Wednesday, September 3, 2014

01/17/2003 If Only... *


A gallant effort to resurrect the bull market was hit this week by myriad problems economic, financial, and geopolitical. For the week, the Dow dipped 2% and the S&P500 declined 3%. The Morgan Stanley Cyclical and Morgan Stanley Consumer indices declined 2%. The broader market also gave up some gains, as the small cap Russell 2000 and S&P400 Mid-Cap indices shed about 2%. Many of this year’s early leaders were this week’s biggest losers. On the back of the drubbing of Microsoft, the NASDAQ100 sank 6%. The Morgan Stanley High Tech index dropped 8%, while the Semiconductors plunged 12%. The Street.com Internet index was hit for 6% and the NASDAQ Telecommunications index 4%. The resilient Biotechs were about unchanged. The financial stocks were mixed. The Securities Broker/Dealer index was down 5%, while the Banks gave up only 1%. Although bullion was up $1.90, the HUI gold index dipped 3%.

The Treasury market was relieved by it all. For the week, two-year Treasury yields dropped nine basis points to 1.68% and five-year yields sank 15 to 2.97%. The 10-year yield declined 11 basis points to 4.01%, while the long-bond saw its yield dip 12 basis points to 5.04%. Agency debt continues to perform well, with the implied yield on agency futures sinking 15 basis points. Mortgage-backs gave back some of their strong relative performance, with benchmark yields generally declining only 6 basis points. The spread on Fannie’s 5 3/8 2011 note narrowed one to 38, while the 10-year dollar swap spread declined 1.5 to a narrow 44. Corporate spreads generally widened marginally. The dollar fell to the lowest level against the euro since October 1999 and to a four-year low against the Swiss franc. Latin American currencies came under significant selling pressure, especially late in the week. The CRB commodity index continued its move higher, adding less than 1% this week.


While clearly impacted by year-end maneuvering, broad money supply (M3) dropped $58.9 billion last week. Demand and Checkable deposits combined for a decline of about $22.4 billion. Savings Deposits increased $8.1 billion. Retail Money Fund deposits were down $2.7 billion, and Institutional Money Fund deposits were down $6.9 billion. Large Denominated Deposits declined $6.9 billion. Repurchase Agreements, the big gainer over the past month, saw a decline of $25.8 billion last week. Bank assets have also been impacted by year-end. Last week, Total Assets increased $46.6 billion after declining $112 billion the previous week. Loans and Leases jumped $49.2 billion after dropping $77.7 billion. Commercial and Industrial loans were up $5.4 billion last week, while Real Estate loans were up $18.7 billion. Corporate and agency debt issuance slowed from last week’s barrage, but ended the week with $35 billion sold. Year-to-date issuance has already reached about $115 billion. Asset-backed issuance remained brisk at $6 billion, with y-t-d issuance at a hot $13.7 billion.


Today’s University of Michigan preliminary survey of January Consumer Confidence was disappointing. With expectations for a slight improvement to 87, confidence was reported at only 83.7 (down from May’s 96.9). And while the index of current conditions was up slightly, Economic Outlook sank 5.6 points to the lowest level since October. It appears that stock market rallies now have noticeably less impact on consumers than in the past. Until proven otherwise, we will read weak consumer confidence readings as evidence of heightened concern with the poor state of household finances. Elsewhere, the Mortgage Bankers Association's weekly Refi Index declined 1.4%, but remains at a historically high level. The Purchase index declined 4.8% for the week, only slightly above the year ago level. There were 29,108 bankruptcies filed last week, up 11% y-o-y.


January 13 – Moody’s: “U.S. asset-backed securities (ABS) issuance reached nearly $400 billion in 2002 and has grown on average 26% annually since 1986, says Moody's Investors Service in its first report looking at the trends and history of ABS issuance since the market's inception. In contrast, corporate bond issuance volume experienced a 9% average annual growth rate during the same period… In 2001, home equity issuance increased by 56%, driven by the low interest rate environment, while CDO issuance dropped by 32%, primarily due to the poor performance of underlying corporate bonds.”


January 13 – Fitch: “Marking an unprecedented decline in corporate credit quality, 2002 produced $109.8 billion in high yield defaults and a new par based record default rate of 16.4%, exceeding 2001's $78.2 billion default volume and 12.9% default rate.”


January 16 – Standard & Poor’s: “Against a backdrop of lagging consumer confidence, rising unemployment, and concerns about a stalling economic recovery, the U.S. ABS sector ended 2002 much as it began, with a flurry of downgrade activity… Moreover, last year’s record 688 ABS downgrades exceeds the 637 life-to-date ABS downgrades that occurred between 1985 and 2001 inclusively. Indeed, fourth-quarter 2002 continued the downward trend exhibited during the entire year: there were 176 lowered ratings during the quarter, affecting 133 transactions across more than seven asset classes.”


