by Calculated Risk on 12/03/2009 04:55:00 PM

In his 2001 testimony, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan testified before the House Committee on the Budget, and while offering his usual cautions and caveats, Greenspan talked of surpluses for the foreseeable future.

Greenspan spoke of "an on-budget surplus of almost $500 billion ... in fiscal year 2010". The National Debt would soon be retired and the Boomer's retirements secure. Greenspan offered a projection of "an implicit on-budget surplus under baseline assumptions well past 2030 despite the budgetary pressures from the aging of the baby-boom generation, especially on the major health programs."

How did that work out?

The key point is that for the Fed to remain independent, the Fed Chairman - as a rule - should avoid all discussions of fiscal policy.

Now comes Fed Chairman Bernanke today on the deficit. From Ryan Grim at Huffington Post:

"Well, Senator, I was about to address entitlements," Bernanke replied [to Senator Bennett]. "I think you can't tackle the problem in the medium term without doing something about getting entitlements under control and reducing the costs, particularly of health care."

Bernanke reminded Congress that it has the power to repeal Social Security and Medicare.

"It's only mandatory until Congress says it's not mandatory. And we have no option but to address those costs at some point or else we will have an unsustainable situation," said Bernanke.
...
"Willie Sutton robbed banks because that's where the money is, as he put it," Bernanke said. "The money in this case is in entitlements."

No matter if people agree or disagree with Bernanke, to maintain independence the Fed Chairman should not be commenting on the deficit and entitlements.

And from Silla Brush at The Hill: Bernanke: 'Little bit early' to make case for second stimulus

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke ... Bernanke emphasized that the government has spent less than half of the money in the $787-billion package passed earlier this year and that analysts are still determining its impact.

"Only about 30 percent of the funds have been disbursed," Bernanke said. "It's a little bit early to make a strong judgment, a little bit early to decide whether or not to do additional fiscal actions."

Once again - it doesn't matter whether you agree or disagree with Bernanke - he should not be talking about these issues.

A very poor performance today from the Fed Chairman.

by Calculated Risk on 12/03/2009 02:44:00 PM

From the Plain Dealer: AmTrust sale appears inevitable, according to attorneys

Peter Goldberg doesn't expect to be the CEO of AmTrust Bank much longer, but his expertise will be needed to help the AmTrust and its employees once the bank is taken over by regulators and sold to another bank.

That revelation was among many made Thursday during the initial hearing of AmTrust Bank's parent company, AmTrust Financial Corp., in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Cleveland.

... attorneys for AmTrust Financial and its major creditors ... talked candidly about AmTrust's dismal condition and made it clear they've already started planning for what happens after AmTrust is sold.

This is probably forcing the FDIC's hand to take action soon (like tomorrow).

Here is another article from the Plain Dealer on the bankruptcy filing of the bank hold company: AmTrust's bankruptcy filing may be a lesson learned from WaMu

by Calculated Risk on 12/03/2009 11:57:00 AM

From HotelNewsNow.com: Luxury leads occupancy increases in STR weekly numbers

Overall, in year-over-year measurements, the industry’s occupancy fell 1.7 percent to end the week at 40.7 percent. Average daily rate dropped 6.7 percent to finish the week at US$84.81. Revenue per available room for the week decreased 8.4 percent to finish at US$34.54.

Click on graph for larger image in new window.

This graph shows the occupancy rate by week for each of the last four years (2006 through 2009 labeled by start of month).

Notes: the scale doesn't start at zero to better show the change. Thanksgiving was later in 2008 and 2009, so the dip doesn't line up with the previous years.

Data Source: Smith Travel Research, Courtesy of HotelNewsNow.com

This is a two year slump for the hotel industry. Although occupancy is off 1.7% compared to 2008, occupancy is off about 14% compared to Thansgiving week in 2006 and 2007.

The good news is the occupancy rate is at about the same level as 2008 (off just 1.7 percent). The bad news is this is a very low occupancy rate - 2009 will be the lowest since the Great Depression - and this is still pushing down room rates.

by Calculated Risk on 12/03/2009 10:04:00 AM

From the Institute for Supply Management: November 2009 Non-Manufacturing ISM Report On Business®

Economic activity in the non-manufacturing sector contracted in November after two consecutive months of expansion, say the nation's purchasing and supply executives in the latest Non-Manufacturing ISM Report On Business®.

