Analysis of the global economy
Here is the smoking gun. Note the sharp contraction in the US monetary base before the last two recessions and again in 2010. Monetary base (M0) is plotted net of excess bank reserves on deposit with the Fed, which are not in circulation. The Fed responded after the contraction had taken place, instead of anticipating it.
The long-term problem is that the monetary base should not be expanding at 10 percent a year. More like 3% to 5% — in line with real GDP growth.
2007 Fed transcripts show that tremors in the US financial system were initially treated with complacency before shifting to alarm. Janet Yellen, then president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, was one of the few who showed an understanding of the magnitude of the growing crisis. JON HILSENRATH and KRISTINA PETERSON at WSJ report:
“I still feel the presence of a 600-pound gorilla in the room, and that is the housing sector,” [Ms. Yellen] said in June 2007. “The risk for further significant deterioration in the housing market, with house prices falling and mortgage delinquencies rising further, causes me appreciable angst.”
By December, she was pushing the Fed to respond aggressively. She noted that the financial system’s problems were happening in the “shadow banking system”—that is, not in traditional banks but rather in bond markets and derivatives markets where hedge funds, investment banks and others traded mortgages and other financial instruments. “This sector is all but shut for new business,” she warned.
Read more at Fed's 2007 Transcripts Show Shift to Alarm – WSJ.com.
Gavyn Davies at FT writes:
[Fed Governor, Professor Jeremy Stein] argues that the credit markets have recently been “reaching for yield”, much as they did prior to the financial crash. Although not yet as dangerous as in the period from 2004-2007, this behaviour is shown by the rapid expansion of the junk bond market, flows into high-yield mutual funds and real estate investment trusts and the duration of bond portfolios held by banks……. he indicates that the right weapon to deal with this might well be to raise interest rates, rather than relying solely on regulatory and other prudential policy to control the process. This would obviously come as a big surprise to the markets, which have tended to view the Fed’s stated concerns about the “costs of QE” as so much hot air……
Read more at A credit vigilante arrives at the Fed | Gavyn Davies.
PAUL HANNON at WSJ writes:
The world’s largest economies are set to diverge in coming months with few signs that a broad-based recovery in growth is imminent, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s composite leading indicators.
The leading indicators for December, released Monday, point to a pickup in growth in the U.S., Japan, the U.K. and Brazil, but suggest growth will remain weak by historic standards in many other big nations [including China and India]……
Read more at OECD Leading Indicators Point to Divergence – WSJ.com.
The S&P 500 displays a small broadening wedge (reverse pennant) on the daily chart. Respect of support at 1500 on the last down-swing (within the wedge) suggests an upward breakout. Watch for bearish divergence on 21-day Twiggs Money Flow — which would warn of retracement to the rising trendline.
The quarterly chart warns us to expect strong resistance at the 2000/2007 highs of 1550/1575. Recovery of 63-day Twiggs Momentum above 10% would increase likelihood of an upward breakout — with a target of 1750* — while retreat below zero would suggest a primary reversal.
* Target calculation: 1550 + ( 1550 – 1350 ) = 1750
The Dow is similarly testing long-term resistance, at 14000. Breakout is likely, with 13-week Twiggs Money Flow troughs at zero indicating long-term buying pressure.
I repeat my warning from last week:
These are times for cautious optimism. Central banks are flooding markets with freshly printed money, driving up stock prices, but this could create a bull trap if capital investment, employment and corporate earnings fail to respond.
David D. Friedman, in his reply to Matt Zwolinski, says that the solution to the conflict between individual freedom and property rights lies with distinguishing between ownership rights over uncreated property, such as land, and ownership over created property, such as a crop of wheat (or a railroad train):
….You wish to stand on a certain piece of common property. I am there already. You have the same right as I do to stand there, but you do not have a right to move or injure me, hence you cannot exercise your right to stand there without acting unjustly. I have not appropriated the land I am standing on in the usual sense of the term, but I have “de facto” appropriated it for as long as I stand there, not by altering the nature of your right to the land but by making it impractical for you to exercise it without violating other rights.
…..I plant wheat in a field. You come and want to plant wheat in the same field. I point out to you that the field is common property which you are welcome to use, but the wheat I have planted is my property (the result of my labor in gathering seeds, watering them so they would sprout, etc.) and you do not have the right to disturb it. Any way you can figure out to exercise your right to the field without violating my right to the wheat is fine with me.
Taking the last example, a problem arises if one individual plants the entire common area with wheat, preventing anyone else from doing so and causing them to starve. There have to be conventions in the use of common property — which have evolved over time into property rights.
Read more at Getting the Property Problem Wrong | David D. Friedman | Libertarianism.org.
Interesting discussion from Matt Zwolinski on the conflict between individual freedom and property rights, the two basics tenets of Libertarianism:
A property right in land is a right to control access to that land. It is a “right to say ‘No’.” But if all land is privately owned, and all landowners have a right to say “No” to all non-landowners, then non-landowners are not equally free with landowners. They exist in a state of dependence. Like feudal serfs or the most abject slaves, they live only by the consent of those in command……
Read more at Liberty and Property | Matt Zwolinski | Libertarianism.org.
João Santos writes:
There’s ample evidence that securitization led mortgage lenders to take more risk, thereby contributing to a large increase in mortgage delinquencies during the financial crisis. In this post, I discuss evidence from a recent research study I undertook with Vitaly Bord suggesting that securitization also led to riskier corporate lending. We show that during the boom years of securitization, corporate loans that banks securitized at loan origination underperformed similar, unsecuritized loans originated by the same banks. Additionally, we report evidence suggesting that the performance gap reflects looser underwriting standards applied by banks to loans they securitize.
Read more at Did Securitization Lead to Riskier Corporate Lending? – Liberty Street Economics.
DAMIAN PALETTA at WSJ writes:
Economic growth and recent legislation have cut the federal budget deficit in half in the past four years, but federal debt will still hit historic levels if more isn’t done, the Congressional Budget Office said Tuesday in the annual update of its budget and economic forecast.
The CBO said it expected economic growth to be sluggish in 2013, in part because of a sharp drop in government spending, but it sees a better economy in 2014 as the recovery takes hold.
via CBO Sees Rising U.S. Debt, Economic Rebound in 2014 – WSJ.com.
Satyajit Das writes:
In a 29 November 2010 speech entitled The Challenge of Prosperity, RBA Governor sought to illustrate the combined effects of the gains of the appreciating terms of trade position and the A$ strength in the following terms: “In 2005 a shipload of iron ore was worth the same as around 2,200 flat screen televisions In 2010, the same shipload was worth around 22,000 flat screen TVs”. In a Freudian slip, the RBA Governor identified a fundamental issue with Australia’s economic model.
Australia may have substantially wasted the proceeds of its mineral booms, with the proceeds channelled into consumption. The nations did not channel enough into strategic long term investments or develop a new industrial base. According to one study, the commodity boom increased government revenues between 2002 and 2008 by around A$180 billion of which A$36 billion was used to repay public debt, A$69 billion was placed into the Future Fund (to meet the cost of public sector superannuation liabilities) and $75 billion was transferred to households in the form of tax cuts and payments.
Read more at EconoMonitor : EconoMonitor » Australia’s Economic Outlook—The Nauru Option?.
