by Calculated Risk on 10/13/2009 04:12:00 PM

Fed Vice Chairman Donald Kohn spoke at the National Association for Business Economics conference in St. Louis, Missouri today: The Economic Outlook

Kohn outlines why he expects a moderate recovery (not V-shaped), and why he believes the risks to inflation are on the downside ...

A few excerpts:

All told, I expect that the recovery in U.S. economic activity will proceed at a moderate pace in the second half of this year before strengthening some in 2010. As we move into and through next year, inventory investment is likely to play a smaller role in supporting the growth of output, and aggregate activity should increasingly be propelled by stronger gains in final demand ...

[W]hy do I expect a gradual strengthening of economic activity? The fiscal stimulus program enacted earlier this year is likely playing a role, and it will continue to do so for a while as the states spend their stimulus funds to pay for infrastructure projects, hire more teachers, and finance other types of spending. But what will support economic activity as fiscal stimulus wanes?

Most importantly, support for private demand should come from a continuation of the improvements we've seen lately in overall financial conditions. Low market interest rates should continue to induce savers to diversify into riskier assets, which would contribute to a further reversal in the flight to liquidity and safety that has characterized the past few years. As the economy improves and credit losses become easier to size, banks will be able to build capital from earnings and outside investors, making them more able and willing to extend credit--in effect, allowing the low market interest rates to show through to the cost of capital for more borrowers. A more stable economic environment and greater availability of credit should contribute to the restoration of business and household confidence, further spurring spending.

An encouraging aspect of the improvement in economic and financial conditions in recent months has been the firming in house prices that I mentioned earlier. House prices can affect economic activity through several channels. One channel is through the influence of house prices on the net worth of households and, thereby, on consumer spending. Another channel is through the effect of anticipated capital gains or losses from investing in residential real estate on the demand for housing. Finally, greater stability in house prices should help reduce the uncertainty about the value of mortgages and mortgage-related securities held on the balance sheets of banks and other financial institutions, which should have a positive effect on their willingness to lend. This circumstance should nourish a constructive feedback loop between the financial sector and the real activity.

Given this possibility, another reasonable question might be, Why do I expect the economic recovery to be so moderate? To be sure, many times in the past, a deep recession has been followed by a sharp recovery. But, for a number of reasons, I don't think a V-shaped recovery is the most likely outcome this time around. First, although financial conditions are improving and market interest rates are very low, credit remains tight for many borrowers. In particular, the supply of bank credit remains very tight, and many securitization markets that do not enjoy support from the Federal Reserve or other government agencies are still impaired. Consumers as well as small and medium-sized businesses are especially feeling the effects of constraints on credit availability. Banks are still rebuilding their capital positions, and their lending will be held back by the need to work through the embedded losses in their portfolios of consumer and commercial real estate loans. Over time, as I already have noted, bank balance sheets should improve, and the supply of bank credit should ease. But the financial headwinds are likely to abate slowly, restraining the economic recovery.

In addition, I do not anticipate that the recovery in homebuilding will exhibit its typical cyclical pattern. Even though the decline in residential construction began well in advance of the overall contraction in real activity, the sector continues to have an oversupply of vacant homes. To be sure, by August, the inventory of unsold, newly built single-family houses had fallen appreciably from its peak level in the summer of 2006. Nonetheless, when compared with still low levels of sales, the supply of new houses remains elevated. In addition, the overhang of vacant houses on the market for existing homesis sizable, and the pace of foreclosures is likely to remain very elevated for a while, which should further add to that overhang. Thus, even with affordability quite favorable and house price expectations brighter, I anticipate a relatively subdued pickup in housing starts over the coming year.

In the business sector, the extraordinary amount of excess capacity is likely to be another factor tempering the rate of recovery. In manufacturing, the utilization rate currently is below 67 percent--noticeably less than the low points reached in prior post-World War II recessions. I expect that the wide margin of unused capacity, combined with the tight credit conditions faced by firms that have to rely primarily on bank lending, will lead many businesses to be quite cautious about the pace at which they increase their capital spending.

In part, the gradual pace I expect in the recovery of the economy toward full employment reflects the process of shifting the composition of aggregate demand and the way it is financed in response to the events of the past few years. In particular, consumers probably will do more saving out of their income, reflecting the likelihood that household net worth will be lower relative to income than over the past decade or so and that credit, appropriately, will be somewhat less available than during the boom that preceded the crisis. In addition, housing is almost certainly going to be a smaller part of the economy than it was earlier in this decade, as financial institutions maintain tighter underwriting standards that also more adequately reflect underlying risks. Such an increase in private saving propensities and a reduced demand for residential capital should prompt movements in relative prices and other factors that will, in turn, make room for a larger role for business investment and net exports in overall economic activity.

The transition to full employment and the complete emergence of this new configuration will take time, in part because the rebalancing of the economy involves repairs to balance sheets, the movement of capital and labor across sectors of the economy, and shifts in the global pattern of production and consumption--adjustments that are likely to be gradual under any conditions. Current circumstances, however, may slow the re-equilibration process more than might otherwise be the case because of the essential role of changes in the relative cost of finance in the adjustment process. But with the nominal federal funds rate essentially constrained at zero, and spreads in markets already having narrowed, reductions in the effective cost of capital will mainly take place as conditions at financial institutions improve and lenders ease borrowing standards, which as I have already discussed I expect to happen gradually.

As noted earlier, I expect that inflation will likely be subdued, and that, for a while, the risk of further declines in underlying rates of inflation will be greater than the risk of increases. That outlook rests importantly on two judgments: First, that the economy will be producing well below its potential for some time, which will directly restrain production costs and profit margins; and second, that inflation expectations are more likely to fall than rise over time as the level of real activity remains persistently less than its potential and actual inflation remains low.
...
But it's not the current level of inflation or of output that figure into our policy decisions directly--rather, it is the expected level some quarters out, after the lags in the effects of policy actions have worked themselves out. In that regard, the projection of only a gradual strengthening of demand and subdued inflation imply that that these gaps--of inflation and output below our objectives--are likely to persist for quite some time. In these circumstances, at its last meeting, the FOMC was of the view that economic conditions were likely to warrant unusually low levels of interest rates for an extended period.
emphasis added

by Calculated Risk on 10/08/2009 09:05:00 PM

From the Edmund Andrews at the NY Times: Rift Emerges in Fed Over When to Tighten Money

Fissures are developing among policy makers at the Federal Reserve as they debate how and when to start raising the benchmark interest rate from its current level just above zero.
...
One hint of the discord came Tuesday, in a speech by Thomas M. Hoenig, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.

Though he stopped short of calling for immediate rate increases, Mr. Hoenig made it clear that he was getting impatient.

“My experience tells me that we will need to remove our very accommodative policy sooner rather than later,” he told an audience of business executives. ...

And he is not alone.

Richard Fisher, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, sent a similar message in a speech on Sept. 29. “That wind-down process needs to begin as soon as there are convincing signs that economic growth is gaining traction,” he told a business group.

Other Fed officials [have] similar views ...

And on the other side:

“The turnaround is certainly welcome, but it shouldn’t be overstated,” Daniel K. Tarullo, a Fed governor ...

“Some observers are concerned that this expansion will ultimately prove to be inflationary,” William C. Dudley, president of the New York Fed told an audience at the Fordham University’s Corporate Law Center. “This concern is not well founded.”

As I noted last month, it is unlikely that the Fed will increase the Fed's Fund rate until sometime after the unemployment rate peaks.

Click on graph for larger image in new window.

This graph shows the effective Fed Funds rate (Source: Federal Reserve) and the unemployment rate (source: BLS)

In the early '90s, the Fed waited more than a 1 1/2 years after the unemployment rate peaked before raising rates. The unemployment rate had fallen from 7.8% to 6.6% before the Fed raised rates.