January 16 – Dow Jones (Tom Barkley): “The ‘bleak’ outlook for the U.S. airline industry portends another difficult year for the aircraft leasing environment, Fitch Ratings said Thursday. In a conference call, the rating agency warned of another likely round of downgrades for aircraft-backed structured finance deals and depressed plane values over the next several years. ‘The operating environment for U.S. majors continues to be quite discouraging, with persistent weakness in business travel demand, low passenger yields and very slow recovery in passenger unit revenues throughout the country,’ said Fitch airline analyst Bill Warlick, who said there are few signs of a robust recovery for 2003… Meanwhile, aircraft values have fallen between 10% and 50% this year, depending on the type and liquidity of the aircraft, and they aren’t likely to recover until 2005 at best, warned structured finance analyst Donald Powell. Along with bankrupt airlines cutting their fleets, other airlines are also grounding inefficient aircraft, as well. About 1,800 planes are now parked in the desert, and Fitch estimates that only 500 to 600 of those will return to service. Powell anticipates ‘highly discounted distressed sales’ this year, which could depress aircraft values another 20%, bringing values down between 30% and

70% from their pre-Sept. 11 levels.” (If Only…the Fed could inflate aircraft values…)

January 15 – Bloomberg: “Bankruptcy filings by the Ottawa Senators and Buffalo Sabres may drag other National Hockey League teams into financial trouble as lenders consider whether to cut team values and force them to pay back part of their debt, bankers said. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and SG Cowen Securities Corp. are among the firms that have written clauses into loans they’ve arranged or made to hockey teams allowing the lenders to demand clubs reduce debt if the values of other franchises fall. Such ‘price-floor covenants’ typically limit debt to half of a team’s value. Under current economic conditions, many of the league’s teams would have a hard time coming up with the money to reduce debt, and that could lead to more bankruptcies, said Sal Galatioto, head of Lehman Brothers Inc.’s sports finance unit. ‘For the league, this is scary,’ Galatioto said. ‘It's going to be harder and more expensive for NHL teams to get credit, and that could put marginal teams in distress.’” (If Only…the Fed could inflate NHL franchise values…)


January 13 – Bloomberg: “Standard & Poor’s said it lowered ratings on almost twice the amount of public debt that it raised last year because of weak economic conditions, increasing costs for governments, and poor stock performance. S&P lowered the credit rating last year on $61.6 billion of debt from five U.S. states and one commonwealth: California, Colorado, Kentucky, New Jersey, Wisconsin and Puerto Rico… The credit rating company last year lowered its outlook to ‘negative,’ meaning a downgrade is likely if trends continue, on eight states: Arizona, Connecticut, Kansas, Maine, Ohio, Oregon, Tennessee and Washington. Indiana had its outlook lowered to ‘negative’ in 2001, and maintains a negative outlook. Three states, Illinois, Massachusetts and Rhode Island, had their outlooks reduced to ‘stable’ from ‘positive’ last year. ‘States are coming into 2003 in the most negative posture we’ve seen,’ said S&P analyst Alex Fraser…”


January 16 – Bloomberg: “Illinois faces a $4.8-billion budget deficit, giving the state the fifth-largest deficit in the U.S., Governor Roy Blagojevich said, calling for the state to change spending and revenue policies. Illinois, the U.S.’s fifth-largest state, is expected to have a $1.2 billion deficit in its 2003 fiscal year and a $3.6 billion deficit in its 2004 fiscal year… Illinois faces the ‘worst budget crisis’ it has ever known, Blagojevich said. Illinois would follow New Jersey with a $5 billion deficit, according to rankings by the American Legislative Exchange Council. Illinois originally ranked ninth with an estimated $2.25 billion deficit when the rankings were released last week.” 


January 15 – Bloomberg: “New York State might defer paying some bills until the next fiscal year should legislators fail to authorize selling bonds backed by money from the tobacco-suit settlement in time to close a gap of as much as $2.5 billion in this year’s budget, the budget division said. In addition, a December cash flow report by the state comptroller’s office said tax and other general fund receipts declined 15.6 percent in the first nine months of the fiscal year, compared with the previous year. The numbers ‘are extremely troubling, and raise questions of how the state will address tremendous budget gaps’…”

January 13 – Bloomberg: “Texas’ budget shortfall, driven by falling sales tax receipts, will be $9.9 billion by September 2005, nearly double projections and $495 for every resident of the country’s second most-populous state. Texas faces a $1.8 billion deficit in its current fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, and an $8.1 billion deficit in the 2004-2005 fiscal year, Texas Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn said… The deficit widened from $5.1 billion as sales, franchise and automobile taxes declined. ‘The aspects of our economy that feed the sales tax, by far, our most important source of revenue, have declined,’ Strayhorn said… Texas’ revenue fell 9.54 percent as franchise, sales and automobile taxes paid by businesses and sales taxes and other revenue declined in the quarter ended Dec. 31…”


January 17 – Bloomberg: “Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano wants to borrow against state lottery revenue, state-owned buildings and a land trust fund as part of a plan to close a $1 billion budget deficit without raising taxes.”


