This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Federal Reserve Accused Of Hubris By... The Federal Reserve
Looks like Tom Hoenig's dissension at the recent FOMC vote is starting to generate some serious traction. A paper just released by V.V. Chari of the Minneapolis Fed, "Thoughts on the Federal Reserve's exit strategy" goes so far as blasting the Fed for demonstrating Goldman Sachs-like "hubris" courtesy of the persistent lowest common denominator resolution to every crisis, namely Bernanke's redux of MLK "I have a dream" speech for the 21st century, in the Chairman's "we have a printing press" thesis.
The money line from the paper, which Chairman Shalom would be all too wise to re-re-re-read over and over until his delusion of grandeur curve flattens by at least by 1 basis point.
"...The Fed differs from private firms and emerging markets in that it can “create” money to finance its debts. And indeed, that ability may well lead to hubris on the part of policymakers—similar to that seen among financial managers in the current crisis who were clearly overconfident in their ability to obtain financing. Regardless of such self-assurance on the part of policymakers, if market participants lose confidence in the Fed’s ability to obtain funds from lenders, the Fed would have to pay very high interest rates to obtain short-term debt. A self-fulfilling, high-inflation equilibrium in which expectations that the Fed will pursue lax monetary policy because banks demand a high-inflation premium will lead banks to demand that high-inflation premium."
This is, in a nutshell, the encapsulation of the downside risk to the entire recovery: the entire ephemeral bear market rally is based on confidence in the Fed, which in turn is based on confidence that there will be no "paradigm shift" (yes, we hate the phrase as much as you do) in perceptions vis-a-vis the Fed's ability to print without any inherent checks and balances. Downside analysis must always start (and end) with precisely a view on how and why this concept should be taken for granted. Because if even the Fed is starting to question its soundness, the capital markets can not be far behind.
As to the paper itself, Chari performs a very relevant analysis of the three alternatives to Fed liquidity reduction (in the absence of an actual Fed Fund rate hike), which are as follows: Strategy 1: Raising interest rates on overnight reserves, Strategy 2: Offering banks higher interest rates on short-term deposits, and Strategy 3: Gradual sales of financial assets. In surprisingly lucid fashion Chari demonstrates just what the key weaknesses of Strategy 1 and 2 are, which in a nutshell boils down to Interest Rate and Rollover Risk associated with the ambiguity of Fed actions as pertains to the general interest rate environment.
And while Chari describes the asset sale alternative as the most feasible one (this is true, and hammered home previously by other Fed presidents), his logic as to why concerns about the spike in Mortgage rates (and a depression of all other asset classes) are overblown, is flawed. He says:
The extent to which asset prices would be depressed depends on how segmented financial markets are—that is, how difficult it would be for investors to shift assets from one market to another over a reasonable time frame. Bear in mind that the volume of traded financial assets of all kinds in world markets is on the order of $200 trillion. Given this extremely large financial market, if the Fed were to sell $1 trillion in assets over a period of time, the odds are small that such sales would have a big effect on global financial markets, assuming assets can be shifted among markets with relative ease.
Chari tries to neutralize the impact of asset transfer by saying that in the long run, portfolio shifts will normalize. Well, on a long enough timeline...
How much segmentation truly exists among such markets? If you look at them minute by minute, it’s clear that markets are highly segmented; but over longer time horizons, such as two or three years, people clearly have time to shift their portfolios. The question ultimately is, where is that break point where market segmentation ceases to be quantitatively and materially important? While there is little empirical research on this question with regard to mortgage-backed securities, for instance, it is my judgment that over a reasonable time frame, market participants would be able to absorb the sale of the Fed’s security holdings without significant price impact.
This is patently flawed. Assuming that asset flows and yields will normalize on a long-enough timeline, is of course correct in a Chicago-esque perfectly efficient market. Yet the author himself earlier ridicules Chicago economics when he says "Because markets are not complete and since frictions do exist, each strategy can have a significant effect on both the economy and the conduct of future policy." So while the withdrawal of liquidity in 2050 will certainly have been priced in, what happens in the near-term, courtesy of a market which is jaggedly volatile on materially declining liquidity, not just in equities, but in cash bonds and certainly in CDS will be a massive (over)reaction the second selling overtures are initiated.
Furthermore, using BIS data about total financial asset traded annually and comparing that to Fed MBS holdings is extremely juvenile from an actual trading perspective. It is like saying that the entire capital structure of various risk assets is one homogeneous pool, with equal liquidity and in which returns up- and down-shift gradually and gracefully, without regard for "speculators" (oh wait, just ask Greece about that one). Having the very bottom of the balance sheet propped up provide massive leverage to dabble in higher yielding (and risky) assets as it removes the risk to the sub-5% yielding asset class, and allows material leveraging of positions in assets in the IG (6-7%), HY (8-10%) and equities (12%+) return classes. If the MBS bid is gone, the bottom of the market would literally fall out. Which is why we believe that while Chari is implicitly correct in principle about the Fed's options, he is extremely wrong about the ramifications to not downward price pressure on not just MBS, but all asset classes.
Then again, the Fed can merely continue on its path of unmitigated hubris until “some ‘kids’ in New York and elsewhere
sitting in front of a computer" decide it is time to put an end to the Fed's stupidity. Which is why the Fed and Europe must put an end to all CDS and naked (or any other kind) of equity shorting optionality, and also make outright selling of securities illegal, coupled with mandatory participation by every US citizen in UST retirement accounts, before such time as these "kids" finally wake up and smell the manipulated market coffee.
Full Minneapolis Fed paper.