Following the peak unemployment rate in 2003 of 6.3%, the Fed waited a year to raise rates. The unemployment rate had fallen to 5.6% in June 2004 before the Fed raised rates.

Although there are other considerations, since the unemployment rate will probably continue to increase into 2010, I don't expect the Fed to raise rates until late in 2010 at the earliest - and more likely sometime in 2011.

And from Chairman Bernanke tonight:

When the economic outlook has improved sufficiently, we will be prepared to tighten the stance of monetary policy and eventually return our balance sheet to a more normal configuration.

Some people are taking that as tough talk, see: Dollar Rises After Bernanke Says Fed Ready to ‘Tighten’ Policy, but I disagree - I think "improved sufficiently" means Bernanke will wait for a meaningful decline in the unemployment rate.

by Calculated Risk on 10/08/2009 05:40:00 PM

From Fed Governor Daniel Tarullo: In the Wake of the Crisis

Turning first to the economic outlook, let me begin by stating the obvious: After a period in which there seemed to be only two plausible scenarios--very bad and even worse--financial and economic conditions have steadied. ... As we closed out the third quarter last week, it was apparent that economic growth was back in positive territory. ...

This turnaround is certainly welcome, but it should not be overstated. Although we can expect positive growth to continue beyond the third quarter, economic activity remains relatively weak. The upturns in industrial production and residential investment, for example, follow startling declines in the first half of the year. Improvement is gradual and beginning from very low levels.

The employment situation continues to be dismal. While the pace of job losses has slowed from the extraordinary levels of early 2009, the economy has recently still been losing on average about a quarter of a million jobs each month. Hopes for a steady reduction in the pace of job losses were once again confounded last Friday with release of the September employment report, which showed net job declines well above the consensus expectation of economic forecasters. The unemployment rate has risen to 9.8 percent. ...

Indicators apart from the unemployment rate underscore the weakness of labor markets. The percentage of working-age people with jobs has fallen to a point not seen in a quarter century. Average hours worked have not increased through the spring and summer from what were, by historic standards, unusually low levels.The number of part-time workers who want full-time jobs jumped nearly 50 percent last fall and winter and has remained elevated since. The a>verage duration of unemployment has risen almost 10 weeks since the recession began, to more than six months.

The labor market conditions I have just described reflect the low level of resource utilization in the economy as a whole. In this context, with inflation expected to remain subdued for some time, the Federal Open Market Committee indicated after our meeting two weeks ago that exceptionally low interest rates are likely to be warranted for an extended period. Indeed, with the effects of the February stimulus package diminishing next year, bank lending that is still declining, and continued dysfunction in some parts of capital markets, there is considerable uncertainty as to how robust growth will be in 2010. At the same time, the unconventional policies pursued by the Federal Reserve in order to halt the crisis have produced levels and types of reserves that will eventually require use of the unconventional exit tools discussed on numerous occasions by Chairman Bernanke and Vice Chairman Kohn.

The coincidence of a weak economy and an unusually large balance sheet at the Federal Reserve will require some judgments by the Federal Open Market Committee of a sort for which there are not many historical precedents. Still, just as with conventional monetary policy, decisions on the timing and pace for removing accommodation should and will depend on our ongoing analysis and forecasts of all relevant economic factors.
emphasis added

by Calculated Risk on 10/05/2009 08:00:00 PM

From NY Fed President William Dudley: A Bit Better, But Very Far From Best

... My assessment of where things stand today is mixed. On the positive side, the financial markets are performing better and the economy is now recovering. ...

On the negative side, the unemployment rate is much too high and it seems likely that the recovery will be less robust than desired. This means that the economy has significant excess slack and implies that we face meaningful downside risks to inflation over the next year or two. ...

... I also suspect that the recovery will turn out to be moderate by historical standards. This is a disappointing outcome in that growth will likely not be strong enough to bring the unemployment rate—currently 9.8 percent —down quickly.

I see three major forces restraining the pace of this recovery. First, households are unlikely to have fully adjusted to the net wealth shock that has been generated by the housing price decline and the weakness in share prices. ...

The shock to household net worth seems likely to have several important implications for household behavior. The shock creates a risk that the household saving rate could increase further. For example, during the period from 1990 to 1992, the household saving rate averaged about 7 percent of disposable personal income, considerably higher than the 4.3 percent average rate during the first half of this year. If the household saving rate were to rise, then consumption would rise more slowly than income, making it more difficult for the economy to develop strong forward momentum. ...

The second force that could restrain the recovery is the fiscal outlook. The fiscal stimulus that is currently providing support to economic activity is temporary rather than permanent. This has to be the case if we are to ensure that fiscal policy is on a sustainable path over the long-run. This means that the positive impulse from fiscal stimulus will abate over the next year.

The third, and perhaps most important factor, is that the banking system has still not fully recovered. Bank credit losses lag the business cycle and are still climbing. ...

The commercial real estate sector is under particular pressure because the fundamentals of the sector have deteriorated sharply and because the sector is highly dependent upon bank lending. In terms of the fundamentals, there are two problems. First, the capitalization rate—the ratio of income to valuation—has climbed sharply. At the peak, capitalization rates for prime properties were in the range of 5 percent. ... Today, the capitalization rate appears to have risen to about 8 percent. ... Second, the income generated by commercial real estate has generally been falling. ...

The decline in commercial real estate valuations has created a significant amount of “rollover risk” when commercial real estate loans and mortgages mature and need to be refinanced. ... This means that more pain likely lies ahead for this sector and for those banks with heavy commercial real estate exposures.

For small business borrowers, there are three problems. First, the fundamentals of their businesses have often deteriorated because of the length and severity of the recession—making many less creditworthy. Second, some sources of funding for small businesses—credit card borrowing and home equity loans—have dried up as banks have responded to rising credit losses in these areas by tightening credit standards. Third, small businesses have few alternative sources of funds. ...

All of these factors will tend to inhibit the pace of the economic recovery. Given that the recovery is starting with an abnormally large amount of slack, and the pace of recovery is not likely to be robust, this means the economy is likely to have significant excess resources for some time to come. As a result, the balance of risks to inflation lies on the downside, not the upside, at least for the next year or two.
...
In summary, I believe the current balance of risks around the inflation outlook lie to the downside due to the very low level of resource utilization and the fact that long-run inflation expectations remain stable. This balance of risks is problematic because the current level of inflation is already so low—the core PCE (personal consumption expenditures) deflator has increased only 1.3 percent over the past 12 months. Thus, we would not need much of a decline in inflation to run the risk of an outright deflation. Outright deflation, in turn, would be a dangerous development because it would drive up real debt burdens and make it much more difficult for households and businesses to deleverage.
emphasis added

There is much more in the speech about resource slack and the Fed's tools "to exit smoothly from the very low federal funds rate".

by Calculated Risk on 9/15/2009 10:02:00 AM

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke speaking on the financial crisis of 2008.

A live feed from C-SPAN.

From the Fed: Reflections on a Year of Crisis

NOTE: This is the same speech he gave last month. A history review ...

by Calculated Risk on 9/14/2009 05:28:00 PM

This is a long excerpt, but worth reading ...

From San Francisco Fed President Janet Yellen: The Outlook for Recovery in the U.S. Economy

I am hugely relieved that our financial system appears to have survived this near-death experience. And, as painful as this recession has been, I believe that we succeeded in avoiding the second Great Depression that seemed to be a real possibility. Much of the recent economic data suggest that the economy has bottomed out and that the worst risks are behind us. The economy seems to be brushing itself off and beginning its climb out of the deep hole it’s been in.

