InvestorCentric

Retirement Options Dwindle

2013-03-28T10:08:00.002-07:00

The recession, the housing crisis, increasing taxes and a turbulent employment landscape has made it nearly impossible for many people nearing retirement to do so comfortably, according to a recent study. The report from the Employee Benefit Research Institute shows that employer-provided retirement plans and other savings vehicles will not be adequate to fund retirement even for those who have saved, and that the news is even worse in the black community. Moreover, it appears government is looking to cut retirement plan benefits further, which means the problem is only going to get worse. For more on this continue reading the following article from Economist’s View.

The "news isn’t good" about the shift from defined-benefit to defined-contribution pension plans:

Declining Wealth Brings a Rising Retirement Risk, by Bruce Bartlett, Commentary, NY Times: ...[In] defined-benefit ... pension plans..., workers are promised a specific income at retirement, which the employer provides. The employer bears all the risk of market fluctuations. Under a defined contribution scheme, such as a 401(k) plan, the worker and the employer jointly contribute to a tax-deductible and tax-deferred account from which the worker will finance retirement. ...

Now the first generation of workers who have virtually all their pension saving in defined-contribution plans is nearing retirement, and the news isn’t good. According to a March 19 report from the Employee Benefit Research Institute, only about half of workers nearing retirement have confidence that they have enough money saved for an adequate retirement.

Not surprisingly, retirement saving has taken a back seat to more pressing concerns – coping with unemployment, maintaining standards of living during an era of slow wage growth, putting children through increasingly expensive colleges and so on. ...

This problem is much more severe for black Americans. ... The wealth gap isn’t only racial, it’s generational...

What’s really depressing about these studies is the lack of solutions and the likelihood that the problem will only get worse.

Republicans in Congress have pressed for years to convert Social Security, a classic defined-benefit pension, into a defined contribution plan, and also to convert Medicare into a voucher program. These changes would shift even more of the financial risk in retirement onto families that have yet to adapt to fundamental changes in employer pensions and the economy over the last 30 years. The future doesn’t look pretty.

Members of Congress appear to be eager to cut retirement benefits even further to show they can make the hard choices (and the president seems to be on board). They should raise the payroll cap instead, but the "hard choice" that would hit the people who can afford it isn't under consideration. It's not hard to imagine why.

This blog post was republished with permission from The Economist's View.

US Housing Starts Improve

2013-03-21T07:26:00.000-07:00

The latest Commerce Department reports shows that U.S. housing starts are on the upswing, although experts note that basing predictions on data so early in the year may lead to drawing erroneous conclusions. Even so, single-family home construction starts have climbed more than 27% when compared to the same time last year, which competes with levels not seen since 2008. Permit issuance is also up and is tracking closely to starts, although both numbers still remain at one-third the amount seen prior to the start of the U.S. recession in 2006. For more on this continue reading the following article from Iacono Research.

The Commerce Department reported(.pdf) that housing starts rose 0.8 percent in February to an annual rate of 917,000 units and permits for new construction, a key leading indicator for the home building industry, jumped 4.6 percent to a rate of 946,000, the highest level since June 2008.
From year ago levels, housing starts are up 27.7 percent and permit issuance is 33.8 percent higher.

Starts for single-family homes rose 0.5 percent to a rate of 618,000 units, also the highest level since 2008, accounting for about two-thirds of the overall total, however, home building remains about one-third below the pre-housing bubble pace of about 1.5 million units per year.

It is once again worth pointing out that not too much should be inferred from housing data at this time of the year due to dramatically lower activity in most of the country during the winter months and the outsized impact of seasonal adjustments. Nonetheless, this offers more evidence of ongoing improvement in the housing market as builders ramp up their plans for new construction in the months ahead.

This blog post was republished with permission from Tim Iacono.

Experts Say Gold Down, Not Out

2013-03-07T07:35:00.000-08:00

Precious metals prices have been slowly trailing off for months, which is a sharp turn for what was once a bull market for gold and silver. Investment firms are downgrading their forecasts and the Federal Reserve is printing money left and right, and the combined effect has been hard on investor sentiment. One expert believes the metals can rally, however, especially if a trend toward inflation becomes evident. Actual inflation is admittedly unlikely in the near term, but if the money printing appears that it may cause inflation it could be followed by renewed interest in gold and silver. For more on this continue reading the following article from Iacano Research.

It’s no secret that precious metals have disappointed many investors in recent months after prices failed to move higher following the announcement of more money printing by the Federal Reserve late last year.

So far in 2013, gold and silver have moved steadily lower based in large part on the idea that despite the central bank creating $85 billion per month in new money, inflation is not a near-term threat (and maybe not even a long-term concern).

In recent weeks, investment banks have been falling over themselves in an attempt to downgrade their precious metals price forecasts sooner and farther than their competitors and this has helped to sour sentiment. Also, record outflows from gold ETFs such as the SPDR Gold Shares (GLD) have added to the selling pressure.

Based on what you might read in the mainstream financial media these days, you may as well stick a fork in the secular gold bull market because it’s all but done (and maybe silver too), but there’s a very good argument to be made for why that is not so.

In short, now that the latest round of Fed money printing is causing the monetary base to grow, higher inflation is likely to follow. Then, perhaps suddenly, investors and traders will flock back to precious metals.

Allow me to explain.

[To continue reading this article, please visit Seeking Alpha.]

Economist Skewers Fed’s Expert Outlook

2013-02-21T10:13:00.000-08:00

Tim Iacono takes note of Neil Irwin’s recent critique in the Washington Post of U.S. government economists and their prognostications for the last few years, arguing that they basically don’t know what they’re talking about and may even be guessing. He points to their GDP growth predictions for 2011 and 2012 and how they were both similarly inflated. He then points to the outlook for 2013 and suggests the rhetoric could have been cut and pasted from previous years, leaving some to expect the worst when it comes to this year’s economic performance. For more on this continue reading the following article from Iacono Research.

A look at the abysmal track record in recent years in forecasting economic growth by the nation’s top government economists as related by Neil Irwin in this Washington Post story. Also see the related graphic that depicts how poor a job the economy has been doing in getting back to its “potential” growth.

They say that the essence of futility is to keep doing the same thing while expecting a different result. But is that what key government forecasters are doing in determining their outlook for the economy?

Throughout the halting economic recovery that began in 2009, the formal economic projections released by the Congressional Budget Office, White House Council of Economic Advisers, and Federal Reserve have displayed quite a consistent pattern: This year may be one of sluggish growth, they acknowledge. But stronger growth, of perhaps 3.5 percent, is just around the corner, and will arrive next year.

Consider, for example, the Fed’s projections in November of 2009. Sure, growth would be slow in 2010, they held. But 2011 growth, they expected, would be 3.4 to 4.5 percent, and 2012 would 3.5 to 4.8 percent growth. The actual levels of growth were 2 percent in 2011 and 1.5 percent in 2012.

What’s amazing is that the Fed’s newest projections, released in December of 2012, look like they could have been copy and pasted from 2009, just with the years changed: They forecast sluggish growth in 2013, 2.3 to 3 percent, followed by a pickup to 3 to 3.5 percent in 2014 and 3 to 3.7 percent in 2015.

Increasingly, it appears that this is one of those times when “it really is different” in that we’re not about to return to “trend growth” and for good reason – it was artificial, based on a reckless expansion of credit.

Then again, another reckless expansion of credit might just do the trick.

This blog post was republished with permission from Tim Iacono.

Per Capital Government Spending Chat Draws Fire

2013-02-14T07:23:00.002-08:00

Economist Mark Thoma, spurred by commentary from Paul Krugman regarding President Obama’s real government spending, created a graph to compare Obama’s annualized growth in real per capita government spending with that of the last six presidencies. The result, which reflects the Obama Administration’s comparatively low spending, created a small storm among partisan and non-partisan economists regarding the breakdown of the numbers and Obama’s perceived austerity in the face of economic crises. For more on this continue reading the following article from Economist’s View.

Via email:

Seeing the Krugman commentary comparing real government spending under Obama and Reagan made me curious about what it looks like if you express it in per capita terms? In particular, how does the Obama period compare with other presidencies in terms of penury/austerity versus spendthriftness?

To compare presidencies, I did the calculation two ways. One starts in the quarter before the president was elected (e.g., 2008Q4), the other starts in the first quarter of the presidency (e.g., 2009Q1). (The ARRA probably had some effect in Q1, but most of the change was simply economic conditions that the incoming president had nothing to do with, so I think I prefer the Q1 to Q1 method). Ranking since Johnson (starting in 1968), and using the first-quarter comparisons, and calculating growth under Obama through 2011Q4, Clinton is the most austere, followed by Obama. The most spendthrift are (1) Nixon-Ford, (2) Reagan, and (3) Bush II. The figure is pasted below:

This blog post was republished with permission from Economist's View.

CBO Budget Outlook Review

2013-02-07T10:10:00.000-08:00

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has released its budget forecast for the next ten years and the prognostication is not tethered to reality, according to one critic. Tim Iacono notes that CBO analysts believe the big picture translates into fewer policy decisions in the future to the high level of federal debt, but he argues the real trouble is that an increase in GDP and lower unemployment will have to rely on the inflation of an asset bubble that will make the last 15 years look small by comparison. For more on this continue reading the following article from Iacono Research.

