that money is parked there most likely because the Fed has been gobbling up Treasuries, driving the yields to zero. It is not going outward into the economy.

If you believe in Milton Friedman, then you believe the following:  Without lending activity and expansion of the monetary base - demonstrated by these spreads - then at best, the money supply is not keeping pace with the economy. Therefore, deflation.

It might be worse. If the expansion only sits in existing treasuries, and those treasuries are not new issues for new government programs - aka - the stimulus, then all we’ve done is increased the demand for treasuries and done nothing to expand the economy. Further, remember the taxpayer has only saved money from the latest treasury issuance. Other issues had more expensive yields. In a deflationary environment, this problem is only compounded. 

Until the stimulus is enacted, we must expect a deflationary environment for at least the short term. And that will cause the FOMC to continue its inabilty to control the Fed Funds rate.

Dec 15th and 16th are when the Fed meets for the final time in 2008, when it will decide how low the Fed Funds rate should be.

No ordinary time:

1. The Fed Funds Rate sits at 1.00%. But the Effective Rate as of Friday, Dec 12th according to the Financial Times was 0.14%
2. Fed Reserves normally are $800-900 billion. Today there are $1.5 trillion in Fed Reserves, according to The St. Louis Federal Reserve.
3. Treasuries normally pay positive interest rates. According to the Financial Times, overnight rates for three month treasuries are paying 0.03%. Further, the latest auction showed people are willing to pay the US Government more for less in the future. (deflation).

So what should the Fed do?

• Conventional wisdom leading up to this meeting was that the Fed would cut interest rates by 50 basis points from the current 1.00%.
• I argued in a previous post that only a 50 basis point cut would do nothing.
• Now, the expectation has shifted (maybe thanks to my Note….just maybe). CME Fed Binary Options prices as of Friday, Dec 12th show the market is betting on a 75 basis point cut.

The three major reasons against a 50 basis point cut are as follows:

• For some time, the effective Fed Funds rate has been trading below 50 basis points, making a 50 bp cut moot.
• With demand for Treasuries now essentially inelastic, part of the Fed’s open market operations are simply ineffective.
• Since the Fed’s rate cuts in the fall, bank lending has not responded. I argued in Note 16 one way to view this. Here is another: A look at the St. Louis Fed research shows M2 has remained largely unchanged from October 20th to December 1st. We need a resounding effort to get capital out of Fed Reserves and into the private markets.

A 75 basis point cut will occur by Close of Business, Tuesday the 16th.

But a 75 basis point cut may not help all that much without a spur of domestic demand.

• St. Louis Fed research shows corporate Aaa bond yields have remained largely unchanged over the fall: While base rates have declined, spreads have widened.
• The Commercial Paper Market has dramatically shifted from private market consumption to the Fed. According to the St. Louis Fed, in October, the figure of borrowing from the Fed was $450 billion. Today, it still is over $250 billion.
• This week, according to Financial Times data,  The American Express -now- “Bank” jumped on the bandwagon of FDIC backed debt raising, floating $5.5 billion of debt at yields of 2-3%.

In short, the Fed’s and other government’s massive expansion of credit market intervention is now more powerful than Open Market Operations. While the need for a 75 basis point is important and required, other actions are now more powerful to spur economic recovery.

Turning to 2009:

The fact-pattern above gives pause to how big a stimulus package needs to be vs. how quickly it needs to be spent. I am for a massive Fiscal Stimulus of at least $600 billion. But every dollar borrowed by the US Government (especially today) is a dollar unable to be accessed by Private Companies for new projects and investments, even in ZIRP land.

As Paul Krugman said today on “This Week”, it is hard to spend $600 billion dollars, even for the Government. Domestic Demand stimulus will only be effective therefore in boosting the private economy if “size” is optimally aligned with “velocity” and “accuracy of spending”.

Still, look for a 75 basis point cut this week as the final message of 2008 in preparation of massive fiscal stimulus in early 2009.

The Fed Open Market Committee recently announced the extension of its December policy meeting from one to two days. With extra time, I argue the Fed should strongly consider cutting the target Federal Funds rate from 100 basis points (where it currently stands) to 25 basis points.

• As I predicted in Note Twelve, overnight LIBOR has converged upward, reaching the target Federal Funds rate of 1.00%. This is because the Federal Reserve now pays interest on all “excess reserves” banks now park at the Fed.
• A look at TIPS vs. Treasury Yields over the next year still shows wild expectations of deflation. Ergo, even though banks’ excess reserves receive a measly 1.00% by doing nothing, they make larger returns in this environment.
• Though the Fed is paying the target rate for excess reserves, the effective Federal Funds rate still trades at 59 basis points, according to the Financial Times. This is because our Government Sponsored Entities can not receive interest from the Fed on their parked capital. With no bank wanting to use their funds, the Federal Funds effective rate declines further from the target rate.

Most “Fed Watchers” expect a 50 basis point cut in December. As you can see, we are already there. A further cut of this magnitude are moot.

