Tags: inflation

China, Russia Quit US Dollar

Published on: 11/24/2010
Comments: No Comments

St. Petersburg, Russia – China and Russia have decided to renounce the US dollar and resort to using their own currencies for bilateral trade, Premier Wen Jiabao and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin announced late on Tuesday.

Chinese experts said the move reflected closer relations between Beijing and Moscow and is not aimed at challenging the dollar, but to protect their domestic economies.

“About trade settlement, we have decided to use our own currencies,” Putin said at a joint news conference with Wen in St. Petersburg.

The two countries were accustomed to using other currencies, especially the dollar, for bilateral trade. Since the financial crisis, however, high-ranking officials on both sides began to explore other possibilities.

The yuan has now started trading against the Russian rouble in the Chinese interbank market, while the renminbi will soon be allowed to trade against the rouble in Russia, Putin said.

“That has forged an important step in bilateral trade and it is a result of the consolidated financial systems of world countries,” he said.

Putin made his remarks after a meeting with Wen. They also officiated at a signing ceremony for 12 documents, including energy cooperation.

The documents covered cooperation on aviation, railroad construction, customs, protecting intellectual property, culture and a joint communiqu. Details of the documents have yet to be released.

Putin said one of the pacts between the two countries is about the purchase of two nuclear reactors from Russia by China’s Tianwan nuclear power plant, the most advanced nuclear power complex in China.

Putin has called for boosting sales of natural resources – Russia’s main export – to China, but price has proven to be a sticking point.

Russian Deputy Prime Minister Igor Sechin, who holds sway over Russia’s energy sector, said following a meeting with Chinese representatives that Moscow and Beijing are unlikely to agree on the price of Russian gas supplies to China before the middle of next year.

Russia is looking for China to pay prices similar to those Russian gas giant Gazprom charges its European customers, but Beijing wants a discount. The two sides were about $100 per 1,000 cubic meters apart, according to Chinese officials last week.

Wen’s trip follows Russian President Dmitry Medvedev’s three-day visit to China in September, during which he and President Hu Jintao launched a cross-border pipeline linking the world’s biggest energy producer with the largest energy consumer.

Wen said at the press conference that the partnership between Beijing and Moscow has “reached an unprecedented level” and pledged the two countries will “never become each other’s enemy”.

Over the past year, “our strategic cooperative partnership endured strenuous tests and reached an unprecedented level,” Wen said, adding the two nations are now more confident and determined to defend their mutual interests.

“China will firmly follow the path of peaceful development and support the renaissance of Russia as a great power,” he said.

“The modernization of China will not affect other countries’ interests, while a solid and strong Sino-Russian relationship is in line with the fundamental interests of both countries.”

Wen said Beijing is willing to boost cooperation with Moscow in Northeast Asia, Central Asia and the Asia-Pacific region, as well as in major international organizations and on mechanisms in pursuit of a “fair and reasonable new order” in international politics and the economy.

Sun Zhuangzhi, a senior researcher in Central Asian studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said the new mode of trade settlement between China and Russia follows a global trend after the financial crisis exposed the faults of a dollar-dominated world financial system.

Pang Zhongying, who specializes in international politics at Renmin University of China, said the proposal is not challenging the dollar, but aimed at avoiding the risks the dollar represents.

Wen arrived in the northern Russian city on Monday evening for a regular meeting between Chinese and Russian heads of government.

He left St. Petersburg for Moscow late on Tuesday and is set to meet with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on Wednesday.

My Two Cents – The Great Currency Wars

On 9/18/2009 I wrote an editorial called ‘The Quiet Grab’. It discussed China’s deal cutting on the natural resources front, specifically in the rare earth element and petroleum sectors. The article pointed out that the Chinese were quietly provisioning ready supplies of strategic assets for the turmoil that lay ahead, particularly arising from a disdain and mistrust of paper instruments, especially currencies. With the USFed’s second iteration of quantitative easing now underway, the currency battles are starting to heat up and so is the rhetoric. This week we take a look at the ongoing (and intensifying) currency wars, strategic assets, and why we are behind the proverbial eight ball.

The Return of 1930’s Style Protectionism?

This morning, the head of the World Trade Organization (WTO), General Pascal Lamy, weighed in with that group’s position on currency wars.

Generating employment “is at the heart of the strategy of some countries to keep their currencies undervalued,” Lamy said in New Delhi. “Just as it is also at the heart of other countries’ loose monetary policies.”
Competitive devaluations, which have raised fears of a global currency war, could trigger “tit-for-tat protectionism”, he told a business audience.

