by Calculated Risk on 6/14/2010 07:51:00 PM

From Kathy Jumper at the Mobile Press-Register: As oil washes ashore, property managers sharply cut condo rents (ht DaveinSV)

Property managers are offering 30 percent to 50 percent cuts at condominium units and beach houses, hoping to fill rooms and prevent cancellations in the wake of the BP oil spill.

"June has been gutted, as far as rental occupancies," said David Bodenhamer, a partner in Young's Suncoast Vacation Rentals in Gulf Shores ... "We've had $220,000 in cancellations in the last three days." ... "The problem is that even at those lower rates, we're not getting near enough takers. Reservation calls have gone to a fraction of what they would normally be on a daily basis."

I'm not sure the lower prices will make much difference. Who wants to vacation at a beach and not be able to swim in the water? Or to see (and probably smell) the oil?

The article mentions that Alabama beach resorts generate about 75% of their annual revenue in June, July and August. So this entire season is lost.

On the bright side, other resort areas are probably doing better.

When I went backpacking in the Sierra in the summer of 2008, I asked the ranger how the economy was impacting traffic. He said it was their busiest year ever! People were still going on vacation, just to less expensive destinations. With the Gulf disaster, I expect the inland mountain resorts will have a banner year.

by Calculated Risk on 6/14/2010 03:54:00 PM

Over the last year a number of analysts have predicted the Fed would raise the Fed Funds rate "soon". They have all been wrong.

The Fed's mission is to conduct "monetary policy by influencing the monetary and credit conditions in the economy in pursuit of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates". Historically the Fed has not raised the Fed Funds rate until unemployment drops significantly. Based on the the Fed's own forecasts of the unemployment rate and inflation, the Fed will probably not raise the Fed Funds rate until late 2011 at the earliest.

San Francisco Fed senior vice president and associate director of research Glenn Rudebusch writes: The Fed's Exit Strategy for Monetary Policy

Rudebusch's economic letter suggests that the Fed might not raise rates until 2012 ...

Click on graph for larger image in new window.

The graph from Rudebusch's shows a modified Taylor rule. According to Rudebusch's estimate, the Fed Funds rate should be around minus 5% right now if we ignore unconventional policy (obviously there is a lower bound):

The resulting simple policy guideline recommends lowering the funds rate by 1.3 percentage points if inflation falls by 1 percentage point and by almost 2 percentage points if the unemployment rate rises by 1 percentage point.
...
Figure 1 also provides a simple perspective on when the Fed should raise the funds rate. The dashed line combines the benchmark rule of thumb with the Federal Open Market Committee’s median economic forecasts (FOMC 2010), which predict slowly falling unemployment and continued low inflation. The dashed line shows that to deliver future monetary stimulus consistent with the past—and ignoring the zero lower bound—the funds rate would be negative until late 2012. In practice, this suggests little need to raise the funds rate target above its zero lower bound anytime soon.

Rudebusch them modifies the rule taking into account unconventional policy.

Even though the funds rate was pushed to its zero lower bound by the end of 2008, considerable scope remained to lower long-term interest rates. To do this, the Fed started buying longer-term Treasury and federal agency debt securities ...

The additional stimulus from the Fed’s unconventional monetary policy implies that the appropriate level of short-term interest rates would be higher than shown in Figure 1. ... If the Fed’s purchases reduced long rates by ½ to ¾ of a percentage point, the resulting stimulus would be very roughly equal to a 1½ to 3 percentage point cut in the funds rate. Assuming unconventional policy stimulus is maintained, then the recommended target funds rate from the simple policy rule could be adjusted up by approximately 2¼ percentage points, as shown in Figure 3, and the recommended period of a near-zero funds rate would end at the beginning of 2012.

Perhaps the unemployment rate will decline faster than expected - or inflation will increase - but right now I wouldn't expect an increase in the Fed Funds rate for a long long time ...

by Calculated Risk on 6/14/2010 01:21:00 PM

From MarketWatch: Moody's slashes Greece to 'Ba1' from 'A3'

Moody's Investors Service on Monday downgraded Greece's government bond ratings by four notches to junk status of Ba1 from A3 ...

