Banks & Interest Rates Archives - Page 52 of 61

October 1, 2012

Bernanke attempts to justify screwing savers

This extract from Joe Weisenthal lauds Ben Bernanke’s defense of monetary policy and its effect on savers.

I would encourage you to remember that the current low levels of interest rates, while in the first instance a reflection of the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy, are in a larger sense the result of the recent financial crisis, the worst shock to this nation’s financial system since the 1930s. Interest rates are low throughout the developed world, except in countries experiencing fiscal crises, as central banks and other policymakers try to cope with continuing financial strains and weak economic conditions.

He [Bernanke] then goes onto note that saving isn’t just “having money in a bank” and that the main way to benefit everyone (including savers) is to induce growth:

A second observation is that savers often wear many economic hats. Many savers are also homeowners; indeed, a family’s home may be its most important financial asset. Many savers are working, or would like to be. Some savers own businesses, and—through pension funds and 401(k) accounts—they often own stocks and other assets. The crisis and recession have led to very low interest rates, it is true, but these events have also destroyed jobs, hamstrung economic growth, and led to sharp declines in the values of many homes and businesses. What can be done to address all of these concerns simultaneously? The best and most comprehensive solution is to find ways to a stronger economy. Only a strong economy can create higher asset values and sustainably good returns for savers. And only a strong economy will allow people who need jobs to find them. Without a job, it is difficult to save for retirement or to buy a home or to pay for an education, irrespective of the current level of interest rates.

The way for the Fed to support a return to a strong economy is by maintaining monetary accommodation, which requires low interest rates for a time. If, in contrast, the Fed were to raise rates now, before the economic recovery is fully entrenched, house prices might resume declines, the values of businesses large and small would drop, and, critically, unemployment would likely start to rise again. Such outcomes would ultimately not be good for savers or anyone else.

In layman’s terms, Bernanke is saying that if the Fed didn’t act, everyone, including savers, would be in deep **** (trouble) …….so savers should be happy they are being screwed.

via Bernanke: Federal Reserve & Monetary Policy – Business Insider.

September 19, 2012

Japan Eases Monetary Policy in Surprise Move – WSJ.com

By MEGUMI FUJIKAWA And TATSUO ITO

TOKYO—The Bank of Japan took surprisingly strong steps to further ease its monetary policy on Wednesday, following similar steps by the Federal Reserve, as it tries to tackle entrenched deflation, an export-sapping strong yen and the impact of slowing global growth.

The central bank’s policy board decided at the end of a two-day meeting to increase the size of its asset-purchase program—the main tool for monetary easing with near-zero interest rates—to ¥80 trillion ($1.01 trillion) from ¥70 trillion.

via Japan Eases Monetary Policy in Surprise Move – WSJ.com.

Competitive devaluations, started by the ECB and followed by the Fed, PBOC and BOJ. Let the fun begin!

September 5, 2012

Simon Johnson: Why Are the Big Banks Suddenly Afraid? – NYTimes.com

The threat of too-big-to-fail banks has not diminished. The combined assets of the 6 largest US banks is bigger now than in 2008. Simon Johnson, Professor of Entrepreneurship at M.I.T. Sloan School of Management, writes:

A growing number of serious-minded politicians are starting to support the point made by Jon Huntsman, the former governor of Utah and a Republican presidential candidate in the recent primaries: global megabanks have become government-sponsored enterprises; their scale does not result from any kind of market process, but is rather the result of a vast state subsidy scheme.

…..Serious people on the right and on the left are reassessing if we really need our largest banks to be so large and so highly leveraged (i.e., with so much debt relative to their equity). The arguments in favor of keeping the global megabanks and allowing them to grow are very weak or nonexistent.

The big banks will vigorously defend any attempt to break them up and they have deep pockets. It would be far more effective and politically achievable to raise reserve requirements, lifting capital ratios and reducing leverage to the point that large and small institutions alike are no longer a threat to the economy. Even if we adopt a two-tier approach, with higher ratios for institutions above a certain size.

We need to remember that a fractional-reserve banking system is not an essential requirement of the capitalist system. All that is needed is an efficient intermediary between investors and borrowers. Equity-funded banks proved effective in funding Germany’s industrialization prior to WW1. Islamic banks today follow similar principles. Over-dependence on deposits is the primary cause of our current instability.

via Simon Johnson: Why Are the Big Banks Suddenly Afraid? – NYTimes.com.

September 3, 2012

The Fed and the impact of QE

Unless the Fed announces a new round of quantitative easing before the November election, I do not see the S&P 500 this year advancing past its 2007 high of 1560.

The market generally overreacts to balance sheet expansion by the Fed, anticipating higher inflation. What it seems to overlook is the deflationary effect of private sector deleveraging which should enable the Fed to maneuver a soft landing.

The real impact of Fed policy is to subsidize debtors and starve creditors — private investors and pension funds — of yield. The net result is that investors are driven to higher yields — accompanied by higher risk — which is likely to cause more pain at the next down-turn.

The only way to compensate creditors would be to lower taxes on interest, but I question how high this would rank in either party’s priorities.