The first page of The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2013 to 2023 from the Congressional Budget Office contains the following summary charts that tell you quite a bit about how this group sees our future.

What’s interesting about the first chart is that it’s being interpreted in two very distinct ways. Some say, “See there! The debt is stabilizing. There’s no need to do anything more.” while others (including the CBO) conclude, “This high level of debt will restrict policy choices during any future crisis”.

A small minority (including myself) think that the lower two graphics are the more important parts of this report since, for all the wrangling over taxes, spending, and debt that go into the numerator of the debt-to-GDP equation, the denominator gets far too little attention.

There is clearly no recognition that the U.S. has come to the end of a multi-decade credit boom that has goosed both economic growth and employment. Moreover, about the only way we’ll return to “trend growth” and a 5 percent jobless rate by 2017 is to inflate an even bigger (and, ultimately, more destructive) asset bubble than what we’ve seen over the last 15 years and this is clearly not factored into any of this forecast.

This article was republished with permission from Tim Iacono.

Government Spending, GDP Drops

2013-01-31T09:14:00.000-08:00

A 22% decline in government defense spending is being blamed for a 0.1% drop in the country’s GDP in the fourth quarter of 2012, while consumer spending grew at a 2.2% annual rate in the same period. Investment was also up in the fourth quarter, particularly in the housing sector, and overall performance is trending toward an overall GDP gain of as much as 3% over the coming year. Inflation, which was once thought to be a significant threat, actually moved lower and experts note that statistics point to there being no real impact from “fiscal cliff” concerns during the quarter. For more on this continue reading the following article from Economist’s View.

Dean Baker on todays' news the GDP shrank in the 4th quarer of last year:

Falling Government Spending and Inventories Push Growth Negative in Quarter, by Dean Baker: A sharp drop in government spending, heavily concentrated in defense, coupled with a decline in inventories caused GDP to shrink at a 0.1 percent rate in the 4th quarter. Government spending fell at a 6.6 percent annual rate, driven by a 22.2 percent decline in defense spending, subtracting 1.33 percentage points from the growth rate in the quarter. A 40.3 drop in the rate of inventory accumulation reduced growth by another 1.27 percentage points. Without these factors, GDP would have grown at a 2.5 percent annual rate in the quarter.

Pulling out these extraordinary factors, the GDP data were largely in line with prior quarters. Consumption grew at a 2.2 percent annual rate, driven mostly by 13.9 percent growth in durable goods purchases, primarily cars. This number was inflated due to the effects of Sandy, which destroyed many cars, forcing people to buy new ones. Growth in this category will be substantially weaker and possibly negative in the next quarter. On the other side, housing and utilities subtracted 0.47 percentage points from growth in the quarter. This is likely a global warming effect with warmer than normal weather leading to less use of heating in the quarter. (There was a comparable falloff in the 4th quarter of 2011 when we also had unusually warm weather.)

One especially noteworthy item is the continuing slow pace in the growth of spending on health care services, which accounts for almost three quarters of all health care spending. Nominal spending grew at a just a 2.3 percent annual rate in the quarter. Over the last year, nominal spending is up by just 1.8 percent, far less than the rate of growth of GDP, and well below the projections from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). It seems increasingly likely that we are on a slower health care cost trajectory. The deficit picture will look very different when CBO incorporates this slower growth trend into its projections.

Investment rebounded from a weak third quarter in which non-residential investment actually shrank. This quarter it added 0.83 percentage points to growth, with investment in equipment and software growing at a 12.4 percent rate. Housing continued to be a big positive in the quarter, adding 0.36 percentage points to growth.

Net exports were a modest drag on growth. While both exports and imports fell in the quarter, the 5.7 percent drop in exports more than offset the positive impact of a 3.2 percent decline in imports. The state and local sector government sector shrank at a 0.7 percent annual rate, knocking 0.08 percentage points off growth. Non-defense federal spending rose at a 1.4 percent annual rate.

The inflation hawks will be disappointed in this report with the overall price index rising at just a 0.6 percent annual rate. The core CPE rose at a 0.9 percent rate. Insofar as there is any trend in these data it is toward lower inflation.

One interesting item in the report was a $122.90 jump (85.2 percent at an annual rate) in dividend payouts. This was the result of companies deciding to pay out dividends to shareholders in 2012 when a lower tax rate was in effect on high-income taxpayers.

There is little evidence in this report to believe that the economy will diverge sharply from a 2.5- 3.0 percent growth path, except for the impact of the deficit reductions that Congress is considering or already put in place. Higher tax collections from the ending of the payroll tax holiday are likely to knock around 0.5 percentage points from growth. The sequester, or whatever cuts are put in place in lieu of the sequester, are likely to have an even larger impact on growth beginning in the second quarter.

One item worth noting is the GDP report provides zero evidence that "fiscal cliff" concerns had any impact on growth in the quarter. Consumer durable purchases and investment in equipment and software were the two strongest components of GDP. If worries over the fiscal cliff were supposed to cause people to put off purchases, consumers and businesses apparently did not get the memo.

Nevertheless, with the slow recovery of output and employment all is not well no matter how we spin the numbers. We need more spending on infrastructure to help with the recovery.

This article was republished with permission from The Economist's View.

US Fiscal Policy Fine, Experts Say

2013-01-24T05:35:00.002-08:00

Partisan economics is nothing new and every administration faces complaints from opponents that it’s either spending too much or too little, depending on the desired media outcome. In 2013, many economists agree that the U.S. fiscal policy is finally shaping up and that it’s a lack of employment and rising health care costs that are the real issue. Deficit hawks complain that liberals in big government are spending too much, but a comparison in real dollars shows the Bush years increasing the most of the last three administrations. Some even argue that President Obama is cutting too much and that a recovery requires more investment. For more on this continue reading the following article from Economist’s View.

Peter Orszag:

Healthcare is America’s real problem, by Peter Orszag, Commentary, FT: Healthcare costs are the core long-term fiscal challenge facing the US... This is why the recent deceleration of these costs is so encouraging...

The good news is that recent developments in health costs are better than many appreciate. Cost growth has slowed dramatically...

Last year, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the gap between revenue and expenditure in the next 75 years would amount to 8.7 per cent of GDP. Since then, enacted revenue increases and an improved underlying budget outlook have reduced the gap to perhaps 7.5 per cent.

Achieving the lower health-cost growth would knock another 2.5 per cent of GDP off, bringing the long-term fiscal hole down to 5 per cent of GDP – a greater impact than any policy change currently being debated in Washington. ...

Martin Wolf:

America’s fiscal policy is not in crisis: ...The federal government is not on the verge of bankruptcy. If anything, the tightening has been too much and too fast. The fiscal position is also not the most urgent economic challenge. It is far more important to promote recovery. The challenges in the longer term are to raise revenue while curbing the cost of health. Meanwhile, people, just calm down.

By the way, where were the deficit hawks during the Bush years? Here's what Martin Wolf means by "If anything, the tightening has been too much and too fast":

[via Kevin Drum]

The deficit hawks don't want you to know this, but our biggest problem right now is not the deficit, it's jobs.
This blog post was republished with permission from Economist's View.

European Commission Addresses Economy

2013-01-17T06:48:00.002-08:00

The European Commission’s 2012 report on employment and social development has impressed economists as an accurate summary of what has gone wrong with the Eurozone economy in the last year and what will become of it this year, although it’s still questionable whether the insights gleaned from the report will be used to help make the situation better. Economist Jonathon Portes’ interpretation of the report is that a lack of aggregate demand as the result of macroeconomic policy mismanagement as the source of current woes, and that the poorest countries are getting worse, even if other areas are recovering. For more on this continue reading the following article from Economist’s View.

Jonathan Portes (he also provides discussion of each of these points):

European labor markets: six key lessons from the Commission report, by Jonathan Portes: I haven't always been complimentary about the European Commission - either its economic analysis or its policy advice. So it's nice to be able to be wholeheartedly positive about the excellent report "Employment and Social Developments in Europe 2012"...

The report is really worth reading. But it's close to 500 pages, and the main messages deserve as wide an audience as possible, so I thought I'd try to highlight them with some commentary. To my mind, the key ones are the following:

1. Economic weakness in Europe, and the consequent rise in unemployment, are mostly to do with a lack of aggregate demand, which in turn is the result of mistaken macroeconomic policies - especially aggressive fiscal consolidation...

2. Although financial markets may have stabilized - who knows for how long - things are getting worse, not better, in the real economy of the crisis countries...

3. Countries with more generous welfare states, but also more flexible labor markets, have fared best...

4. Following on from this, structural reforms in labor markets are required in many countries - but they need to be based on evidence! Segmented labor markets are a problem and raise youth unemployment...

..and even in recession, minimum wages at a sensible level do more good than harm. ...

5. Where they were allowed to operate, the "automatic stabilizers" worked...(in both macroeconomic and social terms)...

...while where they were overridden, in the pursuit of "self-defeating austerity", things have got worse...