What Lamy and most economists and policymakers neither want to acknowledge nor deal with is that their great paradigm of ‘borrow and spend to prosperity’ is broken. His argument that countries like China want to keep currencies cheap to export is absolutely true. His position that the USFed’s decision to try to keep the Dollar cheap is borne out of a desire to ‘stimulate’ the economy is also spot on. Where he misses the boat are on the causes for the current predicament, the very existence of his employer being front and center as a major contributor.

China is the World’s Biggest Wal-Mart

Not only do the Chinese provide the vast majority of the consumer goods on Wal-Mart’s shelves, they’ve stolen a page or two from the mega-retailer’s playbook. Or perhaps Wal-Mart swiped China’s modus operandi, but it really doesn’t matter. China has for years now been flooding the developed world with cheap goods and, with the cooperation of first world politicians, has been driving manufacturing jobs to the Third World. This has been done much in the same way Wal-Mart has destroyed thousands of Mom and Pop stores throughout the nation. They go into an area, undercut local businesses on price, put them out of business and then establish monopoly power. They don’t even need to raise prices once the competition is destroyed. Economies of scale produce sizable profits all on their own.

China is doing much the same thing. This is one of the reasons they have been ready and willing to buy our Treasuries for so long. It provided them with the ability to undergo their very own industrial revolution and establish a bridgehead as the world’s manufacturing power. In the process, how many American industries have fallen by the wayside? Too many to count. And we’re not their only trading partner either. Less than 25% of China’s exports actually made it to North America in 2007. That is a staggering revelation for most people, as we tend to believe that the Chinese somehow ‘need’ us to consume their products.

The Destination of China's Exports

But China has her own problems. Their cheap currency, while enabling significant export gains, has also touched off a wave of domestic inflation, which is being manifested right now in politically sensitive soaring food prices. Americans should take note here.

America’s Ridiculous Demand

Perhaps the most ironic occurrence in the early stages of the currency war is the exhortations by American politicians and central bankers. They are demanding that China allow its currency to appreciate, which would in effect make it easier for American companies to export to China. We do export a significant amount of heavy equipment to China, as does Germany. After all, someone needs to provide the Chinese manufacturing machine with capital equipment.

But there is much more to this than meets the eye and that is where we all need to be paying attention. Think about what Bernanke, and many members of Congress are asking for. When they demand that China allow their currency to appreciate, they are in effect demanding that the Dollar be depreciated. They are saying essentially “Yes Mr. Jiabao; we want the Dollar to be worth less so Mr. and Mrs. America will have to pay more for your imported goods when they go to the store”. This flies totally in the face of the robotic ‘A strong dollar is in the national interest’ phrase uttered by Hank Paulson in what seems to be an eternity ago now.

USD/CNY Pair - Yuan stagnation

In this reality lies the essence of our current problem. We have a choice. Our government is taking a stance that we can create jobs by depreciating the Dollar and somehow that is going to overcome the massive increase in costs of imports. This might work if we weren’t such an import-driven society, but that is certainly not the case. And it isn’t just the Chinese we import from either. Think crude oil and refined gasoline products. At current import rates and oil prices, we import almost $900 Million per day just in petroleum. That is around $27 Billion per month. We’ve seen what the devaluation of the Dollar has done to the jobs picture in just the past five years. Does any person with two brain cells to rub together really expect this nonsense to work?

Strategic Assets Trump Cash?

We are reaching the point where I believe the quiet grab by the Chinese over the past decade in terms of strategic assets is about to pay off. Anyone who runs a manufacturing operation knows that stable input prices and supplies are a key component of that business’ long-term success. Obviously any manufacturing operation built using the petroleum paradigm is going to use plenty of black gold. The same goes for a world that is hooked on handheld gadgets and green technology. Most hybrid owners don’t realize the amount of exploration, provisioning, and drilling/mining that goes into finding the materials necessary to make the high tech components of their vehicles. The same goes for the owners of the vast majority of consumer electronics. We just don’t think about it. The Chinese have. By virtue of their location, they have roughly 95% of the world’s rare earth elements at their disposal. They’ve locked down supplies of crude oil to fuel their manufacturing empire, at least in the short to medium term. Who really thinks the United States is going to win a trade war, a currency war, or any type of economic war with the Chinese at this point?

Given these realities, and how all of these circumstances are woven together, we can already be pretty sure of how the great currency wars will turn out. Those with the advantages will use them and those at a disadvantage with posture, pander, and talk. But in the end, talk is cheap.

FT – New Food Crisis Fears as Prices Soar

The bill for global food imports will top $1,000bn this year for the second time ever, putting the world “dangerously close” to a new food crisis, the United Nations said.

The warning by the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation adds to fears about rising inflation in emerging countries from China to India. “Prices are dangerously close to the levels of 2007-08,” said Abdolreza Abbassian, an economist at the FAO.