September 1, 2012

Bernanke Speech Makes Detailed Case for Fed Action – NYTimes.com

The Fed Chairman hinted at further measures to stimulate employment but is still playing his cards close to his chest as to when and how much:

“It is important to achieve further progress, particularly in the labor market,” Mr. Bernanke said. “Taking due account of the uncertainties and limits of its policy tools, the Federal Reserve will provide additional policy accommodation as needed to promote a stronger economic recovery and sustained improvement in labor market conditions in a context of price stability.”

via Bernanke Speech Makes Detailed Case for Fed Action – NYTimes.com.

August 22, 2012

When will the Fed QE?

Is the Fed likely to introduce new asset purchases before or after the November election? Peter Boockvar at The Big Picture writes:

Bottom line, of the 10 voting FOMC members, 8 are doves so it will always be the case that “many” are ready for more QE if need be. The hawks are few and far between. I stick to my belief that more QE is coming on Sept 13th as the Oct meeting is too close to the election and Bernanke won’t act in Dec if Romney wins. This could be his last chance for a while and Ben still seems to believe in the pixie dust of QE.

CNBC reports Nomura’s Bob Janjuah is predicting more quantitative easing from the Federal Reserve in December.

Those hoping for a big bazooka from the Fed or the European Central Bank before December will be disappointed, [Janjuah] said.

My view is that September is too soon: the Fed is likely to hold off until after the election unless the situation gets desperate. And December is too soon afterwards. Early 2013 seems a safer bet.

August 22, 2012

Money Fund Reforms Seen Harming Alternative to Banks

SEC attempts to reform the money market industry are running into opposition from corporate treasurers. Maria Sapan from Securities Technology Monitor writes:

The Securities and Exchange Commission has proposed rules that would revamp the $2.6 trillion U.S. money market fund industry, arguing it remains a risk to the financial system. Last month, [Thomas C. Deas, Jr., the treasurer of chemical company FMC Corp and chairman of the National Association of Corporate Treasurers] testified before a House subcommittee that the reforms – such as floating the funds’ net asset value or imposing new capital requirements – would “have a significant negative impact on the ongoing viability of these funds, and also adversely affect the corporate commercial paper market.”

Money market funds are effectively involved in maturity transformation — borrowing short and lending long — which is a function of banks. Maturity transformation is vulnerable to bank runs in times of uncertainty, where depositors demand repayment and borrowers are unable to comply because of liquidity pressures. My view is that if you want to perform the functions of a bank, you need to be registered as a bank, with the same reserve requirements as other banks, and supervised by the Fed. Avoiding these requirements may provide cheaper sources of credit to large corporates, but at the cost of increased risk to the entire economy.

via Money Fund Reforms Seen Harming Alternative to Banks.

August 22, 2012

Fed Minutes Suggest Action Likely – WSJ.com

By JON HILSENRATH And KRISTINA PETERSON

The Federal Reserve sent its strongest signal yet that it is preparing to take new steps to bolster the recovery, saying that measures would be needed fairly soon unless economic growth picks up substantially.

The statement was included in minutes released Wednesday from the Fed’s July 31-Aug. 1 policy meeting. The minutes also indicated that a new round of bond buying, known as quantitative easing, was high on its list of options.

via Fed Minutes Suggest Action Likely – WSJ.com.

August 22, 2012

Germany backs Draghi bond plan against Bundesbank – Telegraph

By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard,
9:39PM BST 20 Aug 2012

“A currency can only be stable if its future existence is not in doubt,” said Jörg Asmussen, the powerful German member of the ECB’s executive board. He signalled full backing for the bond rescue plan of ECB chief Mario Draghi, brushing aside warnings from the German Bundesbank that large-scale purchases would amount to debt monetisation and a back-door fiscal rescue of insolvent states in breach of EU treaty law.

via Germany backs Draghi bond plan against Bundesbank – Telegraph.

August 16, 2012

Friedman’s Japanese lessons for the ECB « The Market Monetarist

Milton Friedman, December 1997:

Defenders of the Bank of Japan will say, “How? The bank has already cut its discount rate to 0.5 percent. What more can it do to increase the quantity of money?”

The answer is straightforward: The Bank of Japan can buy government bonds on the open market, paying for them with either currency or deposits at the Bank of Japan, what economists call high-powered money. Most of the proceeds will end up in commercial banks, adding to their reserves and enabling them to expand their liabilities by loans and open market purchases. But whether they do so or not, the money supply will increase.

There is no limit to the extent to which the Bank of Japan can increase the money supply if it wishes to do so. Higher monetary growth will have the same effect as always. After a year or so, the economy will expand more rapidly; output will grow, and after another delay, inflation will increase moderately. A return to the conditions of the late 1980s would rejuvenate Japan and help shore up the rest of Asia.

via Friedman’s Japanese lessons for the ECB « The Market Monetarist.

Friedman was suggesting that the BOJ implement QE to boost the money supply and create inflation. Inflation would rescue the banks and real-estate-owners with underwater mortgages.