by Calculated Risk on 4/04/2009 08:52:00 AM

From the WaPo: Administration Seeks an Out On Bailout Rules for Firms

The Obama administration is engineering its new bailout initiatives in a way that it believes will allow firms benefiting from the programs to avoid restrictions imposed by Congress, including limits on lavish executive pay, according to government officials.

Administration officials have concluded that this approach is vital for persuading firms to participate in programs funded by the $700 billion financial rescue package.

The administration believes it can sidestep the rules because, in many cases, it has decided not to provide federal aid directly to financial companies, the sources said. Instead, the government has set up special entities that act as middlemen, channeling the bailout funds to the firms and, via this two-step process, stripping away the requirement that the restrictions be imposed ...

by Calculated Risk on 4/03/2009 11:04:00 PM

Note: We are testing a new comment system from Ken (CR Companion). You can try it here http://www.Hoocoodanode.org/welcome

Today was mostly about the (Un)Employment report. Here are three posts:

Employment Report: 663K Jobs Lost, 8.5% Unemployment Rate Includes a graph of unemployment rate and year-over-year employment.

Part Time for Economic Reasons Hits 9 Million

Employment: Comparing Recessions and Diffusion Index This has a comparison of job losses in the current recession with previous recessions.

Best to all.

by Calculated Risk on 4/03/2009 09:43:00 PM

It looks like the FDIC cancelled Friday ...

From Simon Johnson and James Kwak of Baseline Scenario writing in the WaPo: The Radicalization of Ben Bernanke

... Shortly after joining the Fed in 2002, Bernanke gave a speech describing how the Fed could prevent deflation, i.e., a general decline in prices. The key theme was that, in a pinch, the Fed could simply print more dollars -- for example, by buying long-term bonds on the market -- which reduces the value of each dollar in circulation and therefore raises the dollar price of goods and services. "Under a paper-money system," Bernanke explained, "a determined government can always generate higher spending and hence positive inflation." In a time of economic overconfidence, the discussion seemed largely academic. But it is now clear that Bernanke intends to follow through on it.

Tim Duy at Economist's View responds: Johnson and Kwak vs. Bernanke

The implicit assumption is that the Fed is expanding the money supply via a policy of quantitative easing with the explicit goal of raising inflation expectations. First off, as Bernanke said once again today, he does not describe policy as quantitative easing:

In pursuing our strategy, which I have called "credit easing," we have also taken care to design our programs so that they can be unwound as markets and the economy revive. In particular, these activities must not constrain the exercise of monetary policy as needed to meet our congressional mandate to foster maximum sustainable employment and stable prices.

Pay close attention to Bernanke's insistence that the Fed's liquidity programs are intended to be unwound. If policymakers truly intend a policy of quantitative easing to boost inflation expectations, these are exactly the wrong words to say. Any successful policy of quantitative easing would depend upon a credible commitment to a permanent increase in the money supply. Bernanke is making the opposite commitment - a commitment to contract the money supply in the future. Is this any way to boost inflation expectations? See also Paul Krugman:

In that case monetary policy can’t get you there: once the interest rate hits zero, people will just hoard any additional cash – we’re in the liquidity trap. The only way to make monetary policy effective once you’re in such a trap, at least in this framework, is to credibly commit to raising future as well as current money supplies.

If Bernanke really intends to raise inflation expectations, he is making an elementary error by reiterating his intention to shrink the Fed's balance sheet in the future. The current increase in money supply is thus transitory and should not affect future expectations of inflation. I can't see him making such an elementary error, which suggests that Bernanke's word should be taken at face value; he intends policy to be "credit easing," not the oft-cited "quantitative easing."

It would seem the bigger concern in the short term is deflation, and I've been assuming the Fed was trying to raise inflation expectations - and I've been calling the Fed's policy "quantitative easing".

Dr. Duy writes:

Bottom line: I reiterate my concerns that the media and market participants are using the term "quantitative easing" too loosely. I understand that this complaint falls on largely deaf ears. If Bernanke is using quantitative easing to boost inflation expectations, then I think we need to seriously address the likely ineffectiveness of any such policy when Fed officials repeatedly promise to shrink the balance sheet in the future.

Mark Thoma at Economist's View has more: Inflation and the Fed

This is, in essence, a question about whether inflation expectations are anchored or not, and that is also the key question is this discussion of the odds of deflation by John Williams of the SF Fed. He argues that the previous decades can be broken into a recent time period in which expectations appear to be well-anchored, the time period 1993 through 2008 is cited in the linked discussion, and a time period in the late 1960s and the 1970s when inflation expectations do not appear to be anchored (based upon Orphanides and Williams 2005). The paper also notes that recent surveys of professional forecasters are consistent with anchored expectations.

But past history shows us that expectations can move from one state to the other, from untethered to tethered, and there's no reason that cannot happen again, but in the other direction. So here I agree with Martin Wolf, it's dependent upon the credibility of policymakers. So long as people believe that the Fed is committed to preventing an outburst of inflation, and that they are capable of carrying through on that commitment, expectations will remain well-anchored. But if people believe that that Fed's hands are tied because of the harm reducing inflation would bring to the real economy, an out of control deficit, or due to political considerations that force them to accept inflation they could and would battle otherwise, then we have a different situation and long-run inflation expectations will change accordingly.