6. Latvia, Ireland (and even Estonia) may look like "success stories" to some in the Commission, and perhaps to the financial markets (at present) but the reality in terms of jobs and incomes is rather different. ...

Too bad fiscal policymakers didn't do their homework and learn these lessons about austerity, social insurance, automatic stabilizers, and so on before putting harmful or ineffective policy in place (or failing to implement policy when action is called for, e.g. to reduce unemployment). Wish I thought they were doing their homework now.

This blog post was republished with permission from Economist's View.

Fiscal Cliff Deal Inadequate

2013-01-04T08:51:00.000-08:00

The simple fact is that the deal that was reached to avoid the so-called “fiscal cliff” is nothing more than a postponement of the real negotiation, which will have to bear results if the country is to avoid across-the-board spending cuts in the form of sequestration. The March deadline looms larger than that of the cliff and Republicans and Democrats have already drawn lines in the sand. The GOP will refuse to vote for an increase in the debt ceiling unless Democrats agree to cuts to entitlement programs, and the entire drama will be played out again, although this time experts feel there is less chance of positive resolution. For more on this continue reading the following article from Iacono Research.

My takeaways from the recent fiscal cliff deal.

First, thank God people will now stop talking about “going over the fiscal cliff”. Fed Chief Ben Bernanke has done many terrible things at the central bank, but coining the phrase “fiscal cliff” was clearly one of the worst.

Second, anyone thinking that this is somehow the end of the story when it comes to the U.S. budget difficulties should be immediately absolved of that notion since, before you know it, there will be another catchy phrase to describe what is about to happen over the next two months.

Based on what I’ve been reading, it will be termed an “abyss” of some sort – the debt ceiling abyss, the sequestration abyss, the government funding abyss, or, my personal favorite appearing in the title above, sans the “abyss” moniker. This Bloomberg report summarizes what lies ahead:

If anything, the U.S. faces an even more ominous deadline in a few months. The debt ceiling was hit as of New Year’s Eve. The U.S. Treasury will dip into its tool bag to keep the country’s borrowing ability going, but that will last only about two months. Also in early March, the sequestration — $110 billion in across-the-board spending cuts, half in defense and half in domestic programs – springs back, unless Congress finds a way to offset it with other spending cuts. Weeks later, the law that keeps the government funded expires. It all means that, in late February and early March, Congress will face a sequestration, a government default and a government shutdown. Republicans say they’ll use the leverage created by the debt ceiling to force Obama to accept spending cuts, particularly in entitlement programs. Obama resisted that notion on Dec. 31, saying he wants more tax increases and won’t accept Republican plans to “shove” spending cuts past him. “If they think that’s going to be the formula for how we solve this thing, then they’ve got another thing coming,” he said.

Per this story at The Hill, the duo of Simpson and Bowles probably best characterized the result as follows:

“We have all known for over a year that this fiscal cliff was coming. In fact Washington politicians set it up to force themselves to seriously deal with our Nation’s long term fiscal problems,” Simpson and Bowles added. “Yet even after taking the Country to the brink of economic disaster, Washington still could not forge a common sense bipartisan consensus on a plan that stabilizes the debt.”

What does this mean for financial markets in general and precious metals in particular? These thoughts from the Bank of Nova Scotia appearing in this Globe & Mail report today provide a good summary:

The U.S. budget agreement is likely to prove [U.S. dollar] negative in the medium term as it averts the fiscal cliff today but fails to provide a credible medium-term fiscal plan and instead forces major issues, like the debt ceiling and $110-billion in spending cuts, out to March 1, and highlights how challenged the U.S. political system has become. In addition, it potentially lays the foundation for a rating agency downgrade.

Anyone who grew tired and angry about the fiscal cliff debate over the last couple months should enjoy the current reprieve while they can because it will be just days (maybe only hours) before we start hearing about the much more difficult (and dangerous) debate that lies ahead.

This post was republished with permission from Tim Iacono.

Policymakers’ Risk Fiscal Cliff

2012-12-13T06:54:00.000-08:00

The debt ceiling, which refers to how much the U.S. federal government may go into debt, has become a bargaining chip in the final round of debate over how to avoid the fiscal cliff. Republicans have promised not to agree to raise it until President Obama offers deeper spending cuts. In a recent message to Congress, the president told Republicans that there would be no negotiating for raising it later if they allow negotiations about the fiscal cliff to fail now, and many economists feel taking the debt ceiling off the table is a smart move for the White House, if only to ensure that if a recession is to result that it comes now instead of at the end of Obama’s second term. For more on this continue reading the following article from Economist’s View.

One more from Tim Duy:

The Debt-Ceiling Gamble, by Tim Duy: Ezra Klein reports that the White House is drawing a line in the sand on the debt-ceiling, and they really, really mean it:

The Obama administration is utterly steadfast on this point: They will not suffer a repeat of 2011, when they conducted negotiations over whether the United States should default. If Republicans go over the cliff and try to open up talks for raising the debt ceiling, the White House will not hold a meeting, they will not return a phone call, they will not look at the e-mails.

The Administration is looking to take the debt ceiling off the table forever. This is good policy; that Congress should be able to pass laws authorizing spending but not authorizing the required debt is beyond ridiculous. Also ridiculous - and irresponsible - is the willingness of the Republicans to use the debt ceiling to hold the economy hostage. Ending this travesty should be a priority for the White House.
Klein adds that the White House is ready for the fight now while their strength is up:

Boehner and the Republicans don’t want to give up the leverage of the debt ceiling forever, or for 10 years, or even, as John Engler, head of the Business Roundtable and a former Republican governor suggested, for five years. But the White House isn’t very interested in compromising on this issue, as they figure that if there needs to be a final showdown over the debt ceiling, it’s better to do it now, when they’re at peak strength, then delay it till 2014 or 2015, when their own vantage might have ebbed.

I would add another advantage. Better - from a political point of view - to have a recession at the beginning of President Obama's second term that can be blamed entirely on the Republicans. A recession in the first half of 2013 means that, most likely, the Democratic presidential nominee can run on the back of an improving economy by 2016. Alternatively, they run the risk that this recovery, anemic as it is, gets long in the tooth by 2016. Even worse would be that they agree to let the Republicans once again hold the economy hostage two years from now. Politically, if I had to pick between a recession now or closer to the next election, I would pick now.

This blog post was republished with permission from Economist's View.

Fed Talks Thresholds, Operation Twist

2012-12-06T06:45:00.000-08:00

Economists are predicting what the Federal Reserve will tackle at is next Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting and the two first guesses include policy guideline discussions and a look at Operation Twist. On the first topic, many Fed execs want to make clear that unemployment cannot be the only beacon for determining threshold levels. Regarding Operation Twist, or how the Fed will hand large-scale asset purchases, many economists feel that the move to an outright asset purchase program signifies an easing of current policy, although a final determination must involve the outcome of the fiscal cliff. For more on this continue reading the following article from Economist’s View.

Tim Duy:

Monetary Policy to Become Easier Next Week?, by Tim Duy: There are two important issues to be discussed at next week's FOMC meeting. One is the issue of specific thresholds as future policy guides. The second is the replacement for Operation Twist. Clearly, support is building for specific thresholds, and I believe policymakers will work out the details within the next meeting or two. Also, I think the general sense is that the Fed will continue to purchase long-term Treasuries after Operation Twist is complete. But will they continue to purchase the full $45 billion a month? That seems like it should be an open question, but it looks like momentum is building in that direction.
St. Louis Federal Reserve President James Bullard offered his thoughts on both these topics yesterday. On the first point, he offers support for replacing the forward guidance with a set of thresholds. I don't find this to be surprising. Bullard has never been a huge fan of the time commitment implied in the current statement. Not only does it send a pessimistic signal about the economy, in theory it should respond more flexibly to evolving economic events. But in practice, the Fed is only willing to alter the date in the event of a substantial shift in the economic outlook.
Bullard cites the 6.5/2.5 unemployment/inflation thresholds recently described by Chicago Federal Reserve President Charles Evans. I am not sure that Bullard specifically endorses these figures, but he may sense the political wind is blowing in that direction. He nicely describes six challenges to a threshold regime:

The Fed needs to make clear that in the long-run the Fed cannot target unemployment.

He believes the threshold should be on actual outcomes, not forecasts.

The Fed needs to communicate that policy is about more than just two variables. For example, he suggests the possibility of raising interest rates to limit asset price bubbles.

Unemployment is not the only measure of the labor market. The Fed takes a broader view of labor markets into consideration.

Unemployment can remain high, such as in Europe (I think this is really just a restatement of point one).

Beware that thresholds will be viewed as triggers, which they are not.

