This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

The Fed, a Senator, and a Grand Experiment

clokey's picture




 

…as the dark forces of global Keynesianism exult at the prospect of yet another New Deal being launched somewhere in the world…it must be about time that one of them actually ‘did what it said on the tin’ and restored prosperity by means of a clod-hopping bout of fiscal monetary intervention to a people from whom it was taken by an earlier series of similarly ill-judged interventions from on high.
--Sean Corrigan

Unfortunately, the spectacular rise of Wall Street’s securitization machine will likely forever frustrate attempts to ascertain the extent to which the Fed is responsible for what happened to the U.S. housing market and financial system in 2008.  After all, it wouldn’t be fair to short sell (no pun intended) all the Special Purpose Vehicle sponsors, CDO asset managers, investors, and ratings agencies who, for at least five years, worked so hard to collapse the system. One wouldn’t want, for instance, to trivialize the type of sheer lunacy it takes to sell something like a “CDO squared” or its evil(er) cousin the “CDO cubed.” Similarly, it wouldn’t be appropriate to detract from the dazzling idiocy inherent in the idea that one subprime loan may be bad but a pool of them is “investment grade.” Just to drive the point home: one wouldn’t want to spend so much time analyzing the possible role of some silly little thing like the Fed funds rate that one forgets how much effort investors across the country expended clamoring after the always reliable mezzanine tranches of CDOs backed by pools of home equity loans.

Having thus given credit where it’s due we can say that while we may never be able to quantify the Fed’s role in creating the latest and most grand in what Marc Faber has aptly described as a string of bubbles, we can confidently say that the aggressive lowering of rates (from 6.5% in 2000 to just 1% in June 2003) was instrumental in creating the massive pool of securitizable mortgages that served as CDO fuel. The Fed thus facilitated the creation of untold amounts of faux household wealth and was so aloof it failed to see that aggressively raising rates from 2004 to 2006 would have the effect of shrinking the pool of borrowers just as Wall Street was perfecting its securitization technique. Ultimately, this resulted in the relaxation of lending standards, as originators competed for the remaining borrowers leading to a horrendous vintage of subprime loans in 2006. Meanwhile, the percentage of total mortgage securitizations comprised of subprime loans was hitting its peak.

Charts: Moody's

The Fed gaveth and it tooketh away or, as Sean Corrigan puts it, the FOMC’s “ill- judged interventions from on high” created unprecedented prosperity in the wake of the dot-com bubble and just as quickly facilitated the destruction of that prosperity.

As we enter 2013, the FOMC is busy inflating yet another asset bubble, this one far more spectacular than any that has come before. $2 trillion in asset purchases and counting has left the Fed’s balance sheet groaning under the weight of some 3 trillion in Treasuries and mortgage backed securities and not everyone is convinced the madness will end anytime soon. Goldman for instance, projects asset purchases lasting into 2015 and a Fed funds rate at zero until 2016, both more dovish predictions than the consensus:

This has of course ensured that the last leg of a three decade long bond market rally will indeed be the most spectacular and it is now truly difficult to fathom the scope of the dislocations the Fed’s exit will eventually cause.  And what, pray tell, has all of this done for the economy that just four years ago collapsed on itself partly as a result of these same Fed machinations? Virtually nothing; witness last quarter’s supposedly anomalous contraction-territory GDP print.

Rather than give up now, the Fed has instead used its own failed policies as an excuse to take even more unprecedented steps. The Fed is now targeting specific macroeconomic outcomes other than price stability and these targets will inform the timing of the cessation of unconventional policy. As Goldman has shown however, the Taylor rule shows that the Fed funds rate should be 3% by the time unemployment reaches 6.5% “given the committee’s inflation forecast.” The Fed it seems, no longer adheres to the pre-crisis Taylor Rule. From Goldman:

What accounts for this shift in behavior? One factor is clearly the increased weight on the employment side of the dual mandate. As shown in Exhibit 4, we estimate that the weight on the unemployment rate in our estimated Taylor rule with time-varying coefficients has increased sharply over the past two years. Once we allow for this increase, we can explain the steps taken by the FOMC to date.

Given this, it is worth recalling that on August 28 of last year, Tennessee Senator Bob Corker wrote a scathing op-ed in the Financial Times in which he dared to question the omnipotence of economic central planner in chief Ben Bernanke. Corker called the Chairman a “distraction” and urged the abolition of the dual mandate. On Monday, Corker took his criticism a step further and, along with Senator David Vitter, introduced the Federal Reserve Single Mandate Act. Corker says the Act will “provide the Fed with a clear and explicit focus on keeping inflation low [which] will serve America better than the broad, bipolar mandate it has today.” Corker also noted that “the dual mandate blurs the line between fiscal and monetary policy and allows Congress to shirk its responsibility to enact sound budgets and policies that produce economic growth.”

Politics aside, it is impossible to get around the fact that, contrary to the Chairman’s sworn testimony, the Fed is simply funding the U.S. deficit using the primary dealers as middlemen, although, given the collective ignorance of the general populace one seriously doubts whether the public would know the difference if the Fed just leap-frogged the secondary market and went straight to auction. In any case, perhaps Corker is naïve in a sense. Bernanke and his MIT cabal are busy conducting a grand experiment in monetary policy on a worldwide scale. Corker is no less the guinea pig than you or I, and no single bill will be enough to deter the central bankers of the Western world from taking their (possibly perverse) interpretation of Keynesianism to its logical extreme. All we mortals can do is sit back and hope the Gods aren’t as crazy as they seem.
?

