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, in a blog post last week, offers an explanation for how private investors would think about asset purchases under the treasury plan. With no disrespect, here is my explanation:

Assume the purchase of a “legacy asset” (or purchase of a toxic asset, or the purchase of a pool of subprime mortgage) is a the purchase of cash flows for a period of 20 years. Many mortgages go out beyond 20 years, but let’s keep this at 20 for argument’s sake.

How much would I be willing to pay?

Well, a review of march-27-world-bond-yields, with at least an A rating, that go out 20 years, make me think I should get at least 8%. So, if I buy that asset for $100.00 (for which it is valued on the banks books), I’m expecting annual cash flows of $10.25 for the next 20 years.

It is fair to say, that given the horror stories everyone has heard about subprime mortgages, one would need a return far greater than 8% in order to buy one your own.

So the Treasury and the FDIC step in, and debt financing for up to 85% of the assets, with a matching equity contribution.  Assume then that the FDIC is able to offer 85% of the price on a non-recourse basis (meaning no other assets of me, as the the investor, would be touched eg - my home, my car should I be unable to service the debt). Then assume the FDIC offers 5% financing for the full 20 years. This, however, is a big IF, based on the Legacy Loan Terms sheet offered by the Treasury. Rates and Length could be far less generous.

Yet, if I were to receive 5% and 20 years of FDIC debt, my pre-tax return as the equity investor would be ~21%.

Assuming the FDIC offers these terms, the question then is, is a 21% pre-tax return to equity enough to entice investors to buy bank assets at their listed price? Secondly, is the program, with loans and equity contributions enough to remove the glut on bank books and get lending activity going again?

If the answer to either question is no, then the program has not (by itself) done enough to re-gain control of the credit markets, restart lending, and grow the economy.

But back to the 21% return for a second. In an article earlier this month in the FT, there were some pretty grim statistics about households behind on their mortgages. Nearly 12% of all home loans were either a month behind or in foreclosure. This statistic across of all households, but imagine what it is for those carrying “subprime” mortgages. Was this statistic modeled into the asset, valued at $100, on the bank’s books? That is not clear. As the equity investor, if I stress tested not receiving 12% of my cash flows annually, just to be conservative, my equity return under this scenario drops down to 12%. Given that this is a subprime mortgage pool, it could be fair to say, this investment is now not worth it.

Suppose then that a 21% return is the magic number. How much, assuming my stress test, would I offer a bank then for a $100 asset? The answer is $90, or a 10% haircut. The final question then is: Is losing 10% enough to to entice banks to still sell and remain solvent? Again, if the answer is no, then the program has not helped get lending going again.

Reading over this plan, it is my assessment that it will take time to start this program and get it functioning. The key then will be: what might happen in the mean time to banks and the economy and will we need a new set of assumptions to value these assets at that time?

Yesterday’s news was not encouraging. Home value declines will continue to make families and home owners second guess their net worth. In a recession, this prompts only one reaction: saving.

The macro economic accounting identity states savings equals investment. This static steady theory is becoming a large force against fiscal stimulus, now awaiting Senate Approval.

Let’s review the facts. With the Fed meeting today, Fed Funds ended trading at 0.18% according to the Financial Times. As rates are not able to go below zero,  interest rates are essentially fixed. And bank reserves held at the Fed increase. There thus is no further mechanism to force private investment to equal savings.

As savings not offset by investment (which would lead to new jobs) and unemployment increase, taxes decline. If government expenditures just stayed the same, our federal deficit would have to increase, even without fiscal stimulus.

Faced with the choice of

• Large Federal Deficit
• Infrastructure Investments => New Jobs and a Large Federal Deficit

Its best to choose jobs, new infrastructure and a large federal deficit.

Today’s news was even less encouraging. That jobs are lost in record numbers makes valuing mortgage bonds, even if simply constructed, even harder. Yet mortgage bonds are not simply constructed, they are incredibly complex.

Job losses will not decelerate for a while. It will take time for fiscal stimulus to take effect. This makes the idea of the “bad bank” incredibly complex. Many like Reich still hold out hope for a solution that protects the tax payer. The economic reality makes it impossible that mortgage assets still on the books are worth anything close to what they were previously valued. To unclog lending, we -the taxpayer- must further take it on the chin.

Yet as the fiscal stimulus and bad bank solutions work through the economy (and slowly), we must ask ourselves: what kind of economy do we want to now create? Should the Financial Sector contribute 31% of GDP as it did in 2006?

Which should we value more? Financial engineering or mechanical engineering?

This is again why infrastructure investment as the stimulus for tomorrow’s economy is so important: The only way long term balance will be restored (and one could measure this by the current account balance) is to choose engineering over financial engineering. The more we build (not out of paper) at home, the more our economy will grow in a balanced, mature way for generations.

As Congress released the second round of TARP funding this past week, anxiety grew that its original purpose is failing: banks are not lending.