That’s the good news. But I regret to say that I expect the recovery to be tepid. What’s more, the gradual expansion gathering steam will remain vulnerable to shocks. The financial system has improved but is not yet back to normal. It still holds hazards that could derail a fragile recovery. Even if the economy grows as I expect, things won’t feel very good for some time to come. In particular, the unemployment rate will remain elevated for a few more years, meaning hardship for millions of workers. Moreover, the slack in the economy, demonstrated by high unemployment and low utilization of industrial capacity, threatens to push inflation lower at a time when it is already below the level that, in the view of most members of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) best promotes the Fed’s dual mandate for full employment and price stability. ...

I’m happy to report that the downturn has probably now run its course. This summer likely marked the end of the recession and the economy should expand in the second half of this year. A wide array of data supports this view. However, payrolls are still shrinking at a rapid pace, even though the momentum of job losses has slowed in the past few months. The housing sector finally seems to be improving. Home sales and starts are once again rising from very low levels, and home prices appear to be stabilizing, even rising in recent months according to some national measures. Meanwhile, manufacturing is also beginning to show signs of life, helped particularly by a rebound in motor vehicle production. Importantly, consumer spending finally is bottoming out.

A particularly hopeful sign is that inventories, which have been shrinking rapidly, now seem to be in better alignment with sales. That’s occurred because firms slashed production rapidly and dramatically in the face of slumping sales. Recent data suggest that this correction may be near an end and firms are now poised to step up production to match sales. In fact, I expect the biggest source of expansion in the second half of this year to come from a diminished pace of inventory liquidation by manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers. Such a pattern is typical of business cycles. Inventory investment often is the catalyst for economic recoveries. True, the boost is usually fairly short-lived, but it can be quite important in getting things going. ...

The normal dynamics of the business cycle have also turned more favorable. Some economic sectors are growing again simply because they sank so low. The inventory adjustment I just discussed is one factor, although the biggest part of those benefits usually is only felt for a few quarters. But other business cycle patterns can be longer lasting. Demand for houses, durable goods such as autos, and business equipment is beginning to revive as households and firms replace or upgrade needed equipment and structures.
...
This time though rapid growth does not seem to be in store. My own forecast envisions a far less robust recovery, one that would look more like the letter U than V. ... A large body of evidence supports this guarded outlook. It is consistent with experiences around the world following recessions caused by financial crises. That seems to be because it takes quite a while for financial systems to heal to the point that normal credit flows are restored. That is what I expect this time. ...

Unfortunately, more credit losses are in store even as the economy improves and overall financial conditions ease. Certainly, households remain stressed. In the face of high and rising unemployment, delinquencies and foreclosures are showing no sign of turning around. The delinquency rate on adjustable-rate mortgages is now up to about 18 percent, and, on fixed-rate loans, it’s about 6 percent. Delinquencies on both types of loans have increased sharply over the past year and are still rising. ...

The chances are slim for a robust rebound in consumer spending, which represents around 70 percent of economic activity. Of course, consumers are getting a boost from the fiscal stimulus package. But this program is temporary. Over the long term, consumers face daunting issues of their own. In fact, it’s easy to draw a comparison between the financial state of households and that of financial institutions. For years prior to the recession, households went on a spending spree. This occurred during a period that economists call the “Great Moderation,” about two decades when recessions were infrequent and mild, and inflation was low and stable. Credit became ever easier to get and consumers took advantage of this to borrow and buy. Stock and home prices rose year after year, giving households additional wherewithal to keep spending. In this culture of consumption, the personal saving rate fell from around 10 percent in the mid-1980s to 1½ percent or lower in recent years. At the same time, households took on larger proportions of debt. From 1960 to the mid-1980s, debt represented a manageable 65 percent of disposable income. Since then, it has risen steadily, with a notable acceleration in the last economic expansion. By 2008, it had doubled to about 130 percent of income.

It may well be that we are witnessing the start of a new era for consumers following the traumatic financial blows they have endured. The destruction of their nest eggs caused by falling house and stock prices is prompting them to rebuild savings. The personal saving rate is finally on the rise, averaging almost 4½ percent so far this year. While certainly sensible from the standpoint of individual households, this retreat from debt-fueled consumption could reduce the growth rate of consumer spending for years. An increase in saving should ultimately support the economy’s capacity to produce and grow by channeling resources from consumption to investment. And higher investment is the key to greater productivity and faster growth in living standards. But the transition could be painful if subpar growth in consumer spending holds back the pace of economic recovery.

Weakness in the labor market is another factor that may keep the recovery in low gear for a while. ... While the August employment report offered more evidence that the pace of the decline has slowed, unemployment now stands at its highest level since 1983. My business contacts indicate that they will be very reluctant to hire again until they see clear evidence of a sustained recovery, and that suggests we could see another so-called jobless recovery in which employment growth lags the improvement in overall output. What’s more, wage growth has slowed sharply. Over the first half of this year, the employment cost index for private-industry workers has risen by a meager three-quarters of one percent. Unemployment, job insecurity, and low growth in incomes will undoubtedly take a toll on consumption. When the array of problems facing consumers is considered, it is hard to see how we can avoid sluggish spending growth.

Putting the whole puzzle together, the main impetus to growth in the second half of this year will be inventory investment. The boost it provides will be a big help for a while, but we will need to look to other sectors to sustain growth. The fact that the largest sector of the economy—consumer spending—is likely to be lackluster implies a less-than-robust expansion. Even the gradual recovery we expect will be vulnerable to shocks, especially from the financial sector. As I said, financial conditions are better, but not back to normal. And the likelihood of continuing losses by financial institutions will add new fuel to the credit crunch. In particular, small and medium-size banks could experience damaging losses on commercial real estate loans. Thus far, the largest losses have been on loans for construction and land development. Going forward, however, rising loan losses on other commercial real estate lending is likely because property values are falling, office vacancy rates are rising, and credit remains tight or nonexistent for those many property owners that will need to refinance mortgages over the next few years. Financial contagion from this sector is one of the most important threats to recovery.

The slow recovery I expect means that it could still take several years to return to full employment. The same is true for capacity utilization in manufacturing. It will take a long time before these human and capital resources are put to full use.

by Calculated Risk on 9/14/2009 08:44:00 AM

Fed Governor Elizabeth Duke presented some thoughts today on possible accounting changes: Regulatory Perspectives on the Changing Accounting Landscape

... I feel it is crucial that an accounting regime directly link reported financial condition and performance with the business model and economic purpose of the firm. It is difficult for me to comprehend the value of an accounting regime that doesn't make that link.

As a regulator, I focus on the viability of individual financial institutions and the financial system as a whole. To be frank, it has been frustrating to try to assess that viability when the value of an asset is based on the nature of its acquisition rather than the way in which it is managed or the way in which its economic value is likely to be realized.
...
If the business model is predicated on the trading of financial instruments for the realization of value, or other strategies that essentially focus on short-term price movements, then fair value has relevance. In the trading business model, reporting fair value focuses risk management on short-term price movements and in most cases incentivizes management to define the organization's risk appetite and to mitigate risk through hedging or other means. Fair value also incentivizes the entity to raise and maintain capital at a level sufficient to cover the price volatility of its assets. For example, if the business model is an originate-to-distribute model, then fair value has relevance.

In contrast, if the business model is predicated on the realization of value through the return of principal and yield over the life of the financial instrument, then fair value is less relevant. Consider, for example, a bank that finances the operations of a commercial enterprise. The realization of value will come from the repayment of cash flows. Risk management is based on an assessment of the borrower's creditworthiness and the entity's ability to fund the loan to maturity. In this case, the accounting should incentivize the entity to maintain sufficient funding to hold the instrument to maturity and to hold a sufficient amount of capital to cover potential credit losses through the credit cycle, preferably in a designated reserve. Indeed, the use of fair value could create disincentives for lending to smaller businesses whose credit characteristics are not easily evaluated by the marketplace.