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Wed, 02/06/2013 - 00:34 | 3218998 lasvegaspersona
lasvegaspersona's picture

I do not see the need to invoke grand conspiracy in this case. Except for the overall size and that 'reserve status' thingy, what we are facing in just another boring (59 in a row,) hyperinflation. It will come and go. After a few attempts the government will be forced to behave just like all debtor nations eventually must. We are just in a strange period in which we seem to be OK but the pulse has ceased and we are still exhaling. Soon we hit the floor and everyone will say 'hey, I knew that currency looked dead even before it went down....funny how it stood upright for so long even after it dropped its drink.

Wed, 02/06/2013 - 00:25 | 3218978 lasvegaspersona
lasvegaspersona's picture

I suspect Corker is more knowledgable than most in the government (elected officials.) Rudd seemed to have a clue about monetary problems and I personally heard Orin Hatch acknowledge over all government debt of about 60+T. (He started with 15T debt, mentioned Medicare and Soc Sec totaling about 40T and left out GSEs but I know he knows they are there). This was at a conference in early 2012.

Most members do not mention the real numbers and certainly during the 'debates' the real numbers were not mentioned. There was only talk of 'large' problems. 

I don't think in total these guys are much brighter than your average citizen. They may see a small part of the problem clearly but we must remember they are expert only at winning elections. They have staff for that 'bigger picture stuff'. They probably have as much denial as the average American.....message...do not count on the government to be anything but surprised when the time comes. Some may honestly blame the speculators....cuz.... how else could it have happened?

Tue, 02/05/2013 - 16:43 | 3217478 Panafrican Funk...
Panafrican Funktron Robot's picture

"The Fed thus facilitated the creation of untold amounts of faux household wealth and was so aloof it failed to see that aggressively raising rates from 2004 to 2006 would have the effect of shrinking the pool of borrowers just as Wall Street was perfecting its securitization technique."

I would suggest that this aggressive raising of rates was entirely intentional and according to script.  Consider what has happened since:  massive, massive wealth grab in both direct US dollar terms (the bailout and various guarantees) and real asset terms (foreclosed housing and subsequent REO to rent), along with creating the appropriate environment to engage in indirect wealth grabs via QE (which totally fucks the "little guy" for the specific benefit of "the club").  This was all the result of that relatively sudden rate ramp.  

Tue, 02/05/2013 - 12:59 | 3216612 rlouis
rlouis's picture

" Bernanke and his MIT cabal are busy conducting a grand experiment in monetary policy on a worldwide scale."

Frankly, the level of incompetence required is too great to be considered an experiment.  The only logical conclusion is that the consipracy theories are credible: in order to bring about World Government, it is essential to destroy the sovereignty of the U.S.

 

"We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it.
The only question is whether World Government will be achieved
by conquest or consent."

James Paul Warburg
(1896-1969) son of Paul Moritz Warburg, nephew of Felix Warburg and of Jacob Schiff, both of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. which poured millions into the Russian Revolution through James' brother Max, banker to the German government, Chairman of the CFR
Source:
   
while speaking before the United States Senate, February 17, 1950

Tue, 02/05/2013 - 12:52 | 3216589 working class dog
working class dog's picture

Greenspan and Bush failed to see the excess credit bubble? Bullshit the FBI warned of this just before ENRON and 9-11 attacks in a congressional hearing and than mysteriously all of the agents on the financial fraud investigations were taken off these cases and placed on the home security issue, the timing of this is just too great to be coincidence. Beyone did flash the illumanti and the ellites have become so arrogant that we most definitely will have another crash.

My gloom and doom scenerio

Tue, 02/05/2013 - 11:44 | 3216326 NoWayJose
NoWayJose's picture

I have no problem with these things existing, or if anyone is stupid enough to buy them, because government cannot regulate these to any extent beause they will simply move offshore or into dark pools or somewhere else that can hide from the government.  However, I don't want to see these things being bought by a bank that is backed with taxpayer money!  That is something we can regulate, or break up the banks if they buy these things.

Tue, 02/05/2013 - 12:07 | 3216403 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

way, way, way, too fucking late...

Many TBTF banks have this garbage in taxpayer-backer (FDIC) accounts already.  

"That is something we can regulate,"  LMFAO!!!  The same banks own your "representation", good luck with that.

Tue, 02/05/2013 - 12:59 | 3216613 Clowns on Acid
Clowns on Acid's picture

Agreed LoP - The Fed is no longer just a "financial" organization.

By dictating that money will be printed, banks will be bailed out, and Congress does not "have to" address the silly things like the debt ceiling and Fed Gov't deficit.

The Fed has effectively become a blunt tool to effect socio-political change in the US. Resist the Obama Admin in constitutional matters, spending, regulations (set to benefit the few), or / especially illegal immigration reform....and see what happens.....

(McChrystal, Patreus, Egan Jones, S&P, any opponent of outright illegal amnesty, etc).

So the Fed asks ...."you want us to stop printing?". "Ok...watch the Equity market go down 20% and unemployment to go to 15%. What are you going to do?"

The dye has been cast....there is no going back. There is only FORWARD !

Of course until FORWARD begins to go backward very quickly and violently.

Tue, 02/05/2013 - 12:41 | 3216543 Nobody For President
Nobody For President's picture

LOP, I would dismiss you as a terrible cynic who got up on the wrong side of bed this morning and drank bad coffee, but, alas, you are correct.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!