Robert Shiller, in his book The Subprime Solution offers a risk management tool for governments. It is a “Trill” and it pays a perpetual share of GDP.

As GDP increases, the instrument pays a higher coupon. During a recession, it pays less. Quite the floating instrument. Shiller assumes each share would pay roughly $15, believing perpetual GDP would average $15 trillion annually. (Hence the “Trill”). Each Trill would be worth roughly $300. This assumes the US Risk Free rate is 5%. The risk-less rate of the US economy is 5%.

The “Risk” that is managed is during hard times, the government obviously owes less in debt service costs. In times of plenty, the government can afford to pay more. But in bad times, governments would have more cash on hand to handle a crisis (such as today).

The Pros.

• This instrument allows the market to truly estimate GDP growth. In some ways, the instrument is worth issuing simply to have a market view (a great view) of GDP growth.
• One now has the ability- with TIPS, Treasuries, and Trills- to estimate real GDP growth given  market views.
• Instead of perpetual Instruments, it could be more beneficial to issue “Trills” expiring annually, similar to TIPS and Treasuries. This way, one could have the market truly predicting GDP growth.

The Reasons for Pause:

• Reviewing the LM curve, as output grows, interest rates rise. As the economy falters, interest rates fall. Even in today’s crisis, this relationship holds true. The Trill’s desired hedge already exists. Further, this means the government has the ability to re-finance higher yielding paper in tougher times.
• The Hedge: Shiller’s main reason for the GDP indexed Trill is to provide government “room to spare” should a contraction occur. As GDP declines, so would tax receipts, lowering government revenue. It then is hard to argue the Government would have spare cash to attack a crisis.
• Other Financings: GDP, remember, is defined as Consumption + Investment + Government Expenditure + Net Exports. GDP could remain stable year on year, but Imports could still rise. In this example, Investment (Foreign Direct Investment) remains unchanged meaning the Current Account Deficit is in the form of domestic bonds and stocks, essentially payments to foreigners from US income. Trill payments could remain unchanged, but the country as a whole would pay more to maintain the same standard of living (in the short run).

Robert Shiller is one of our smartest thinkers on real property. Let’s work on the Trill as it has definite promise as a positive instrument for US Debt.

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!

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?

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.

Reporter Saskia Scholtes of the Financial Times was wise to diagnose our current crisis correctly almost one year ago on Newshour with Jim Lehrer. We had a “financial markets problem” We still do.

Since Ms. Scholtes’ diagnosis, it is becoming clearer the “financial markets problem” is spreading to the overall economy. This is particularly worrisome over this past week with special attention the Fed’s policy decision.

As we correctly noted in our previous post (to be sure, this blog is large enough for our over sized ego),

Ben Bernanke and the Federal Reserve enacted a massive rate cut. But has it worked? Has it bolstered confidence in the overall markets? We present two frameworks to analyze the cut and the market’s reaction (assuming additional pricing was occurred).

First is oil. Oil’s trajectory in various days in October (below) has been remarkably unchanged.

Sure, oil rose from the cut. But the real story is how powerful dollar’s pricing is behind oil’s future prices. And here is the real concern:

The Fed’s cut has two objectives:

• Lower credit conditions to ease lending strain, bolstering the economy
• In anticipation of further economic contraction, ensure deflationary conditions do not persist.

The Fisher Equation derives the market’s inflation expectations. Below is the previous Monday and Friday (before and after the Rate Cut) TIPS and Treasury Yields, and the derived inflation expectations.

No doubt treasury yields are low in an investor. But suppose treasuries were priced 100 -200 basis points higher. Given TIPS yields, there is still a view we are headed into a deflationary period. Given the dollar’s increased pricing power tomorrow vs. today, it should give us pause about the following:

• What is Oil’s true future price?
• Given that holding cash under the mattress is now worth more tomorrow than it is today, is the treasury fix fixing anything?

Since the bailout was enacted, three-month LIBOR declined from highs of 4.75% to 3.52%. Further, three-month LIBOR dropped 90 basis points in this last week.

Room to drop?

The market votes yes. Three-month Eurodollar contracts closing in December (the three-month LIBOR futures rate) is pricing at 2.63%. By June, three-month LIBOR is expected to decline to 2.48%.

Context on the market prediction is critical. We must understand how much risk is priced into spreads.

TED Spreads, the base spread of risk between private capital and riskless funds, remain large.

• Today, three month treasuries yield .93%.
• Investing in treasuries today for returns in March 31st, 2009 yields 1.2125%.
• The implied treasury yield matching the Dec EuroDollar Contract is therefore .72%.
• Further, for three month March LIBOR, projected at 2.50%, equivalent three month Treasuries yield .22%.

So, good news and bad news. LIBOR is declining, but the TED spread remains wide.

As a side note, it is now obvious that Treasury Yields have priced a massive rate cut over the coming months.

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.

The Treasury can choose how to finance this purchase.

First though, the plan gives us insight into when Treasury foresees the US Economy recovering. If all preferred shares are callable in three years, but only redeemable through equity (and not debt) prior to, then in essence, Treasury believes we will not fully calm the credit markets until three years from now.

At present, The Treasury issues 2 Years, 5 Years, and 10 Years. Yet Treasury must know most banks will call the preferred shares by year five when the dividend percentage increases from 5% to 9%.

Yet how many banks will take out the preferred shares prior to year three? Probably not many.

The safest debt instrument then is a five year treasury debt instrument. Here is why:

• The Yield on Five Year Treasuries is 2.609%, cheap money.

• No refinance risk. The preferred shares are retired back piece by piece through the next five years. While there is a chance of buying back treasuries at a premium when the debt is retired, the debt is so cheap; this problem is hard to imagine.

• Isolates the problem to the current administration. No doubt, models exist predicting when various banks will pay back the preferred shares, estimating duration and a possible combination of two year debt, five year debt and accept some refinance risk if funding is further needed.