The FAO painted a worrying outlook in its twice-yearly Food Outlook on Wednesday, warning that the world should “be prepared” for even higher prices next year. It said it was crucial for farmers to “expand substantially” production, particularly of corn and wheat in 2011-12 to meet expected demand and rebuild world reserves.

But the FAO said the production response may be limited as rising food prices had made other crops, from sugar to soyabean and cotton, attractive to grow.

“This could limit individual crop production responses to levels that would be insufficient to alleviate market tightness. Against this backdrop, consumers may have little choice but to pay higher prices for their food,” it said.

The agency raised its forecast for the global bill for food to $1,026bn this year, up nearly 15 per cent from 2009 and within a whisker of an all-time high of $1,031bn set in 2008 during the food crisis.

“With the pressure on world prices of most commodities not abating, the international community must remain vigilant against further supply shocks in 2011,” the FAO added. In the 10 years before the 2007-08 food crisis, the global bill for food imports averaged less than $500bn a year.

Hafez Ghanem, FAO assistant director-general, dismissed claims that speculators were behind recent price gains, saying that supply shortages were causing the rise.

Agricultural commodities prices have surged following a series of crop failures caused by bad weather.

The situation was aggravated when top producers such as Russia and Ukraine imposed export restrictions, prompting importers in the Middle East and North Africa to hoard supplies. The weakness of the US dollar, in which most food commodities are denominated, has also contributed to higher prices.

The FAO’s food index, a basket tracking the wholesale cost of wheat, corn, rice, oilseeds, dairy products, sugar and meats, jumped last month to levels last seen at the peak of the 2007-08 crisis. The index rose in October to 197.1 points – up nearly 5 per cent from September.

Agricultural commodities prices have fallen over the past week amid a sell-off in global markets, but analysts and traders continue to expect higher prices in 2011.

China Imposes Capital Controls

China will force banks to hold more foreign exchange and strengthen auditing of overseas fund raising, stepping up efforts to curb hot-money inflows that may inflate asset bubbles and add pressure for a stronger yuan.

The State Administration of Foreign Exchange will introduce new rules on currency provisioning and tighten management of banks’ foreign-debt quotas, the regulator said in a statement on its website today. The government will also regulate Chinese special-purpose vehicles overseas and tighten controls on equity investments by foreign companies in China, it said.

The measures underscore concern around the world that the U.S. Federal Reserve’s expanded monetary stimulus will cause capital to flood into emerging markets. The yuan rose today by the most since the end of a dollar peg in 2005 as global leaders prepare to discuss currency tensions and the impact of the Fed’s easing at the Group of 20 summit this week in Seoul.

“Some international funds will flee from dollar assets because of the Fed’s easing, and China’s SAFE is trying all means to plug loopholes in possible channels for hot-money inflows,” said Zhao Qingming, a senior analyst at China Construction Bank Corp. in Beijing, the country’s second-largest lender.

The yuan jumped 0.51 percent to 6.6440 per dollar as of 6:08 p.m. in Shanghai, bringing gains this year to 2.7 percent, according to the China Foreign Exchange Trade System. Twelve- month non-deliverable forwards were at 6.4463, reflecting bets the currency will strengthen 3 percent in one year.

Ease Pressure

Also today, Taiwan’s Financial Supervisory Commission said it will restore curbs on foreign investments in fixed-income securities to include government debt due in more than a year. Capital inflows from overseas helped pushed the Taiwan dollar up the most in more than a decade yesterday.

China’s regulator said that a bank’s daily net dollar positions, in expired forward contracts and spot greenback holdings, should not be less than yesterday’s levels. Forcing banks to keep hold of U.S. currency will limit their ability to meet orders for yuan purchases, restricting the amount that can flow into local-currency assets.

“This is to ask banks to hold more foreign currency to help ease pressure on the growing size of China’s foreign- exchange reserves,” Zhao said. “To some extent, it can help limit yuan gains in the short term.”

The People’s Bank of China reported a record $100 billion jump in its foreign-exchange reserves to $2.65 trillion for September. China’s foreign debt totaled $513.8 billion at the end of June, including $343.8 billion of short-term debt, according to SAFE data.

Financial Security

Officials from China to Germany have criticized the Federal Reserve’s plan to pump $600 billion into the economy by buying Treasuries, saying the plan will weaken the dollar and risks escalating flows of speculative capital to emerging markets.

The world needs a stable dollar, Dai Xianglong, chairman of China’s National Council for Social Security Fund and a former head of the nation’s central bank, said today at a forum in Beijing. The Fed is “risking the fragile global recovery by following its own track for economic revival,” the state-run Xinhua News Agency said in a commentary.