»
- 5027 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Equities as thermodynamic systems, perhaps?
You can't win, you can't break even and you cannot quit the game.
I've had my "manipulated market coffee" & am patiently waiting for the FED to fail. When they do, it will be the bond short of a lifetime. The smell of a parabola is in my coffee's aroma as it waifs up to me.
stop me if I'm wrong, if short selling is banned, the premium in put options will go up dramatically. and selling put options is the favorite premium grab for the big institutions, the kids sitting at computers can't come up with the margin, so when put options are effectively priced out of the market, volume dries up, the source of revenue dries up, and the bid under the market when all those shorts aren't there to cover when the Fed steps in, the PPT, and so on, meaning the, the Fed will just be throwing money down a rathole and the market will keep going down?
No reason to stop ya or for ya to sell yourself ... You nailed it and that is precisely what "we're" looking at. Got puts ?
stop right there. the market will keep going down ? what makes you think that will happen ? that is so 1920s kind of talk.. hahaha
and yes dont forget the sheeple - they will be there to buy the "cheap equities" when the market does get "cheap(er)"
And so the snake eats it's tail.
In an era when the Fed is pretending to sell t-bonds to third parties while in fact buying the bonds, the level of Fed hubris is at a very difficult to comprehend height.
The Fed acts as though there is no market that they cannot manipulate.
A handful of loyal Wall St generals (with jobs at the Fed) believe that they've fooled the rest of us. A professor on loan from Princeton provides PR cover.
One day the people live a fog, and then the fog clears.
The ENTIRE system is based on confidence, and thus FIAT currency (US dollar). Without confidence the dollar may as well be Monopoly money, which by the way probably has less dollar 'value' in circulation than 'real' dollars. This is perhaps the main reason why central banks also hold gold, because they know as a last resort gold IS money and has been for thousands of years.
While i am not surprised about Ben Shalom Bernanke's ego and hubris, the real problem will be what he has caused, and continues to do so, to the confidence 'value' of the US dollar. In my mind the dollar is just another colored sheet of paper like the Euro, Yen and other currencies that simply take up pocket space when i travel.
As someone who has travelled with gold and used it in many countries as a way to exchange for goods and services -- and yes for whatever local currency may be used within a country at that time in history -- have learned that paper currencies like can come and go yet gold is accepted in many places in the world no matter how badly a government or central bank may devalue the paper alternative.
Once faith in a currency is lost, usually a country then 'falls' into a chaotic state of being (like what recently happened in Zimbobwei).
"There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by the sword. The other is by debt." John Adams 1826
Looks to me as though the USA may eventually fall due to massive debt due to 'printing' money out of thin air. Another question is WHO or WHICH owning member of the Federal Reserve is really helping to dictate what is going on? Is it leading member Rothschild or Morgans, perhaps Lazards, Schroder, the Warburgs or Shipley or ???
Damn, foot in mouth disease is spreading everywhere!
Why do you call Ben Bernenke, Shalom? What is the point of that?
They are STILL lying about this.
0.0 percent interest rate means one thing and one thing only. Money is coming from printing. Because nobody is investing. There's NO INTEREST in investing. It's not interesting. It pays nothing. They say they will keep it at 0.0 percent for a while. Money won't come back. Everyones savings is being counterfeited right here, right now.
This is a setup. It's a oh we can't handle being able to print money. Let's let the IMF do the printing and we'll put the USA on a budget just like the states. Nobody can print but the IMF. The IMF will print computer money, war money, surveilance money, money for everything that gives it power.
Stop being a little lying manipulative bitch Tom Hoenig.
Wow... too bad Hoenig (and Bullard) are only 2 of 10 people on the FOMC that will PROACTIVELY curb inflation. The rest of the FOMC will only see inflation AFTER it has already taken off.
Even when inflation does start, they will just exclude more stuff to bring the numbers back down. (If they couldn't tell housing and energy were going crazy from 2003 to 2007, do you really think they'll see it next time??)
"...the withdrawal of liquidity in 2050..."
That was beautiful TD
Chari may not necessarily be incorrect about moving assets back onto the private sector; the so-called banks may have a demand for Revenue streams, as long as there is some guarantee on those. The question is, whether they will perform. Obviously, they won't should hyperinflation kick in... but the rest of the world doesn't want a weak dollar, on the other hand, neither are they particularly set on a US economic recovery before the military budget is scaled down. So US policy-makers are beset upon by risk on all sides (catchy phrase, or wot!)
The question that might crop up is to what extent the Fed can actually induce hyperinflation, since the banks, arguably, can possibly do quite well from such a nightmare. Although this is unthinkable -in much the same way that Lehman was unthinkable- and the idea of re-fueling the shadow banking system based on Fed guarantees sits nicely with the current propaganda-as well as realistically, it could be a choice in a world of limited options and it needn't preclude quite high monetary inflation... the gorilla is that WE ARE STILL LARGELY IN THE DARK WHEN IT COMES TO GAUGING THE TRUE STATE OF THE MONEY-PRICE EQUATION..and that does leave the nuclear hyperinflation option squarely on the table.
..gosh, remember the days when we could work the odds.. *sigh*
would you prefer ben 'mazel tov' bernanke?
http://www.realzionistnews.com/?p=480
Good Linux hosting option package offered by ucvhost which not only provides the best in terms of hosting packages but also believes in truly being there for the customer, 24x7. vps web hosting Moreover , they offer unlimited bandwidth as well as nearly 1GB storage along with database maintenance, email facility along with storage, availability of sub domain and many other important features for a very low price. ucvhost thanks