Words to Remember

From Macro Man….

Macro Man was admonished last night not to repeat his mantra about 6% rallies. Coming so soon after the last 6% rally, there would appear to be little utility in doing so, so he won’t. Instead, he’ll cue up the Smiths’ “Stop Me If You’ve Hear This One Before”. The 23% rally off the recent lows has been impressive, but let’s remember that it’s the fourth such rally of similar magnitude of the last six months…..many of which have been centered around policy developments.

People keep trying to spot the bottom. But I don’t think you will see a bottom in the markets until people stop thinking that they are saved every time a government program is announced.

I am in shock

Obama’s bank bailout plan has been announced. And naturally, it is horrible. Felix Salmon has the most understandable explanation of the plan (it is his strong suit). But all you really need to know is this….

This plan is the government’s preferred solution. It decrees the TARP money to be “equity”, and then goes off to the FDIC to provide “debt”. Both of these sources of funds are US government risk capital which will be used to buy up toxic legacy assets. There’s no economic reason to make the debt/equity distinction. But there is a political reason: Congress would have to approve any more equity spending, but FDIC guarantees can be issued to an unlimited degree without Congressional approval.

The problem with this approach is that it’s needlessly expensive. What kind of yields will investors demand on FDIC-insured debt from a Public-Private Investment Fund? My guess is that they’ll be at least 100bp and possibly much more than that more than the yields on Treasury bonds. But because of all the political sillybuggery involved here, the government can’t just issue debt to fund this program, and needs to come up with a way of pretending that it’s in fact Public-Private Investment Fund debt being issued with no more than an FDIC guarantee. (I think that the FDIC will not charge any money for this guarantee, but that’s unclear.)

Mr. Salmon has lot more details that are worth reading. But just from the above you should be able to figure out how messed up the plan is. It is one big shell game. But that is not what has me in shock.

Instead, I am nearly in faint because Paul Krugman is leading the charge against this plan and doing a good job to boot. This is just a sample….

The Obama administration is now completely wedded to the idea that there’s nothing fundamentally wrong with the financial system — that what we’re facing is the equivalent of a run on an essentially sound bank. As Tim Duy put it, there are no bad assets, only misunderstood assets. And if we get investors to understand that toxic waste is really, truly worth much more than anyone is willing to pay for it, all our problems will be solved.

To this end the plan proposes to create funds in which private investors put in a small amount of their own money, and in return get large, non-recourse loans from the taxpayer, with which to buy bad — I mean misunderstood — assets. This is supposed to lead to fair prices because the funds will engage in competitive bidding.

But it’s immediately obvious, if you think about it, that these funds will have skewed incentives. In effect, Treasury will be creating — deliberately! — the functional equivalent of Texas S&Ls in the 1980s: financial operations with very little capital but lots of government-guaranteed liabilities. For the private investors, this is an open invitation to play heads I win, tails the taxpayers lose. So sure, these investors will be ready to pay high prices for toxic waste. After all, the stuff might be worth something; and if it isn’t, that’s someone else’s problem.

And that’s just the start. He has been hammering away with succeeding blog posts.

Nursing homes are becoming dumping grounds for all sorts of unwanted people

From the AP….

Over the past several years, nursing homes have become dumping grounds for young and middle-age people with mental illness, according to Associated Press interviews and an analysis of data from all 50 states. And that has proved a prescription for violence, as Jackson’s case and others across the country illustrate.

Younger, stronger residents with schizophrenia, depression or bipolar disorder are living beside frail senior citizens, and sometimes taking their rage out on them.

“Sadly, we’re seeing the tragic results of the failure of federal and state governments to provide appropriate treatment and housing for those with mental illnesses and to provide a safe environment for the frail elderly,” said Janet Wells, director of public policy for the National Citizens’ Coalition for Nursing Home Reform.

Numbers obtained through the Freedom of Information Act and prepared exclusively for the AP by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services show nearly 125,000 young and middle-aged adults with serious mental illness lived in U.S. nursing homes last year.

That was a 41 percent increase from 2002, when nursing homes housed nearly 89,000 mentally ill people ages 22 to 64. Most states saw increases, with Utah, Nevada, Missouri, Alabama and Texas showing the steepest climbs.

Younger mentally ill people now make up more than 9 percent of the nation’s nearly 1.4 million nursing home residents, up from 6 percent in 2002.

Robbing The Healthy To Rescue The Irresponsible?

From Felix Salmon…..

The good news is that the two largest corporate credit unions — cesspits of toxic waste which loaded up on mortgage-backed securities for no good reason and in violation of their raison d’etre — have been “conserved” (taken over) by the NCUA, the credit-union equivalent of the FDIC, which has finally woken up to the fact that the current management at these shops is utterly incompetent and can’t be trusted.

The bad news is that the NCUA is still committed to the disastrous decision it made back in January, to whack 56 basis points off the net worth of every federal credit union in the country, as well as reducing those credit unions’ return on assets by 62 basis points, in an attempt to bail out these selfsame untrustworthy corporates.

I don’t know enough about the issue to have any opinion. But the rest of Felix’s post goes on to make some interesting points about how this will affect credit unions. If he is right, healthy credit unions are going to take a hit in order to rescue the big irresponsible credit unions that just went under.

Reportedly, it is one of the better run pension funds

From New York Times….

