Yves Smith – responding to PIMCO’s Gross — noted that governments, through the increase in their central bank reserves, have been intervening to support the US financial markets for a while now. She is, of course, right.
With the help of Paul Swartz of the Council’s Center for Geoeconomic Studies, I recently was able to get the full data set on the Fed’s custodial holdings. The data goes back to the early 1980s — though the Fed’s custodial holdings of Agencies only appear in 2001, presumably when the shrinking stock of outstanding Treasury debt induced central banks to consider alternatives. The resulting charts need little commentary.
A chart showing the stock clearly indicates something changed in 2002.
A chart showing the 12m change (the “flow”) shows a peak in the mid 1990s, and then another peak over the past few years. The peak in the mid 1990s corresponds to strong capital inflows to the emerging world. But there was a key difference: back then, the emerging world ran an aggregate current account deficit, and the reserve buildup provided (partial, it turned out) insurance against a change in flows. The reserve buildup today comes even as the emerging world runs, in aggregate, a substantial current account surplus.
Two other points.
One, I suspect that over time the FRBNY’s custodial holdings captures a somewhat smaller share of total central bank dollar holdings. Consequently, the rise in central bank inflows recently is probably even stronger than what shows up in the FRBNY data.
Two, a chart comparing the Fed’s own assets to its custodial holdings is kind of interesting. It suggests that something fundamental changed in this decade.
I personally think it supports a point I made earlier this month, and again yesterday: foreign central banks now are in a position where they can influence, through their asset allocation, the allocation of credit inside the US economy. Remember that the Fed is trying to mitigate financial market distress by changing the composition of its balance sheet — and right now, the aggregated dollar balance sheet of the world’s other central banks is much larger than the Fed’s own dollar balance sheet.
I suspect that one of the reasons why PIMCO’s McCulley is worried about deleveraging is that central banks still disproportionately buy Treasuries. That has added to the mismatch between demand and supply in the market. Big existing balance sheets that until the crisis had a decent appetite for risk need to shrink. And some of the big balance sheets that are growing most rapidly right now don’t seem interested in credit market risk. Not right now.
One result: the Fed has sold lots of Treasuries into the market to lend to financial institutions holdings somewhat riskier assets. Another is that the Treasury itself is poised to sell Treasuries and buy Agencies, effectively adding another source of balance sheet support for risk assets.
Note: this post was slightly edited, as explained in the comments. I initially said deficit in one place where I meant surplus.
Brad: “The reserve buildup today comes even as the emerging world runs, in aggregate, a substantial current account deficit.”
You really mean ‘surplus’, don’t you?
“….a chart comparing the Fed’s own assets to its custodial holdings is kind of interesting.”
An understatement, even by your own standards!
Another very informative post.
“The reserve buildup today comes even as the emerging world runs, in aggregate, a substantial current account [surplus].” You might have said
“The emerging world runs, in aggregate, a substantial current account [surplus], owing mainly to its reserve buildup.”
Though I’ve never actually seen him, I believe Yves Smith is a man.
IM
@don
you have it right. It’s about time that people start calling a spade a spade.
@Brad
hope you agree with don.
i do agree with don, and i’ll change deficit to surplus, consistent with my intended meaning (and the facts).
IM — I am pretty sure Yves Smith is a woman. She reads this blog, so if i am wrong, i’ll hear soon enough.
Yves Smith is indeed a woman.
I don’t know her, but I think that Yves is too clear and to fine to be a man.
And I’m a man.
It’s enough to read their links and watch to her beautiful photos to realize that she’s much more sensitive than any financial expert with two egg. She is very open-minded in her page and with quite sharp writing a the same time.
She is, of course, a woman. And a very clever one, not the US styled barracuda Pallin!
I’d like to see her giving a couple of blows to Obama. Just to put it strait on, in economics.
Thanks, Brad, for speaking clearer and forgive me this little pecata minuta!:
Sorry Yves,
I posted this comm in NYT, but I want to be shure that Krugman reads it:
You are mixing depravation with deprivatization, weren’t you?
It’s quite different!
Don’t mislead, please!
Be a perfect well-paid economist, but stop advertisement campaigns, Mr. Krugman.
The smell is already in this side of the Atlantic ocean!