I think these are valid concerns the Fed needs to address as the communication strategy evolves. Bullard then shifts gears to Operation Twist. Currently, large scale asset purchases come in two flavors. One is $40 billion a month in outright mortgage purchases (QE3), the other a monthly swap of $45 billion in short-term Treasuries for an equal amount of long-term Treasuries (Operation Twist). The former is open-ended, the latter concludes this month. Should it be fully converted to an outright asset purchase program? San Francisco Federal Reserve President John Williams gave his opinion last month:

Meeting with reporters following a speech at the University of San Francisco, MNI asked Williams whether he thinks the FOMC should replace the Operation Twist Treasury purchases dollar for dollar upon their expiration Dec. 31. He answered strongly in the affirmative.
"My view is based on the expectation that we won't see substantial improvement in the labor market" for awhile, Williams said, adding that therefore "my view is that we should continue with purchases of long-term Treasuries after December into next year."
Williams said he favors "just purely buying long-term Treasuries at the rate we're buying."
Asked to clarify, Williams said he favors buying MBS and Treasuries "at the same rate we're doing now" -- $85 billion per month.

Boston Federal Reserve President Eric Rosengren agreed yesterday. Operation Twist changes the composition of the balance sheet, not its size. If the Fed converts to an outright asset purchase program, they will more than double the pace of net purchases. In my opinion, this appears to be a substantial easing of policy. Bullard feels similarly:

...on balance I think it is reasonable to think that an outright purchase program has more impact on inflation and inflation expectations than a twist program....
...Replacing the expiring twist program one-for-one with outright purchases of longer-dated Treasuries is likely more dovish than current policy.

I think that is correct; the conversion of Operation Twist should be considered a more aggressive policy. Yet inflation expectations (with the usual caveats about TIPS based expectations) continue to wane:

Perhaps financial market participants do not expect the Fed to commit to the full $85 billion in purchases. But this does not seem to be the case. There has been more than enough Fedspeak to suggest that additional easing is coming. Which leads me again to wonder if monetary policy is now at full throttle? $40, $50, or $85 billion a month. Does it make a difference? Or is the expectation of additional easing simply offsetting expectations of tighter fiscal policy?

Bottom Line: The Fed is gearing up to convert Operation Twist to an outright purchase program. A complete conversion should be considered a more aggressive policy stance. If the Fed wants to hold policy constant, then we would expect a less than one-for-one conversion. There are reasons to expect the Fed would go the full monty. Notably, the fiscal cliff drama already appears to be affecting the economy, even though it is more risk than reality. But why are inflation expectations sliding? And what does that imply about the effectiveness of additional easing at this juncture? Important but as of yet unanswered questions.

This post was republished with permission from The Economist's View.

Early Holiday Spending Stats Lower

2012-11-29T06:39:00.002-08:00

Perhaps bolstered by signs of an economic recovery, analysts who had been expecting strong pre-holiday consumer sales figures were disappointed to see a sharp decline in spending this year. Gallup reports that Black Friday numbers were considered fair, but that subsequent spending has not been as strong as the last three years based on American self-reported spending. Experts say the decreased sales could be linked to Cyber Monday deals and trepidation about the looming fiscal cliff and what it may means for the housing market as well as the broader economy. For more on this continue reading the following article from Iacono Research.

The folks at Gallup threw a cat amongst the pigeons today with the release of this survey on how many American consumers opened their wallets last week and how big their December credit card bills might be. (Does anyone pay cash anymore?) Though spending was higher this year during the week before Thanksgiving, self-reported spending during the holiday week fell from averages of $79 per day in 2010 and $83 per day last year to just $67 per day last week, not even besting the level of $69 in 2009.

Such issues as Thanksgiving coming relatively early this year and growing “Cyber-Monday” sales could be behind the sharp decline and, of course, there’s lots of time between now and Christmas for Americans to spend more, though, with the “fiscal cliff” looming and financial markets shaky, that is by no means assured.

This blog post was republished with permission from Iacono Research.

Sandy Stalls Sales

2012-11-15T08:19:00.000-08:00

The Commerce Department reported the first drop in consumer sales since June 2012 and analysts are blaming ‘Superstorm’ Sandy on the slip. The storm arrived at typically busy consumer period and auto sales in particular felt the brunt of the blow. Even so, insurance companies note that nearly 250,000 vehicles have been claimed as total losses, which automakers hope will boost sales in the near future. Meanwhile, REtail sales remained flat while gas station sales enjoyed a marginal 1.4% despite falling prices. For more on this continue reading the following article from Iacono Research.

The Commerce Department reported(.pdf) that U.S. retail sales fell last month for the first time since June, down 0.3 percent in October following an upwardly revised gain of 1.3 percent in September, as Superstorm Sandy was cited as having both a positive and negative impact on the data.

Though the effects of the storm could not be isolated, it is believed that its arrival during the busy month-end period depressed East Coast auto sales leading to a decline of 1.5 percent in October auto sales nationally, this following a jump of 1.7 percent the month prior. Automakers said they expected lost sales to quickly be made up as nearly a quarter million vehicles were totaled during the storm.

Excluding autos, retail sales were flat last month after a gain of 1.2 percent in September as 8 of the 13 categories declined, paced by a surprising drop of 1.9 percent at home improvement stores. In the wake of the iPhone 5 launch the month before, electronic store sales fell 1.0 percent and nonstore retailers saw a drop of 1.8 percent. Gasoline station sales rose 1.4 percent even though pump prices fell throughout the month and food & beverage sales rose 0.8 percent, leading the advancing categories.

This blog post was republished with permission from Tim Iacono.

Expert Ponders Fed Policies, Plans

2012-11-01T06:09:00.000-07:00

Economist Tim Duy would like to reconcile the Federal Reserve’s near-term and long-term plans for fiscal responsibility with the real state of the U.S. economy but has trouble connecting the dots. He believes its attempt to hit very specific targets will likely fail to due to its inability to communicate needs across channels as well as a seeming disconnect with the fact that the economy is not in a mode of full recovery. He argues that increased government spending may be able to break the cycle of stagnation that is being caused by restricting natural inflation, otherwise fiscal austerity and another recession may take root. For more on this continue reading the following article from Economist’s View.

Tim Duy:

On Coordinated Monetary and Fiscal Policy, by Tim Duy: Note: This began as an effort to tie together various themes in my writing. Unfortunately, short and succinct did not work. So I apologize in advance for the length of this post.

There are certainly trends in my writing. One is that the Federal Reserve spent much of this year behind the curve by failing to adapt their large scale asset purchase program or their communication strategy to the reality of a persistently weak economy. The Federal Reserve effectively dealt with that issue at the last FOMC meeting.

To be sure, I can quibble with some of the specifics, such as a lack of more explicit economic targets and a clear commitment to near term-irresponsibility by allowing inflation to rise above 2 percent when (or if) the economy gathers steam. On the first issue, I am coming around to the thinking that while explicit targets (other than inflation or nominal GDP) might sound good in theory, in practice trying to tie policy to a constellation of price and output targets risks becoming a communications nightmare. The Fed needs to tread very carefully on this point; it may be best for them to fall back on that old adage about pornography. We will know a "sufficient and sustainable" recovery when we see it.

The second issue, a promise to be irresponsible on inflation, remains unlikely as long as the Fed continues to stress it will take actions "in the context of price stability." I don't view a temporary increase in inflation as necessarily undermining neither the Fed's long-term inflation targets nor a nominal GDP target. And I think that the failure to make such a promise could very well disrupt a reversion of the economy to pre-recession trends. This I will discuss further later.

Another trend in my writing is that there needs to be some coordination between fiscal and monetary policy. Putting aside what I believe will be an aberration in the third quarter, authorities are already engaged in some degree of fiscal austerity:

and have effectively promised to do more. Should it even be reached, a compromise to the fiscal cliff will likely still be further austerity. I think that we should be wary about underestimating the impact of such austerity, especially as it is increasingly evident that multipliers are larger than expected at the zero bound. Fiscal austerity would likely be a key factor in maintaining the relatively tepid pace of the recovery into 2013. Moreover, fiscal austerity wastes the opportunity provided by a low interest rate environment. The Federal Reserve has already promised to buy a steady stream of assets from the financial markets. All Congress needs to do is sell debt into that stream. No explicit coordination necessary.

Another issue that I can't run away from is the potentially negative impacts of a sustained zero interest rate environment. It would be a mistake to believe that monetary policy does not have distributional impacts. Low interest rates obviously hurt savers:

Moreover, we should be concerned about distortions to the capital allocation process. Encouraging excessive risk taking now will come back to haunt us later. That said, it is necessary to balance such negative impacts against the positive impacts. Nor is it clear that the Federal Reserve is driving this train; the absence of an aggressive monetary policy might very well weaken the economy such that interest rates fall further. In any event, I am challenged to see how a different monetary policy would be effective; tightening policy at this juncture would likely be disastrous for the economy.