I recommend the paper Professor Thoma linked to: The Risk of Deflation by John C. Williams, San Francisco Fed Director of Research

The evidence indicates that a substantial increase in slack can lead to deflation, but the depth and duration of the deflation depends on how well anchored inflation expectations are. Two policy implications can be drawn from this and other research on deflation. First, a central bank should take appropriate actions to stem the emergence of substantial slack in the economy and thereby reduce the risk of deflation. Second, it should clearly communicate its commitment to low positive rates of inflation. An example of such communication is the Federal Open Market Committee's recently released long-run inflation forecasts. Such words, backed by appropriate actions, reinforce the anchoring of inflation expectations and reduce the chances of a deflationary spiral.

I need to think about this.

by Calculated Risk on 4/03/2009 06:54:00 PM

Ken (CR Companion) has developed a comment system tailored for the CR community.

The system has a dedicated server and is now available for beta testing.

The site is up and running and has been tested against IE 6, Firefox, Safari, and iPhone.

Ken wants to make it clear that we’re in test mode.

Here’s a welcome link to try out the comments (and a description from Ken): http://www.hoocoodanode.org/welcome.

Please feel free to go to the site, and provide Ken feedback.

If all goes well, and once any bugs get fixed, we will integrate the system in Calculated Risk - perhaps sometime next week.

A special thanks to Ken and everyone involved. CR

by Calculated Risk on 4/03/2009 05:20:00 PM

If you missed this, here is a story about the FDIC takeover of Bank of Clark County: Anatomy Of A Bank Takeover in January.

Here is the audio from NPR.

Click on graph for larger image in new window.

The first graph is from Doug Short of dshort.com (financial planner): "Four Bad Bears".

The rally has taken the S&P up almost 25% from the low - but the market is still off 46% from the high.

Note that the Great Depression crash is based on the DOW; the three others are for the S&P 500.

The second graph compares four significant bear markets: the Dow during the Great Depression, the NASDAQ, the Nikkei, and the current S&P 500.

See Doug's: "The Mega-Bear Quartet and L-Shaped Recoveries".

The second graph is Updated! about a week old<, but it still tells the tale.

Now back to waiting for the FDIC ...

by Calculated Risk on 4/03/2009 03:51:00 PM

UPDATE: From the WSJ: Banks Balk at Obama Demand to Cut Chrysler Debt

Banks that loaned Chrysler LLC $6.8 billion are resisting government pressure to swap $5 billion of that for stock to slash the car maker's debt, according to several people familiar with the matter ...

The lenders, which include J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and Morgan Stanley ... own the rights to take control of Chrysler plants and assets, which were pledged as collateral for the loans, if the company files for bankruptcy protection.

...the Obama administration is demanding that these lenders cut their debt by $5 billion of its face value, or about 75%, said people familiar with the talks.

The banks still holding Chrysler pier loans are facing even more write-downs. (Pier loans are bridge loans that couldn't be sold and have been stuck on the bank's balance sheet). This was obvious before the Cerberus deal even closed: Chrysler's Bankers: Long Walk, Short Pier?

I'm sure Goldman is happy to have sold some of their loans at 80 cents on the dollar in early 2008.

by Calculated Risk on 4/03/2009 12:37:00 PM

From the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision: OCC and OTS Release Mortgage Metrics Report for Fourth Quarter 2008

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision today jointly released their quarterly report on first lien mortgage performance for the fourth quarter of 2008. The report covers mortgages serviced by nine large banks and four thrifts, constituting approximately two-thirds of all outstanding mortgages in the United States.

The report showed that credit quality continued to decline in the fourth quarter of 2008. At the end of the year, just under 90 percent of mortgages were performing, compared with 93 percent at the end of September 2008. This decline in credit quality was evident in all loan risk categories, with subprime mortgages showing the highest level of serious delinquencies. However, the biggest percentage jump was in prime mortgages, the lowest loan risk category and one that accounts for nearly two-thirds of all mortgages serviced by the reporting institutions. At the end of the fourth quarter, 2.4 percent of prime mortgages were seriously delinquent, more than double the 1.1 percent recorded at the end of March 2008.
emphasis added

Much of the report focuses on modifications and recidivism (see Housing Wire). But this report also shows - for the first time - more seriously delinquent prime loans than subprime loans (by number, not percentage).

Click on graph for larger image.

Note: "Approximately 14 percent of loans in the data were not accompanied by credit scores and are classified as “other.” This group includes a mix of prime, Alt-A, and subprime. In large part, the loans were result of acquisitions of loan portfolios from third parties where borrower credit scores at the origination of the loans were not available."

This report covers about two-thirds of all mortgages. There are far more prime loans than subprime loans - and the percentage of delinquent prime loans is much lower than for subprime loans. However, there are now more prime loans than subprime loans seriously delinquent. And prime loans tend to be larger than subprime loans, so the losses from each prime loan will probably be higher.