The report was issued today by Anthony Nieves, C.P.M., CFPM, chair of the Institute for Supply Management™ Non-Manufacturing Business Survey Committee; and senior vice president — supply management for Hilton Worldwide. "The NMI (Non-Manufacturing Index) registered 48.7 percent in November, 1.9 percentage points lower than the 50.6 percent registered in October, indicating contraction in the non-manufacturing sector after two consecutive months of expansion. The Non-Manufacturing Business Activity Index decreased 5.6 percentage points to 49.6 percent, reflecting contraction after three consecutive months of growth. The New Orders Index decreased 0.5 percentage point to 55.1 percent, and the Employment Index increased 0.5 percentage point to 41.6 percent. The Prices Index increased 4.8 percentage points to 57.8 percent in November, indicating an increase in prices paid from October. According to the NMI, six non-manufacturing industries reported growth in November. Respondents' comments remain cautious about business conditions and reflect concern over the length of time for economic recovery."
...
Employment activity in the non-manufacturing sector contracted in November for the 22nd time in the last 23 months. ... Three industries reported increased employment, 11 industries reported decreased employment, and four industries reported unchanged employment compared to October. Comments from respondents include: "Permanent and seasonal layoffs" and "Some reduction in workforce due to slow second- and third-quarter sales."
emphasis added

This is a grim report. According to this survey, the service sector contracted in November, and employment also contracted at about the same rate as in October.

by Calculated Risk on 12/03/2009 10:01:00 AM

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke's confirmation hearing before the Senate Banking Committee.

Here is the CNBC feed.

And a live feed from C-SPAN.

Prepared Testimony: Confirmation hearing

by Calculated Risk on 12/03/2009 08:36:00 AM

The DOL reports on weekly unemployment insurance claims:

In the week ending Nov. 28, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 457,000, a decrease of 5,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 462,000 [revised from 466,000]. The 4-week moving average was 481,250, a decrease of 14,250 from the previous week's revised average of 495,500.
...
The advance number for seasonally adjusted insured unemployment during the week ending Nov. 21 was 5,465,000, an increase of 28,000 from the preceding week's revised level of 5,437,000. The 4-week moving average was 5,541,500, a decrease of 75,750 from the preceding week's revised average of 5,617,250.

Click on graph for larger image in new window.

This graph shows the 4-week moving average of weekly claims since 1971.

The four-week average of weekly unemployment claims decreased this week by 14,350 to 481,250. This is the lowest level since last November.

Although falling, the level is still high suggesting continuing job losses.

by Calculated Risk on 12/03/2009 12:00:00 AM

From the WSJ Real Time Economics: The Fed’s Market’s Guy Eyes Asset Sales and Rate Increases (ht Paul)

Brian Sack, who runs the markets group of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, spoke to the Money Marketeers of New York University ...

Mr. Sack’s group estimates that the Fed’s purchases of $300 billion in long-term Treasury securities earlier this year helped to push yields on 10-year Treasury notes down by about half a percentage point. ... Purchases of mortgage backed securities, he says, pushed those rates down by a full percentage point.

This is significantly higher than my estimate of 35 to 50 bps and suggest mortgage rates might rise sharply next spring (the MBS purchase program is scheduled to conclude by the end of the first quarter of 2010).

Update: Apparently Sack's might have been referring to the decline from the peak of the panic (not clear from the brief excerpt). Of course the purchases started in January - months after the peak of the panic - and that isn't what people are interested in.

by Calculated Risk on 12/02/2009 08:59:00 PM

James Pethokoukis at Reuters provides excerpts from the most recent Goldman Sachs forecast and writes about the political implications, but the economic implications are also significant. From Goldman:

The key features of our 2011 outlook: (1) a strengthening in growth from 2.1% on average in 2010 to 2.4% in 2011, with real GDP rising at an above-potential 3½% pace in late 2011; (2) a peaking in unemployment in mid-2011 at about 10¾%; (3) extremely low inflation – close to zero on a core basis during 2011; and (4) a continuation of the Fed’s (near) zero interest rate policy (ZIRP) throughout 2011.