The Fed’s plan may “shock” emerging markets by flooding them with capital, Chinese Vice Finance Minister Zhu Guangyao said yesterday.

Yuan Trend

The rules are aimed at “further curbing inflows and settlement of non-compliant funds,” the foreign exchange regulator said today. They are designed to “maintain China’s economic and financial security,” it said.

China’s capital controls can block abnormal inflows of money, central bank Governor Zhou Xiaochuan said at a forum in Beijing last week.

“The strengthened controls on hot money can’t change the yuan’s trend of appreciation,” said Isaac Meng, an economist at BNP Paribas SA in Beijing. “The yuan will continue to appreciate as the Fed easing prompts more capital inflows and China’s economy grows faster than the U.S.”

A Tale of Two Cities

It certainly looks as though once again insanity has prevailed over common sense. In what has become a recurring theme in our world, particularly from a policy standpoint, the Federal Reserve announced another round of government bond purchases, dubbing the effort ‘QE2’. I wonder if QE2 is any relation to R2D2 from the popular Star Wars series? I think a rather strong argument could be made that the little guy has more common sense than the entire board of Fed governors. All jest aside, however, there are rather serious ramifications to this latest round of pumping; especially since there is no reason to believe the results will be any different than the last effort. Banks and the Government will maintain the status quo while Main Street languishes.

The Government’s Story

The massive borrowing by the US Government has certainly been no secret over the past 2 years. It has been the topic of nearly every political debate or dinner table discussion. Many, myself included, have wondered aloud how long it would be before the Chinese, Japanese, OPEC, and the rest of our creditors would be able to continue to justify buying all our debt, especially considering the awful rates at the long end of the yield curve. There has been a rotation into the shorter end for sure, and many bond players are now speculating on making money on bonds through higher bond prices as opposed to the normal practice of clipping bond coupons. This mentality was on full display recently when a group of geniuses bought roughly $10 Billion worth of 5-Year TIPS at a negative yield.

Foreign Holdings of Treasuries - CFR

Let’s not split hairs here. The Fed has been backdoor monetizing for some time now. There are many different ways they’ve done this such as using currency swaps with the ECB, and other ‘facilities’ in foreign jurisdictions like the UK to make their purchases for them. Notice at around the same time China started cutting back on its exposure that Great Britain, broke as a stone, started ramping up bond purchases. It is a pretty safe bet that this is none other than Mr. Bernanke and Co. at work.

This has been going on and will continue. However, the shift towards overt monetization should tell us that the Fed is stuck and is beginning to panic. The stimulus didn’t work. The last round of asset purchases, totaling nearly $2 Trillion that we know of, only fattened bank balance sheets and did almost nothing to help Main Street. I am inclined to believe that was the whole idea though since the Fed has been incentivizing the banks NOT to expand lending.

In any case, our government requires massive amounts of cash to continue its wayward spending patterns. The Treasury estimates that borrowing this quarter will be in the $362 Billion ballpark. That is a $1.4 Trillion annual clip for those keeping score at home. And now with what appears to be political gridlock in Washington, it hopefully won’t get worse. But of course that also means that it is also rather likely that it will not get better either. Someone is going to need to buy all those fresh Treasury bonds, and the Fed has just openly positioned itself as the buyer of last resort. At least that part of the charade is ending.

The Consumer’s Retrenchment

Another battle going on is the need for retrenchment on the consumer level. This flies directly in the face of stimulating economic growth since much of our ‘growth’ the past few decades has been derived from a service oriented, consumption driven model. The fuel for that growth has been the expansion of consumer credit, so much that consumer credit outstanding and GDP have marched in near lock step since the turn of the century. This tells us that our ‘growth’ has been borrowed, and is in fact, not growth. Throw in the inflation of the early part of this decade and there has been negative growth across the board. The prosperity has been put on plastic and now hangs like a boat anchor around the necks of most Americans. Here are some frightening statistics:

In 2009, the average balance on credit cards held by undergraduates was $3,700, with the average rate being 17.86%.

Among households who have credit card debt, the average debt was $15,788 in 2009.

In 2009, 14% of disposable income went towards servicing credit card debt.

In 2008, 44% of small business owners identified business credit cards as a source of financing, more than any other source of financing including earnings.

On the flip side of the coin, there are certainly some bright spots:

Almost 45% of consumers who had a credit balance said that balance got ‘lower or much lower’ in 2009.This is a signal of at least a partial retrenchment.

Earlier this year, 29% of poll respondents said they did not have a credit card, which was a 10% jump over the same period in 2009.

In a somewhat dated study in July 2008, 37% of consumers said they were using their credit cards less.

