The
Federal Reserve is increasing the long-term risk in our financial
system through both its monetary and regulatory policies. It is
simultaneously redistributing wealth from moderate-income savers to
high-income households and laying the foundation for another housing
bubble.
From 1914 until 2007 the Fed’s balance sheet grew to $900 billion. Since 2007 the balance sheet has exploded to $3.2 trillion and is growing $80 billion per month. The Fed’s capital ratio is currently 1.3 percent, while the average capital ratio of the largest banks is 8.0 percent. The Fed fails its own stress test and should be forced to shrink by its own standards. The risk in the financial system is not large banks, but the Fed itself.
The Fed’s balance sheet has been radically expanded to hold down interest rates by buying Treasury and Freddie/Fannie bonds. This has significantly expanded the lending capacity of banks. Increasing the level of bank reserves has the same effect as “printing money.” If the economy starts to grow, either inflation will increase as money velocity accelerates or the Fed will have to withdraw the excess reserves, which will result in rapidly rising interest rates and major losses for bond holders. If the Fed does not shrink its balance sheet, the economy could be stuck in very slow growth as the government consumes an increasing share of the economy, as has happened in Japan.
Since the U.S. dollar is the world’s reserve currency, these actions have created a global currency trade war. This currency trade war causes misallocation of capital and lowers the global standard of living just like a trade war based on raising tariffs. Instead of production being driven by real competitive advantages and efficiencies, fluctuating currency values are causing a sub-optimization of resources. Every country wants the “cheapest” currency to make its export industries more competitive.
The only reason the U.S. dollar has held its relative value is its status as the reserve currency. This allows the Fed and Congress to get away with printing money and incurring massive debt that the market would not otherwise permit. Unfortunately, having the world’s reserve currency creates a huge temptation to overleverage and create an unsustainable level of debt. Someday the rest of the world may wake up and realize the United States is in poor financial condition — the emperor has no clothes.
Current Fed regulatory policy is also increasing the risk in the banking system. All large banks are being forced to use the same regulatory-driven mathematical risk management models. This means that all the major banks will have a strong incentive to take the same type of risk, which significantly increases the overall risk in the financial system.
The significant expansion of the monetary base (printing money) is surely creating misinvestments in the economy. The combination of easy money, low long-term interest rates, and very liberal lending standards by the Federal Housing Administration could be igniting another housing bubble, while we are still trying to recover from the last one. These combined government policies are encouraging consumption (housing is consumption) when the U.S. economy has a negative real savings rate, when government deficits (including unfunded liabilities) are considered. The lack of real savings and capital will reduce our longterm ability to grow the economy.
By holding interest rates below what the market would create, the Fed is punishing moderate-income savers, especially older individuals. Retired individuals with low to moderate net worth should not be making risky investments. However, the Fed has forced down interest rates so that low-risk investments have negative real returns. This means that many older individuals who hoped to live on their interest income are having to consume their principle, which threatens their standard of living. On the other hand the extra liquidity created by the Fed is driving higher returns in risky investments, typically owned by high-net-worth individuals.
The primary beneficiary of the Fed’s low interest rate strategy is the U.S. government, the world’s largest debtor. The federal government’s annual deficit is at least $250 billion less than it would be if interest rates were normalized. It appears that the real purpose of the Fed is to obtain favorable financing for the U.S. government, at the expense of private savers.
The good news is that the United States is experiencing an economic recovery. However, it is the slowest recovery in our history, and we still have three million fewer jobs than in 2007. If markets had been allowed to correct, if the Fed had maintained sound money, and if fiscal and regulatory policies were rational, our growth rate would be significantly faster and the U.S. government’s financial position much sounder.
By John A Allison
From 1914 until 2007 the Fed’s balance sheet grew to $900 billion. Since 2007 the balance sheet has exploded to $3.2 trillion and is growing $80 billion per month. The Fed’s capital ratio is currently 1.3 percent, while the average capital ratio of the largest banks is 8.0 percent. The Fed fails its own stress test and should be forced to shrink by its own standards. The risk in the financial system is not large banks, but the Fed itself.
The Fed’s balance sheet has been radically expanded to hold down interest rates by buying Treasury and Freddie/Fannie bonds. This has significantly expanded the lending capacity of banks. Increasing the level of bank reserves has the same effect as “printing money.” If the economy starts to grow, either inflation will increase as money velocity accelerates or the Fed will have to withdraw the excess reserves, which will result in rapidly rising interest rates and major losses for bond holders. If the Fed does not shrink its balance sheet, the economy could be stuck in very slow growth as the government consumes an increasing share of the economy, as has happened in Japan.
Since the U.S. dollar is the world’s reserve currency, these actions have created a global currency trade war. This currency trade war causes misallocation of capital and lowers the global standard of living just like a trade war based on raising tariffs. Instead of production being driven by real competitive advantages and efficiencies, fluctuating currency values are causing a sub-optimization of resources. Every country wants the “cheapest” currency to make its export industries more competitive.
The only reason the U.S. dollar has held its relative value is its status as the reserve currency. This allows the Fed and Congress to get away with printing money and incurring massive debt that the market would not otherwise permit. Unfortunately, having the world’s reserve currency creates a huge temptation to overleverage and create an unsustainable level of debt. Someday the rest of the world may wake up and realize the United States is in poor financial condition — the emperor has no clothes.