January 17 – Bloomberg: “The Texas Teacher Retirement System faces a $3.3 billion unfunded liability, according to the Web site of Pensions & Investments magazine, citing a report by the state auditor. The $67 billion fund, nation’s seventh-largest pension system, went from fully funded to under funded in 2002, because of market declines the last two years that led to net investment losses of $16.2 billion…” (If Only…the Fed could inflate equities back to Bubble peaks…)


January 16 – Bloomberg: “California paying the biggest interest premium ever for a U.S. tobacco bond to sell a record $3 billion in debt may signal that other states will need to boost yields to attract buyers. The Golden State Tobacco Securitization Corp. sold the bonds yesterday to yield a top 7 percent, or 220 basis points more than the 4.8 percent for top-rated state debt… Yields on tax-exempt tobacco bonds began rising last year as a surge of sales put some investors near limits for holding the debt. Dozens of states and municipalities have sold $17.5 billion in bonds backed by a 1998 settlement with big cigarette makers in the U.S., such as Philip Morris Cos. California plans another $2 billion tobacco bond sale in April. Other states, including New York and Oregon, may add as much as $10 billion more. A 7 percent tax-free yield translates into a taxable equivalent return of 12.57 percent for a California resident in the top federal and state income tax brackets.” (If Only…the Fed could inflate state revenues…without impacting consumer prices.)


The Consumer Price Index (CPI) saw its y-o-y change rise to 2.4% in December, up from November’s 2.2%. The y-o-y change for the index was at 1.5% in September and 1.1% for June. Yet, last month y-o-y Transportation costs were up 3.8%, Medical Care 5%, and Housing 2.4%. The Producer Price Index (PPI) was up 1.2% year-over-year, the highest rate since September 2001. Keep in mind that the y-o-y change in the PPI was a negative 2.70% in January and was at negative 1.90% as recently as September 2002. Importantly (especially for an economy that is currently importing on a monthly basis 70% more goods than it is exporting), the Import Price Index saw its y-o-y increase jump to 4.2%, the highest rate since November 2000. The y-o-y Import price change had been negative for 19 months before turning positive only three months previously in September. Looking back one year (December 2001), we see that year-over-year Import Prices were actually down 8.9%. In stark contrast, December 2002 Import Prices by category saw Petroleum up 57.9% y-o-y, Industrial Prices up 22% y-o-y, Foods, Beverages up 6.2% y-o-y, Capital Goods down 2.5% y-o-y, and Consumer Goods down 0.7% y-o-y. For comparison, December 2001 y-o-y price changes by import category had Petroleum down 38.5%, Industrial Supplies down 23.9%, Foods, Beverages down 4.9%, Capital Goods down 2.6%, and Consumer Goods down 0.8%. What a difference a year makes, and we fully expect that the death of King Dollar marks a historic inflection point with regard to relative prices for so many things, real and financial.


If Only…the Fed could inject sufficient money into the system to inflate Capital Goods prices, while not inflating oil and import prices...


The November trade deficit surged to a much worse-than-expected and record $40.1 billion. And while the unloading of ships after October’s 10-day dock strike was a factor, the story here is an out-of-control trade situation, a maladjusted economy, and a faltering dollar. For the month, Goods Imports of $102.3 billion (up 14% y-o-y) were 76% above Goods Exports of $58 billion (up 3% y-o-y). Let’s take a look at December Goods Imports by category, keeping in mind that imports are surging because of both volume and price increases. Industrial Supplies were up 22.6% y-o-y, with Crude Oil up 51.6%. Consumer Goods were up 17.5%, with Pharmaceuticals up 17.5% and Apparel up 21.2%. Automotive was up 10.6% and Food & Beverage was up 10.3%. Capital Goods imports were up 6.9% y-o-y, with Telecom Equipment up 31.3%. Moreover, December data from the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach offer little encouragement. December year-over-year inbound containers were up 16% versus November’s 10.1%. During the month, a combined 475,048 inbound containers were unloaded, with 275,086 (58%) departing empty. The number of outbound empty containers was up 32% y-o-y.


“SLM Corporation, commonly know as Sallie Mae, today reported fourth-quarter and year-end 2002 earnings and performance results that include an 18-percent annual increase in…loan originations, resulting in a calendar year 2002 total of $11.9 billion.”


Fannie had quite a December. “Total Business Volume (total mortgage and MBS purchases) rose to $113.8 billion, the highest on record.” The previous record of $95.6 billion was set during November. Fannie’s Book of Business (retained mortgage portfolio plus guaranteed MBS held in the marketplace) expanded $40.5 billion during the month, a 31% annualized rate, to $1.82 Trillion. Fannie’s retained mortgage portfolio expanded $20 billion during December, a 59% annualized rate.


During the fourth quarter, Fannie’s Total Book of Business surged a record $78.44 billion, an annualized growth rate of 18%. Fannie’s Total Assets jumped a striking (and record) $49.5 billion, an annualized rate of 24%. For comparison, Total Assets increased $38 billion during the first three quarters of 2002. Also worth noting, the aggressive “reliquefication” efforts back in the fourth quarter of 1998 saw a record $30 billion asset growth. For 2002, Fannie’s Total Book of Business increased $256.2 billion, or 16%. To put this number into perspective, 1998 was the first year TOTAL U.S. home mortgage borrowings surpassed $250 billion. Fannie’s Total Business Volume (purchases) was up 38% last year to $849 billion. The company repurchased 15.4 million shares during 2002, up from 2001’s 6.0 million. During the past five years, Fannie’s Total Book of Business increased $925 billion (103%). Total Assets expanded $496 billion, or 127%.