Let’s take a look at some of the components of consumer credit. Due to the extremely close correlation with GDP, consumer credit is something I have written about many times. The past few years have seen the ONLY contraction in total credit outstanding since recordkeeping began in 1943.

Total Consumer Credit Outstanding

The only period in the past 67 years that rivaled what has happened since 2008 is the recession of the early 1990s, which saw a gentle stagnation in credit outstanding. Sadly, 1993 was the period in time when the growth in consumer debt began in earnest and marked a crossing of a Rubicon from wage financed consumption to credit financed consumption. The current contraction, which is showing signs of exhaustion, has only clipped 6.49% off the total consumer debt outstanding. While this is significant in that it is unprecedented, it is not enough to substantially decrease the costs of servicing the debt for consumers. Since being bailed out, banks have continued to raise rates on many forms of revolving debt to keep profits steady.

What might be somewhat surprising, however, is who actually HOLDS the consumer debt that remains. We’re able to do some breakdowns in this regard.

Total Bank Credit by Commercial Banks

Commercial banks net on net are in a better position with regards to their holdings than they were before the recession started and the average rate on their cards has increased significantly as well. It is no wonder the banks are profitable again. When you figure the bailouts, higher interest rates, and steady holdings, even the losses from charge-offs and other bad debt procedures, there is still plenty of gravy.

Pricey Plastic

The bottom line here is the impact of policy. It should be obvious now that there have been beneficiaries of the policies of the past decade (or more), and there have been those who have seen little or no benefit. What the above analysis should also tell us is that an economy-cleansing consumer retrenchment still has not taken place. It has also become very clear that the Fed and our government will not allow such a retrenchment to take place. Why do I say this? Because every time consumers refuse to spend more, the government does it for them and the Fed pumps more fiat cash into the banking system to fill the gap. All that said, there is still nothing wrong with cleaning up your own personal balance sheet; you may not be able to teach your government anything, but you’ll certainly sleep better at night.

Backlash Builds Against Fed’s QE2

Published on: 11/04/2010
Comments: No Comments

The US Federal Reserve’s decision to pump an extra $600bn into the economy has galvanized emerging market central banks into preparing defensive measures and sparked criticism from leading global economies.

The Fed’s initiative, in response to rising concern about the weakness of the US economy, has fuelled fears of a sharp drop in the dollar and a fresh flood of capital inflows into emerging markets.

China, Brazil and Germany on Thursday criticised the Fed’s action a day earlier, and a string of east Asian central banks said they were preparing measures to defend their economies against large capital inflows.

Guido Mantega, the Brazilian finance minister who was the first to warn of a “currency war”, said: “Everybody wants the US economy to recover, but it does no good at all to just throw dollars from a helicopter.”

Mr Mantega added: “You have to combine that with fiscal policy. You have to stimulate consumption.” Germany also expressed concern.

An adviser to the Chinese central bank called unbridled printing of dollars the biggest risk to the global economy and said China should use currency policy and capital controls to cushion itself from external shocks.

“As long as the world exercises no restraint in issuing global currencies such as the dollar – and this is not easy – then the occurrence of another crisis is inevitable, as quite a few wise Westerners lament,” Xia Bin wrote in a newspaper under the Chinese central bank.

Korn Chatikavanij, Thailand’s finance minister, said the Thai central bank had told him it was “in close talks” with regional central banks over measures “to prevent excessive speculation.”

The renewed tension is likely to complicate US efforts to get leaders of the world’s leading economies countries meeting in Seoul next week to press China to sign up to a new accord promising to limit current account balances.

Dan Price, partner at the law firm Sidley Austin and formerly George W. Bush’s White House representative at the G20, said: “The US may find it increasingly difficult to galvanize countries to push China on [renminbi] appreciation when many think the Fed’s quantitative easing policy is itself a major contributor to currency misalignment and imbalances.”

Neither the Federal Reserve nor the US Treasury commented on Thursday. The tension over exchange rates has created fears of a wave of protectionist trade and investment actions in response, a reaction that so far has been markedly absent from the global economy during the recession and recovery.

The World Trade Organisation, in association with other international institutions, released a regular report which said that new restrictions on trade, direct investment and capital flows had remained subdued.

But blocks on trade imposed since 2008, such as “anti-dumping” duties on imports deemed to be unfairly priced, are largely still in place.

The WTO said that the percentage of G20 imports now covered by such restrictions had crept up to 1.8 per cent. Pascal Lamy, director-general, warned on Thursday that tensions over currency could be the issue which finally unleashed a real surge in protectionism.

The Fed’s initiative, however, boosted markets, with equities rising in Europe, London and the US following the lead set in Japan, where the Nikkei 225 Average gained 2.2 per cent – its best day in nearly two months.