We're all subprime now!

by Calculated Risk on 4/03/2009 12:08:00 PM

From Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke: The Federal Reserve's Balance Sheet. In this speech Bernanke discusses the recent Fed initiatives in terms of the impact on the balance sheet.

One key question is how all of this will be unwound. Here are some excerpts from Bernanke's speech:

In pursuing our strategy, which I have called "credit easing," we have also taken care to design our programs so that they can be unwound as markets and the economy revive. In particular, these activities must not constrain the exercise of monetary policy as needed to meet our congressional mandate to foster maximum sustainable employment and stable prices.
...
The large volume of reserve balances outstanding must be monitored carefully, as--if not carefully managed--they could complicate the Fed's task of raising short-term interest rates when the economy begins to recover or if inflation expectations were to begin to move higher. We have a number of tools we can use to reduce bank reserves or increase short-term interest rates when that becomes necessary. First, many of our lending programs extend credit primarily on a short-term basis and thus could be wound down relatively quickly. In addition, since the lending rates in these programs are typically set above the rates that prevail in normal market conditions, borrower demand for these facilities should wane as conditions improve. Second, the Federal Reserve can conduct reverse repurchase agreements against its long-term securities holdings to drain bank reserves or, if necessary, it could choose to sell some of its securities. Of course, for any given level of the federal funds rate, an unwinding of lending facilities or a sale of securities would constitute a de facto tightening of policy, and so would have to be carefully considered in that light by the FOMC. Third, some reserves can be soaked up by the Treasury's Supplementary Financing Program. Fourth, in October of last year, the Federal Reserve received long-sought authority to pay interest on the reserve balances of depository institutions. Raising the interest rate paid on reserves will encourage depository institutions to hold reserves with the Fed, rather than lending them into the federal funds market at a rate below the rate paid on reserves. Thus, the interest rate paid on reserves will tend to set a floor on the federal funds rate.

Not that we have to worry about unwinding any time soon.

by Calculated Risk on 4/03/2009 10:42:00 AM

The Financial Times reports: Bailed-out banks eye toxic asset buys (ht Scot)

US banks that have received government aid, including Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan Chase, are considering buying toxic assets to be sold by rivals under the Treasury’s $1,000bn (£680bn) plan to revive the financial system.

The plans proved controversial, with critics charging that the government’s public-private partnership - which provide generous loans to investors - are intended to help banks sell, rather than acquire, troubled securities and loans.
...
The government plan does not allow banks to buy their own assets, but there is no ban on the purchase of securities and loans sold by others.

“It’s an open programme designed to get markets going,” a Treasury official said. But he added: “It is between a bank and their supervisor whether they are healthy enough to acquire assets,” raising the possibility regulators may prevent weak banks from becoming buyers.

This is just a report, and it would appear to be inappropriate for any bank receiving TARP funds to buy "legacy assets" using the PPIP. My suggestion is to explicitly ban this activity to help build confidence in the PPIP.

by Calculated Risk on 4/03/2009 09:36:00 AM

Note: earlier Employment post: Employment Report: 663K Jobs Lost, 8.5% Unemployment Rate and Part Time for Economic Reasons Hits 9 Million

Click on graph for larger image in new window.

This graph shows the job losses from the start of the employment recession, in percentage terms (as opposed to the number of jobs lost).

For the current recession, employment peaked in December 2007, and this recession was a slow starter (in terms of job losses and declines in GDP).

However job losses have really picked up in recent months (red line cliff diving on the graph), and the current recession is now the worst recession in percentage terms since the 1950s - although not in terms of the unemployment rate.

In the early post-war recessions (1948, 1953, 1958), there were huge swings in manufacturing employment and that lead to larger percentage losses. For the current recession, the job losses are more widespread.

In March, job losses were large and widespread across the major industry sectors
BLS, March Employment Report

Here is a look at how "widespread" the job losses are using the employment diffusion index from the BLS.

The BLS diffusion index is a measure of how widespread changes in employment are. Some people think it measures the percent of industries increasing employment, but that isn't quite correct.

From the BLS handbook:

The diffusion indexes for private nonfarm payroll employment are based on estimates for 278 industries, while the manufacturing indexes are based on estimates for 84 industries. Each component series is assigned a value of 0, 50, or 100 percent, depending on whether its employment showed a decrease, no change, or an increase over a given period. The average (mean) value is then calculated, and this percent is the diffusion index number.

So it is possible for the diffusion index to increase (like manufacturing increased from 11.4 to 15.7) not because industries are hiring, but because fewer industries are losing jobs.

Think of this as a measure of how widespread the job losses are across industries. The further from 50 (above or below), the more widespread the job losses or gains reported by the BLS.

Before September, the all industries employment diffusion index was close to 40, suggesting that job losses were limited to a few industries. However starting in September the diffusion index plummeted. In December, the index hit 20.5, suggesting job losses were very widespread. The index has only recovered slightly since then (22 in March).

The manufacturing diffusion index has fallen even further, from 40 in May 2008 to just 6 in January 2009. The manufacturing index recovered slightly to 15.7 in March.