by Calculated Risk on 7/25/2009 09:11:00 AM

From Bloomberg: Taylor Says Fed Gets Rule Right, Goldman Doesn’t

Economists from Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Macroeconomic Advisers LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. and even the San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank argue the Taylor Rule, a pointer for finding the correct level for interest rates, suggests the Fed should be doing a lot more to stimulate the economy.

Taylor said his measure shows just the opposite: that Fed policy is appropriate, that central bankers are right to be considering how to withdraw their unprecedented monetary stimulus and that critics who say otherwise are misinterpreting his rule. The formula is designed to show the best rate for spurring growth without stoking inflation.

“They say they’re using the Taylor Rule, but they’re not,” Taylor, an economist at Stanford University in Stanford, California, said in an interview. “My rule does suggest a long time before we raise rates. But it also does suggest an earlier rate increase than you would think.”

And from Goldman's Hatzius (June 2nd, no link):

[S]everal highly respected voices have weighed in on this debate, with arguments that imply a smaller need for Fed balance sheet expansion than suggested by our calculations. The first challenge came from Professor John Taylor—father of the eponymous rule—at an Atlanta Fed conference (see “Systemic Risk and the Role of Government,” May 12, 2009). Taylor argued that his rule implies a fed funds rate of +0.5%. He specifically attacked a reported Fed staff estimate of an “optimal” Taylor rate of -5% as having "... both the sign and the decimal point wrong.”

What’s going on? The answer can be seen in a note published by Glenn Rudebusch of the San Francisco Fed [in May]; it justifies the Fed’s -5% figure and reads like a direct reaction to Taylor’s criticism, even though it does not reference his speech (see “The Fed’s Monetary Policy Response to the Current Crisis,” FRBSF Economic Letter 2009-17, May 22, 2009). The difference is fully explained by two choices. First, Taylor uses his “original” rule with an assumed (but not econometrically estimated) coefficient of 0.5 on both the output gap and the inflation gap, while the Fed uses an estimated rule with a bigger coefficient on the output gap. Second, Taylor uses current values for both gaps, while the Fed’s estimate of a -5% rate refers to a projection for the end of 2009, assuming a further rise in the output gap and a decline in core inflation.

Back in May, using then current data, Professor Taylor argued his rule implied a fed funds rate of plus 0.5 percent. Now Dr. Taylor argues current data suggest a rate of negative 0.955 percent.

Rudebusch uses a much larger coefficient for the output gap, and his method - with 9.5% unemployment - would suggest a -5.0% Fed Funds Rate currently. Since his method is also forward looking and assumes a higher unemployment rate later this year (very likely) Rudebusch approach suggests an even lower Fed Funds rate.

For the Fed Funds rate, with a zero bound, this debate doesn't matter right now - but it will matter in the future. But the debate does matter now for the Fed's other policies, as noted in the Bloomberg article:

Since the Fed can’t lower rates to less than zero, the Taylor rule means the central bank has to pump money into the economy through other methods, such as purchases of Treasuries, mortgage securities and agency bonds.

Taylor argues the Fed doesn't need to use these other methods - at least not much - Rudebusch would argue these other methods are needed.

Note: Here is a spreadsheet for Rudebusch's Taylor rule method.

by Calculated Risk on 7/25/2009 12:45:00 AM

From the LA Times: 'Cash for clunkers' rules are released, sparking a rush

The law creating the $1-billion program went into effect July 1, but many dealers were reluctant to participate until they got a look at the rules. The arrival of the 100-plus-page document Friday morning sparked a registration rush that overwhelmed the government's computers, resulting in waits of two hours or more, the National Automobile Dealers Assn. reported.

The program is also exciting a fair amount of interest among consumers. Online auto information provider Edmunds.com said its traffic has been at record levels in recent weeks. Part of that comes from what may be the beginnings of a rebound in car sales, but the clunkers program is helping.