“The no-asset-market-left-behind approach is officially endorsed,” said Steven Englander, at Citigroup. “If the intention is that US households and investors buy US assets, there is also little to stop them from buying foreign assets as well.”

Oil hit a six-month peak above $86 a barrel and gold rallied to $1,883.7, just shy of its all-time peak. The euro hit $1.428, its highest since January. Measured against its major trading partners, the dollar has fallen more than 3 per cent this week.

Treasuries, the actual target of the $600bn, endured the most mixed trading. Initially sold in disappointment that the Fed was not buying more, they began to rally as analysts digested the Fed’s plans, which will involve it buying more seven- to 10-year notes than the Treasury will actually sell. Yields on benchmark 10-year Treasuries were down 7.7 basis points at 2.49 per cent.

‘Mad’ Fed Should Assess Risks – Bloomberg Opinion

Albert Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different outcomes. The crazy gang at the Federal Reserve should heed those words when debating how much more market manipulation to inflict on the world of fixed income.

The worrisome thing about so-called quantitative easing — a concept still novel enough to mean whatever the Humpty-Dumptys in central banking want it to — is that its consequences remain unquantifiable, and the perceived need for more central-bank purchases of securities should make investors uneasy.

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke said in an Oct. 15 speech that it’s difficult to work out the “appropriate quantity and pace of purchases and to communicate this policy response to the public.” He also said that “nonconventional policies have costs and limitations that must be taken into account in judging whether and how aggressively they should be used.”

Imagine a surgeon telling her patient she wasn’t sure what size scalpel she’d be using or what the likely outcome of the procedure might be. Or an architect admitting to a planning committee that he wasn’t confident about his stress calculations or the durability of the newfangled materials he was using.

“Nobody understands QE,” says Fred Goodwin, a strategist at Nomura International in London. “We have no idea how inflationary it really is. A patient juiced up on QE wants to party and it does not matter what anyone says. Don’t worry about what central banks are worried about; worry about unintended consequences.”

‘Dangerous Gamble’

Fed skeptic Thomas Hoenig of the U.S. central bank’s Kansas City branch called it “a very dangerous gamble” in a speech this week. “We risk the next crisis four or five years from now.” Mohamed A. El-Erian, chief executive officer at Pacific Investment Management Co., said the bond-buying program “will have costs and unintended consequences.”

The Fed’s role as buyer of first resort has completely distorted the government-bond market. An innocuous report in the Wall Street Journal yesterday said the Fed would avoid the “shock and awe” tactic used in the initial $2 trillion buying spree and limit itself to “a few hundred billion dollars.” This managed to drive the 10-year Treasury yield up by 10 basis points to a five-week high of 2.7 percent.

Bernanke at the Fed, Jean-Claude Trichet at the European Central Bank and Mervyn King at the Bank of England are more powerful than any of their predecessors, given how much reliance their political masters are placing on their stewardship of the economy. Leaving the fortunes of the nation in the hands of unelected central banks, though, strikes me as an abdication of responsibility by government.

Buck Stops Where?

U.K. Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne was asked on Oct. 21 if he had a plan to fall back on if the government’s attempts to reduce the budget deficit to 2 percent of economic output by 2015, from more than 10 percent now, smothers the economic recovery.

“There is, of course, the freedom for the Bank of England to deploy monetary-policy tools,” was his complacent, the-buck- stops-over-there-somewhere reply.

Central bankers tend to be academics, and academia’s usefulness in solving real-world problems is limited at best; Bernanke’s theoretical work, made famous in the November 2002 speech “Deflation: Making Sure ‘It’ Doesn’t Happen Here” that led to him being dubbed “Helicopter Ben,” is butting heads with harsh reality, and coming off second-best in the contest.

One-Trick Ponies

Former Bank of England policy maker and Bloomberg columnist David Blanchflower calls QE “the only show in town,” and it’s possible that the outlook would look much worse if we hadn’t had any bond purchases. While repeatedly rolling out the crash cart, screaming “clear!” and slapping on the electric paddles didn’t manage to stir the comatose patient, maybe death was averted.

A contrary suggestion might posit that central banks are now one-trick ponies, stuck in a financial groundhog day with no fresh ideas. Their willingness to sacrifice their principles not only undermines their hard-won independence, it also allows their political masters to avoid the hard work of structural reform that might generate a genuine recovery. Instead, we are relying on transfusions of artificial central-bank liquidity.

The guardians of the world economy still seem to think the answer to too much debt is yet more debt. Imagine the response, though, if you had asked any of the current crop of central bankers five years ago about the inflationary consequences of pumping trillions of dollars into the financial system.

