Archive for December, 2009

Federal Reserve’s Scary Math

Thursday, December 10th, 2009

In the early 1980’s mortgage rates where above 14% and other debt carried an even higher rates of interest. During the early 1980’s, banks required most home buyers to put down 20% and have spotless credit. For example if a buyer purchased a home for $125,000 he or she would more than likely need to put $25,000 down (20%) and the monthly principle and interest payment at 14% would be $1184.87.

Over the past 25 plus years, rates on mortgages and most debt have fallen considerably. The cause of this decrease in rates is mostly attributed to the Federal Reserve’s action of lowering rates and raising rates to control inflation in the US economy. Clearly the Federal Reserve has viewed the past 2 plus decades as having relatively low inflation thereby lowing more than raising rates (Fed Funds Rate).

Lowering rates more than raising them creates cheaper costs of borrowing thereby making room for more. This cheap money also creates more of a demand for credit. This excessive credit demand led to fierce competition among banks. Competition is definitely a good thing until demand starts to wane. As soon as the credit demand let up this led to banks acting as their own Federal Reserves by creating products that artificially lowered the cost of lending thereby stimulating borrowing.

Most home buyers view a home purchase not by the sales price, but by the down payment and monthly obligation. Now let’s look at the buyer from the early 1980’s with he or she’s $25,000 to put down and the ability to afford $1184.87 monthly payment. This buyer today could afford a $225,000 home with $25,000 down with $1183.08 monthly principle and interest payment with an interest rate of 5.875% and relaxed down payment restrictions. Identical down payments and same monthly, but twice the debt, was the growth in value or debt?

This rather rapid reduction in the cost of money over the past two plus decades has led to an equal increase in the price of cars, education, utilities, etc. Inflation seems to have been masked in credit. The credit markets in the US and around the world nearly collapsed because they had “maxed out their credit”. With the rapid expansion of debt at the end of the road with the Fed Funds rate at 0 to .25% target and lending rates increasing because of diminishing credit quality (except for mortgages because the Federal Reserve is supporting the rates), what’s next? Deflation?

Wringing out the Credit

Monday, December 7th, 2009

Last year the world markets suffered a massive trauma that crippled most financial institutions. This trauma, led to; the US government to taking over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, form the ever popular TARP fund, the Federal Reserve to reduce the Fed Funds rate to 0 to .25%, President Obama to pass a near $800 billion stimulus and many more multi-billion (probably trillions) dollar actions.

This trauma was caused by a bubble in the credit markets. America and the world essentially took on too much debt. The US and most of the world have attempted to solve this crisis by filling the credit and demand gaps with stimulus and cheap money.

GDP in the 3rd quarter did showed its first positive growth (2.8%, revised down from the 3.5% first estimated) quarter of quarter since the 2nd quarter 2008. Most of the US consumption growth (in GDP) has been attributed to the Government’s cash for clunkers program and the first time homebuyer tax credit (along with the Federal Reserve supporting low mortgage rates). The “cheap money” has reduced the value of the US dollar thereby improving exports, which also has spurred some growth in the US GDP.

The question still remains whether government stimulus and cheap money can truly carry us over the hump. Most of this growth has come at the expense of more credit and reduced buying power. Matter of fact, most the Government’s programs seem to have targeted the only individuals left who had room to expand their credit. Who owns a car worth less than $4000 and typically is a first time home buyer? These programs look to have wrung out the credit from the last remaining source in the US economy, the youth, our future.

What happens when the credit towel is dry?

Ben Bernanke and The Federal Reserve Money Factory

Thursday, December 3rd, 2009

golden-ticketOver the past few weeks Republican Congressman Ron Paul out of Texas has been making a noticeable push to get more transparency out of the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve members and its Chairman (Ben Bernanke) have been verbally opposed to the measures that the Congressman is attempting to have enacted. The proposal Congressman Ron Paul is pushing for would allow for an independent audit to be called for following any decisions on monetary policy by the Federal Reserve.

Currently the Federal Reserve keeps most of its dealings a secret. The Federal Reserve believes that by keeping politics and the public view out of monetary policy they will be able to act more prudently and timely without influence. They believe that this independence is crucial to maintaining their objectives.

Some believe that many of the problems today are caused by their objectives. The Federal Reserve’s deliberate reactions to economic events creates a relatively predictable cycle. When the economy contracts, the Federal Reserve lowers rates to expand credit to spur growth with cheap money. When the economy is growing too fast they raise interest rates to slow the growth. Unfortunately, it is much easier to indentify contraction than over expansion, which typically results in a late raising of rates which can result in a bubble.

For the past 25 years the Federal Reserve has lowered rates more than raising them and now is faced with a very troubling 0 to .25% Fed Funds Rate. Interest rates as a whole should be falling, but for credit that is not supported by the government, rates are rising. One can only assume that with banks profit margins so high that the rising rates are being caused by falling credit quality and defaults. The Federal Reserve has resorted to another avenue in attempts to promote lending with “quantitative easing”. Quantitative easing is essentially when the Federal Reserve becomes the lender of last resort. This form of injecting money into the economy can have adverse and unknown consequences, since much of the money is created out of thin air in the form of credit.

Who, what and how they are supporting these institutions seems to be behind Congressman Ron Paul’s motivation. Over this historical Financial Crisis the Federal Reserve’s political powers have been weakened. We will see if this weakness will lead to the Congressman getting his golden ticket.

Is an Economic Asteroid Coming?

Tuesday, December 1st, 2009

asteriod-impactThe question really is not whether one is coming but would they tell us if it were? In the movies when an asteroid is headed towards Earth, the government decides to keep the impending doom from its citizens to protect them from the horrible truth. Then typically about 3 days from impact, the secret of the approaching fate is revealed along with a plan to save the day. Is it possible that the US government is sugar coating the truth to protect us, shelter us?

The Chinese government is notorious for embellishing their economic numbers. Is the US government taking a page out of their red book on crowd control.

One possible sign of the potential sugar coat could be in economic data revisions. When data is released the markets react based on whether they meet, miss or exceed expectations. If a market rallies on exceeded expectations, shouldn’t that same market give back those gains if that data is revised down the following month? Most of the time the market ignores these revisions and may actually rally again if the data shows another exceeded expectation even though the data may have actually been negative.

For example; if monthly retail sales went up month over month 1.4%* then the next month they revise this number to -.4%*, but the current month over month sales went up 1.8%. Has retail sales really gone up that much? The markets probably would have rallied the 1.4%* and the 1.8%* if they exceeded expectations. But the data is misleading. Lets simplify this information by using small numbers:

Month 1: $100.00 in retail sales
Month 2: $104.00 in retail sales (1.4% improvement over the previous month)
Month 3: $107.57 in retail sales (-.4 revision plus 1.8% improvement)

*The numbers from the above example are made up and are not real.

So on the surface retail sales going up 1.8% looks good, but retail sale really only went up 1.757% over 2 months. This data becomes even more confusing if it is revised the following month.

Economic data did not predict the beginning of this financial crisis, what makes you think that it will predict the end?