Bye
Biography and Photograph of Yves Smith…
http://www.milkeninstitute.org/events/gcprogram.taf?function=bio&EventID=GC08&SPID=3194
This is disheartening –
This means US agency debt burden will be broad-based from home-buyers to tax-payers. Doesn’t this imply more stress on US consumer?
Wont this then be a trigger for far bigger crises?
otto –
glad you noted the understatement. sometimes i think it is best to play the facts straight, b/c complicated explanations kind of fall flat
I’m delighted to report that by appearances Yves is a very good looking woman. Given the name of her blog I am hoping she is a capitalist.
Brad:
I was wondering something else again.
Because it’s obvious to me that the treasury will want to sell 1 month treasuries at the going current rate of 1.5%, and sell new agencies at a little over the 10 year treasury rate so homeowners can get low cost 30 year fixed rate mortgages, thereby meeting the reason for existence of the plan, doesn’t that mean that the Fed can not raise interest rates for the next 30 years?
–
Recently, Pimco’s McCulley has been referring to “Treasury’s balance sheet” in interesting ways. Fed balance sheet activities have been a staging point for deeper Treasury involvement in credit market stabilization. Maybe we should start thinking about some US treasury financing as an extension of central bank sterilization. That puts relative balance sheet sizes globally into a slightly different perspective. Comparisons of the credit risk mix in assets held by governments, including their central banks, become even more interesting.
The unresolved real problem is that housing prices remain wildly overpriced for the typical American Joe6pack. The taxpayer bailout of the GSEs for Wall Street banks only delays the day of reckoning. Housing prices will fall at least another 50% in California, Florida, Nevada, Arizona, and other Bubble states as per Economist Robert Shiller. It seems that MSM is finally understanding that the inevitable is inevitable:
“US May Be Running Out Of Options To Stop Recession
http://www.cnbc.com/id/26563570
Now what?
After a bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, $168-billion of fiscal stimulus measures, a housing-rescue package and three-and-a-quarter percentage points worth of Federal Reserve interest rate cuts, the economy is still struggling and in some ways looks worse than ever.
“The answer is quit making dumb mistakes,” says Dan Mitchell a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.
Mitchell’s answer is actually a lot more complicated that it appears.
As an ardent supply-side economist, he’s inherently opposed to government intervention in the free markets. But he’ll also tell you that most of what the federal government has done is meant to ease the popping of the housing bubble, which it created in the first place, thanks to artificially low interest rates, government-supported mortgage lenders and liberal lending requirements.
“The best thing to do is to let housing prices reach their natural level as soon as possible, so people know what’s real and what’s not,” Mitchell says.”
Well, there is one more thing we could do.
ZIRP !!!!
Unfortunately, I think we are then stuck with ZIRP forever. Because I can’t see how we ever come up from ZIRP without making equity investors, bond investors, homeowners, Chinese people, Japanese people, Emerging people, US taxpayers, and Arabs all mad at the same time.
Gapper from Ft.com
A US government bail-out of foreign investor
“One effect of the way the quasi-nationalisation is structured is that US institutions may well suffer more than foreign ones. In brief, it is good for overseas central banks and sovereign wealth funds but bad for US regional banks.
The government has had to step in to reassure foreign investors who have become huge buyers of agency debt, but has treated US equity holders harshly.”
Brad,
Is this the first financial incidence you know of where US institutions where given the shaft for the benefit of Foreign banks?
I can’t help feel that the US has crossed its financial Rubicon. From now on, foreign interest will hold more sway over US Treasury decisions then domestic ones. We do need their money after all to function.
So Brad,
Is it then desirable from balance point of view that either supply of securities continues to rise to meet demand or that supply it continues to stimulate demand?
From Asia Times, the strategy of the Washington Consensus is to bleed the Chinese dry of “real economic wealth” under the US Dollar hegemony regime.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JI10Dj04.html
By selling China increasingly worthless debt in exchange for the very tangible products of its factories, China is, in essence, delivering a huge subsidy to the US government; the New York Times reports a Chinese blogger stating that the policy is comparable to China paying for 200 new United States Navy aircraft carriers with which America could close off the entire Chinese coast.
Thus, the countries believed to be America’s two main strategic competitors for the next few decades, Russia and China, have basically received subprime treatment. They have been lured into investments that traded their wealth for MBSs that are essentially worthless.
“They have been lured..”: Confucius, he say, if you trade with a nation of salesmen, remember to count your fingers.
“a shovel or a hole?”
I try to be a little historically accurate.