Nomura’s Goodwin says there is no reason why the U.S. inflation rate couldn’t surge to 6 percent by 2015 from its current 1.1 percent pace. Lending to the U.S. government by buying its 1.25 percent note repayable in September 2015 at its current yield of about 1.3 percent might not be the smartest trade a bond manager could make.

When the law of unintended consequences kicks in, the nasty surprise is, almost by definition, unforeseen and unpredictable. I struggle to see how this movie won’t end badly.

(Mark Gilbert, author of “Complicit: How Greed and Collusion Made the Credit Crisis Unstoppable,” is the London bureau chief and a columnist for Bloomberg News. The opinions expressed are his own.)

5-Year TIPS Auction Brings NEGATIVE Yield

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — For the first time ever, the government auctioned off 5-year inflation-indexed Treasuries at a negative yield Monday, as investors bet rising prices will be an issue in the next five years.

For more than three weeks, bond traders have focused on forecasts that the Fed will announce a second major round of asset purchases in November in an effort to stimulate the American economy.

And during a $10 billion auction of 5-year Treasury Inflation Protected Securities, or TIPS, at a negative 0.55% yield, it was clear bond traders think the Fed will be successful at spurring inflation, said Kim Rupert, a fixed income analyst with Action Economics.

So why would bond traders opt for negative returns?

Unlike other Treasuries which have a set yield, TIPS are tagged to inflation rates, so if inflation goes up, the government pays a premium to the bond holder. In this case, investors must be thinking that “inflation rates will be problematic in five years, and the premium is going to be rather large,” Rupert said.

While TIPS have a niche audience and $10 billion is still a rather small auction, the fact that a negative yield would draw demand is indicative of the overall trend driving demand for government bonds lately, she said.

Investors are speculating the Fed will announce another round of so-called quantitative easing in November — and that policy would likely include a large buy of Treasuries.

The result of these purchases would, in theory, drive prices up, while pushing yields down on government bonds; hence the reason why investors have been trying to get ahead of the Fed by buying up long-term bonds at their current prices and yields.

What yields are doing: After falling nearly all day, the yield on the benchmark 10-year note rose to 2.57% late in the trading session, up from 2.56% on Friday.

The yield on the 30-year bond fell to 3.91%, from 3.94% Friday.

After the TIPS auction, yields on the 2-year note rose to 0.37%, and the 5-year note rose to 1.18%.

Auctions: Monday’s price gains were contrary to the traditional activity seen during an auction week — as traders usually try to push the price of bonds down ahead of major government auctions.

On deck for the rest of the week: a $35 billion auction of 2-year notes on Tuesday, $35 billion in 5-year notes on Wednesday, and $29 billion of 7-year notes on Thursday.

In the meantime, bond traders will continue to watch for more clues ahead of the the Fed’s decision and mid-term elections next week.

The Fed’s Inflation Option

Evans says economy needs much more policy support

* Rosengren: Should aggressively counter deflation threats

* Evans says Fed should consider price-level targeting

* Rosengren votes this year, Evans next year on Fed policy

By Kristina Cooke

BOSTON, Oct 16 (Reuters) – Two top Federal Reserve officials argued for further aggressive action by the central bank, with one saying the economy needs “much more” help and the other pointing to Japan‘s painful lessons.

With nearly one in ten in the U.S. labor force unable to find work and already very low inflation threatening to drop further, the U.S. central bank is expected to offer the economy more support at its next policy meeting on Nov. 2-3.

Most analysts expect the Fed will embark on a fresh round of Treasury purchases, over and above the $1.7 trillion in longer-term assets it has already bought.

“In my opinion, much more policy accommodation is appropriate today,” Chicago Federal Reserve Bank President Charles Evans told a conference hosted by the Boston Fed, repeating an argument he made earlier this month.

Boston Fed President Eric Rosengren, speaking at the same event, said Japan’s drawn-out battle with deflation shows prevention may be easier than the cure, and policymakers should respond aggressively before “pernicious” deflation takes hold.

“Insuring against the risk of deflation may be much cheaper than waiting until it has occurred and then trying to address it,” said Rosengren, who has a darker view of the economic outlook than some of his colleagues at the central bank.

“A gradual response may not be as effective as a more active response to arrest deflationary pressures before they become embedded in thinking that can affect household and business spending,” he said.

U.S. inflation unexpectedly slowed in September even as retail sales picked up, keeping pressure on the Fed to act soon to lessen the risk of a downward price spiral. [ID:nN15191048]

Record low interest rates in rich countries, and the prospect of the Fed pumping more dollars into the economy, are funneling huge capital flows into high-yielding emerging markets, pushing up their currencies. The resulting currency tensions are expected to be a live issue at meetings of the world’s top finance officials in South Korea next week.