Finally, another issue to which I have already alluded is a belief that the US economy is on a suboptimal path:

This is obviously controversial. For example, St. Louis Federal Reserve President James Bullard has repeatedly said there is only one path, and we are on it. The appropriate monetary and fiscal reaction functions are obviously different in a such a world. In such a world monetary policy leads only to potentially greater inflation with little impact on growth.
Jumbled as it might seem due to the nature of blogging, somewhere in the background I have a framework that ties this altogether. And I was reminded by a colleague that I had seen that framework presented by another colleague, George Evans. The associated paper, "The Stagnation Regime of the New Keynesian Model and Recent US Policy" is here.
Evans begins with a New Keynesian in which expectations are formed by adaptive learning. An outcome of the model is that a sufficiently large negative shock can push the economy into a deflationary trap. Interestingly, agents learn their way into the trap by forming pessimistic expectations of future economic outcomes. My interpretation is that agents learn to live in what is often called the "new normal" and as a consequence make decisions that ensure the the new normal is a stable equilibrium.
The model is subsequently modified to account for nominal wage rigidities such that the low equilibrium trap, the stagnation regime, has an inflation floor. Another characteristic of the regime is low levels of output and consumption in which welfare is potentially much lower than the preferred equilibrium.
How can we break out of the stagnation regime? A temporary increase in government spending that is sufficiently large to allow a self-sustaining process to take over. The economy reaches an escape velocity such that agents learn there way allow a dynamic path to the preferred locally stable, higher equilibrium. At such a point, government spending can revert to normal without threatening a recession.
Monetary policy can also come into play, but Evans is less optimistic that the Federal Reserve is capable of breaking the US economy out of the trap. He notes that even promises of low rates forever may not be enough if the economy has suffered a sufficiently large negative shock. Evans adds that quantitative easing can support the economy via lowering long-term rates and stimulating demand, but also warns:

An additional problem, however, is that there are some distributional consequences that are not benign. Households that are savers, with a portfolio consisting primarily in safe assets like short maturity government bonds, have already been adversely affected by a monetary policy in which the nominal returns on these assets has been pushed down to near zero. A policy commitment at this juncture, which pairs an extended period of continued near zero interest rates with a commitment to use quantitative easing aggressively in order to increase inflation, has a downside of adversely affecting the wealth position of households who are savers aiming for a low risk portfolio.

There is a lot to digest in a short paper, but I encourage making the effort.
Thinking in terms of this model, it is immediately clear that one should be very concerned with impending fiscal austerity unless you believed the economy had already reached escape velocity (I don't). Moreover, you should be concerned about austerity even in context of the evolution of monetary policy into QE3 as it is not clear that the Fed can by itself push the economy to escape velocity. The Fed is literally stuck between a rock and a hard place, with the stimulative force of lower rates for borrowers traded off against lower income for savers, a point that Ed Harrison often makes. And the more we lean on monetary policy, the tighter that space gets. Yet we have little choice with a political environment that favors austerity over stimulus.
In addition, one should be concerned about the fragility of any recovery based upon a Fed-induced effort to achieve escape velocity. This is especially the case if the Fed has not promised (and whether such a promise is credible is another question) to be irresponsible in the transition to the higher equilibrium. Consider that the CBO projection for GDP growth is 4.8% in 2015. This, I suspect, is the kind of number needed to achieve escape velocity. But consider the Fed's reaction function in the face of such growth in the context of 1.) price stability and 2.) internal concerns about the ability to unwind quantitative easing. I think under those circumstance policymakers would error on the of tighter, faster rather than allowing a temporary acceleration of inflation.
The last paragraph brings up an interesting question. Even if the Fed promised to allow inflation to accelerate and did so, eventually they would tighten policy just the same. Which means the same recession, just a year later. 2015 or 2016. 2017 at the latest.
The problem is that the recovery is pretty much held together by debt refinancing, cheap mortgages and higher asset prices; by such measures, monetary policy has been successful! To be sure, there has been some debt reduction on the part of households:

But it is limited in comparison of the ability of households to utilize lower interest rates to reduce the cost of financing that debt:

I think in the near-term those who believe the monetary authority is the only answer will appear correct as the recovery progresses. Indeed, Annie Lowrey at the New York Times reports that household debt is now increasing for the first time since the Great Recession began. From a broad macroeconomic perspective, this is a near-term positive, and creates reason to believe that monetary policy will cushion the impacts of whatever flavor of the fiscal cliff we experience.

But I don't think this will be a stable long-term result. Obviously, I could be wrong, but it seems to me that we are using the same trick we have been using since the mid-1980's - lowering debt financing costs, thus allowing for a greater debt burden. This trick will continue to work as long as there is room to push interest rates further down. Now that we are at the zero bound in short-term rates and the Fed has been forced to move quite far out the yield curve to implement monetary policy, it is likely this is the last time that trick will work. There will not be much room to refinance our way out of trouble the next time around. Hence why I concerned about still being at the zero bound when the next recession hits.

Moreover, I would find it unlikely that we pass through another two or more years of zero interest rates without seeing capital mis-allocations, assets bubbles, and excessive risk taking. In such an environment, I don't think the Fed is going to be particularly successful in moving the economy off the zero bound without triggering a fresh recession.

Now, it would be easy to take this as criticism of the Federal Reserve. It isn't. The Fed should have moved to open-ended QE long ago to end the problem of arbitrary end dates to policy and needed to clean up its communication strategy to make clear the economic outcomes would define when QE would end. And, probably most importantly, the Fed is compensating for a dysfunctional US political process. I know there is one view (see Raghuram Rajan) that the Fed is simply enabling that process. Perhaps Congress would do the "right" thing if push comes to shove. But what is the "right" thing? If Congress were left to its own devices, would it take us down the road of fiscal stimulus sufficient to spring the economy from the stagnation trap? Or would they continue down the road of additional fiscal stimulus, driving the economy deeper into the trap? My sense is that Congress would find additional austerity to be the path of least resistance. Pete Peterson has won. The Congressional deck is stacked against the economy. And I think Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke knows this.

Putting all the piece together, I tend to think that neither fiscal nor monetary policy by itself will support a sustained recovery in which the interest rate environment normalizes and fiscal stimulus can be eliminated without fear of renewed recession. The two need to work hand in hand; the Federal Reserve has provided the monetary environment conducive to additional fiscal stimulus. Congress and the Administration now need to take advantage of the environment. Or, alternatively, if the fiscal authorities are not issuing sufficient new financial assets such that there is upward pressure on interest rates, they need to be issuing more.

In conclusion, the above framework both praises the direction of monetary policy without discounting concerns about the dangers of the permanent zero bound policy. A framework that allows for both accepting near-term growth on the back of monetary policy but also concern about the sustainability of that policy. A framework that decisively rejects additional austerity on a simple basis that it will not help normalize the interest rate environment. If nominal rates were 8% then yes, fiscal austerity would help normalize the interest rate environment. But that simply isn't the current situation. Perhaps, if we are lucky, it will be a problem in the future.

I realize that it would probably be easier if I could find myself either advocating the primacy of monetary policy in determining the level of output or deriding the Federal Reserve for the evils of the quantitative easing. Or if I could fully embrace fiscal stimulus as the only solution or austerity as the only solution. Picking one of those quadrant and defending it absolutely would probably make me more friends that straddling all four quadrants at once. But absolute devotion to one quadrant is probably not the right answer. I tend to believe that the right answer is a more complicated mix of monetary and fiscal policy than is currently employed. And don't think we can get to that right mix if we lock ourselves into an ideological box. Hence why I try to avoid such boxes.

Again, sorry for the long post.

Seniors’ Social Security Dwindles

2012-10-18T07:53:00.002-07:00

The Social Security Administration announced that seniors will be getting a 1.7% increase (about $21 on average) in benefits to account for inflation, but experts say that’s not nearly enough to compensate for the costs of actual inflation. Increasing health care expenses and costs for everyday necessities like bread, cheese and milk are making it impossible for some seniors to make ends meet. Some economists argue that seniors do not benefit from low interest rates and things like cheaper electronics, so the so-called benefits that come from economic stimulus and quantitative easing do not really help those who need it most. For more on this continue reading the following article from Iacono Research.

It’s hard not to feel for seniors in their plight to make ends meet every month in this era of freakishly low interest rates and inflation that, purportedly, is almost as low.

Our health insurance premiums have gone up by almost 20 percent per year in recent years (through no fault of our own – I can’t imagine what they’d be if there was something wrong with us), so, I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that the government’s official measure of health care costs, an increase of 4.5 percent from a year ago as detailed here earlier, understate the actual increases that seniors see.

Well, the Social Security Administration announced today that seniors will get a 1.7 percent cost-of-living adjustment starting in January and, while this is surely better than no increase at all (a common feature in many pension plans), since seniors don’t buy near enough of the stuff where prices are falling (e.g., electronics), the average increase of $21 a month will fall short of the actual increase in their expenses.

The realities of some senior’s finances are presented in this CNN/Money story today:

Janis Mason is 94 and has been receiving Social Security benefits for nearly 30 years. Because she has outlived her savings, the monthly checks are her only source of income.
“I always cross my fingers that the money can last the whole month,” Mason said.
…
“We’re grateful for any small increase [in Social Security benefits], but believe me, any small increase doesn’t begin to cover the major increases we’re seeing in things like vegetables, fruits, bread and milk,” said Mason.

Part of the problem is a disconnect between the official inflation figure and what seniors actually pay, experts and seniors say.

The inflation number used to calculate the cost of living adjustment is based on spending patterns among workers of all ages and across hundreds of items. A more accurate calculation would put more weight on the items that seniors purchase most frequently — like food, gas and medical care, according to the American Institute for Economic Research.