Admittedly, some have used the business model argument to manipulate accounting results. But the actions of those entities do not diminish the relevance of the business model to the measurement principle. Indeed, over time if the valuation model is not relevant to the business model, the business model itself is likely to change. Rather, the lesson to be learned from such manipulation is that we--preparers, users and auditors of financial statements--need to be vigilant in evaluating actual business practice, and restrict the use of particular measurement principles to the relevant business models.

To this end, safeguards should be implemented to eliminate a firm's ability to overstate gains or understate losses by switching back and forth between business models or by reclassifying assets from one business segment to another. For example, from a regulatory perspective, assets in a financial institution's liquidity reserve, by their nature, imply utility through sale and, therefore, should be valued at market price.

Take a mortgage loan. If the business model is to hold the loan to maturity, Duke believes the loan should be valued based on future cash flow (considering the creditworthiness and capacity of the borrower). However if the business model is based on trading mortgage loans, then she believes the loan should be valued based on fair market prices.

Duke goes on an discusses the Stress Test accounting and current FASB and IASB discussions.

by Calculated Risk on 9/10/2009 06:36:00 PM

This speech is a review of an academic paper (and a bit wonkish) ... here are some excerpts on two key topics: 1) how well the Fed followed the precepts of Walter Bagehot, and 2) if the Fed should target a higher inflation rate in a liquidity trap.

From Federal Reserve Vice Chairman Donald Kohn: Comments on "Interpreting the Unconventional U.S. Monetary Policy of 2007-2009"

... In designing our liquidity facilities we were guided by the time-tested precepts derived from the work of Walter Bagehot. Those precepts hold that central banks can and should ameliorate financial crises by providing ample credit to a wide set of borrowers, as long as the borrowers are solvent, the loans are provided against good collateral, and a penalty rate is charged.
..
The liquidity measures we took during the financial crisis, although unprecedented in their details, were generally consistent with Bagehot's principles and aimed at short-circuiting these feedback loops. The Federal Reserve lends only against collateral that meets specific quality requirements, and it applies haircuts where appropriate. Beyond the collateral, in many cases we also have recourse to the borrowing institution for repayment. In the case of the TALF, we are backstopped by the Treasury. In addition, the terms and conditions of most of our facilities are designed to be unattractive under normal market conditions, thus preserving borrowers' incentives to obtain funds in the market when markets are operating normally. Apart from a very small number of exceptions involving systemically important institutions, such features have limited the extent to which the Federal Reserve has taken on credit risk, and the overall credit risk involved in our lending during the crisis has been small.

In Ricardo's view, if the collateral had really been good, private institutions would have lent against it. However, as has been recognized since Bagehot, private lenders, acting to protect themselves, typically severely curtail lending during a financial crisis, irrespective of the quality of the available collateral. The central bank--because it is not liquidity constrained and has the infrastructure in place to make loans against a variety of collateral--is well positioned to make those loans in the interest of financial stability, and can make them without taking on significant credit risk, as long as its lending is secured by sound collateral. A key function of the central bank is to lend in such circumstances to contain the crisis and mitigate its effects on the economy.
emphasis added

Clearly the Fed believes - except in a few special circumstances - that they did not take on significant credit risk.

And on monetary policy in a liquidity trap:

Ricardo notes that the theoretical literature on monetary policy in a liquidity trap commonly prescribes targeting higher-than-normal inflation rates even beyond the point of economic recovery, so that real interest rates decline by more and thus provide greater stimulus for the economy. The arguments in favor of such a policy hinge on a clear understanding on the part of the public that the central bank will tolerate increased inflation only temporarily--say, for a few years once the economy has recovered--before returning to the original inflation target in the long term. Notably, although many central banks have put their policy rates near zero, none have adopted this prescription. In the theoretical environment considered by the paper, long-run inflation expectations are perfectly anchored. In reality, however, the anchoring of inflation expectations has been a hard-won achievement of monetary policy over the past few decades, and we should not take this stability for granted. Models are by their nature only a stylized representation of reality, and a policy of achieving "temporarily" higher inflation over the medium term would run the risk of altering inflation expectations beyond the horizon that is desirable. Were that to happen, the costs of bringing expectations back to their current anchored state might be quite high. But while the Federal Reserve has not attempted to raise medium-term inflation expectations as prescribed by the theories discussed in the paper, it has taken numerous steps to lower real interest rates for private borrowers and keep inflation expectations from slipping to undesirably low levels in order to prevent unwanted disinflation. These steps include the credit policies I discussed earlier, the provision of forward guidance that the level of short-term interest rates is expected to remain quite low "for an extended period" conditional on the outlook for the economy and inflation, and the publication of the longer-run inflation objectives of FOMC members.

There are both interesting topics. If the collateral is mostly solid (or the haircuts appropriate), then the Fed will be in decent shape when they start to unwind current policy positions. However Reis (no link) apparently argues that the Fed will suffer significant losses, and the borrowing from the Treasury will make the Fed's monetary policy less independent.

by Calculated Risk on 8/26/2009 12:35:00 PM

From Atlanta Fed President Dennis Lockhart: The U.S. Economy and the Employment Challenge

On the economic outlook:

With respect to growth, my forecast envisions a return to positive but subdued gross domestic product (GDP) growth over the medium term weighed down by significant adjustments to our economy. Some of these adjustments are transitional in the sense that they impede the usual forces of recovery. Among these are the rewiring of the financial sector and the need for households to save more to repair their balance sheets.

Some of these adjustments, however, are more "structural" in nature. By this, I mean that the economy that emerges from this recession may not fully resemble the prerecession economy. In my view, it is unlikely that we will see a return of jobs lost in certain sectors, such as manufacturing. In a similar vein, the recession has been so deep in construction that a reallocation of workers is likely to happen—even if not permanent. ...

My forecast for a slow recovery implies a protracted period of high unemployment. And labor market weakness is a concern I hear about often as I travel around the Southeast.

And on Commercial real estate:

I'm concerned that commercial real estate weakness poses a serious potential risk to the economic recovery and to the banking system. Commercial real estate loan exposure is heavily concentrated in banks and commercial mortgage-backed securities. Commercial real estate values—that is, collateral values for loans—are being revised down materially by the potent combination of increased vacancy, rent reductions, and appropriately higher capitalization rates. Further, there is a clear link between employment trends (positive and negative) and commercial real estate trends.

On that note, here is a graph from a post in July:

Click on graph for larger image in new window.

This graph shows the office vacancy rate vs. the quarterly unemployment rate and recessions.

As Lockhart noted: "[T]here is a clear link between employment trends (positive and negative) and commercial real estate trends."

As the unemployment rate continues to rise over the next year, the office vacancy rate will probably rise too. Reis' forecast is for the office vacancy rate to peak at 18.2 percent in 2010, and for rents to continue to decline through 2011.

by Calculated Risk on 7/29/2009 12:12:00 PM

From NY Fed President William Dudley: The Economic Outlook and the Fed's Balance Sheet: The Issue of "How" versus "When"

Dudley discussed his economic outlook, and how the Fed will exit from the current policy stance. Dudley doesn't think the Fed's policy stance will change any time soon.

Here are some excerpt on his economic outlook:

[T]he economic contraction appears to be waning and it seems likely that we will see moderate growth in the second half of the year. The economy should be boosted by three factors: 1) a modest recovery in housing activity and motor vehicle sales; 2) the impact of the fiscal stimulus on domestic demand; and 3) a sharp swing in the pace of inventory investment. In fact, if the inventory swing were concentrated in a particular quarter, we could see fairly rapid growth for a brief period.