Rosengren and Evans’ recent remarks put them squarely in the camp that says monetary policy can and should do more to support the economy.

Diet? – No COLA for Social Security in 2011

Published on: 10/11/2010
Categories: Current Events, Economics
Comments: 2 Comments

WASHINGTON – As if voters don’t have enough to be angry about this election year, the government is expected to announce this week that more than 58 million Social Security recipients will go through another year without an increase in their monthly benefits.

It would mark only the second year without an increase since automatic adjustments for inflation were adopted in 1975. The first year was this year.

“If you’re the ruling party, this is not the sort of thing you want to have happening two weeks before an election,” said Andrew Biggs, a former deputy commissioner at the Social Security Administration and now a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

“It’s not the congressional Democrats’ fault, but that’s the way politics works,” Biggs said. “A lot of people will feel hostile about it.”

The cost-of-living adjustments, or COLAs, are automatically set each year by an inflation measure that was adopted by Congress back in the 1970s. Based on inflation so far this year, the trustees who oversee Social Security project there will be no COLA for 2011.

The projection will be made official on Friday, when the Bureau of Labor Statistics releases inflation estimates for September. The timing couldn’t be worse for Democrats as they approach an election in which they are in danger of losing their House majority, and possibly their Senate majority as well.

This past Friday, the same bureau delivered another painful blow to Democrats: The U.S. lost 95,000 jobs in September and unemployment remained stubbornly stuck at 9.6 percent.

Democrats have been working hard to make Social Security an election-year issue, running political ads and holding press conferences to accuse Republicans of plotting to privatize the national retirement program.

This week’s announcement about Social Security benefits raises more immediate concerns for older Americans whose savings and home values still haven’t recovered from the financial collapse: Many haven’t had a raise since January 2009, and they won’t be getting one until at least January 2012.

“While people aren’t getting COLAs they certainly feel like they’re falling further and further behind, particularly in this economy,” said David Certner, AARP’s legislative policy director. “People are very reliant on Social Security as a major portion of their income and, quite frankly, they have counted on the COLA over the years.”

Social Security was the primary source of income for 64 percent of retirees who got benefits in 2008, according to the Social Security Administration. A third relied on Social Security for at least 90 percent of their income.

A little more than 58.7 million people receive Social Security or Supplemental Security Income. The average Social Security benefit is about $1,072 a month.

Social Security recipients got a one-time bonus payment of $250 in the spring of 2009 as part of the government’s massive economic recovery package. President Barack Obama lobbied for another one last fall when it became clear seniors wouldn’t get an increase in monthly benefit payments in 2010.

Congress took up the issue, but a proposal by Sen. Bernie Sanders died when 12 Democrats and independent Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut joined Senate Republicans to block it. Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine was the only Republican to support the second bonus payment.

Sanders, I-Vt., said he expects older voters to be angry when they learn there will be no increase for the second straight year.

“I do think there’s going to be political fallout,” Sanders said. “Many seniors who are spending a lot of money on health care and prescription drugs really are going to find it hard to believe that there has been no inflationary costs to their purchasing needs.”

Federal law requires the Social Security Administration to base annual payment increases on the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, which measures inflation. Officials compare inflation in the third quarter of each year — the months of July, August and September — with the same months in the previous year.

If inflation increases from year to year, Social Security recipients automatically get higher payments, starting in January. If inflation is negative, the payments stay unchanged.

Social Security payments increased by 5.8 percent in 2009, the largest increase in 27 years, after energy prices spiked in 2008.

But energy prices quickly dropped. For example, average gasoline prices topped $4 a gallon in the summer of 2008. But by January 2009, they had fallen below $2. Today, the national average is roughly $2.70 a gallon.

As a result, Social Security recipients got an increase in 2009 that was far larger than actual inflation. However, they won’t get another increase until inflation exceeds the level measured in 2008. The Social Security trustees project that will happen next year, resulting in a small increase in benefits for 2012.

Social Security spokesman Mark Lassiter said the agency has no leeway to increase payments if the inflation measurement doesn’t call for it.

Rep. Earl Pomeroy, D-N.D., chairman of the Ways and Means subcommittee on Social Security, has introduced a new bill to provide $250 payments to seniors, if there is no increase in Social Security. Maybe, he said, there will be more of an appetite in Congress to pass it after lawmakers hear from voters in November.

“Costs of living are inevitably going up, regardless of what that formula says,” Pomeroy said. “Seniors in particular have items such as uncovered drug costs, medical costs, utility increases, and they’re on fixed incomes.”

« page 4 of 10 »

Welcome , today is Friday, 05/18/2012