“Some months I worry a check might reach the bank before my Social Security check is deposited on the 3rd,” she said. “Other months I might have something left over – lots depends on whether I treat myself to something special at the grocery store, had an emergency, or even bought something to wear.”

What’s maddening about this is that social security benefits are likely to be reduced by the use of a different inflation measure that – surprise! – results in a lower rate of inflation. Sadly, this is one of the few budget related issues that seems to have support from both Republicans and Democrats.

A couple years ago, when inflation in the U.K. was about five percent, the Telegraph calculated a more realistic inflation rate for “pensioners” was close to ten percent. If the U.S. is going to adopt a new, lower cost-of-living adjustment, they should at least change the name to properly reflect what it is accomplishing, say, to something like, PCOLA – Partial Cost of Living Adjustment.

This article was republished with permission from Tim Iacono.

Fed Battles Inflation

2012-10-11T07:05:00.005-07:00

Quantitative easing (QE) has been the weapon of choice of the Federal Reserve and its chairman, Ben Bernanke, to stave off another recession, maintain stable prices and keep interest rates low. The method of flushing the market with currency seems to work in the short term, and some economists argue it can work in the long term, but many people are worried inflation has to come sooner or later, and relying on artificial money generation must be a ticking economic time bomb. Bernanke disagrees (although at this point it’s hard to say whether he has a choice), noting that inflation has been kept at bay for years using (QE). Naysayers argue only time will tell and that QE is too new to predict its consequences, but for now the Fed is willing to take the risk. For more on this continue reading the following article from Economist’s View.

David Altig of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta argues that the Fed's quantitative easing and twist polices were necessary to preserve price stability (Dave will be in Portland, Oregon on Thursday along with Bruce Bartlett and others at the annual Oregon Economic Forum (scroll down) that Tim Duy puts on, and I am disappointed I can't be there this year -- I'm headed to the St. Louis Fed today for a conference):

Supporting Price Stability, by David Altig: All of the five questions that Chairman Ben Bernanke addressed in his October 1 speech to the Economic Club of Indiana rank high on the list of most frequently asked questions I encounter in my own travels about the Southeast. But if I had to choose a number one question, on the scale of intensity if not frequency, it would probably be this one: "What is the risk that the Fed's accommodative monetary policy will lead to inflation?"
The Chairman gave a fine answer, of course, and I hope it is especially noted that Mr. Bernanke was not dismissive that risks do exist:

"I'm confident that we have the necessary tools to withdraw policy accommodation when needed, and that we can do so in a way that allows us to shrink our balance sheet in a deliberate and orderly way. ...
"Of course, having effective tools is one thing; using them in a timely way, neither too early nor too late, is another. Determining precisely the right time to 'take away the punch bowl' is always a challenge for central bankers, but that is true whether they are using traditional or nontraditional policy tools. I can assure you that my colleagues and I will carefully consider how best to foster both of our mandated objectives, maximum employment and price stability, when the time comes to make these decisions."
While the world waits for "take away the punch bowl" time to arrive, here is another question that I think worthy of consideration: "Looking back over the past several years, what is the risk that the Fed's price stability mandate would have been compromised absent accommodative monetary policy?"
As the Chairman noted in his speech, it isn't easy to take the evidence at hand and argue any inconsistency between the Federal Open Market Committee's (FOMC) policy actions and its price stability mandate:

"I will start by pointing out that the Federal Reserve's price stability record is excellent, and we are fully committed to maintaining it. Inflation has averaged close to 2 percent per year for several decades, and that's about where it is today. In particular, the low interest rate policies the Fed has been following for about five years now have not led to increased inflation. Moreover, according to a variety of measures, the public's expectations of inflation over the long run remain quite stable within the range that they have been for many years."
To the question I posed earlier, I am tempted to take those observations one step further. Without the policy steps taken by the FOMC over the past several years, the "excellent" price stability record would indeed have been compromised.
Consider the so-called five-year/five-year-forward breakeven inflation rate, a closely monitored market-based measure of longer-term inflation expectations. If you are not completely familiar with this statistic—and you can skip this paragraph if you are—think about buying a Treasury security five years from now that will mature five years after you buy it. When you make such a purchase, you are going to care about the rate of inflation that prevails between a period that spans from five years from today (when you buy the security) through 10 years from today (when the asset matures and pays off). By comparing the difference between the yield on a Treasury security that provides some insurance against inflation and one that does not, we can estimate what the people buying these securities believe about future inflation. The reason is that, if the two securities are otherwise similar, you would only buy the security that does not provide inflation insurance if the interest rate you get is high enough relative to inflation-protected security to compensate you for the inflation that you expect over the five years that you hold the asset. In other words, the difference in the interest rates across an inflation-protected Treasury and a plain-vanilla Treasury that does not provide protection should mainly reflect the market's expected rate of inflation.
When you look at a chart of these market-based inflation expectations along with the general timing of the FOMC's policy actions, from the first large-scale asset purchase in 2008–2009 (QE1) to the second asset purchase program (QE2) in 2010 to the maturity extension program (Operation Twist) in 2011, the relationship between monetary policy and inflation expectations is pretty clear:

Enlarge

In each case, policy actions were generally taken in periods when the momentum of inflation expectations was discernibly downward. A simple-minded conclusion is that FOMC actions have been consistent with holding the bottom on inflation expectations. A bolder conclusion would be that as inflation expectations go, so eventually goes inflation and, had these monetary policy actions not been taken, the Fed's price stability objectives would have been jeopardized.

Statements like this do not come without caveats. A perfectly clean measure of inflation expectations requires that Treasuries that do and do not carry inflation protection really are otherwise identical. If that is not the case, differences in rates on the two types of assets can be driven by changes in things like market liquidity, and not changes in inflation expectations. Calculations of five-year/five-year-forward breakeven rates attempt to control for some of these non-inflation differences, but certainly only do so imperfectly.

Perhaps more pertinent to the current policy discussion, inflation expectations have, in fact, moved up following the latest policy action—which I guess people are destined to call QE3. But unlike the periods around QE1, QE2, and Twist, QE3 was not preceded by a period of generally falling longer-term breakeven inflation rates. So this time around there will be another, and perhaps more challenging, chance to test the proposition that monetary accommodation is consistent with price stability. As for previous actions, however, I'm pretty comfortable arguing the case that the price stability mandate was not only consistent with accommodation, it actually required it.

This blog post was republished with permission from Economist's View.

‘American Dream’ Dead, Economist Says

2012-10-04T07:05:00.000-07:00

Economist Joseph Stiglitz makes a compelling argument that the American Dream is a myth during a recent interview for Spiegel. He points out that the political system favors the wealthy and that there are more rich people who attained their wealth through market manipulation and cheating the poor than there are of those who earned it by creating something new that people needed. He argues that there is no other industrialized nation that makes its children more dependent on the wealth and education of their parents to succeed in life, which is the very antithesis of American Dream. For more on this continue reading the following article from Economist’s View.

Spiegel interviews Joe Stiglitz:

'The American Dream Has Become a Myth', Spiegel: ...Spiegel: The US has always thought of itself as a land of opportunity where people can go from rags to riches. What has become of the American dream?

Stiglitz: This belief is still powerful, but the American dream has become a myth. The life chances of a young US citizen are more dependent on the income and education of his parents than in any other advanced industrial country... The belief in the American dream is not supported by the data. ...

Spiegel: We thought that as a rule Americans don't begrudge the rich their wealth, though.

Stiglitz: There is nothing wrong if someone who has invented the transistor or made some other technical breakthrough that is beneficial for all receives a large income. He deserves the money. But many of those in the financial sector got rich by economic manipulation, by deceptive and anti-competitive practices, by predatory lending. They took advantage of the poor and uninformed... They sold them costly mortgages and were hiding details of the fees in fine print.

Spiegel: Why didn't the government stop this behavior?

Stiglitz: The reason is obvious: The financial elite support the political campaigns with huge contributions. They buy the rules that allow them to make the money. Much of the inequality that exists today is a result of government policies.

Spiegel: Can you give us an example?

Stiglitz: In 2008, President George W. Bush claimed that we did not have enough money for health insurance for poor American children, costing a few billion dollars a year. But all of a sudden we had $150 billion to bail out AIG, the insurance company. That shows that something is wrong with our political system. It is more akin to "one dollar, one vote" than to "one person, one vote." ...

Spiegel: So your answer to the inequality problem is to transfer money from the top to the bottom?

Stiglitz: First, transferring money from the top to the bottom is only one suggestion. Even more important is helping the economy grow in ways that benefit those at the bottom and top, and ending the "rent seeking" that moves so much money from ordinary citizens to those at the top. ...

Nothing particularly new here, but I wanted to highlight the point about rent-seeking, anti-competitive practices, etc. once again since I don't think this cause of inequality receives enough attention.

This blog post was republished with permission from The Economist's View.