Interesting comments from a Fannie Mae executive during Wednesday’s conference call: “It’s important to note that we serve a role in the financial markets of reducing systemic risk by absorbing some of the flows that you see coming through the marketplace. I think we’ve done that fairly effectively. I think that we do absorb some risk for our shareholders. We’ve tended to manage it effectively. We’ve tended to earn a good income from it over time, and still remain at a very, very low risk position. I think it’s an important role, not just for our shareholders. I think it’s an important role from a public policy standpoint. I think we done that again this year.”


When did playing central banker become part of the GSE mission? What are the systemic consequences for repeatedly putting “coins in the fuse box”? Whether their executives appreciate it or not, the reality of this endemic Bubble situation is that Fannie’s “very, very low risk position” is but a figment of imaginations; it will disappear as soon as their extraordinary growth slows. But at least the issue of the GSEs as central bank-style buyers of (first and) last resort is now out of the closet. This week, in a speech before the Exchequer Club in Washington, DC, Armando Falcon, (Director of The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight - OFHEO), made the following comment: “The Enterprises also provide liquidity and stability to the mortgage market by purchasing mortgage securities during periods of significant market turmoil. For example, in the Fall of 1998…”


OFHEO, with supposed responsibility for government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) regulatory oversight, has an impossible job. The GSEs are today much too big to fail; much too big to even slow down; and, hence, too big to regulate. Nonetheless, Mr. Falcon this week addressed many issues confronting the GSEs and made some cogent points. He recognized the “challenging” task ahead for the GSEs in their efforts to obtain sufficient derivative protection in the marketplace to hedge ballooning interest-rate exposure. However, it is our view that, as the GSE’s have come to dominate the markets, hedging operations have become little more than a ruse. And the deeper we get into the Great Mortgage Finance Bubble, the more heavily GSE risk is weighted to Credit losses rather than interest rates. In their (thus far) unfettered capacity to create money and Credit, the GSEs do exercise considerable influence over interest rates. However, this manipulation over many years has created an inflationary Bubble with unprecedented risk to sinking housing prices and Credit losses. Today, it is fair to posit that things have become so distorted that the GSEs have huge Credit exposure to even stable home prices. But there is no market for hedging systemic Mortgage Credit Risk.


Mr. Falcon also addressed another issue near and dear to our hearts: “The most significant benefit Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac enjoy is what many have described as the implied Federal guarantee.” In this regard, it is worth noting that agency spreads have now narrowed to the lowest level since pre-1998 financial crisis (when the risk profile of these institutions was a small fraction of what it is today).


Importantly, agency spreads collapsed after 9/11. Unprecedented Federal Reserve marketplace intervention rendered it incontrovertible that that the previous “implied” federal backing of the GSEs (and repo market?) had become explicit. This was an historic bestowment of financial power, with absolutely no effort by the Fed to bridle the almighty agencies. Instead, they were adopted as next of kin. This development has had a profound role in inciting the reckless terminal stage of Mortgage Finance Bubble excess, with the consequent lurch to incurable financial and economic fragility. It is simply difficult to comprehend that Fannie and Freddie have come to possess $1.6 Trillion of assets and $3.1 Trillion of total exposure.


As masters of the Great Credit Bubble – with its attendant acutely vulnerable Credit system and economy – the GSEs now have no alternative than desperate (non-productive) money and Credit inflation. This may appear “business as usual,” and is, apparently, good news for Fannie and Freddie shareholders. The system, however, is a huge loser. Many will continue painting GSE operations in a positive light, but it should be increasingly clear that these institutions have and continue to be the most responsible for our degraded currency. Being quasi-governmental lending institutions was always problematic. Having the Fed and Wall Street transform them to the status of quasi-central banks – with the incredible shift of power such status infers - is a true abomination. We live, after all, in a democracy, and neither the public nor our representatives legislated to establish a parallel GSE central bank. There should be explicit constitutional safeguards against such dangerous financial overreach and abuse of power.


We have discussed (ad nauseam) how the Fed, GSEs and Wall Street “structured finance” came to have mastered systemic liquidity creation. We now know that Fannie expanded its balance sheet by $50 billion during the fourth quarter, playing no small role in the newfound liquidity in the corporate bond market. Yet this week it appears that the marketplace came to appreciate that, unlike times in the past, it has serious issues to contend with beyond systemic liquidity. Indeed, years of Credit excess nurtured by (“coins in the fuse box”) liquidity operations have come home to roost with an unfolding serious dollar problem. U.S. savings are being devalued, as well as foreign savings held in dollar assets. Global financial markets have commenced a significant and uncertain transition, with potentially destabilizing financial flows and derivative issues. Those derivative players that have profited handsomely from writing (King) dollar protection will now be forced to earn (and dynamically trade for) their keep.


We should also expect that the battered major international super-banks/financial conglomerates have commenced a program to reduce exposure to dollar assets. And, importantly, the death of King Dollar has opened up an entire Brave New World of commodities, currencies, and other enticing markets for speculators and investors alike. For several years, King Dollar made for a one-way bet. The Fed and GSEs ensured inflated securities prices and a liquid marketplace. There was, then, little reason for global players to look beyond the U.S. Treasury, agency, mortgage-back, and “structured finance” markets.