I think it was the Japanese Navy that was on China’s coastline, and Japan’s mercantile fleet on California’s coastline.
ZIRP was invented in Japan.
And here’s an old article on Chinese currency pegging.
APRIL 15, 2005
By David Cohen
When Will China Loosen Its Peg?
U.S. policymakers have been urging Beijing to slacken the ties that bind the yuan to the greenback. Now there are hints that might happen
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/apr2005/nf20050415_1709_db016.htm
Cedric Regula,
The US Navy Carrier Battlegroups and Spy Aircraft patrol the Chinese coastline, not the reverse off California. Except for a few port-of-call visits, rarely do Chinese warships ever leave the Western Pacific region. Despite an US Defense Secretary designation of the Chinese as a “strategic threat” to the United States, the Chinese Navy lacks even a single Fixed-wing Aircraft Carrier. The Pentagon Neo-cons and US Intelligence Agencies frequently portray the Chinese as the strategic adversary to justify rising US defense spending budgets.
From Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hainan_Island_incident
The Hainan Island incident was the April 1, 2001, collision between a United States Navy EP-3E signals reconnaissance aircraft and a People’s Liberation Army Navy J-8II fighter jet that resulted in an international incident between the United States and China. The EP-3, assigned to Fleet Air Reconnaissance Squadron One (VQ-1) had been operating about 70 miles (110 km) away from the Chinese island of Hainan, when the craft was intercepted by two J-8II fighters. A collision resulted between the wing of the EP-3 and one of the J-8s, which caused the death of the J-8′s pilot, Wang Wei, while the EP-3 was forced to make an emergency landing on Hainan.
The international status of the incident’s location is a large source of controversy; the Chinese claimed it as part of their “airspace” where the US claimed it was “international airspace” as per United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The dispute is also mired in controversy of the EP-3′s earlier overflight of various South China Sea islands which are claimed by China. It is clear however that the United States was spying on China.
DC: The unresolved real problem is that housing prices remain wildly overpriced for the typical American Joe6pack. The taxpayer bailout of the GSEs for Wall Street banks only delays the day of reckoning.
And if Joe Sixpack is able to borrow large amounts of money, buy an overpriced house and then have that loan inflate away, he ends up ahead. This is what happened in the 1970′s.
DC: From Asia Times, the strategy of the Washington Consensus is to bleed the Chinese dry of “real economic wealth” under the US Dollar hegemony regime.
So why the heck is China still buying dollars. The problem is that your view seems to be that whatever China does is right and whatever the United States does is wrong. The trouble with this view is that 1) it is totally useless to Chinese policy makers who are interested in people telling them what they are doing wrong and 2) it leads to totally incoherent positions. I have no idea what you are for or against.
Let me ask you….
Should China do a massive revaluation its currency, yes or no?
If you answer no, then you are in support of what you say is this massive bleeding of resources to the United States and the strengthening of dollar hegemony.
If yes, then you are supporting the positions of the IMF and World Bank and all of the people you are bashing.
Yes or no. China good, US bad will not help you in this situation.
jhk — the treasuries decision to sell treasuries to buy agency mbs makes it an financial intermediary and reinforces your poitn.
rd — don’t forget that the us commercial banks hold about as many agencies (more pass throughs tho than the straight GSE bonds) as the central banks. So the us banks were helped there — even if they got hurt on their preferreds. the holders of subdebt also seem to have been treated very well.
but there were limits to what the US could do so long as it wanted ongoing flows; chinese credit losses on the agencies would have crossed China’s redline.
Twofish,
As per Merrill Lynch economist David Rosenberg, the GED taxpayer bailout won’t benefit America’s Joe6pack. LOL.
“This latest dramatic intervention may well have a beneficial impact on the availability of affordable mortgage financing, but because the lack of demand is much more related to the fact that we are over-housed … this will probably not be enough to bring about the bottoming of the housing market.”
—
China should not massively revaluate its currency. Under the US Dollar hegemony regime with over 80% of global trade transacted in dollars, any nation that revalues automatically suffers a massive loss in global competitiveness. As a declared socialist state, the Chinese government has a moral and legal obligation to ensure full employment for even low-skilled workers. Instead the Chinese government should use its horde of US Dollars to buy natural resources of “real economic wealth” rather than worthless MBS paper (ie. strategic oil reserve, uranium, platnium, silver, etc). The Washington Consensus is diametrically opposed to the sovereign independent status of the Chinese state that is clearly illustrated by the $100 million in annual financing by the CIA of Tibetian Independence groups.