You read that right. 2011.

by Calculated Risk on 12/02/2009 05:55:00 PM

Update: Press Release from BofA: Bank of America to Repay Entire $45 Billion in TARP to U.S. Taxpayers

From CNBC: Bank of America Out of TARP, Says Gasparino (ht Mr. Mortgage)

CNBC’s Charlie Gasparino tells the desk that Bank of America is going to repay $45 billion and get out of the TARP program.

And they will raise capital over the next few days, he adds.

From the WSJ: Bank of America to Repay $45 Billion in TARP

The bank plans to raise about $20 billion in new capital ... a move required by federal regulators to ensure the bank has sufficient capital reserves and won't need to come back to the government for additional aid.

by Calculated Risk on 12/02/2009 04:01:00 PM

Here is Secretary Donovan's testimony (pdf). The following are the Next Steps for the FHA. Key points:

Focus on enforcement and lender accountability

Reduce the maximum seller concession from 6% to 3%.

Raise the minimum FICO score.

Increase the up-front cash for borrower (it isn't clear if this is an increase in the downpayment, currently a minimum of 3.5%, or requiring the borrower to pay more fees).

Increase FHA insurance premiums.

The proposed changes will be announced by the end of January.

[T]he first set of policy changes we are proposing will focus on enforcement and lender accountability. We will step up efforts to ensure lenders assume responsibility for any losses associated with loans not underwritten to FHA standards.

We will hold lenders accountable for their origination quality and compliance with FHA policies, increasing our review of mortgagee compliance with FHA program requirements.

And we intend to expand enforcement for new loans as well. That includes requiring lenders to indemnify the FHA fund for their own failures to meet FHA requirements, and holding lenders accountable nationally for any improper activities, as we are presently limited to sanctioning individual branches.

We will also develop a Lender Scorecard that will summarize the performance of lenders who do business with the FHA. This scorecard will be posted on our website to ensure transparency and accountability for lenders, borrowers and the market.

Of course, all these steps are designed to hold lenders accountable for their origination quality and compliance with FHA policies. And as always, Ginnie Mae securities that are backed by FHA-guaranteed loans will continue to be fully covered by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government.

In addition to stepping up enforcement and accountability, which will improve the performance of both the existing and future books of business, we are committed to a series of additional steps to increase the quality of our business going forward.

An initial measure is to reduce the maximum permissible seller concession from its current 6 percent level to 3 percent, which is in line with industry norms, and we will continue to consider additional reductions. The current level exposes the FHA to excess risk by creating incentives to inflate appraised value.

Secondly, to protect the fund from the riskiest borrowers, we will for the time being also raise the minimum FICO score for new FHA borrowers.

We are currently analyzing what this floor should be, including the relationship between FICO scores and downpayments to determine whether we should increase FICO minimums in combination with changes to other underwriting criteria for lower downpayment loans.

Third, we have made the decision to exercise our authority to increase the up-front cash that a borrower has to bring to the table in an FHA-backed loan – to make sure that FHA borrowers have more “skin in the game” and a stronger equity position in their loans. There are several ways to accomplish this, and so we are currently analyzing various options to determine which is the most effective and consistent with our mission.

Finally, we are examining our mortgage insurance premium structure to determine whether an increase is needed and, if so, whether it should be the up-front premium, the annual premium or both. Our current up-front premium of 1.75 percent is below the statutory cap of 3 percent, while the annual premium is currently at the statutory maximum. To protect against future uncertainty in market conditions, we are requesting authority from Congress to raise annual premiums, as this is one of the most effective means of raising capital for the fund with the least impact per borrower.

Indeed, while most of these changes I’ve just described we can make on our own with no additional authority—and we expect to provide detail and public guidance for these changes by the end of January—in some cases, we will need Congress’ help. In addition to asking Congress to increase the current cap on the annual mortgage insurance premium for new borrowers, we are asking for additional authority for our proposals to hold all FHA lenders responsible for their fraud or misrepresentations by indemnifying the FHA fund. We will also be asking Congress to expand FHA’s ability to hold lenders accountable nationally for their performance as I mentioned earlier.