Two top advisers to Alan G. Hevesi, the former state comptroller, were charged Thursday in a 123-count grand jury indictment that said they had turned New York’s $122 billion pension fund into a criminal enterprise. The scheme netted them and other Hevesi associates tens of millions of dollars in kickbacks from firms investing the fund’s money, the indictment said.

Where is the Deflation?

From the AP…

The Labor Department reported Wednesday that consumer inflation rose 0.4 percent in February, the biggest one-month jump since a 0.7 percent rise in July. Two-thirds of last month’s increase, which was slightly more than analysts expected, reflected a big jump in gasoline pump prices.

Core inflation, which excludes food and energy, rose 0.2 percent in February, also slightly higher than the 0.1 percent rise economists expected.

The printing press is starting to warm up

From Brad Setser…..

I wanted to highlight one trend that I glossed over on Monday, namely that foreign demand for long-term Treasuries has disappeared over the last few months.

This is a problem. But the Fed is going to solve it. From a Federal Reserve press release….

To provide greater support to mortgage lending and housing markets, the Committee decided today to increase the size of the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet further by purchasing up to an additional $750 billion of agency mortgage-backed securities, bringing its total purchases of these securities to up to $1.25 trillion this year, and to increase its purchases of agency debt this year by up to $100 billion to a total of up to $200 billion. Moreover, to help improve conditions in private credit markets, the Committee decided to purchase up to $300 billion of longer-term Treasury securities over the next six months.

Buying agencies is old hat. The Federal Reserves started doing that around the same time foreign central banks stopped buying them. It is the long dated treasuries that are new. The Belmont Club has a round up of how various newspapers are reacting to this news.

What will the effects of this be? The Times reports in a different context….

The Bank of England believes that it may take “many months” before the full benefits of its radical strategy of creating new money to boost the economy will be felt, it emerged today.

The same could be said for any negative effects.

China is not looking for assurances, they are giving a warning

From The New York Times…

The Chinese prime minister, Wen Jiabao, spoke in unusually blunt terms on Friday about the “safety” of China’s $1 trillion investment in American government debt, the world’s largest such holding, and urged the Obama administration to offer assurances that the securities would maintain their value.

If that does not worry you, read the Wall Street Journal article…..

The Obama administration rejected China’s concerns that its vast holdings of U.S. assets might be unsafe, in an unusual diplomatic exchange that underscored the global importance and the potential fragility of the Sino-U.S. economic relationship.

In a coordinated response to blunt comments from Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, White House officials said Friday that Mr. Obama intends to return the country to fiscal prudence once the crisis passes.

“There’s no safer investment in the world than in the United States,” said presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs.

Every time during this current crisis someone has claimed that something was safe, it has run into trouble within six months. But such worries are old hat. If all there was to this story was somebody expressing worry about the ability of the Untied States to handle its debt load I would not even bother posting it. But what is more interesting about this story is how everyone seems to be willfully misinterpreting it.

This story has been all over the news, and yet everywhere I go people are talking about how China is looking for assurances. But that does not come close to passing the smell test. You don’t have a leader of a country seek assurances. You do that through private diplomatic means. When a leader of a country speaks, it is to shape public perception and to warn the world about actions that might be forthcoming.

Yet everyone is bending over backwards to convince themselves that this is nothing more than China looking for assurance. Every article on the subject is filled with experts who assure us that China has not real choice and that it must continue to buy US assets. I think Brad Setser falls into this trap when he says…..

1) China both wants to maintain the RMB’s link to the dollar and avoid adding to its already large dollar exposure. Yet so long as China pegs to the dollar and runs a sizable current account surplus, it is hard to see how China can avoid adding to its dollar holdings.**

2) China is torn between its interest as a creditor and its interests as an exporter. China’s commercial interests would be best served by an even larger US stimulus, one that helped spur US demand for China’s goods. China’s reserve managers though worry that the US won’t be able to finance a large stimulus and thus are worried that a rise in Treasury supply would reduce the value of China’s existing Treasuries.

The problem with Mr. Setser’s analysis is that he assumes that the question of what is best for China’s economy and the question of what is best for the value of China’s reserves are two separate issues in the minds of China’s policy makers. But while this was certainly true is the past, there is no reason to assume that this is true today.

In the past it was clear that China was willing to sacrifice the value of its reserves in order to facilitate economic growth. But that was back when China was exchanging the value of its reserves for a booming trade surplus. Today China’s trade surplus is falling like a rock. In January, China’s trade surplus was $39.1 billion dollars. In febuary, its trade surplus was only $4.84 billion dollars. If China’s trade surplus keeps falling at its current rate, China will swing into a trade deficit next quarter. If that happens, China will need to sell some of its dollars assets to fund its imports.

This scenario is currently regarded as unthinkable by most commentators. But it is the logical result of China trying to stimulate domestic demand. In fact, if China wants to prop up domestic demand (like it has promised to do) without running a huge fiscal deficit (like it has promised not to do) then they have no choice but to engage in a massive sell down of their reserves.

So the reason that China is making it very public that they expect the US to insure the value of China’s investments may have something to do with the fact that China is starting to think that it may need those assets to keep its own economy afloat.

Regardless of whether I am right or not, the idea that that Prime Minster of China is looking for assurance is bunk. The US government has already committed to standing behind the agency debt. The treasuries have it in writing that they are backed by the full faith and credit of the US government. How are more words going to assure the Chinese? There is something more going on here.