Current Fed regulatory policy is also increasing the risk in the banking system. All large banks are being forced to use the same regulatory-driven mathematical risk management models. This means that all the major banks will have a strong incentive to take the same type of risk, which significantly increases the overall risk in the financial system.
The significant expansion of the monetary base (printing money) is surely creating misinvestments in the economy. The combination of easy money, low long-term interest rates, and very liberal lending standards by the Federal Housing Administration could be igniting another housing bubble, while we are still trying to recover from the last one. These combined government policies are encouraging consumption (housing is consumption) when the U.S. economy has a negative real savings rate, when government deficits (including unfunded liabilities) are considered. The lack of real savings and capital will reduce our longterm ability to grow the economy.
By holding interest rates below what the market would create, the Fed is punishing moderate-income savers, especially older individuals. Retired individuals with low to moderate net worth should not be making risky investments. However, the Fed has forced down interest rates so that low-risk investments have negative real returns. This means that many older individuals who hoped to live on their interest income are having to consume their principle, which threatens their standard of living. On the other hand the extra liquidity created by the Fed is driving higher returns in risky investments, typically owned by high-net-worth individuals.
The primary beneficiary of the Fed’s low interest rate strategy is the U.S. government, the world’s largest debtor. The federal government’s annual deficit is at least $250 billion less than it would be if interest rates were normalized. It appears that the real purpose of the Fed is to obtain favorable financing for the U.S. government, at the expense of private savers.
The good news is that the United States is experiencing an economic recovery. However, it is the slowest recovery in our history, and we still have three million fewer jobs than in 2007. If markets had been allowed to correct, if the Fed had maintained sound money, and if fiscal and regulatory policies were rational, our growth rate would be significantly faster and the U.S. government’s financial position much sounder.
By John A Allison
First of all there is no recovery underway. Second, we cannot even hope to grow our way out of this. This is not pretty but those are the facts boys and girls. We are on the verge of a new chapter in this country's history that will change us into a slave beholding to NWO. In order for this to happen we much be destroyed economically and socially.
ReplyDeleteright on track.....
Nice post Lou, and once again, this is an area that many agree on regardless of political affiliation. Reading the very top, he makes clear something that many want to deny, which is that there has been a massive transfer of wealth from the middle to the top. Without the Fed, much of that transfer would have been difficult. Though it's more complex then that, this piece is an accurate description for as far as it goes.
ReplyDeleteAbout recovery Angie, you are not correct, there is a recovery. possibly, you can't admit that because it would then mean you have give Obama credit. I don't see it that way. The free market has broken the spirit of at least two generations in this country and has begun to instill in successive generations that they will not do better then their parents did. Things got so bad that millions of people have learned to be at least grateful for the opportunity to go to work making half what they used to because it's better then starting at four walls deciding whether or not to blow their brains out. There IS a recovery under way, and it is shitty because while people are able to feed themselves, they will not be able to participate meaningfully in the sharing of profit for a very long time.
Max,
DeleteThe recovery is largely due to the Federal Reserve and their policies. Low interest rates are a great stimulus and when you add 3 trillion in bond/treasury purchases, it makes for growth.
My counter though Lou would be that we have had a sea of liquidity for years now. Corporate tills are jammed with cash that they are not investing. Banks have made it tougher for small businesses to get money. The pumping of the Fed is still largely going right in the pockets of money changers, just as the article implies. What I believe is causing a "recovery" is that the middle class is adapting to being downsized. They make less and spend less but have also been trying to pay down personal debt. Jobs are being created...shitty service jobs that pay little and offer few benefits...a capitalist's dream.
DeleteReal, measurable growth, IMO, wont' happen until the people who actually spend money have something to spend. I'm a broken record on this and in this crowd, what I say is definitely dismissed as communist shit. Nonetheless, no one ever explains to me how the economy can grow when the people who comparatively spend the least, make the largest amount of money. We have a lot of capital in the hands of just a few who have no incentive to put it to risk. Why should they? We have come close to squeezing labor just about as tight as we can and eventually, people will retire, jobs will open up and producers will need to pay labor better. Once that happens, money will circulate in a meaningful way. Until then, it's just more of the same.
OK commie pinko, wish some of those low paying jobs would be created here as the kid needs a job.
DeleteYou are correct about a true recovery. They fail to address the not so fair free trade agreements that give the advantage to overseas manufacturers. Imagine if it were a fair trade agreement. Imports equal exports or tariffs to equalize wages and benefits. A big incentive to return jobs to the US.
Interesting thing is there is a sea of money parked overseas it and will remain there as the tax rate is to high to bring it back. Imagine a rework of the tax code to what the rest of the world uses. (worldwide vs. territorial tax code) add to that the uncertainty of the true costs of the PPACA and new regulations and everyone is sitting tight and holding on to their cash.
Don't forget to root for the Wings tonight.
Careful what you wish for, those low paying jobs may make the entirety of America the next China. I agree on the tariff, at least in the short term until the multinationals used their influence to get it undone.
DeleteI disagree, however, on your third para. We did this and the money simply came back and went to stock buybacks. It sounds great on paper, but the multinationals could give a shit about investing here. They will continue to invest their money overseas until working conditions and environmental regulations equalize with this country. This is going to be a long, long painful period for Americans, but when that equalization occurs, perhaps two generations from now, it will be a very good thing for workers here.
Hawks down 2-1 with game 3 tonight. Hope they get their act together.
BTW, pink is not my best color!