Most importantly, this unending flow of speculative finance into U.S. securities (Recycling Bubble Dollars) for years buoyed the U.S. dollar, despite rampant and eventually self-defeating Credit excess and ballooning trade deficits. “Eventually” has arrived, and it is today not that bold to posit that the great dollar speculative Bubble is in the process of bursting. This will change EVERYTHING, including the efficacy of previous (bulletproof) liquidity operations.


The over-jubilant marketplace also this week came face to face with the harsh reality that unfolding Consumer Debt Problems were not magically cured by fourth-quarter “reliquefication.” Yes, the beleaguered corporate bond market – that had dislocated and was basically closed for business by early October – has been re-energized. Open up the Credit spigot to a negative cash-flow enterprise previously cut off from additional finance, and the impact can be enormous. But the issues today within consumer finance are much different. Unlike corporates, Credit Availability has not been the issue for consumer finance; the exact opposite. Accordingly, the liquidity onslaught and the drumbeat of “reflation,” so enamoring corporates, are basically non-issues for the over-borrowed consumer. In regard to consumer debt problems, “reliquefication” - and its powerful capacity to rectify Credit Availability issues - is basically moot. (And we don’t see higher oil and import prices benefiting stretched household finances.) The problem is that reckless consumer lending excesses have for too long driven spending, economic “growth,” and jobs creation. The unsound Consumer Debt Bubble is now faltering on its own weight and there is little anyone can do about this. If Only…the Fed could reflate household balance sheets and cure impaired lenders…


The acquisition by HSBC significantly reduced the systemic issues related to Household International. Yet the company still has a $100 billion plus loan portfolio we will monitor for indications as to the health of the U.S. consumer borrower. Looking at fourth-quarter data, things are not all too encouraging. Household’s “two-months-and-over contractual delinquency” jumped 42 basis points to 5.24% (Household saw a 51 basis point increase in December delinquencies, the worst performer of the major Credit card master trusts). By category, Real Estate Secured delinquencies increased 68 basis points during the quarter to 3.94% (up 126 bps y-o-y), Auto Finance 47 basis points to 3.65%, and Personal Non-Credit Card 52 basis points to 9.41%. In dollars, Total Nonperforming Managed Receivables jumped 25% during the year to $4.52 billion.


Over at AmeriCredit, things are quickly going from bad to much worse. The company reported a $27.6 million loss, quite a deterioration from the previous quarter’s $70 million profit. Combined delinquencies and foreclosures rose to 14.7% of managed receivables, up from the third quarter’s 12.2%. Total dollars delinquent actually rose about 24% during the quarter, while Total Charge-offs jumped 15% to $236.6 million. Year-over-year, charge-offs were up 82%. The fact that the company continues to lend aggressively and grow receivables makes the rapid Credit deterioration all the more alarming. Year-over-year, managed receivables were up 36% to $16.2 billion. Receivable growth has slowed, however, with the past quarter’s 2.9% (11.6% annualized) down sharply from the previous quarter’s 6.7% (26.8% annualized). Slowing growth is today's kiss of death for subprimie lending.


For those of us who have watched this company since its early days as a used car dealer in Fort Worth (U-Car-Co), it is rather incredible that near failure in the early nineties was transformed by Wall Street structured finance into a company with managed receivables of over $16 billion. We’ll stick with our view that subprime lending is not a viable business over the entire business cycle, and that the securitization and Credit insurance market have only transformed subprime into a bad business with much larger, systemic consequences. It is worth noting that behemoth Credit insurer MBIA jumped into the fray by providing insurance on a $1.7 billion securitization in October, MBIA’s first deal with AmeriCredit. The Credit insurers (and the holders of their insured bonds) will regret ever conjugating with subprime lending. What could they have been thinking?


From AmeriCredit’s CEO: “We’re seeing continued weakness in recovery values on repossessed vehicles and in the overall economy, causing increases in both loss severity and frequency.” If Only... the Fed could create sufficient money to “reflate” the value of used automobiles…


And if AmeriCredit’s numbers are dreadful, they are absolutely horrendous at Metris. December charge-offs actually jumped 264 basis points during the month to a rate of 21.25%. Charge-offs were up an amazing 469 basis points in two months. But, then again, this is what subprime lenders should today expect when they hit the wall and lose the capacity to extend additional loans (raise maximum lending limits) to their bad Credits.


And while continued aggressive lending is postponing the day of reckoning, the Capital One train wreck remains firmly on course. Fourth Quarter Net Charge-Offs surged 30.6% from the previous quarter to $896 million, as the charge-off rate increased from 4.96% to 6.21%. Similar to AmeriCredit, the degree of deterioration in the face of strong receivable growth is disturbing. Total Managed Receivables expanded 5% (20% annualized) during the quarter to $59.7 billion, with y-o-y growth of 32%. Yet charge-offs were up 73% y-o-y, with estimated dollars delinquent up almost 50%. The buoyant securitization market has been a lifesaver for sustaining needed lending growth. Total assets increased by less than $500 million (all financed by deposits!) during the fourth quarter, up only 1% quarter-over-quarter (y-o-y 33%). Capital One is today running frantically but barely staying ahead of a gritty pack of loan losses. It appears to us that Credit Problems hasn’t even broken a sweat.