Regardless of the precise timing, there are a number of factors which suggest that the pace of recovery will be considerably slower than usual. In particular, I expect that consumption—which accounts for about 70 percent of gross domestic product—is likely to grow slowly for three reasons. First, real income growth will probably be weak by historical standards. There were a number of special factors that boosted real income in the first half of the year, helping to offset a sharp drop in hours worked and very sluggish hourly wage gains. These factors included the sharp drop in gasoline and natural gas prices; the large cost-of-living-allowance increase for Social Security recipients reflecting last year’s high headline inflation; a sharp drop in final tax settlements; a reduction in withholding tax rates; and a one-time payment to Social Security recipients. These factors provided a transitory boost to real incomes, which will be absent during the second half of the year. As a result, real disposable income is likely to decline modestly over this period.

Second, households are still adjusting to the sharp drop in net worth caused by the persistent decline in home prices and last year’s fall in equity prices. This suggests that the desired saving rate will not decline sharply. That means consumer spending is unlikely to rise much faster than income. In other words, weak income growth will be an effective constraint on the pace of consumer spending.

Moreover, some sectors such as business fixed investment in structures are likely to continue to weaken as existing projects are completed. In an environment in which vacancy rates are high and climbing, prices are falling, and credit for new projects is virtually nonexistent, this sector is likely to be a significant drag on the economy over the next year.

Perhaps most important, the normal cyclical dynamic in which housing, consumer durable goods purchases and investment spending rebound in response to monetary easing is unlikely to be as powerful in this episode as during a typical economic recovery. The financial system is still in the middle of a prolonged adjustment process. Banks and other financial institutions are working their way through large credit losses and the securitization markets are recovering only slowly. This means that credit availability will be constrained for some time to come and this will serve to limit the pace of recovery.

If the recovery does, in fact, turn out to be lackluster, the unemployment rate is likely to remain elevated and capacity utilization rates unusually low for some time to come. This suggests that inflation will be quiescent. For all these reasons, concern about “when” the Fed will exit from its current accommodative monetary policy stance is, in my view, very premature.
emphasis added

The rest of the speech is on the "how" of unwinding current policy and is worth reading.

Note: Usually the NY Fed president is one of the most powerful Fed voices and has a permanent seat on the FOMC (the other Fed presidents serve on a rotating basis).

by Calculated Risk on 7/28/2009 12:36:00 PM

From San Francisco Fed President Janet Yellen: Outlook for the U.S. Economy and Community Banks. A few excerpts:

[T]he normal dynamics of the business cycle are turning more favorable. Some sectors are poised to rebound simply because they have sunk so low. For example, the auto industry has cut production so far that inventories have begun to shrink, even in the face of historically weak demand. Just slowing the pace of inventory liquidation will bolster economic activity. This story holds for many sectors of the economy where spikes in inventories occurred as cautious consumers cut back on purchases of durable goods, and businesses slashed spending on equipment and software. Looking forward, the demand for houses and durables should also eventually revive as old and broken-down goods need to be replaced. The resulting demand will help the economy recover.

But that recovery is likely to be painfully slow. History teaches that it often takes a long while to recover from downturns caused by financial crises. Financial institutions and markets won’t heal overnight. And it will take quite some time before households have repaired their tattered finances. Until recently, households were saving less and borrowing more in response to wealth gains in both stocks and housing. This pattern made their balance sheets vulnerable to adverse developments and the crashes in both house and stock prices during the last two years destroyed trillions of dollars of their wealth. Not surprisingly, the personal saving rate has now shot higher and I expect to see subdued consumer spending for some time. The unprecedented global nature of the recession also will act as a drag. Countries recovering from financial crises often receive a boost from foreign demand, but neither the United States nor its trading partners can count on such external stimulus this time.

A gradual recovery means that things won’t feel very good for some time to come. The unemployment rate currently is 9½ percent, and this figure is likely to rise further. Moreover, even after the economy begins to grow, it could still take several years to return to full employment. The same is true for capacity utilization in manufacturing, which has declined so far that it has fallen “off the charts”—now standing at its lowest level in the postwar period.

Finally, even though downside risks to the outlook have diminished, there remains some chance that economic conditions could turn out worse than what I’ve sketched. High on my worry list is the possibility of another shock to the still-fragile financial system. Commercial real estate is a particular danger zone...

And on community banks:

Now let me turn to the business environment facing banks. The industry is going through one of the most difficult periods in modern times. ... Bank profits are down, loan delinquencies are up, and failures are climbing.

... Recessionary effects normally take some time to work their way through loan portfolios. So, even though I expect economic growth to resume in the second half of this year, banking conditions are likely to remain quite weak for another year or two.

To date, the community banks under greatest financial stress are those with high real estate concentrations in construction and land development lending. Banks that liberally funded speculative housing and condominium construction, and those that funded land acquisition and development, have been hardest hit. Over 20 District financial institutions have failed since last year. The vast majority of them had high concentrations in residential construction and development lending. In fact, these banks had construction loans that averaged about 40 percent of their loan portfolio, well above the District average of 16 percent. Unfortunately, some banks that aggressively pursued these loans had weak appraisal and risk-monitoring systems.

The next area of significant vulnerability for the banking system, particularly for community and regional banks with real estate concentrations, is income-producing office, warehouse, and retail commercial property. Market fundamentals in most western states are deteriorating. Vacancy rates are rising and rent pressures are hurting property cash flows. Office vacancy rates in both Boise and Portland are expected to reach or exceed 20 percent over the next year or two, the highest rates these cities have seen in many years. Retail shopping centers are struggling with falling occupancy rates and pressures to grant rent concessions. Property values are falling sharply across wide areas of the country, including the Pacific Northwest. Some analysts forecast that commercial property values could experience falls similar to housing of 30 to 40 percent.
...
Our biggest concern now is with maturing loans on depreciated commercial properties. In many cases, borrowers seeking to refinance will be expected to provide additional equity and to have underwriting and pricing adjusted to reflect current market conditions. In some cases, borrowers won’t have the resources to refinance loans.

by Calculated Risk on 7/20/2009 01:32:00 PM

From Atlanta Fed President Dennis Lockhart: On the Economic Outlook and the Commitment to Price Stability . Here is Lockhart's economic outlook:

Often a deep recession is followed by a sharp rebound in business and overall economic activity. Unfortunately, as I look ahead, I do not foresee this trajectory. I expect real growth to resume in the second half and progress at a modest pace. I do not see a strong recovery in the medium term.

There are risks to even this rather subdued forecast. The risk I'm watching most closely is commercial real estate. There is a heavy schedule of commercial real estate financings coming due in 2009, 2010, and 2011. The CMBS (commercial real estate mortgage-backed securities) market is very weak, and banks generally have no appetite to roll over loans on properties that have lost value in the recession. Refinancing problems will not directly affect GDP—it's commercial construction that factors into GDP—but I'm concerned problems in commercial real estate finance could adversely affect the otherwise improving banking and insurance sectors.

... the healing of the banking system will take time. Working off excess housing inventory will take time. The reallocation of labor to productive and growing sectors of the economy will take time. It will take time to complete the deleveraging of American households and the restoration of consumer balance sheets.

In short, I believe the economy must undergo significant structural adjustments. We're coming out of a severe recession, and it's not too much an exaggeration to say the economy is undergoing a makeover. We must build a more solid foundation for our economy than consumer spending fueled by excessive credit—excessive household leverage—built on a house price bubble.

The surviving financial system must find a new posture of risk taking. The balance of consumption and investment must adjust, with investment being financed by greater domestic saving. The distribution of employment must adjust to match worker skills, including newly acquired skills, with jobs in growth markets. Some industrial plant and equipment must be taken offline to remove excess and higher-cost capacity.