To discern why, we must think about the relationship between the TARP funding requirements and Federal Reserve Monetary Policy.

With banks taking write downs during the fall of 2008, its plausible to assume TARP funding was the only new source of capital - all remaining bank liabilities and assets were matched after write downs, tied to existing economic activity. The only source of capital for new economic activity was TARP funding, now $700 billion. To give comfort to this assumption, add up the market capitalization of the largest US banks - far smaller than TARP.

By law,  TARP funding is preferred equity on a bank balance sheet, with a 5% annual dividend. Add on administrative costs, and a loan just to break even needs approximately 6%, just to service the taxpayer requirements of TARP. Yet through Open Market Operations, the US Ten Year Treasury currently yields 2.34%, according to the Financial Times and the effective Fed Funds rate is 0.18%. TARP funding requirements place this large source of new capital no where near this historically low yield curve, completely at odds with Open Market Operations.

Two years ago, overnight treasuries traded at 5%. When the economy grows at 3% per year, an inflation at 2%, a business owner merely switches on the lights to pay back a 5% interest bearing loan. Yet in today’s environment, 5% is expensive. In today’s environment -a ZIRP interest rate environment - a recessionary environment - a deflationary environment,  those willing to accept north of 5% (6%) is a classic adverse selection problem: The smart businesses horde cash as new cash is too expensive. The businesses accepting such a loan may not be able to pay it back.

Faced with the prospect of new bad loans, it is no surprise banks are not lending. They would rather preserve capital to plug foreseen bad loans in the coming year. Further, to achieve 5%, M&A is a preferred method, scooping up the right loan packages at the right price.

A Solution:

This page has long argued TARP dividends should be a rolling average of the yield on treasury bills/notes - the opportunity cost of taxpayers funding the banks. If yields are low, economic activity is weak, keeping dividend payments manageable. If yields are higher, (assuming no runaway inflation) economic activity has increased as treasuries were sold for corporates, again making dividend payments manageable. We hope the new administration makes this change.

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.

This blog has focused on the FDIC insurance program guaranteeing newly issued bank debt.

Here is why:

Reviewing the facets of the right hand of the balance sheet, the taxpayer and printing press are very active.

• Short Term Liabilities, Commercial Paper - Guarantor - The Fed
• Short Term, Long Term Debt - Guarantor - The FDIC
• Preferred Equity - The Treasury

This blog believes the FDIC program is the most powerful government program helping banks currently expand credit.

A lot has been written on Credit Default Swaps. These unregulated instruments were instrumental in causing a crisis of credit, in turn causing a crisis of economic performance.

Let’s examine where these two issues meet: The Fee the FDIC charges banks to guarantee their new debt. This fee is the Credit Default Swap the FDIC (aka, the US Taxpayer) sells to guarantee new bank debt (from Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley to John Deere Capital).

What should the price of the swap be? Evidence from one source this month says as high as 7% or 700 bp annually of principal. The FDIC begs to differ. For any debt issued and set to expire more than a year from now, the FDIC is selling a CDS for 100bp, or an annual 1% of principal. While the CDS market is not transparent enough to determine the true price, it is fair to say 1% is cheap, or subsidized.

Is this enough? Is it even necessary to charge a fee or subsidize the entire swap?

• The FDIC states this program will be of no cost to the taxpayer.

• Right now, the FDIC has ~$33.4 billion in the bank, to guarantee this program as well as all accounts now $250,000 or less.

• Let’s assume most outstanding bonds covenants are written to ensure seniority is universally established in the event of a default.

• For the big banks, would the taxpayer just guarantee the debt sold with the FDIC swap? Comparing Lehman to Citi, the answer is probably not.

• Finally, given the lack of public savings, the taxpayer will have to return to the debt market should any bailout be necessary.

Is the FDIC program helping to fuel cheap credit? Yes. But given the US Fiscal Condition and its new precident of response to a crisis, the taxpayer should realize it is selling underfunded Credit Default Swaps just like the banks it now stands behind.

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.

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!

For Taxpayers, the returns depend on your view.

• The terms of the treasury (on behalf of the tax-payer) investment are a dividend of 5% of invested capital.
• The preferred share investment is callable anytime after three years.
• Should the banks issue new equity prior to three years, they can buy out the tax-payer at par with that funding. In essence, any current equity owner is diluted regardless.

The taxpayer does not have any savings (found in lack in government surplus), so it must raise debt to fund the bank bailout.

Examining two and five year treasury yields, they are priced at 1.555% and 2.609%. respectively.  Assuming the Treasury Department does the right thing (See Note Four A), it will sell five year debt to finance the bailout.

Doing the math, paying 2.609% to receive 5% seems like a good deal. It does make a lot of arguments against it seem not as compelling.

Here’s another way to look at the deal though.

Assume the treasury invests up to $250 Billion, the returns over three years are $6 Billion a year. Enough to pay for approximately one year of pork projects John McCain rails against continuously.

Is this then a good investment? You decide.