The Gov must continue to sell the Chinese on the idea that all debts will be made good. Otherwise they stop buying and it’s game over. God help is if they ever started selling.
At this point, the GSE’s mission is to prop up house prices through availability of relatively cheap credit.
The exact opposite of what they are supposed to be doing (promote affordable housing).
A total perversion.
DC: China should not massively revaluate its currency
Fine. However in that case you cannot object to the currency losses that the Chinese government will face, nor can you object to the any transfer of wealth between China and the United States. The problem is that $1 trillion is far too much money to spend on natural resources and the people with natural resources aren’t inclined to sell you equity stakes in them.
Also gold and silver are not where wealth comes from. Where you get wealth are through human capital and social networks.
DC: . As a declared socialist state, the Chinese government has a moral and legal obligation to ensure full employment for even low-skilled workers.
Here again there is a contradiction because if government intervention to promote employment is legitimate, then I don’t see why you are complaining when the US government does similar things.
DC — right now dollar hegemony is much more a product of china’s willingness to add to its $ holdings than anything else, yet you decry $ hegemony and the one policy change that might end it. i don’t get it.
“The problem is that $1 trillion is far too much money to spend on natural resources and the people with natural resources aren’t inclined to sell you equity stakes in them.” – Twofish
The US strategic oil reserve, currently 780 million barrels, was purchased via the open market. At least the Chinese government should have purchased an equilvalent amount. Considering the potential for the US Navy to blockade Middle East oil imports to the Chinese economy, an oil reserve should be strategic imperative. The Chinese Navy lacks the logistical capability to control sea lanes beyond Southeast Asia.
“Also gold and silver are not where wealth comes from. Where you get wealth are through human capital and social networks.” – Twofish
Silver and Platnium are strategic metals used in oil refining and car production. Every oil distillation cracker tower contains several tons of platnium. Even Gold is used in semiconductor production to microwire connections. Without Gold, Silver and Platnium, modern civilization would cease to exist without computers and transportation.
“Here again there is a contradiction because if government intervention to promote employment is legitimate, then I don’t see why you are complaining when the US government does similar things.” – Twofish
If the Washington Consensus were serious about reducing the trade deficit, why won’t the US authorities remove high-tech restrictions that cost $100 billion in annual exports to China. Every Boeing 737 exported to China requires the President’s signature for a waver of export controls. Few Chinese companies are willing to go through expensive security background checks for the purchase of US high-tech products when comparable products are available elsewhere. Chinese semiconductor manufacturers, prohibited from purchasing US chip manufacturing equipment, are forced to purchase from European contractors which don’t have similar security-defense restrictions. Even “green energy products” are excluded from exports including the hydroelectric turbines for Yangtze River dams.
“The problem is that $1 trillion is far too much money to spend on natural resources and the people with natural resources aren’t inclined to sell you equity stakes in them.” – Twofish
The US strategic oil reserve, currently 780 million barrels, was purchased via the open market. At least the Chinese government should have purchased an equilvalent amount. Considering the potential for the US Navy to blockade Middle East oil imports to the Chinese economy, an oil reserve should be strategic imperative. The Chinese Navy lacks the logistical capability to control sea lanes beyond Southeast Asia.
“Also gold and silver are not where wealth comes from. Where you get wealth are through human capital and social networks.” – Twofish
Silver and Platnium are strategic metals used in oil refining and car production. Every oil distillation cracker tower contains several tons of platnium. Even Gold is used in semiconductor production to microwire connections. Without Gold, Silver and Platnium, modern civilization would cease to exist without computers and transportation.
“Here again there is a contradiction because if government intervention to promote employment is legitimate, then I don’t see why you are complaining when the US government does similar things.” – Twofish
If the Washington Consensus were serious about reducing the trade deficit, why won’t the US authorities remove high-tech restrictions that cost $100 billion in annual exports to China. Every Boeing 737 exported to China requires the President’s signature for a waver of export controls. Few Chinese companies are willing to go through expensive security background checks for the purchase of US high-tech products when comparable products are available elsewhere. Chinese semiconductor manufacturers, prohibited from purchasing US chip manufacturing equipment, are forced to purchase from European contractors which don’t have similar security-defense restrictions. Even “green energy products” are excluded from exports including the hydroelectric turbines for Yangtze River dams.