After a week of perusing through dismal consumer Credit data and witnessing some key lenders’ seeming acceleration toward the proverbial wall, we are increasingly confident that the worst is yet to come for “Structured Finance.” And we just can’t shake our discomfort with the major Credit insurers’ exposure to subprime, CDOs, and various festering areas. There is also the issue of the alarmingly high yields states are beginning to pay to sell some types of bonds. Recognizing that municipalities will be very heavy issuers of debt for as far as the eye can see – and that the increasingly vulnerable Credit insurers are instrumental players in this arena – and the murky scenario of systemic issues inflicting muni finance becomes a little more coherent. It is going to be an interesting year.


As informed Barron’s readers appreciated again this past week, Marc Faber runs circles around his Roundtable counterparts. The depth of his knowledge and insight, as well as his fierce devotion to critical, independent thinking, is something us regular readers of his exceptional newsletter have come to take for granted. A few months back I wrote that the extraordinary environment confronting us had rendered his always valuable Gloom, Boom & Doom Report “invaluable.” Well, we have now become only more fortunate, as he shares his wealth of knowledge on markets, history, cycles, economics and humanity in his recently published book, Tomorrow’s Gold – Asia’s Age of Discovery. It’s a wonderful read that I strongly recommend. And especially as we witness the passing of King Dollar and the consequent historic transition to a reshaped, uncertain environment, to call Dr. Faber’s book “timely” is a gross understatement. His brilliant interplay of history, theory and critical issues of contemporary finance and economics creates a strikingly pertinent book. And as someone who puts his thoughts in writing on a regular basis, I must confess to being quite envious of his impressive mastery of the subject matter, not to mention his appealing writing style.


I could have pages of pertinent extractions, but I will entice you with just a brief one:


“Can the recession and the deflationary trend be corrected by massive reflation? According to Ropke, the fact, ‘that the credit expansion of the boom leads to overinvestment, provides at the same time a proof that the capital formation induced by credit creation, and the extension of production that it sets going, leads to a painful reaction expressing itself in the crisis and the depression.” This reaction can indeed be postponed by ‘a further increase of the credit supply but only at the price of a corresponding aggravation of the ultimate reaction. An ‘eternal boom’ is therefore out of the question.”


Or perhaps a selection of chapter titles may prove more seductive: A world of change; Major future investment themes; A caution about high-return investment expectations; Business cycles – Alive and well!; New eras, manias and bubbles; The economics of Inflation; The rise and fall of centres of prosperity; etc. Anyway, it’s a heck of a good book. And to think that so much valuable knowledge and insight can be had for about $30. What a gift! A big “Hats Off” and special thanks to our good friend Marc Faber! If Only…there were more of his kind around…

01/10/2003 The Transformation of Benjamin Strong *


It was generally another positive week for the financial markets. For the week, the Dow and S&P500 gained 2%, while the Transports, Utilities, and Morgan Stanley Consumer indices added 1%. The Morgan Stanley Cyclical index rose 3%. The broader market continues to perform well, with the small cap Russell 2000 adding almost 2% and the S&P400 Mid-Cap index increasing 1%. The technology sector has gained a head of steam. For the week, the NASDAQ100 added 5% and the Morgan Stanley Technology index jumped 7%. The Semiconductors and The Street.com Internet indices surged 8%, while the NASDAQ Telecommunications index jumped 9%. The Biotechs added 3%. The financial stocks continue to rally, with the Securities Broker/Dealer index gaining 4% and the Banks 3%. And while bullion gained $3.30, the HUI gold index slipped 2%.

The Treasury market suffered. For the week, two-year yields actually rose only one basis point to 1.77%, while the implied yield on March 3-month Eurodollars declined one basis point to 1.36%. The five-year was a different story, with yields jumping 15 basis points to 3.12% (up almost 40 basis points in 2003’s seven trading sessions). The 10-year Treasury note saw its yield rise 11 basis points to 4.13%. The long-bond yield increased eight basis points to 5.04%. Mortgages performed quite well, with benchmark Fannie Mae mortgage-back spreads narrowing eight basis points. The implied yield on agency futures rose 12 basis points, about in line with Treasuries. The spread on Fannie’s 5 3/8 2011 notes narrowed one to 39, while the benchmark 10-year dollar swap spread was unchanged at 45.5. The S&P investment grade Credit spread index narrowed six to 228 (down from October’s high of 279). The S&P speculative grade Credit spread index narrowed 61 to 1209 (down from October’s 1570). Emerging market spreads narrowed as well, in what was a noteworthy narrowing of spreads throughout. The dollar index declined another one percent this week, dropping to a three-year low against the euro while losing ground to a widening list of currencies globally. It is also worth noting the recent weakness of the Mexican peso.