As I said, these adjustments will take time and will suppress growth prospects in the process. I believe the economy will underperform its long-term potential for a while because of the obstacles to growth that must be removed, adjustments it must undergo.
...
Let me summarize my argument here today. The economy is stabilizing and recovery will begin in the second half. The recovery will be weak compared with historic recoveries from recession. The recovery will be weak because the economy must make structural adjustments before the healthiest possible rate of growth can be achieved. While this adjustment process is going on in the medium term, I believe inflation and deflation are roughly equal risks and require careful monitoring. Slack in the economy will suppress inflation. And inflation is unlikely to result—by direct causation—from the recent growth of the Fed's balance sheet. In any event, the Fed has a number of tools being readied to unwind the policies used to fight the recession, and it will be some time before their use is appropriate.
emphasis added

by Calculated Risk on 7/08/2009 12:55:00 PM

Update: Bob_in_MA points to Evans' forecast in Oct 2007: recovery in 2008 and concerned about inflation.

From Chicago Fed President Charles Evans: Nontraditional Monetary Policy and the Economic Outlook

Here is an excerpt of the economic outlook:

... there have been some favorable developments of late, and the possibility that the economy is closer to a turning point is stronger now than just three months ago. Although the data have been uneven, our reading of the recent indicators is that the pace of contraction is slowing and that activity is bottoming out. We expect modest increases in output in the second half of this year followed by somewhat stronger growth in 2010.

So what are these signs of improvement that underlie this forecast? First, financial market conditions have improved, with credit spreads and other measures of market stress much lower than they were in late 2008 and early 2009.

Consumer spending, which had dropped sharply since the second half of last year, has been roughly flat so far in 2009. Housing markets, after more than three years of decline, have also shown some signs of stabilizing. Sales of both new and existing homes have appeared to flatten out in recent months, though both remain at very low levels. Meanwhile, homebuilders have reduced their backlog of unsold new homes—a precondition for any recovery in homebuilding. But the backlog of unsold existing homes remains high, and delinquency and foreclosure rates continue to be a substantial risk to the housing market recovery.

Labor markets remain weak, but there has been a (somewhat uneven) decline in the pace of job losses. The May and June average of monthly declines in employment was about half the rate of contraction as the beginning of this year, and newly filed jobless claims seem to have peaked in late March. However, firms are still reluctant to hire, and the unemployment rate reached 9-1/2 percent in June and will likely further increase through the remainder of the year before it flattens out in 2010.

The industrial side of the economy has been especially hard hit this year, but there are signs that the worst of the decline in the sector is in the past. Business fixed investment remains weak, but the decline is getting shallower. Steep inventory liquidations made significant negative contributions to output growth in late 2008 and early 2009. But this means that inventories are in better alignment with sales, so we expect to see less dramatic liquidation in the months ahead. In turn, the smaller declines translate into a net positive for GDP growth. Finally, in the coming months, the fiscal stimulus will continue to have positive influences on the economy.
emphasis added

I'm not sure why some people keep repeating that existing home sales are at "very low levels". Actually existing home sales are at normal levels, although there is a very high level of distressed sales.

Once again Evans discussed unwinding the Fed's balance sheet and he is somewhat concerned about inflation (Evans is a voting member of the FOMC):

Currently, core inflation is near 2 percent, a level I generally find acceptable. In the near term, I think the downward forces on inflation will be greater than the upward forces, and we could see some declines in core inflation. But over the medium term I see the risks to the inflation forecast as being more balanced.

by Calculated Risk on 6/30/2009 09:05:00 PM

San Francisco Fed President Janet Yellen has been rumored to be one of the front runners to replace Chairman Ben Bernanke (although most consider Larry Summers the front runner, assuming Bernanke isn't reappointed).

Tonight Dr. Yellen spoke in San Francisco: A View of the Economic Crisis and the Federal Reserve’s Response. Here are some excerpts on her views going forward:

I expect the recession will end sometime later this year. That would make it the longest and probably deepest downturn since the Great Depression. ...

I don’t like taking the wind out of the sails of our economic expansion, but a few cautionary points should be considered. I expect the pace of the recovery will be frustratingly slow. It’s often the case that growth in the first year after a recession is very rapid. That’s what happened as we came out of a very deep downturn in the early 1980s. Although I sincerely wish we would repeat that performance, I don’t think we will. In past deep recessions, the Fed was able to step on the accelerator by cutting the federal funds rate sharply, causing the economy to shoot ahead. This time, we already have our foot planted firmly on the floor. We can’t take the federal funds rate any lower than zero. I believe that the Fed’s novel programs are stimulating the flow of credit, but they simply aren’t as powerful levers as large rate cuts, so this time monetary policy alone can’t power a rapid recovery.

History also teaches us that it often takes a long time to recover from downturns caused by financial crises. In particular, financial institutions and markets won’t heal overnight. Our major banks have made excellent progress in establishing the capital buffers needed to continue lending even through a downturn that is more serious than we anticipate. But they are still nursing their wounds and credit will remain tight for some time to come.

I also think that a massive shift in consumer behavior is under way—one that will produce great benefits in the long run but slow our recovery in the short term. American households entered this recession stretched to the limit with mortgage and other debt. The personal saving rate fell from around 8 percent of disposable income two decades ago to almost zero. Households financed their lifestyles by drawing on increasing stock market and housing wealth, and taking on higher levels of debt. But falling house and stock prices have destroyed trillions of dollars in wealth, cutting off those ready sources of cash. What’s more, the stark realities of this recession have scared many households straight, convincing them that they need to save larger fractions of their incomes. In the long run, higher saving promises to channel resources from consumption to investment, making capital more readily available to retool industry and fix our infrastructure. But, in the here and now, such a rediscovery of thrift means fewer sales at the mall, and fewer jobs on assembly lines and store counters.

A fourth factor that could slow recovery is the unprecedented global nature of the recession. Neither we nor our trading partners can count on a boost from strong foreign demand. Finally, developments in the labor market suggest it could take several years to return to full employment. During this recession, an unusually high proportion of layoffs have been permanent as opposed to temporary, meaning workers won’t get called back when conditions improve. Also, we’ve seen an unprecedented level of involuntary part-time work, such as state workers on furlough a few days per month. Those workers are likely to return to full-time status before new workers are hired. To summarize, I expect that we will turn the growth corner sometime later this year, but I am not optimistic that the economy will spring back to normal anytime soon. What’s more, I expect the unemployment rate to remain painfully high for several more years.

That’s a dreary prediction, but there is also some risk that things could turn out worse. High on my worry list is the possibility of another shock to the still-fragile financial system. Commercial real estate is a particular danger zone. Property prices are falling and vacancy rates are rising in many parts of the country. Given the weak economy, prices could fall more rapidly and developers could face tough times rolling over their loans. Many banks are heavily exposed to commercial real estate loans. An increase in defaults could add to their financial stress, prompting them to tighten credit. The Fed and Treasury are providing loans to investors in securitized commercial mortgages, which should be a big help. But a risk remains of a severe shakeout in this sector.
emphasis added

Yellen also discusses Fed policy, the Fed balance sheet, the fiscal deficit and inflation: "I think the predominant risk is that inflation will be too low, not too high, over the next several years."

by Calculated Risk on 6/03/2009 02:40:00 PM

From Kansas Fed President Thomas Hoenig: An Economy at Risk: Tough Decisions Ahead. A few excerpts:

"While I am convinced the economic recovery we all want will develop, it will be slower and more fragile than we hope for."
...
"I would direct you to an article by Martin Barnes, the managing editor of Bank Credit Analyst, published in May. In estimating the effect on consumption growth if the annual savings rate steadily increased from zero to 8 percent between now and the end of 2013, the article suggests that consumer spending would grow at an average rate of only 1.3 percent per year. This would be a significant reduction of consumption growth, the slowest since the 1930s."
...
"The markets won't be fooled by artificially low rates for long. Market participants realize that a period of high deficits and accommodative monetary policy are an invitation to increased inflationary pressure. I suspect we are experiencing the first signs of the markets' concerns in the rising rates and increased volatility in longer-term Treasury markets. I suggest strongly that we need to be alert to the markets' message and begin in earnest to bring monetary policy into better balance before inflation forces our hand."