“right now dollar hegemony is much more a product of china’s willingness to add to its $ holdings than anything else, yet you decry $ hegemony and the one policy change that might end it. i don’t get it.” – Brad Setser
US Dollar hegemony is the political result of secret agreements between the US government and Gulf Arab states to denominate the sales of oil in only petro-dollars. The US military provides physical security and protection for the ruling families in the Middle East in support of US Dollar hegemony. The US petro-Dollar is implicitly backed by Middle East energy reserves. Since everyone in rest of the world needs Middle East oil, everyone also needs US petro-Dollars.
Sorry for these elementary questions, but I’m new to this area…does “custodial holdings” refer to foreign holdings of U.S. debt? Foreign central bank only, as opposed to all foreign? So “custodial holdings” of Treasuries refers to foreign (central bank?) holdings of U.S. gov’t debt, while custodial holdings of agencies refers to Fannie/Freddie holdings?
Also, I’m still a little confused on whether or how holding such large dollar reserves harms China economically today. Could those dollar reserves be converted into domestic consumption today, or else domestic investments that bring higher returns? How would the Chinese central bank go about converting dollar reserves into higher domestic consumption, given that China’s growth rates are already so very high? Or is it just that they should have a more diversified portfolio of other currencies?
If they were to try to convert their dollar holdings into higher consumption or domestic investment, would this drive down the dollar’s exchange rate even further? Is that the “game over” people refer to? Require us to raise our domestic interest rates to attract investment?
Sorry to be so naive about all this, should just buy a macro text and puzzle it all out, but I guess I’m lazy and want to ask the experts…
Wow, if you think I am negative about the “corporate welfare” bailout of the GSEs, Nouriel Roubini’s remarks are really scathing…
http://www.rgemonitor.com/blog/roubini
Brad, thank you for yet another excellent analysis.
To keep growing jobs and thus ensure political stability, China will continue to buy US$ in the near term to keep the yuan competitive in an export economy. The byproduct of this policy might be some stability in the sino-US relationship despite the frictions. As China gradually moves up the food chain, yuan will go up and dollar will go down, just like the Black Tulip. The technical question is how soon this will happen? Could anyone point us to some estimates?
It will remain very difficult for a long time for China to buy anything that it really wants to buy from the US beyond the US dollar. But that just forces China to develop its own capabilities. When China becomes strong enough to demand a conversion of US fiat to real assets, there might be very little that US can and is willing to sell. Richard Nixon foresaw in his last book “Beyond Peace” that someday US will need China more than China needs the US. He said that was why he went to China, not because of the Russians.
trying to learn Says:
These are easy ones so, I’ll answer.
1)Custodial holdings. Foreign governments can have the US gov hold their US treasury and agency holdings in the US. It’s at the NY Fed bank I believe. It’s similar to your broker holding you stock certificates rather than mailing then to you. A convenience.
2) The harm is they would realize a currency loss if they sold US paper and converted back to yuan to bring money home and spend it. More gov spending on domestic spending should be inflationary, but right now the way they do things is inflationary, so the net difference may be zero if they changed. The reason they don’t change is because they are pegging the yuan low to the dollar to drive an export driven economy, and ultimately employ 1.3 Billion Chinese. Dave C will tell you this is socialism. You’ve probably heard Mike Moore and Lou Dobbs on the issue.
4) If they stop pegging it would drive the dollar down further. There are two scripts for the end game. That is one. The opposite script is the US goes broke first, then does script one.
You didn’t ask about what’s wrong with housing and mortgages. But I’ll take a stab at that one anyway.
I was talking to a first time home buyer about what’s wrong, and he said “Houses cost too much.”
Applying Occam’s Razor, I decided he got that right.
Dave C: Thus, the countries believed to be America’s two main strategic competitors for the next few decades, Russia and China, have basically received subprime treatment. They have been lured into investments that traded their wealth for MBSs that are essentially worthless.
Well yes. You can’t say they were not warned.
And no, they were not “lured”. They chose to receive subprime treatment because a big horde of dollars gives them international power and prestige and to their governments this is more important than the poverty of their people.
