Hard or Soft Landing?

Almost every recession in history has been preceded by speculation that the economy is in for a “soft landing.” After the early warning signs, nothing much happens. The stock market keeps climbing despite rising interest rates, raising hopes of a “lucky escape”.

The four most expensive words in the English language are: “This time it’s different.” ~ Sir John Templeton

The economy takes time to adjust to changed circumstances and there can be a lag of two years or more between the first rate hikes and the inevitable rise in unemployment. Plenty of time for self-delusion as stocks keep rising and unemployment stays low.

The difference between a hard and soft landing is best measured by unemployment. At 3.5%, the March reading shows no sign yet of an approaching recession.

Unemployment

The lag between an inverted yield curve — caused by Fed rate hikes — and unemployment can vary quite widely between recessions, depending on other influences. The chart below shows how an inverted yield curve in July 2000 was followed by the first sign of rising unemployment in January 2001, and shortly afterwards by a recession in March. The next yield curve inversion started in February 2006, the first sign of rising unemployment in July 2007, and the recession only in December of that year. Red bars below represent the lag between yield curve inversion and the first sign of rising unemployment.

Treasury Yields: 10-Year minus 3-Month & Unemployment

The current yield curve inversion (10-Year minus 3-Month Treasury yield) started in November 2022, so the earliest we are likely to see a rise in unemployment is late-2023.

Treasury Yields: 10-Year minus 3-Month

Why is unemployment expected to rise?

Every yield curve inversion (10-Year minus 3-Month above) since 1960 has been followed by the NBER declaring a recession within two years.

Every time the Conference Board Leading Economic Index declined below the red line at -5.0% has signaled recession.

Conference Board Leading Economic Index

Why do we expect a hard landing?

Every economy runs on credit and the US is no different. The severity of a recession is determined by the extent of the contraction in credit growth, as shown by the red circles below. Note how late the contraction generally is, often occurring after the official recession (gray bar) has ended.

Bank Credit

What determines the size of the credit contraction?

Firstly, bank net interest margins.

Banks tend to borrow short-term and lend long, enhancing their net interest margins in good times. But an inverted yield curve pulls the rug from under them, with short-term rates spiking upwards.

The more that net interest margins of commercial banks are squeezed, the more they avoid risk, restricting lending to only their best clients.

The percentage of domestic banks tightening lending standards on C&I loans climbed to 44.8% in March 2023.

Commercial Bank: Tightening Credit Standards for Commercial & Industrial Loans

Second, is the level of uncertainty facing banks.

The S&P 1500 Regional Banks index plunged after the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank (SVB), Silvergate Bank and Signature Bank.

Bank Credit

Shocks in the financial system tend to occur in waves. Latest is the threatened collapse of First Republic Bank (FRC) which has lost almost 100% of value in the past few months**.

First Republic Bank (FRC)

The CSBS Community Bank Index of Business Conditions is lower than at the height of the pandemic.

CSBS Community Bank Sentiment

Third is liquidity.

A strong surge in money market assets, warns that money (+/- $450 bn) has flowed out of the banking system and into the relative safety of money market funds.

Money Market Fund Assets

Money market funds are primarily invested in Fed reverse repo and Agency and Treasury securities, bypassing the banking system.

Money Market Fund Investment Allocation

Conclusion

Bank net interest margins are being squeezed, uncertainty is rising following the Silicon Valley Bank collapse, liquidity is being squeezed, and banks are tightening lending margins. The only party who can prevent a severe credit crunch is the Fed. By reversing course and injecting liquidity (QE) into financial markets, the Fed could attempt to create a soft landing for the economy.

But the Fed is bent on taming inflation and restoring their lost credibility after their earlier “transitory” error. The cavalry is likely to arrive late and low on ammunition.

We expect a hard landing.

Latest News**

Reuters: First Republic Bank (FRC)

Acknowledgements

EPB Research for the Conference Board LEI chart.

Should we Worry that Velocity of Money is plunging?

Some writers have attributed slow GDP growth in the US to the plunging velocity of money.

In layman’s terms, the velocity of money is the ratio between your bank balance and the amount you spend. For the economy as a whole, it is measured as the ratio of GDP (or national income) against the total stock of money (or money supply).

When the economy is hot, consumers have a higher propensity to spend — or invest in the latest hot stock — and the ratio normally rises. When the economy cools, the ratio falls.

If the ratio was fixed, the job of central bankers would be simple: print more money and GDP would rise.

M1 Money Supply and GDP Growth

Unfortunately that is not the case. GDP growth has remained slow, post-2007, despite a sharp boost in the money supply.

M1 is a narrow definition of money: cash in circulation plus travelers checks, demand deposits (at call) and check account balances.

The ratio of GDP to M1 money (or M1 Velocity) has almost halved, from a 2007 high of 10.7 to a current low of 5.5.