The article mentions several rules to avoid fraud, and a requirement that the "clunker" be crushed. This should give a some boost to auto sales over the next few months.

by Calculated Risk on 7/24/2009 09:18:00 PM

It looks like seven was the winner barring a late seizure ... here are some comments from Buffett on CIT this morning:

by Calculated Risk on 7/24/2009 06:10:00 PM

Jones, Bibb, North Metro
Gwinnett, North Fulton, Houston,
A Cat. Six Fail Storm
by Soylent Green is People
From the FDIC: State Bank and Trust Company, Pinehurst, Georgia, Assumes All of the Deposits of the Six Bank Subsidiaries of Security Bank Corporation, Macon, Georgia

The six bank subsidiaries of Security Bank Corporation, Macon, Georgia, were closed today by the Georgia Department of Banking and Finance, which appointed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) as receiver. To protect the depositors, the FDIC entered into a purchase and assumption agreement with State Bank and Trust Company, Pinehurst, Georgia, to assume all of the deposits of the six bank subsidiaries of Security Bank Corporation.

The six banks involved in today's transaction are: Security Bank of Bibb County, Macon, GA, with $1.2 billion in total assets and $1 billion in deposits; Security Bank of Houston County, Perry, GA, with $383 million in assets and $320 million in deposits; Security Bank of Jones County, Gray, GA, with $453 million in assets and $387 million in deposits; Security Bank of Gwinnett County, Suwanee, GA, with $322 million in assets and $292 million in deposits; Security Bank of North Metro, Woodstock, GA, with $224 million in assets and $212 million in deposits; and Security Bank of North Fulton, Alpharetta, GA, with $209 million in assets and $191 million in deposits.
...
As of March 31, 2009, the six banks had total assets of $2.8 billion and total deposits of approximately $2.4 billion. In addition to assuming all of the deposits of the failed bank, State Bank and Trust Company will acquire $2.4 billion in assets.
...
The FDIC estimates that the cost to the Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF) will be $807 million. ... The failure of the six banks brings the nation's total number this year to 64, and the total for Georgia to 16. The last FDIC-insured institution to be closed in the state was First Piedmont Bank, Winder, on July 17, 2009.

That makes seven today ...

by Calculated Risk on 7/24/2009 05:47:00 PM

Years of poor judgment
Bankers caught breaking their trust
"Acting stupidly"
by Soylent Green is People
From the FDIC: Evans Bank, National Association, Angola, New York, Assumes All of the Deposits of Waterford Village Bank, Clarence, New York

Waterford Village Bank, Clarence, New York, was closed today by the New York State Banking Department, which appointed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) as receiver. ...

As of March 31, 2009, Waterford Village Bank had total assets of $61.4 million and total deposits of approximately $58 million. ...

The FDIC estimates that the cost to the Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF) will be $5.6 million. ... Waterford Village Bank is the 58th FDIC-insured institution to fail in the nation this year, and the first in New York. The last FDIC-insured institution to be closed in the state was Reliance Bank, White Plains, March 19, 2004.

It is Friday and New York is on the FDIC map (not counting Lehman, Bear Stearns, etc.)

by Calculated Risk on 7/24/2009 04:00:00 PM

Both Corus and Guaranty Bank (Texas) are on the mat being counted out.

Financial Guaranty has even agreed to be seized.

Apparently Corus bidders have a couple more weeks.

Click on graph for larger image in new window.

The first graph shows the S&P 500 since 1990.

The dashed line is the closing price today.

The S&P 500 is up 44.7% from the bottom (303 points), and still off 37.4% from the peak (586 points below the max).

This puts the recent rally into perspective. The S&P 500 first hit this level in Sept 1997; about 12 years ago.

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

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

by Calculated Risk on 7/24/2009 01:50:00 PM

From the NY Times: California Pension Fund Hopes Riskier Bets Will Restore Its Health (ht several)

[Joseph A. Dear, the fund’s new head of investments] wants to embrace some potentially high-risk investments in hopes of higher returns. He aims to pour billions more into beaten-down private equity and hedge funds. Junk bonds and California real estate also ride high on his list. And then there are timber, commodities and infrastructure.

That’s right, he wants to load up on many of the very assets that have been responsible for the fund’s recent plunge.

The post title is an old gambling saying. Actually now is probably a better time to buy some of these assets than a few years ago.

by Calculated Risk on 7/24/2009 11:36:00 AM

Please see this earlier post for graphs of the homeownership rate, and homeowner and rental vacancy rates.