As per Bloomberg, China State Council immediately halts any further Chinese yuan revaluation
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=email_en&refer=china&sid=a68aPXEz.m8o
Zhang Xiaojing, a researcher at the government-backed Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said this month that officials had decided to stop using yuan appreciation to cool inflation because it added to companies’ costs and “quelled momentum for long-term economic growth.”
Still, Chinese exporters pricing goods in euros have been hit by the 11 percent gain by the yuan against that currency this quarter.
“Exporters can’t afford the yuan to keep strengthening against the euro — margins are already thin,” said Fan Jianping, the chief economist at the State Information Center, a government research agency.
I agree with 2fish on this:
“DC: China should not massively revaluate its currency
Fine. However in that case you cannot object to the currency losses that the Chinese government will face, nor can you object to the any transfer of wealth between China and the United States. The problem is that $1 trillion is far too much money to spend on natural resources and the people with natural resources aren’t inclined to sell you equity stakes in them.”
Trying to learn — the custodial holdings are us bonds that foreign central banks own but are held by the Federal REserve bank as a custodian. BAsically, the New York holds them on behalf of other central banks. They are the best real time indicator of how foreign central banks are managing their money.
trying: Also, I’m still a little confused on whether or how holding such large dollar reserves harms China economically today.
It is confusing since there are all sorts of trade-offs and uncertainties. The basic problem with China holding large dollar reserves is that if there is a fall in the dollar then China is going to have to make up for that loss in value somehow.
The question is whether this loss in value in dollar reserves is worse than any of the other options which are on the table.
trying: Could those dollar reserves be converted into domestic consumption today, or else domestic investments that bring higher returns?
My personal feeling was that holding large dollar reserves was the “least bad” of several options. Financing a massive real estate bubble in the United States I think is much preferable to financing a massive real estate bubble in China which I think is what would have happened had the money stayed there.
However, as the financial system in China changes it is going to make less and less sense to import dollars, and I think we are in the middle of some critical point in which the rules of the game are changing and we are trying to figure out what the new rules are. What made sense in 2003-2006 don’t necessarily make sense in the 2009-2011.
heheheh..don’t mince words Noriel…tell us what you really think.
Comrades Bush, Paulson and Bernanke Welcome You to the USSRA (United Socialist State Republic of America)
Email PrintShare
Delicious Digg Facebook reddit Technorati
Nouriel Roubini | Sep 9, 2008
The now inevitable nationalization of Fannie and Freddie is the most radical regime change in global economic and financial affairs in decades. For the last twenty years after the collapse of the USSR, the fall of the Iron Curtain and the economic reforms in China and other emerging market economies the world economy has moved away from state ownership of the economy and towards privatization of previously stated owned enterprises. This trends was aggressively supported the United States that preached right and left the benefits of free markets and free private enterprise.
Today instead the US has performed the greatest nationalization in the history of humanity. By nationalizing Fannie and Freddie the US has increased its public assets by almost $6 trillion and has increased its public debt/liabilities by another $6 trillion. The US has also turned itself into the largest government-owned hedge fund in the world: by injecting a likely $200 billion of capital into Fannie and Freddie and taking on almost $6 trillion of liabilities of such GSEs the US has also undertaken the biggest and most levered LBO (“leveraged buy-out”) in human history that has a debt to equity ratio of 30 ($6,000 billion of debt against $200 billion of equity).
So now Comrades Bush, Paulson and Bernanke (as originally nicknamed by Willem Buiter) have now turned the USA into the USSRA (the United Socialist State Republic of America). Socialism is indeed alive and well in America; but this is socialism for the rich, the well connected and Wall Street. A socialism where profits are privatized and losses are socialized with the US tax-payer being charged the bill of $300 billion.
This biggest bailout and nationalization in human history comes from the most fanatically and ideologically zealot free-market laissez-faire administration in US history. These are the folks who for years spewed the rhetoric of free markets and cutting down government intervention in economic affairs. But they were so fanatically ideological about free markets that they did not realize that financial and other markets without proper rules, supervision and regulation are like a jungle where greed – untempered by fear of loss or of punishment – leads to credit bubbles and asset bubbles and manias and eventual bust and panics.