US Home Price Index Continues Climb

2012-09-26T07:34:00.001-07:00

All signs continue to point to a recovery in the U.S. residential real estate market The summer 20-City Case Shiller Home Price Index shows that property prices increased in June and July. Standard & Poor’s reported that the adjusted numbers were not as impressive, but they were still positive. All 20 cities, which included hard-hit towns like Atlanta and Las Vegas, all showed average gains throughout the summer. The news is dampened somewhat due to the fact that banks are still keeping many distressed homes off the market to juice prices, but experts believe that sales and prices will continue to rise through 2012. For more on this continue reading the following article from Iacono Research.

The nation’s housing market continued to rebound over the summer as Standard & Poor’s reported(.pdf) that the Case-Shiller 20-City Home Price Index rose 1.6 percent in July following a surge of 2.3 percent in June. The most respected measure of U.S. home prices now indicates a gain of 1.2 percent from a year ago.

On a seasonally adjusted basis, prices rose for the sixth straight month with the July gain at a less impressive 0.4 percent, after an increase of 0.9 percent the month prior, however, there is no mistaking the fact that home values are rising steadily this year after languishing for nearly two years following the initial rebound from the 2008 financial crisis and the myriad of home buyer incentives from the U.S. government.

All 20 cities showed gains in July, paced by surges of 3.7 percent in Minneapolis and 3.3 percent in Detroit. Even Atlanta home prices are on a tear as June’s 4.4 percent jump was followed by a 2.6 percent advance in July. On a year-over-year basis, Atlanta is still the clear laggard at -9.9 percent, along with Chicago, Las Vegas, and New York one of only four cities where prices are lower than a year ago and one-time housing basket case Phoenix leads all cities with home price gains of 16.6 percent over last year.

Of course, recent gains are due in part to limited housing inventory as banks continue to hold distressed properties off the market and move slowly on new foreclosures at the same time that mortgage rates have become freakishly low, setting new records just about every day in the wake of the Federal Reserve’s latest money printing extravaganza in which they’ll buy $40+ billion in mortgage backed securities each month.

Don’t you just love it when a good asset re-flation plan comes together?

This blog post was republished with permission from Tim Iacono.

Significant Shift in Employment Pattern

2012-09-13T06:58:00.000-07:00

quasi-employment status as the recently unemployed searches for new full-time work, but the latest labor report shows a significant number of people going from being employed to not wanting a job. Some experts believe this is due to more people retiring now that the U.S. is climbing out of the recession, but others are more skeptical and think that it may be the sign of more bad news to come in the jobs market and for the economy as a whole. For more on this continue reading the following article from Iacono Research.

Friday’s August labor report (as detailed here last week) has spawned some interesting discussion about the possible cause of the 30-year low in the labor force participation rate, stemming from the household survey’s odd collection of data in which totals for all three of these groups fell – employed, unemployed, marginally attached workers (those still wanting to work but who have given up looking).

Usually, the newly jobless go from being employed to unemployed and then, sometime later, to marginally attached (and out of the labor force), but, last month an unusually large number went directly from having a job to not wanting one. This is depicted below via this item at macroblog and this offering from the Wall Street Journal economics blog also discusses the subject.

Retirees are probably the biggest factor in this surge and it makes sense that a large number of individuals delayed retirement in recent years due to the financial crisis and are now packing up office boxes and picking up their last paycheck. Others are no doubt going back to school or quitting work to raise a family, but, perhaps the most curious thing about this recent change is that the last time it occurred was just when the 2008 recession was starting back in late-2007.

Is this s a good sign or a bad one?

Well, it might be good and it might be bad because, as indicated by the red arrows above, previous surges in the number of people moving from employed to out of the labor force have come when times were good with a peak occurring when recessions began. This likely means that people are comfortable enough today to pack it in, but, more importantly, that a new recession may not be far off.

This article was republished with permission from Tim Iacono.

Bernanke Bluster Boosts Precious Metals

2012-09-06T07:00:00.001-07:00

Federal Reserve Chief Ben Bernanke recently announced a plan for more central bank money printing and experts believe it means the course will be set for much of the same as the year progresses. The news of more money in circulation acted to boost values of precious metals, and gold and silver shot to levels not seen in 10 months. The jump pushed gold to $1,669.70 an ounce and silver to $30.78 an ounce, but experts say this is not so impressive when viewed in context of cyclical lows and economic forces that have pushed precious metals prices down from previous heights. For more on this continue reading the following article from Iacono Research.

Following an impressive technical breakout the week prior that constituted the biggest combined jump in gold and silver prices in ten months, precious metals moved sharply higher again last week, capped by a late-week surge spurred by heightened expectations of more central bank money printing after Fed Chief Ben Bernanke defended previous easy money policies, what many viewed as paving the way for more of the same.

After surging nearly $40 an ounce on Friday, the gold price ended at a five-month high while posting its biggest monthly gain since January, and silver jumped more than $1.00 an ounce after the Fed Chairman spoke, rising to its loftiest level in four months.

For the week, the gold price rose 1.3 percent, from $1,669.70 an ounce to $1,691.30, and silver rose 3.1 percent, from $30.78 an ounce to $31.74. Spot gold is now up 7.8 percent for the year, down 12.0 percent from its 2011 high, and silver is up 13.9 percent in 2012, down 35.6 percent from its peak last year.

The recent move higher for the gold price appears far less impressive when viewed in the context of recent corrections as shown below and, importantly, the current recovery now appears to be “on track” with the last two major cyclical upturns that followed moves down that began in 2006 and 2008.

[To continue reading this article, please visit Seeking Alpha.]

Globalization Hurting US Jobs Market

2012-08-30T06:50:00.000-07:00

The historically dominant belief among economists is the economic globalization and increased trade has not been a detriment to the U.S. job market, pinning the blame squarely on technological shifts that have eroded the need for many jobs – particularly in the manufacturing sector. While many accept that advancement in technology has had some role in jobs decline, according to a recent poll in New York Times more economists are changing their opinions about globalization’s role in U.S. unemployment. Analysts now say cheap labor abroad is having more of an impact than previously realized. For more on this continue reading the following article from Economist’s View.

Edward Alden of the Council on Foreign Relations:

Changing Views of Globalization’s Impact, by Edward Allen, Commentary, NY Times: ...For decades, economists resisted the conclusion that trade – for all of its many benefits — has also played a significant role in job loss and the stagnation of middle-class incomes in the United States. ...

Rather than focusing on trade, economists argued that other factors – especially “skill-biased technical change,” technological innovation that puts an added premium on skilled workers – played the biggest role in holding down middle-class wages. But now economists are beginning to change their minds. Responding to The Times’s recent survey about the causes of income stagnation, many top economists have cited globalization as a leading cause.

While the evidence is still not conclusive, it is pretty strong. Trade’s effect on jobs and income, which was probably modest through the 1990’s, now seems to be growing much larger. [list and discussion of recent studies]...

The usual rebuttal to these findings is to argue that they stem mostly from manufacturing. And manufacturing, the argument goes, is facing a long-run, secular decline in employment that is largely technology-driven, not unlike the story of agriculture in the 20th century. The job losses in manufacturing may seem as if they have been caused by trade,... but they have actually been caused by technological change.

Through the 1990s, that story was largely plausible. But over the last decade it is not. ... There is no question that over the last decade United States manufacturing has declined, taking away jobs and driving down wages for those who are still employed. Robert Atkinson and colleagues have a useful paper on this topic, showing that the loss of more than five million jobs in manufacturing in a decade was not primarily a technology and productivity story.

The real-world evidence makes it surprising that it has taken economists so long to catch on...

I've expressed pro-trade views in the past, and I still have them. But it's not enough to say, as we do, that the gains from trade are such that (under fairly general conditions) we can make everyone better off and no one worse off. If the actual result is that all the gains go to the top of the income distribution, and all the costs go to the working class -- if the distribution of the gains results in a large class of losers -- then it is much harder to defend. We must find a way to ensure that trade realizes the promise of "lifting all boats" instead of just the yachts.

This blog post was republished with permission from Economist's View.

No Fed Plan for QE3, Experts Say

2012-08-23T08:05:00.000-07:00

The economy is “muddling along” according market observers, and experts say this state of affairs is not enough to force the Federal Reserve to initiate yet another round of quantitative easing in September. The latest Federal Open Market Committee meeting minutes indicate the Fed is closer to action, but more critics are starting to believe that action is going to be muted. Many think a prediction can be found by looking at what way centrists are leaning because it could go either, especially considering the persistent high rate of unemployment. For more on this continue reading the following article from Economist’s View.

Tim Duy:

Chances of QE3 Diminishing, by Tim Duy: I have made the case that neither the doves nor the hawks that are important for the course of monetary policy. It is the center that is the key, and that center needs to be pulled in one direction or the other by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. If the 2Q12 slowdown proved to be temporary, I doubt Bernanke is inclined to pursue more QE in the absence of clear financial market disruption. And with that in mind, although economic performance continues to be no better than lackluster, recent data has dispelled the worst fears that we are heading into recession. This combined with stable financial markets argues against additional easing in September.
If the center is the key, we need to see where the center is moving. This should provide some insight into Bernanke's leanings as well. On July 13, Atlanta Federal Reserve President Dennis Lockhart said:

So, as one policymaker, here's my situation: my support for the current stance of policy rests on a forecast that sees a step-up of output and employment growth by year-end and into 2013. If the economy continues on the track indicated by the most recent incoming data and information, that forecast will become untenable, as will the policy premises underlying it. So, as I said at the outset, this is a challenging juncture for policymaking.