It is interesting that Hoenig believes growth will be sluggish for some time, and he is still advocating raising rates. This will not happen any time soon.

by Calculated Risk on 6/03/2009 09:53:00 AM

Prepared testimony will follow below the video links ...

Here is the CNBC feed.

And a live feed from C-SPAN.

Prepared Testimony: Current economic and financial conditions and the federal budget

The U.S. economy has contracted sharply since last fall, with real gross domestic product (GDP) having dropped at an average annual rate of about 6 percent during the fourth quarter of 2008 and the first quarter of this year. Among the enormous costs of the downturn is the loss of nearly 6 million jobs since the beginning of 2008. The most recent information on the labor market--the number of new and continuing claims for unemployment insurance through late May--suggests that sizable job losses and further increases in unemployment are likely over the next few months.

However, the recent data also suggest that the pace of economic contraction may be slowing. Notably, consumer spending, which dropped sharply in the second half of last year, has been roughly flat since the turn of the year, and consumer sentiment has improved. In coming months, households' spending power will be boosted by the fiscal stimulus program. Nonetheless, a number of factors are likely to continue to weigh on consumer spending, among them the weak labor market, the declines in equity and housing wealth that households have experienced over the past two years, and still-tight credit conditions.

Activity in the housing market, after a long period of decline, has also shown some signs of bottoming. Sales of existing homes have been fairly stable since late last year, and sales of new homes seem to have flattened out in the past couple of monthly readings, though both remain at depressed levels. Meanwhile, construction of new homes has been sufficiently restrained to allow the backlog of unsold new homes to decline--a precondition for any recovery in homebuilding.

Businesses remain very cautious and continue to reduce their workforces and capital investments. On a more positive note, firms are making progress in shedding the unwanted inventories that they accumulated following last fall's sharp downturn in sales. The Commerce Department estimates that the pace of inventory liquidation quickened in the first quarter, accounting for a sizable portion of the reported decline in real GDP in that period. As inventory stocks move into better alignment with sales, firms should become more willing to increase production.

We continue to expect overall economic activity to bottom out, and then to turn up later this year. Our assessments that consumer spending and housing demand will stabilize and that the pace of inventory liquidation will slow are key building blocks of that forecast.
...
Even after a recovery gets under way, the rate of growth of real economic activity is likely to remain below its longer-run potential for a while, implying that the current slack in resource utilization will increase further. We expect that the recovery will only gradually gain momentum and that economic slack will diminish slowly. In particular, businesses are likely to be cautious about hiring, and the unemployment rate is likely to rise for a time, even after economic growth resumes.

by Calculated Risk on 5/23/2009 07:30:00 PM

From Federal Reserve Vice Chairman Donald Kohn: Interactions between Monetary and Fiscal Policy in the Current Situation

A few excerpts:

[I]n the current weak economic environment, a fiscal expansion may be much more effective in providing a sustained boost to economic activity. With traditional monetary policy currently constrained from further reductions in the target policy rate, and with many analysts forecasting lower-than-desired inflation and a persistent, large output gap, agents may anticipate that the target federal funds rate will remain near zero for an extended period. In this situation, fiscal stimulus could lead to a considerably smaller increase in long-term interest rates and the foreign exchange value of the dollar, and to smaller decreases in asset prices, than under more normal circumstances. Indeed, if market participants anticipate the expansionary fiscal policy to be relatively temporary, and the period of weak economic activity and constrained traditional monetary policy to be relatively extended, they may not expect any increase in short-term interest rates for quite some time, thus damping any rise in long-term interest rates.
emphasis added

And on the transition back to normal monetary policy:

An important issue with our nontraditional policies is the transition back to a more normal stance and operations of monetary policy as financial conditions improve and economic activity picks up enough to increase resource utilization. These actions will be critical to ensuring price stability as the real economy returns to normal. The decision about the timing of a turnaround in policy will be similar to that faced by the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) in every cyclical downturn--it has to choose when, and how quickly, to start raising the federal funds rate. In the current circumstances, the difference will be that we will have to start this process with an unusually large and more extended balance sheet.

In my view, the economy is only now beginning to show signs that it might be stabilizing, and the upturn, when it begins, is likely to be gradual amid the balance sheet repair of financial intermediaries and households. As a consequence, it probably will be some time before the FOMC will need to begin to raise its target for the federal funds rate. Nonetheless, to ensure confidence in our ability to sustain price stability, we need to have a framework for managing our balance sheet when it is time to move to contain inflation pressures.

Our expanded liquidity facilities have been explicitly designed to wind down as conditions in financial markets return to normal, because the costs of using these facilities are set higher than would typically prevail in private markets during more usual times.

Kohn argues:

Economy "only now beginning" to stabilize.

Kohn thinks the recovery will "be gradual amid the balance sheet repair of financial intermediaries and households".

Fed Funds rate will probably be zero for "some time".

The large output gap will keep long term interest rates and inflation in check.

by Calculated Risk on 5/07/2009 09:36:00 AM

There is no question that the Fed failed to adequately perform their regulatory responsibilities during the housing and credit bubble. However part of the problem was supervisory responsibility were split between various state and Federal regulators. As Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke notes in this speech, under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, the Fed "serves as consolidated supervisor of all bank holding companies, including financial holding companies." Although the Fed missed significant problems at these holding companies, many of the problems were at mortgage brokers, and commercial banks that were not regulated by the Fed.

The regulators that I spoke with in 2005, at various agencies, were all concerned about the impact of the housing bubble and lax lending standards. But it was difficult to get the various regulators to coordinate. And several people told me confidentially that the Fed and the OTS were blocking efforts to tighten lending standards. So more consolidated supervision is required - but part of the problem during the bubble was that a few key individuals were able to block the efforts of other regulators.

So I think a framework to identify systemic problems would be an important addition.

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke offers some suggestions: Lessons of the Financial Crisis for Banking Supervision

Looking forward, I believe a more macroprudential approach to supervision--one that supplements the supervision of individual institutions to address risks to the financial system as a whole--could help to enhance overall financial stability. Our regulatory system must include the capacity to monitor, assess, and, if necessary, address potential systemic risks within the financial system. Elements of a macroprudential agenda include

monitoring large or rapidly increasing exposures--such as to subprime mortgages--across firms and markets, rather than only at the level of individual firms or sectors;

assessing the potential systemic risks implied by evolving risk-management practices, broad-based increases in financial leverage, or changes in financial markets or products;

analyzing possible spillovers between financial firms or between firms and markets, such as the mutual exposures of highly interconnected firms;

ensuring that each systemically important firm receives oversight commensurate with the risks that its failure would pose to the financial system;

providing a resolution mechanism to safely wind down failing, systemically important institutions;

ensuring that the critical financial infrastructure, including the institutions that support trading, payments, clearing, and settlement, is robust;

working to mitigate procyclical features of capital regulation and other rules and standards; and

identifying possible regulatory gaps, including gaps in the protection of consumers and investors, that pose risks for the system as a whole.