The supply of rental units has been surging:

Click on graph for larger image in new window.

This graph shows the number of occupied (blue) and vacant (red) rental units in the U.S. (all data from the Census Bureau).

The total number of rental units (red and blue) bottomed in Q2 2004, and started climbing again. Since Q2 2004, there have been over 4.3 million units added to the rental inventory.

Note: please see caution on using this data - this number might be a little too high, but the concepts are the same even with a lower increase.

This increase in units has more than offset the recent strong migration from ownership to renting, so the rental vacancy rate is now at a record 10.6%.

Where did these approximately 4.3 million rental units come from?

The Census Bureau's Housing Units Completed, by Intent and Design shows 1.1 million units completed as 'built for rent' since Q2 2004. This means that another 3.2 million or so rental units came mostly from conversions from ownership to rentals.

These could be investors buying REOs for cash flow, condo "reconversions", builders changing the intent of new construction (started as condos but became rentals), flippers becoming landlords, or homeowners renting their previous homes instead of selling.

This huge surge in rental supply has pushed down rents, and pushed the rental vacancy rate to record levels.

Yes, people are doubling up with friends and family during the recession, and some renters are now buying again, but the main reason for the record vacancy rate is the surge in supply.

by Calculated Risk on 7/24/2009 10:36:00 AM

This morning the Census Bureau reported the homeownership and vacancy rates for Q2 2009. Here are a few graphs ...

Click on graph for larger image in new window.

The homeownership rate increased slightly to 67.4% and is now at the levels of Q2 2000.

Note: graph starts at 60% to better show the change.

The homeownership rate increased in the '90s and early '00s because of changes in demographics and "innovations" in mortgage lending. The increase due to demographics (older population) will probably stick, so I expect the rate to decline to the 66% to 67% range - and not all the way back to 64% to 65%.

The homeowner vacancy rate was 2.5% in Q2 2009.

This is the lowest vacancy rate since mid-2006, but still very high. A normal rate for recent years appears to be about 1.7%.

This leaves the homeowner vacancy rate about 0.8% above normal, and with approximately 75 million homeowner occupied homes; this gives about 600 thousand excess vacant homes.

The rental vacancy rate increased to a record 10.6% in Q2 2009.

It's hard to define a "normal" rental vacancy rate based on the historical series, but we can probably expect the rate to trend back towards 8%. According to the Census Bureau there are close to 40 million rental units in the U.S. If the rental vacancy rate declined from 10.6% to 8%, there would be 2.6% X 40 million units or about 1.04 million units absorbed.

These excess units will keep pressure on rents and house prices for some time.

by Calculated Risk on 7/24/2009 08:02:00 AM

To start BFF off ...

Guaranty Financial Group filed an 8-K with the SEC last night (ht Russ). Here are a few excerpts:

[T]he Company no longer believes that it will be possible for the Company or the Bank to raise sufficient capital to comply with the Orders to Cease and Desist described in the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on April 8, 2009. In light of these developments, the Company believes that it is probable that it will not be able to continue as a going concern.
emphasis added

That is more than your typical 'going concern' warning.

Current stockholders will get nothing:

The Company continues to cooperate with the OTS and the FDIC as they pursue potential alternatives for the business of the Bank. Any such transaction would not be expected to result in the receipt of any proceeds by the stockholders of the Company.

The bank has consented to be seized:

[T]he OTS has directed that the Board of Directors of the Bank consent to the OTS exercising its statutory authority to appoint the FDIC as receiver or conservator for the Bank. ... The Board has complied with the OTS demand for such consent, but the appointment of a receiver or conservator has not yet occurred.

Its subsidiary, Guaranty Bank, is deep in the hole:

[T]he Bank’s core capital ratio stood at negative 5.78% as of March 31, 2009. The Bank’s total risk based capital ratio as of March 31, 2009 stood at negative 5.52%. Both of these ratios result in the Bank being considered critically under-capitalized under regulatory prompt corrective action standards.

It is just a matter of when. Guaranty Financial will be the largest bank failure this year with approximately $14 billion in assets.

Here is a story from Brendan Case at the Dallas Morning News: Guaranty Bank may face federal control