The data since that time has shifted Lockhart's views, with likely no small part of that change due to the employment report. Today:

As of July, there are more than 4½ million fewer payroll jobs than in November of 2007. Most of these job losses were in the private sector. The share of unemployed workers who have been out of a job for more than 27 weeks has fluctuated between 40 and 50 percent over the entire course of the recovery.
I think this condition can be attributed, at least in part, to fundamental imbalances that have not yet been corrected, a situation that presents formidable challenges for monetary policymakers. There is a risk to monetary policy being employed too aggressively and without effect to address economic problems that can be resolved only by fiscal reforms that involve making tough choices about the allocation of public resources. Monetary policy can exert a powerful positive influence on an economy, but as Chairman Bernanke has pointed out, monetary policy is not a panacea.

It is not that Lockhart believes the economy is surging forward. It is muddling along. But muddling along at a rate that does not justify additional easing. Nor is it clear that such easing would be effective as the remaining problems are beyond the scope of monetary policy. The logic appears to be that employed by Bernanke - the benefits of addition easing at this point do not exceed the risks. And while for the hawks those risks are inflation, for the middle ground I suspect the risks are to the functioning of financial markets. And while we are on the topic of financial markets, from Bloomberg:

“Anytime you see the equity markets rise, I think what it tells you is there is more appetite for risk,” Lockhart told reporters after his speech. “And in the current context, I would interpret that to be some comment on more confidence that Europe will work through its problems without a major incident of some kind.”

Europe has stabilized, reducing one of the clear risks to the outlook. Perhaps I have been too hard on ECB President Mario Draghi. Of course, I thought the same thing after the two rounds of LTRO, and that didn't stick. Once bitten, twice shy. But that can wait for a later post. The upshot is that equity markets have been on a nonstop trip higher:

We are not seeing a repeat of last summer's weakness that prompted Operation Twist. And while I don't have access to a Bloomberg terminal, Zero Hedge does, and noted this headline:

LOCKHART SAYS DISINFLATION, DEFLATION NOT NOW A CONCERN

Back to the charts:

TIPS are not signaling an imminent decline in inflation expectations. To be sure, this is at odd with the steady decline in inflation expectations as measured by the Cleveland Federal Reserve:

but that measure is not likely to weigh heavily in FOMC discussions. Policymakers are more likely to take their signals from financial markets.
The Reuters coverage of Lockhart's speech included this line:

Central bank officials gather in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, late next week for an annual conference on monetary policy. Many analysts believe Bernanke will use a speech there to lay out a third round of quantitative easing via bond buys, or QE3.

I find it very unlikely that Bernanke gives such direction on QE3. I think the current economic and financial environment bears little resemblance to the famous Jackson Hole speech of 2010. Given the change in the tenor of the data and the financial markets, it is hard for me to believe that his risk/benefit calculus is currently in favor of additional quantitative easing. I think he might take action if he could find another tool that he thought would be more effective than additional quantitative easing, but I don't see such a tool on the horizon. Maybe he will pull something out of his hat next week, but I doubt it.
Bottom Line: Closely following the doves would lead one to conclude that QE3 was imminent. This dovish chatter keeps the possibility of QE on the table. But really this has been the case for months. That should lead one to conclude that the bar to additional QE is high, very high. The middle, led by Bernanke, is just not pulling in that direction. Indeed, recent events seem to be pulling the middle away from additional QE. Assuming the FOMC holds steady in September, I think we will be able to measure the conviction of the doves by any dissents. If San Francisco Federal Reserve President, the most dovish voting FOMC member, does not dissent, he must not have a strong conviction that additional easing is necessary. And if the doves lack such conviction, why should we expect it from the middle ground?

This blog post was republished with permission from Economist's View.

Ron Paul Slams Paul Ryan’s Budget Plan

2012-08-16T08:41:00.003-07:00

Independent presidential candidate Ron Paul recently used the FOX News podium to bash Paul Ryan’s proposed budget plan. Ryan is presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney’s choice for running mate and Paul contends that the plan has no teeth, criticizing Ryan’s assertion that his approach would draw down U.S. debt within 30 years. Paul went on to tout his own plan, which focuses on ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and using the saved money to fund domestic programs while also cutting back on the spending for some of those programs. For more on this continue reading the following article from Iacono Research.

Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) doesn’t seem to think too much of Paul Ryan’s budget plans, as expressed to Neil Cavuto the other day, since the goal of “maybe balancing the budget in 30 years” doesn’t fundamentally address the ongoing trouble the nation has in squaring its books (if that’s even possible anymore).

On a related note, Mineweb reports that Paul (Ron, not Ryan) has launched a new campaign to legalize alternate domestic currencies, citing Ludwig von Mises who noted, “sound money is an instrument that protects our civil liberties against despotic government. Our current monetary system is indeed despotic, and the surest way to correct things simply is to legalize competing currencies“.
It’s too bad he’s not running for another term in the House this fall – he will be missed.

This blog post was republished with permission from Tim Iacono.

Election-Year Politics Pin Down Fed

2012-08-08T08:43:00.000-07:00

Political gridlock has been the order of the day while the U.S. attempts to crawl out of an economic slump, but intensified obstructionism during the run up to the election has made progress even harder. Officials at regional Federal Reserve branches have been feeling the pinch and some have appealed to their colleagues in Washington to set aside political differences and enact policy to jolt the economy. It has become apparent to many that the Fed is standing fast until after the election and many find this behavior unacceptable given the state of the U.S. market. For more on this continue reading the following article from Economist’s View.

Tim Duy:

Is the Election Holding Back the Fed?, by Tm Duy: Boston Federal Reserve President Eric Rosengren is stepping up his call for additional policy action at the next meeting. Via the Boston Globe:

Eric Rosengren, the head of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, is issuing an unusual public plea to his colleagues in Washington, urging the nation’s central bankers to ignore election-year pressures and do more to jump-start the muddling economy.
Less than a week after Federal Reserve policy makers elected not to take new steps to stimulate the economy, Rosengren in an interview added his voice to a handful of dissenters, saying the central bank has to act at its next meeting in September to revitalize the economy. The Fed should not worry, he said, if the move is seen as influencing the presidential election.
“We don’t get to pick the timing of a global slowdown,” Rosengren said. “If there’s a slowdown and you have an independent central bank, the appropriate response is to act. I think that’s exactly what we should do.”

I have to admit that I was caught off-guard by the direct reference to the presidential election. I have seen speculation that the Fed is avoiding action until after the election, and this seems almost like an admission of such hesitation. Is this comment directed at the public, or at his colleagues? My response:

Some Fed specialists said the remarks from Rosengren are unusually pointed in a world where even the simplest statements are carefully worded. Tim Duy, an economics professor at the University of Oregon who writes a column called Fedwatch on the website Economist’s View, said he was struck, in particular, by Rosengren’s publicly urging the central bank to ignore the political situation.
“That would be fine to say internally. But to say that externally, to pull back the curtain and say, ‘They’re doing this for the election,’ I think is a shift and reflects his level of frustration,” Duy said.

Rosengren then goes further and calls for very aggressive policy:

Rosengren said the economy is just “treading water” and among the actions the Fed committee should consider is a repeat of what the central bank did during the recession when it spent trillions of dollars buying securities. The bond-buying program was controversial, and critics complained it did not help much. But Rosengren said anything more modest than that would probably not be enough. “It would be hard to come up with a program with a big enough impact” without big purchases of securities, he said....
...“Facing a world that’s going to be treading water, monetary policy shouldn’t just stand there and watch it happen,” Rosengren said. “We should start talking about more aggressive policy to make sure we get the kind of growth that’s consistent with improvement in the labor markets.”

Rosengren has been moving in this direction for a few months, but these sound like very pointed remarks, the remarks of someone who is very frustrated with the current stance of policy. Interestingly, such level of frustration could also be indicative of the strength of opposition to additional quantitative easing within the FOMC. Indeed, I have long-hypothesized that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke could move the middle ground of the FOMC to the doves if he desired, and the fact that he hasn't done so reveals his preference for inaction. Consequently, the bar to further easing has been higher than believed. That continued inaction in the face of ongoing lackluster economic growth and the persistent failure to meet not just one but both parts of the dual mandate could finally be trying the patience of the FOMC doves.
Bottom Line: Who is Rosengren talking to here? It doesn't sound like he is making a case to the public when he says "[w]e should start talking about more aggressive policy." It sounds like he is making a case to the rest of the FOMC. Same with his comments on the election. At a minimum, he is another voice for aggressive easing. But such comments sound like he is frustrated with the path of policy, which would signal the strength of the resistance to further easing. Overcoming that resistance is critical to clearing the path to that easing.
Now we await Bernanke's comments, to see if he gives any ground.

This blog post was republished with permission from Economist's View.