Precisely how best to implement a macroprudential agenda remains open to debate. Some of these critical functions could be incorporated into the practices of existing regulators, or a subset of them might be assigned to a macroprudential supervisory authority. However we proceed, a principal lesson of the crisis is that an approach to supervision that focuses narrowly on individual institutions can miss broader problems that are building up in the system.

by Calculated Risk on 5/04/2009 11:51:00 AM

Dr. Thomas Hoenig, President of Federal Reserve of Kansas City speaks today in New York at Demos: A Better Way To Restore The Banking System

Yesterday Hoenig wrote in the Financial Times: Troubled banks must be allowed a way to fail. Excerpts below the video.

Here is a live webcast of Hoenig's speech (starts at 12:30PM ET):

Excerpts from Hoenig's opinion piece:

... I believe there is an alternative method for addressing this crisis that deals more effectively with the issues we currently face while also considering the long-run consequences of those actions: the implementation of a systematic plan to resolve large, problem financial institutions.

... Boiled down to its simplest elements, the plan would require those firms seeking government assistance to make the taxpayer senior to all shareholders, with the government determining the circumstances for managers and directors. ...

Non-viable institutions would be allowed to fail and be placed into a negotiated conservatorship or a bridge institution, with the bad assets liquidated while the remainder of the firm is operated under new management and re-privatised as soon as is feasible. This plan is similar to what was done in Sweden in the 1990s and in the US with the failure of Continental Illinois in the 1980s.

This plan has many advantages, including that management and shareholders bear the costs for their actions before taxpayer funds are committed. This process also is equitable across all firms; is similar to what is currently done with smaller banks; and provides a definitive process that should reduce market uncertainty. These are important reasons to implement this kind of resolution process.
....
Certainly, the approach I suggest for resolving these large firms also is not without substantial cost, but it looks to both the short and long run.

A systematic approach would reduce the uncertainty that has paralysed financial markets; the cost is more measurable and therefre manageable; and there will be fewer adverse consequences compared to the path we are on now.

Because we still have far to go in this crisis, there remains time to define a clear process for resolving large institutional failure. Without one, the consequences will involve a series of short-term events and far more uncertainty for the global economy in the long run.

While I agree that central banks must sometimes take actions affecting the short run, they must keep the long run in focus or risk failing their mission.

by Calculated Risk on 4/16/2009 08:06:00 PM

From San Francisco Fed President Janet Yellen: A Minsky Meltdown: Lessons for Central Bankers

... with the financial world in turmoil, Minsky’s work has become required reading. It is getting the recognition it richly deserves. The dramatic events of the past year and a half are a classic case of the kind of systemic breakdown that he—and relatively few others—envisioned.

Central to Minsky’s view of how financial meltdowns occur, of course, are “asset price bubbles.” This evening I will revisit the ongoing debate over whether central banks should act to counter such bubbles and discuss “lessons learned.” This issue seems especially compelling now that it’s evident that episodes of exuberance, like the ones that led to our bond and house price bubbles, can be time bombs that cause catastrophic damage to the economy when they explode.

Much of the speech is about Minsky, but here are some excerpts on bubbles and monetary policy:

[T]his evening I want to address another question that has been the subject of much debate for many years: Should central banks attempt to deflate asset price bubbles before they get big enough to cause big problems? Until recently, most central bankers would have said no. They would have argued that policy should focus solely on inflation, employment, and output goals—even in the midst of an apparent asset-price bubble. That was the view that prevailed during the tech stock bubble and I myself have supported this approach in the past. However, now that we face the tangible and tragic consequences of the bursting of the house price bubble, I think it is time to take another look.

Let me briefly review the arguments for and against policies aimed at counteracting bubbles. The conventional wisdom generally followed by the Fed and central banks in most inflation-targeting countries is that monetary policy should respond to an asset price only to the extent that it will affect the future path of output and inflation, which are the proper concerns of monetary policy. ... policy would not respond to the stock market boom itself, but only to the consequences of the boom on the macroeconomy.

However, other observers argue that monetary authorities must consider responding directly to an asset price bubble when one is detected. This is because—as we are witnessing—bursting bubbles can seriously harm economic performance, and monetary policy is hard-pressed to respond effectively after the fact. ...

What are the issues that separate the anti-bubble monetary policy activists from the skeptics? First, some of those who oppose such policy question whether bubbles even exist. ...

Second, even if bubbles do occur, it’s an open question whether policymakers can identify them in time to act effectively. Bubbles are not easy to detect because estimates of the underlying fundamentals are imprecise. ...

Now, even if we accept that we can identify bubbles as they happen, another question arises: Is the threat so serious that a monetary response is imperative? It would make sense for monetary policy makers to intervene only if the fallout were likely to be quite severe and difficult to deal with after the fact. ...

Still, just like infections, some bursting asset price bubbles are more virulent than others. The current recession is a case in point. As house prices have plunged, the turmoil has been transmitted to the economy much more quickly and violently than interest rate policy has been able to offset.

You’ll recognize right away that the assets at risk in the tech stock bubble were equities, while the volatile assets in the current crisis involve debt instruments held widely by global financial institutions. It may be that credit booms, such as the one that spurred house price and bond price increases, hold more dangerous systemic risks than other asset bubbles. By their nature, credit booms are especially prone to generating powerful adverse feedback loops between financial markets and real economic activity. It follows then, that if all asset bubbles are not created equal, policymakers could decide to intervene only in those cases that seem especially dangerous.

That brings up a fourth point: even if a dangerous asset price bubble is detected and action to rein it in is warranted, conventional monetary policy may not be the best approach. It’s true that moderate increases in the policy interest rate might constrain the bubble and reduce the risk of severe macroeconomic dislocation. In the current episode, higher short-term interest rates probably would have restrained the demand for housing by raising mortgage interest rates, and this might have slowed the pace of house price increases. In addition, as Hyun Song Shin and his coauthors have noted in important work related to Minsky’s, tighter monetary policy may be associated with reduced leverage and slower credit growth, especially in securitized markets. Thus, monetary policy that leans against bubble expansion may also enhance financial stability by slowing credit booms and lowering overall leverage.

Nonetheless, these linkages remain controversial and bubbles may not be predictably susceptible to interest rate policy actions. And there’s a question of collateral damage. Even if higher interest rates take some air out of a bubble, such a strategy may have an unacceptably depressing effect on the economy as a whole. There is also the harm that can result from “type 2 errors,” when policymakers respond to asset price developments that, with the benefit of hindsight, turn out not to have been bubbles at all. For both of these reasons, central bankers may be better off avoiding monetary strategies and instead relying on more targeted and lower-cost alternative approaches to manage bubbles, such as financial regulatory and supervisory tools. I will turn to that topic in just a minute.

In summary, when it comes to using monetary policy to deflate asset bubbles, we must acknowledge the difficulty of identifying bubbles, and uncertainties in the relationship between monetary policy and financial stability. At the same time though, policymakers often must act on the basis of incomplete knowledge. What has become patently obvious is that not dealing with certain kinds of bubbles before they get big can have grave consequences. This lends more weight to arguments in favor of attempting to mitigate bubbles, especially when a credit boom is the driving factor. I would not advocate making it a regular practice to use monetary policy to lean against asset price bubbles. However recent experience has made me more open to action. I can now imagine circumstances that would justify leaning against a bubble with tighter monetary policy. Clearly further research may help clarify these issues.

Another important tool for financial stability

Regardless of one’s views on using monetary policy to reduce bubbles, it seems plain that supervisory and regulatory policies could help prevent the kinds of problems we now face. Indeed, this was one of Minsky’s major prescriptions for mitigating financial instability. I am heartened that there is now widespread agreement among policymakers and in Congress on the need to overhaul our supervisory and regulatory system, and broad agreement on the basic elements of reform.
emphasis added

This is an interesting topic. I agree with Yellen's emphasis on regulation and oversight. I think it was easy to identify the surge in credit (especially home borrowing) and that lending standards had become very lax. That should have set off the alarm bells for regulators.