Broad money supply (M3) declined $4.3 billion last week. Savings Deposits declined $5.3 billion, and Retail Money Fund assets were down $2.8 billion. Institutional Money Fund assets dropped $7.1 billion, while Large Denominated Deposits added $2.2 billion. Repurchase Agreements jumped $10 billion, with six-week gains of $54.6 billion. While one week does not make a trend, the commercial paper (CP) market came to life last week. Total CP issuance jumped $17.2 billion, with financial CP borrowings increasing $11 billion to $1.180 Trillion. Non-financial CP was even up $6.2 billion (to $161.4 billion), the largest increase in about one year. By category, Asset-backed CP increased $14.8 billion to $740.5 billion, the highest level in 11 months (four-week gains of $26.9 billion). Asset-backed security issuance is said to be off to a “quick start,” with $7.2 billion sold this week.

Today’s dismal jobs report is further proof of economic weakness going into year-end, but it is arguably more valuable in providing clear evidence of an imbalanced economy becoming even more so. Over the past five months (August to December), the U.S. economy shed 81,000 jobs. The atrophying manufacturing sector lost an alarming 272,000 jobs. The overbuilt Retail sector has seen 101,000 positions lost since August, while the prospering Finance and Insurance sector has added 81,000. The economy has been supported by the continued expansion of “Services,” which added 258,000 jobs since August. Within “Services,” Health Services added 100,000 jobs, while employment increased 56,000 in Education in five months. The economy is also supported by continued growth in the government sector, where 151,000 jobs were added over five months. Since its peak in March 2000, Goods Producing jobs have declined 2.1 million to 23.6 million.

There is growing talk of the benefits the U.S. economy would receive from a weaker dollar (and its inflationary effect). Traditionally, one would expect a meaningful boost from the export sector. We instead see minimal help to a manufacturing base that has come to be a minor player in the maladjusted U.S. economy. In this regard, it is worth noting that the poor Argentine consumer saw prices jump 42% last year, after its currency (and economy) collapsed. Yes, the manufacturing-led economies of SE Asia recovered quickly on the basis of weak currencies and booming exports. But Argentina’s lack of a strong export sector is proving that benefits from currency weakness/crisis depend very much on the structure of the underlying economy.

Here at home, bond market issuance is on fire. According to Bloomberg, $27.8 billion of corporate bonds were issued this week, the strongest sales in 15 months. Combined U.S. corporate and agency debt surged to almost $65 billion this week (year-to-date issuance has already reached $81 billon). And, importantly, as money returns to junk bond funds - and as the crowd rushes back to higher yielding debt instruments - it’s not just top-tier borrowers now enjoying easy access to finance.

We’ll take Tyco’s $4.5 billion issue (raised from $3.75 billion) as a sign that life is returning to the convertible bond market. 2002 issuance was down 49% to $54.5 billion. Elsewhere, Household International sold $1.75 billion of notes (raised from $1.5 billion). The company’s 10-year notes were sold at 175 basis points above Treasuries. This compares to a spread of 250 necessary to sell 10-year notes in late November, and an almost 500 basis point spread on 10-year notes during the scary days of October. The spread is now at about 160. Elsewhere, Cendant doubled the size of its deal to $1.5 billion, Comcast raised $900 million, the Inter-American Development Bank sold $2 billion, DaimlerChrysler $2 billion, ASIF Global Financing (“a special-purpose entity with ties” to AIG) $1.1 billion, and Mexico $2 billion.

Today from Bloomberg: “Shares of Allegheny Energy Inc. rose as much as 18 percent after the Wall Street Journal reported the utility owner is near an agreement with creditors to restructure its debt and avoid bankruptcy.”

January 7 – Bloomberg: “Federal regulators dropped a proposal to require additional quarterly data from lenders that target people with histories of unpaid bills after agreeing with banks that there's no standard definition for such lenders. The Federal Reserve, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and the Office of Thrift Supervision said current bank examinations are adequate to monitor the risks taken by so-called subprime lenders.”

On many fronts, things seem to be easing up. It is worth noting that the NASDAQ Telecommunications and Morgan Stanley Technology indices have year-to-date gains of 14%, The Street.com Internet index 15%, and the Philadelphia Semiconductor index 17%. Nextel is up 22% already, Capital One 31%. The weak, financially vulnerable companies are significantly outperforming.

Mixing “macro” analysis with playing the markets can be both fascinating and profitable. It can also be especially dangerous, as the more parlous the macro environment the more likely that inflationary efforts will be undertaken to “reliquefy” the system and stimulate lending and speculating. We reached another of these key inflection points during the fourth quarter and it is becoming increasingly clear that this latest inflationary “reliquefication” is today beginning to take hold. It may not last; it could easily be derailed by a faltering dollar, rising yields, or a myriad of other risks; and it will inevitably prove unsuccessful. But for now, importantly, financing conditions are improving markedly, and this is a major development with respect to company and industry analysis. Such a circumstance has, potentially, the greatest ramifications for the weakest, most leveraged companies and sectors – the marginal borrowers. That many of these marginal companies’ stocks, bonds, and Credit default swaps have attracted over-sized short positions is a dynamic of the current speculative marketplace that makes things all the more volatile and uncertain. And with the market appearing happy to ignore poor earnings releases – while completely dismissing today’s dismal jobs report – we see further evidence the market wants to believe in the unfolding “reflation.”