No real surprise ...

by Calculated Risk on 6/14/2010 11:03:00 AM

From Bloomberg: Economy in U.S. Slows as States Lose Federal Stimulus Funds (ht Brian)

State and local cutbacks may trim growth by about a quarter percentage point in 2010 and 2011 ... said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics Inc. He also sees the governments lopping payrolls by 200,000 during the next year after reducing them by 190,000 in the 12 months through May.

“The budget cutting that is dead ahead will be a significant impediment to economic growth later this year into 2011,” he said in an interview.

I've been forecasting a 2nd half slowdown in GDP growth based on:

1) less Federal stimulus spending in the 2nd half of 2010. The decline in stimulus will probably be a drag of about 0.5% on GDP growth by Q4.

2) the end of the inventory correction. The inventory adjustment contributed 3.8% in Q4 2009 of the 5.6% annualized growth rate, and 1.65% of the 3.0% GDP growth (annualized) in Q1 2010. This will probably fall to zero - or even subtract from growth.

3) more household saving leading to slower growth in personal consumption expenditures,

4) another downturn in housing (lower prices, less residential investment),

5) slowdown in China and Europe and

6) cutbacks at the state and local level. According the Mark Zandi, this will subtract about 0.25% from GDP growth.

David Rosenberg of Gluskin Sheff + Associates wrote this morning:

"A double-dip, admittedly, is not yet a sure thing but I am definitely warming to the view."

I still think we will avoid a double dip, but I expect growth to be sluggish and choppy.

A quarter point here, and half point there ... and pretty soon you have some real drag.

by Calculated Risk on 6/14/2010 09:02:00 AM

The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) put out the BIS Quarterly Review, June 2010 yesterday. As part of the review, the BIS estimated the exposures of banks by nationality to the residents of Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain:

As of 31 December 2009, banks headquartered in the euro zone accounted for almost two thirds (62%) of all internationally active banks’ exposures to the residents of the euro area countries facing market pressures (Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain). Together, they had $727 billion of exposures to Spain, $402 billion to Ireland, $244 billion to Portugal and $206 billion to Greece (Graph 3).

French and German banks were particularly exposed to the residents of Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain. At the end of 2009, they had $958 billion of combined exposures ($493 billion and $465 billion, respectively) to the residents of these countries. This amounted to 61% of all reported euro area banks’ exposures to those economies. French and German banks were most exposed to residents of Spain ($248 billion and $202 billion, respectively), although the sectoral compositions of their claims differed substantially. French banks were particularly exposed to the Spanish non-bank private sector ($97 billion), while more than half of German banks’ foreign claims on the country were on Spanish banks ($109 billion). German banks also had large exposures to residents of Ireland ($177 billion), more than two thirds ($126 billion) of which were to the non-bank private sector.

French and German banks were not the only ones with large exposures to residents of euro area countries facing market pressures. Banks headquartered in the United Kingdom had larger exposures to Ireland ($230 billion) than did banks based in any other country. More than half of those ($128 billion) were to the non-bank private sector. UK banks also had sizeable exposures to residents of Spain ($140 billion), mostly to the non-bank private sector ($79 billion). Meanwhile, Spanish banks were the ones with the highest level of exposure to residents of Portugal ($110 billion). Almost two thirds of that exposure ($70 billion) was to the non-bank private sector.

Click on graph for larger image in new window.

This graph shows the exposure of bank by nationality to the risky countries.

The bailout of the risky countries is very much a bailout of the banks - especially the banks of Germany and France.

The BIS puts the numbers in perspective:

The exposures of BIS reporting banks to the public sectors of the euro area countries facing market pressures can be put into perspective by comparing them with these banks’ capital. The combined exposures of German, French and Belgian banks to the public sectors of Spain, Greece and Portugal amounted to 12.1%, 8.3% and 5.0%, respectively, of their joint Tier 1 capital. By comparison, the combined exposures of Italian, Dutch and Swiss banks to the same public sectors were equal to 2.8%, 2.7% and 2.0%, respectively, of their Tier 1 capital. Those ratios stood at 3.4%, 1.2% and 0.7%, respectively, for Japanese banks and 2.0%, 0.8%, and 0.7%, respectively, for UK banks. The exposures of US banks to each of the above public sectors amounted to less than 1% of their Tier 1 capital.

It is the German and French banks that are most at risk.