The ideologue “regulators” who literally held a chain saw at a public event to smash “unnecessary regulations” are now communists nationalizing private firms and socializing their losses: the bailout of the Bear Stearns creditors, the bailout of Fannie and Freddie, the use of the Fed balance sheet (hundreds of billions of safe US Treasuries swapped for junk toxic illiquid private securities), the use of the other GSEs (the Federal Home Loan Bank system) to provide hundreds of billions of dollars of “liquidity” to distressed, illiquid and insolvent mortgage lenders, the use of the SEC to manipulate the stock market (restrictions on short sales), the use of the US Treasury to manipulate the mortgage market (Treasury will now for the first time outright buy agency MBS to manipulate and prop up this market), the creation of a whole host of new bailout facilities (TAF, TSLF, PDCF) to prop and rescue banks and, for the first time since the Great Depression,to bail out non-bank financial institutions, and a whole range of other executive and legislative actions (including the recent bill to provide a public guarantee to mortgage for banks willing to reduce their face value).
This is the biggest and most socialist government intervention in economic affairs since the formation of the Soviet Union and Communist China. So foreign investors are now welcome to the USSRA (the United Socialist State Republic of America) where they can earn fat spreads relative to Treasuries on agency debt and never face any credit risks (not even the subordinated debt holders who made a fortune yesterday as those claims were also made whole).
Like scores of evangelists and hypocrites and moralists who spew and praise family values and pretend to be holier than thou and are then regularly caught cheating or cross dressing or found to be perverts these Bush hypocrites who spewed for years the glory of unfettered wild west laissez faire jungle capitalism (and never believed in any sensible and appropriate regulation and supervision of financial markets) allowed the biggest debt bubble ever to fester without any control, have caused the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression and are now forced to perform the biggest government intervention and nationalizations in the recent history of humanity, all for the benefit of the rich and the well connected. So Comrades Bush and Paulson and Bernanke will rightly pass to the history books as a troika of Bolsheviks who turned the USA into the USSRA. Fanatic zealots of any religion are always pests that cause havoc and destruction with their inflexible fanaticism; but they usually don’t run the biggest economy in the world. But these laissez faire voodoo-economics zealots in charge of the USA have now caused the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression and the nastiest economic crisis in decades. So let them be shamed in public for their hypocrisy and zealotry that has caused so much financial and economic damage.
http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/commentary/featuredcommentary?art_id=10114
If the US were an emerging market such a crisis would have already erupted, but the US is still protected by the dollar’s reserve currency role and its superpower status. The IMF is not going to be called in. Instead, foreign investors will do the job by withholding or withdrawing capital. The recent sharp upturn in the Dollar (which has all the hallmarks of a bear market rally) will reverse as dollar holders take full stock of what has happened. In defiance of low Fed-managed short rates, US Treasury long bond yields are going higher. In time probably much higher. The present market euphoria is nothing but a mirage.
2fish:
“My personal feeling was that holding large dollar reserves was the “least bad” of several options. Financing a massive real estate bubble in the United States I think is much preferable to financing a massive real estate bubble in China which I think is what would have happened had the money stayed
there.”
Didn’t have to be. Figuring out where to mis-allocate capital is the worst option.
Lots of things to do with money:
A few suggestions:
1) Solve pollution problem. Maybe even buy US pollution control equipment. We have a well developed industry.
2) They import grain from the US, which really bugs me. Modernize farming?
3) Energy. They are building lots of nuclear power plants. They were going to build lots of coal to synfuel plants, but are coming to the realization that China is running out of water, and those use a lot of water.
4) De-desalinization plants? Another US product to buy.
5)Public transportation other than the big public highway program and lots of car manufacturers.
5) Pension plan for workers??? Maybe workers don’t think a SWF is explicit enough?
There’s got to be lots more things, but I don’t know that much about China.
Regula: There’s got to be lots more things, but I don’t know that much about China.
The problem is that you just can’t wave a magic wand and have everything magically happen. Central planning in which you have a small group of people even try to run an economy just doesn’t work very well. The problem is that building hospitals is a good thing, building schools is a good thing, stopping pollution is a good thing, how do you balance between the three.
Even when you have something in which central planning works well, it takes some time to implement something.
But if you think that laissez-faire economies basically don’t work and that some sort of heavy state involvement is necessary for markets to work, it’s not surprising that we got to this point.
From DC quoting Prudentbear: If the US were an emerging market such a crisis would have already erupted, but the US is still protected by the dollar’s reserve currency role and its superpower status. The IMF is not going to be called in. Instead, foreign investors will do the job by withholding or withdrawing capital
But if you say the Chinese government is going to continue to need to avoid revaluation of the RMB in order to prevent workers from getting unemployed and if you think that China is critically dependent on exports to the US for jobs, then you better hope that the “day of reckoning” will never happen.
