• Right now, required reserves at the Federal Reserve stand at ~$64 billion
• Excess reserves stand at slightly over $1 trillion, roughly equal to 7% of average GDP over the 2007-2009

In the Winter of 2008, the Federal Reserve faced a difficult decision:

• The overnight funds rate on reserves, the base rate the Fed controls, was set at 1%, but the traded rate was 0.14%. So, as predicted, the Fed slashed its rate by 0.75 points and starting paying interest on excess reserves.
• Today, the Fed pays interest on excess reserves equal to its targeted funds rate 0.25%. However, the effective rate trades between 0.10% and 0.2% according to market data from the FT, pointing to continued slack in the system.

What to do:

• GDP for 2007 was barely over $14 trillion. In 2009, it was $14.1 trillion. Assuming the US grows at 3% per year, mid-2010 GDP would have been roughly over $15.1 trillion. The difference between potential output and current GDP is the amount of money parked at the Federal Reserve, earning 0.25%.
• Stopping the payment on excess reserves could be a boost to growth of the economy. Banks will have to find a home for this money. However, faced with the uncertainty of the current economy, and an economy facing deflation, banks may simply continue to keep those reserves parked at the Fed.
• The only major use of this income in the short term, would be a new round of stimulus. Highly controversial, yet effective according to a new paper by Mark Zandi of Moody’s and Alan Blinder of Princeton. Consumers are saving more, 6.2% of their disposable income, equal to ~$700 billion. This is roughly $450 billion more than during normal times. Fair to say, this money is being parked at the Fed in the form of excess reserves.
• Suspending interest payments on excess reserves would almost certainly bring the effective rate to zero. Using the Taylor Rule, the difference between 0.1 and 0.0 would add 0.2% increase in GDP given current CPI - not much.
• Yet, cash earning zero would have to find a home. Maybe then it would be possible to fund a second stimulus. Ideas for this stimulus would be as follows:

1. Replacing all municipal buses and taxi cabs with clean burning natural gas buses and taxis made in the USA.  This would have a significant impact for both the natural gas industry as well as domestic manufacturing.
2. Expanding high speed rail for both passenger and freight transport (moving more post and parcel service onto high speed rail). Key links would be Chicago to Detroit and the East Coast as well as continued east coast service from Boston all the way thru Charlotte and Atlanta.
3. Increasing port capacity for greater exporting ability in Houston, New Orleans, Virginia Beach, Philly, New York and the entire West Coast.
4. Increasing rail capacity in the Midwest to make manufacturing easier (and cheaper) to move to the coastal parts of the country.

To be sure, the investments outlined above would be 2-5 years in duration, shifting the excess reserves to the right on the yield curve where the current 10 year treasury yield stands at 2.91%. But infrastructure investments are incredibly productive. All of these outlined above would for sure produce more than 2.91% over ten years in returns. It’s a bet worth making and funding worth investing.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

What will 2009 look like? This blog offers key spreads to examine routinely for signs of economic recovery. In chronological order

• The Fed Funds Effective vs. Target Spreads.
• The TED Spread
• LIBOR vs. Investment Grade Bonds

Fed Funds Spread

The Fed Funds Spread, the difference between the “Target Rate” and the “Effective Rate” for Federal Funds is essentially the measure of slack in the economy. Today, the Target Rate is set to 0.25% and the “Effective Rate” for overnight funds trades at 0.11%: banks can not find enough opportunities (or see too much risk) to lend. Instead, banks choose to keep excess funds within the Federal Reserve.

This is the first spread to watch. When the “effective rate” trades at the “target rate”, the economy is performing to its potential in the current interest rate environment.

The TED Spread

The TED Spread, the difference between three month LIBOR and three month US Treasuries, is essentially the measure of trust between the private and public sector. According to the Financial Times, three month LIBOR trades at 1.47%. Three-month Treasuries trade at 0.0014% (zero). That’s a big spread.

This spread can not converge until overnight LIBOR -which mirrors the Fed Funds “effective rate” - trades at the Fed Funds Target rate: Effective Rate vs. Target Rate convergence implies upward pressure on treasury yields, making overnight treasuries trade at a minimum of 0.0025%.  This is the start to redeeming trust in the private sector vs. the public sector.

LIBOR vs. Investment Grade Bonds

This spread measures competition and confidence in the private sector’s ability to earn income. Today, one year LIBOR trades at 2.09%. Reviewing Global Investment Grade Bonds from the Financial Times, most trade at ~6.00% yield.

global-investment-grade

This is the final spread that will show uptick in the economy. When this spread converges, trust in corporate earnings is restored: the public market respects corporate earnings enough to offer a suitable substitute to banks as a source of debt funding.

The LM Curve as Perspective

Reviewing the LM curve, demand for money equals the supply money at a given output and interest rate - in this case a zero interest rate environment.  Output could increase in a zero interest rate environment, with expansion of the money supply (as the Fed is currently doing) and with expansion of the government spending (as Obama is planning). Given we are in a contractionary economic environment, one could argue the US has only slid down the LM curve - money supply expansion has not worked -, awaiting a shift in the IS curve with new fiscal expansion.

However, a healthy economy has demand for money at positive rates. For this we look to the convergence of the spreads listed above.

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.

Preparing for 2009, this week marked a terrific example of de-leveraging in practice.

• As of Friday, December 19th, according to the Financial Times One year US Libor was 2.09%
• As of Friday, December 19th, according to the Wall Street Journal, no Treasury expiring prior to 2015 yielded more than 2%.
• And, as of Friday, December 19th, according to the Financial Times, the Fed Funds effective rate was 0.11%

So, there has never been a cheaper time to borrow, right? Only if you have an FDIC (taxpayer) stamp next to your offering. Take a look who issued debt this past week, courtesy of the Financial Times.

Financial Times: Week ofDec-19th-bond-issues-us

One side note: Even John Deere Capital got into the FDIC mix! So don’t tell GM and Chrysler they can’t have taxpayer loans.

According to the WSJ, this week was the final week in 2008 for private bond offerings. The lack of Corporate Debt issued should provide guidance that the US Economy (by force or by choice) is continuing its de-leveraging.

Final side note: According to the Wall Street Journal, The Illinois Finance Authority is set to offer $500 million in bonds on December 26th. Though it is independent of the State, this should be an interesting post-Christmas verdict on Governor Blagojevich.

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.