M1 Money Supply and GDP Growth

Does this mean that consumers are feverishly stuffing cash into mattresses as the economy goes into a death-dive or is there a more rational explanation?

Examine the above chart more closely and you will see a clear relationship until 1980 between the velocity of money and interest rates (in this case the Fed funds rate). When interest rates rise, the velocity of money rises. So when interest rates fall, as they have post-2007, to near zero, the velocity of money should fall. As it has done.

The anomaly is not the current fall in the velocity of money but the rise in velocity of money between 1990 and 2000, when interest rates were falling. There are two explanations that I can think of. One is the digital revolution, with the advent of online bank accounts and automated clearing of business checking accounts which enabled depositors to minimize balances in non-interest bearing accounts. Second, is the rapid growth of money market funds which fall outside the ambit of M1 and M2.

Velocity of money measured as GDP/MZM gives a clearer picture, with velocity rising when rates rise and falling when rates fall. MZM is M1 plus all savings deposits and money market funds that are redeemable (at par) on demand.

M1 Money Supply and GDP Growth

We should expect to see the velocity of money recover as interest rates rise. If that doesn’t happen, then it will be time to worry.

Strange as it may seem, we could witness something really unusual: if higher interest rates stimulate GDP.

Coppola Comment: Creeping nationalisation

From Frances Coppola:

…the super-safe backstop offered to money funds by the Fed is only the latest in a long line of implicit government guarantees propping up the financial system. Far from ending government support of the financial system, the developments of recent years have actually made it MORE dependent on the state.

Markets, too, have become government-dependent. Markets watch central banks all the time, anticipating their actions and responding to their announcements. And exceptional monetary policy by central banks has impacted market functioning. QE reduced the supply of safe assets, raising their price, while the additional money flowing into markets as a result of QE blew up bubbles in various other classes of asset, both safe assets gold, commodities, fine art and above all real estate and high-yield assets. It is hard to say what market prices would be like now if no central bank were doing QE, and we are unlikely to find out any time soon: the US is withdrawing QE, but Japan is currently doing the largest QE programme it has ever done and the ECB may also soon be forced reluctantly to do some form of asset purchase programme. China has been doing yuan QE for a while, but if dollar liquidity becomes an issue it may be forced to repo out its USTs, which would reinforce the Fed’s ONRRPs and make control of dollar liquidity more difficult. And of course the Swiss have been quietly controlling the Swiss franc market for ages. To prevent the Swiss franc rising, they’ve done the largest QE programme in the world relative to the size of their economy….

Read more at Coppola Comment: Creeping nationalisation.

Shadow Banking Grows to $67 Trillion Industry, Regulators Say – Bloomberg

Ben Moshinsky and Jim Brunsden write:

The size [$67 trillion] of the shadow banking system, which includes the activities of money market funds, monoline insurers and off- balance sheet investment vehicles, “can create systemic risks” and “amplify market reactions when market liquidity is scarce,” the Financial Stability Board said in a report, which utilized more data than last year’s probe into the sector……

via Shadow Banking Grows to $67 Trillion Industry, Regulators Say – Bloomberg.

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.

FRB| Governor Tarullo: Regulatory Reform since the Financial Crisis

It is sobering to recognize that, more than four years after the failure of Bear Stearns began the acute phase of the financial crisis, so much remains to be done–in implementing reforms that have already been developed, in modifying or supplementing these reforms as needed, and in fashioning a reform program to address shadow banking concerns. For some time my concern has been that the momentum generated during the crisis will wane or be redirected to other issues before reforms have been completed. As you can tell from my remarks today, this remains a very real concern.

via FRB: Speech–Tarullo, Regulatory Reform since the Financial Crisis–May 2, 2012.

ICI – Trends in Mutual Fund Investing, September 2011

The combined assets of the nation’s mutual funds decreased by $582.3 billion, or 5.0 percent, to $11.040 trillion in September, according to the Investment Company Institute’s official survey of the mutual fund industry.

via ICI – Trends in Mutual Fund Investing, September 2011.

The fall in Stock Funds was far greater, at 9.5%, compared to only 1.3% in Taxable Bond Funds and 0.1% in Taxable Money Market Funds.

Podcast: Paul Volcker’s Warnings, the S.E.C.’s Privacy Problem and Some Economic Pitfalls – NYTimes.com

Paul Volcker, the former Federal Reserve chairman, warns that we are not out of the woods yet….. Mr. Volcker focuses on two big problems.

First, he says, money market funds should be treated like other mutual funds — whose price can fluctuate — rather than as guaranteed stores of value, like bank accounts. In addition, he says, the United States needs to plan on eventually shutting down Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two agencies that now dominate the mortgage market.

via Podcast: Paul Volcker’s Warnings, the S.E.C.’s Privacy Problem and Some Economic Pitfalls – NYTimes.com.