A semi-coordinated solution:

Between the Fed’s recent program and the Treasury’s TARP program, we are going to “borrow and spend” (or print and spend) a further 10% of GDP on “unclogging the system”.

• The TARP program should be injecting enough preferred equity capital to improve bank balance sheets. Yet lending has not picked up, as I argued in Note Twelve.
• I believe the new Fed program should help eventually reduce excess Government Sponsored Entity capital sitting at the Fed by buying mortgage backed securities guarantied by Fannie and Freddie. But it is too soon to tell.

Therefore, the FOMC needs to triangulate a strong signal, telling the banks what all pundits, bloggers, and congressional representatives have been saying for some time:

“Get your capital out of my bank and start lending!”

At 50 basis points, I have argued we would see no change from the current situation. Cutting the Federal Funds rate to 25 basis points should hopefully force a change in bank behavior. Fed rates would just be too low, even with deflation expectations, for opportunities not to be exciting. With it should force excess reserves out of the Fed and back into the the market at essentially risk-less rates.

Cut the rate to 25 basis points and Happy Holidays!

On a randomly selected May 16th, 2007, the Federal Funds rate was 5.25%. The effective rate (the rate bankers actually trade and negotiate at) was 5.29%. The actions taken by the Fed ensured its “target base rate” was the actual base rate for charged money. In short, this is our monetary system we take for granted, daily.

Before the credit crisis, how did the Fed ensure the spread between the target and effective rate stay so close to zero (if you know this, please skip down)?

• Banks are required to hold a certain amount of capital at the Federal Reserve. Prior to the crisis, a banking business model was to lend to outside parties. When lending exceeded required capital reserved at the Fed, banks had to borrow to repatriate to the Fed.
• The first choice of funds to borrow is capital held by other banks at the Federal Reserve.
• Should other banks charge too much for these funds, banks seeking capital could simply short treasuries.
• The Fed would mimicked this action,  buying and selling treasuries to ensure the market price for treasuries kept banks honest in pricing overnight lending.
• Sure enough, on May 16th, 2007, overnight LIBOR was 5.30%, one basis point from the effective rate and five basis points from the target rate.

Today, the story is quite different. The Federal Reserve’s target Federal Funds rate is 1.00%. The effective rate, (from the Financial Times), is 0.49%.

Two implications:

• Almost everyone surveyed, interviewed, and opining (including me) expects the Federal Reserve to slash the target rate from 1.00% to 0.50% in December. That decision is now moot.
• When the effective rate is nearly half the target rate and overnight LIBOR is 0.70%, in between the two rates, and yields on treasuries expiring on November 30th are 2.67%, there is a problem of illiquid markets, not responding correctly to simple centralized decisions attempting to steer the economy. To quote Senator Trent Lott, we are now “herding cats“.

How and why?

Reviewing the minutes from the last Federal Open Market Committee meeting and events of the “credit crisis” I find several issues:

• Randomly sampling daily market rates, the spread between target and effective rates was not large enough to be significant until after the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, on September 15th, 2008.
• By September 22nd, 2008, while the target rate was still 2.00%, the effective rate was 1.79%. By the end of that week, the effective rate was 1.21%. In short, capital required to be in the Fed was not going anywhere: thus the start of banks truly refusing to lend.
• So, the Fed on October 6th, 2008 started paying interest on held capital, attempting to establish a floor on effective rates. Most important, the Fed started to pay interest on excess cash held above any requirements.
• But by October 10th, 2008, the policy wasn’t working. While the Fed slashed rates from 2.00% to 1.50%, the effective rate was 0.90%.
• By October 21st, the effective rate hovered below the floor rate established by the Fed on October 6th, 0.73%.
• So, the Fed again in two different announcements, the latest on November 5th, raised the interest rates paid on excess balances. As of today, any excess capital receives the target rate.

We’re still in the same position and I highlight what is explained beautifully in a recent Financial Times article:

• Most of today’s spread is explained because our Government Sponsored Entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, hold reserves at the Fed. Yet they can not receive interest payments, and thus must lend their capital at the effective rate.
• As banks are queasy regarding their own reserve requirements, they do not want to borrow entity funds for opportunities.  This capital simply sits at the Federal Reserve, depressing the target rate.

The Bottom Line:

• BANKS ARE NOT LENDING. If Banks were lending, there would be no need to pay interest on excess reserves.  That capital would be privately lent, to businesses large and small, old and new.

The Fed now has de-facto set a larger reserve requirement for banks, by paying interest on excess reserves. This is very dangerous.  That excess cash that should be in the market, growing our economy. (As I heard in business school again and again “putting capital to work”).

While overnight LIBOR has trended up since the Fed’s latest announcement (from 0.33% to 0.70% and most likely will continue up to 1.00%), the larger problem is this: For growth opportunities of the US Economy, the same target rate on a larger reserve pool of capital is equivalent to a higher rate on the official “reserve requirements”.

Therefore, when the Fed does cut rates to 50 basis points, what effect will it have?