Since you happen to support keeping the peg, do you think that this is a sustainable strategy?
If it is, then it means that the US and China can continue to maintain the status quo indefinitely, and that you think the author is wrong, since China need to and shouldn’t pull the plug on the current situation.
If you *don’t* think that it is a sustainable situation, then why you are in favor of the Chinese government putting off the pain to later while at the same time complaining that the US is doing the same thing.
If you think that the US economy is doomed (which incidentally I don’t), then a policy of continuing to increase imports and making your economy dependent on exports to a doomed economy seems quite stupid, and it seems to me that if you think this is going to happen, then the Chinese government should take the pain of shutting down export plants now rather than wait for those plants to be shut down when the US economy collapses.
As it is, the current situation forces China to do everything it can to prop up the United States economy. I don’t think this is a bad thing, but I thought you would.
Another question for DC….
The Chinese government consists of different groups of people who want different things. Right now the government seems to think that it should appreciate the RMB, and you seem to agree.
Question: Suppose a month from now, they change their mind, and decide to rapidly appreciate the RMB, are you at that point going to argue that they are wrong?
Also, the RMB freeze is at the end of two to three years in which the RMB has risen 20%. Since you believe in a pegged currency, do you think that the Chinese government made a mistake in revaluing the RMB as much as it has?
I still think you do it like corporate planning, and now, or 5 years ago, was a good time to start because it does take time.
But we have the same problems here when things get complicated…like energy self sufficiency, and all those other good things managed by the health, education and welfare dept.
> And if Joe Sixpack is able to borrow large
> amounts of money, buy an overpriced house
> and then have that loan inflate away, he ends up
> ahead. This is what happened in the 1970’s.
1970s had real wages rising to pay off the original debt, which is unlike now.
With 2 billion new laborers, real wages won’t climb fast enough…..so….if you can keep up with your house payments as currently structured, you might be able to hold on through a dollar devaluation….but if you cannot keep up with your house payments now (because you overpaid, and eventually your motgage resets to the real payment schedule), or you lose your job (outsourcing, recession, …) then you will get to pay in cheaper dollars, but you still won’t have enough income to afford the overpriced home.
…in other words, your income won’t allow you to feed at the devaluation trough.
If that’s true of enough people, home prices will crater in nominal terms, instead of just real terms.
Ultimately, the US economy is built on the consumer’s earning power….which no one
is paying any attention to
Is this some guy impersonating Yves Smith?
http://blownmortgage.com/2007/10/30/yves-smith-of-naked-capitalism-interview/?disqus_reply=2254129#comment-2254129
2Fish: if Joe Sixpack is able to borrow large amounts of money, buy an overpriced house and then have that loan inflate away, he ends up ahead.
I’m a first time buyer. I’ll just rent until the Chinese had enough. They helped the bubble inflate, maybe they can help it deflate.
Like the above comment from KnotRP, I don’t believe there is actually inflation, not in wages. I don’t want to go in debt for 30 years and renounce to retirement just to buy a crappy condo. And Comrade Paulson can dance a Polka if he wants, I don’t care.
A question that I don’t see asked around, but crucial:
How much will tjhe national debt grow, thankls to GSE bailout?
Can we all just admit that Dave Chiang and China are infallible and always right and then we can focus what is germane to BS topic at hand. I feel that comment sections should pose serious questions and dialogue instead of just inflammatory, ignorant rubbish and borrowed ideas and URL’s.
From a markets standpoint, the movement in the dollar is nothing short of amazing since the announcement. There seems to be a massive squeeze on USD shorts going on, and I’m not sure whether this is structural or short-term. How many foreign companies borrowed/issued in USD? How many Chinese exporters played the over/underinvoicing game? How many multinationals underhedged dollar liabilities/risk? The market reaction is often more important than the news itself, and it’s very telling this week.
Martino,
Good question. I think the answer is about 55%. The New York Times reported (eg http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/business/07fannie.html) that Fannie and Freddie have $5.3tn of outstanding debt that they have either issued themselves or guaranteed, while the US national debt (see http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/) is about $9.7tn (including social security liabilities). There is some question, however, about whether what the government has done actually amounts to guaranteeing the agencies’ debt, since they have not committed to putting in more than $100bn of capital into each agency.