Yet, unrelenting inflation are the watchwords for the Mortgage Finance Bubble. The Mortgage Bankers Association’s (MBA) weekly Refi application index jumped 29.1% to the highest level in seven weeks (up 245% from the year ago level). Amazingly, this historic refi boom is now in its 29th week and shows little sign of waning. For comparison, both the major refi booms from ‘98 and ’99 lasted about three months. The MBA’s Purchase index remains strong as well, increasing 13% to about equal the year ago elevated level.

Today from Countrywide: “Total fundings of $35.2 billion in December marked another monthly record for Countrywide. Total fundings of $102.1 billion in the fourth quarter produced the first $100 billion quarter in the history of the company. More importantly, year-to-date fundings eclipsed the $250 billion level, 82 percent higher than the $138.2 billion produced in 2001. Total purchase fundings in December grew 71 percent over last year to $8.8 billion, our second best month for purchase mortgages ever. For the full year, purchase fundings reached $86.4 billion, rising 65 percent over last year…Average daily applications remained brisk at $1.9 billion and maintained the pipeline of applications at $49.1 billion. It is noteworthy that these strong operational results were achieved during December, which was affected by the holidays and other seasonal Factors.” Year over year, December e-Commerce fundings were up 79% to $14.7 billion, home equity fundings jumped 64% to $1.2 billion and subprime funds rose 46% to $1.2 billion.

New Age subprime mortgage lender New Century originated a record $1.74 billion of mortgages during December, up 132% y-o-y. Fourth-quarter fundings of $4.47 billion were up 123% y-o-y. The company also stated that it “sees meeting 2003 production estimate of $16 billion,” while also announcing that its credit facilities had been raised to $3.47 billion.

Tuesday the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) released their third-quarter National Delinquency Survey. As was widely reported, the number of loans in foreclosure rose from 1.13% to a record 1.15%. “Total Past Due” declined 11 basis points nationally to 4.66%, although “90 days or more” delinquencies added four basis points to an elevated 0.82%. From the MBA: “There’s some good news in this survey. We believe that delinquencies have peaked and, as the economy continues its recovery, the housing market will continue to make its contribution. We believe going forward there will be fewer households facing the harsh economic reality of unemployment that helped to drive up delinquencies and foreclosures in the first two quarters of 2002. Certainly, that could change with any unforeseen circumstances, but all indicators are pointing toward a growing economy and ultimately an improving job market.”

The MBA is almost surely too optimistic. We’ll continue to aver that the data is especially unimpressive considering the record lending volumes and attendant housing inflation. We fully expect things to only get worse going forward. Keep in mind that Home Mortgage debt increased at an annualized rate of $786 billion during the third quarter. This compares to an average of $165 billion annually during the recessionary years 1991 to 1993. When today’s period of extreme Credit profligacy eventually subsides, expect unprecedented foreclosures and losses commensurate with boom-time lending excesses. The real trouble commences when the lending spigot turns from the current gusher to even a previously normal Credit flow.

In a clear sign of serious unfolding problems, the MBA survey reports that 12% of Federal Housing Administration (FHA) loans are either in foreclosure or delinquent. And for the first time, the MBA broke out subprime data, although warning that the 1.2 million unit universe should “not be considered representative of the total subprime market.” All the same, the delinquency and foreclosure numbers are quite alarming and indicative (along with FHA data) of fundamental systemic lending shortcomings. For the nation overall, 14.78% of conventional subprime mortgages were past due, with 8.58% in foreclosure. Some of the worst performing states in terms of total delinquencies include Pennsylvania (17.19%), Indiana (17.16%), Michigan (16.84%), Ohio (16.52%), Iowa (17.3%), Missouri (17.09%), Georgia (16.45%), North Carolina (19.54%), South Carolina (23.12%), West Virginia (17.36%), Alabama (19.76%), Mississippi (23.66%), Arkansas (17.21%), Louisiana (20.64%), Oklahoma (17.04%), Texas (16.45%), and New Mexico (19.05%). Wow…

We continue to be surprised by the degree of deterioration in the face of continued housing inflation and unparalleled Credit availability. Major mortgage insurer MGIC this week reported that total Insured Loans Delinquent increase 41 basis points during the quarter to 4.45%. This compares to 3.46% for 4th quarter 2001 and 2.58% for 4th quarter 2000. Subprime delinquencies increased 30 basis points to 12.68%, compared to 4th Q 2001’s 11.60% and 4th Q 2000’s 9.34%. Year-over-year, Total Loans Delinquent jumped 35%, while Losses Incurred surged from $51.7 million to $140.5 million. The stock surged on what was a dismal earnings report.

And while mortgage Credit inflation runs unabated, the structural nature of the dilemma posed by previous general Credit inflation is becoming more conspicuous.

January 7 – Bloomberg: “Texas, with a budget deficit of $12 billion, has surpassed New York’s $10 billion shortfall to have the second-largest budget gap among U.S. states behind California… State deficits nationwide now total almost $90 billion, the American Legislative Council reported. The council, a bipartisan group of more than 2,400 legislators from all states, predicted two years ago that states would have huge shortfalls, said Bob Adams, council spokesman. ‘The states boosted spending at unsustainable rates during the 1990s,’ Adams said. ‘Budgets increased faster than inflation and faster than the rate of population growth.’ The end of the '90s economic boom left states unable to finance government, he said.”

New York Governor George Patake from his “State of the State” address: “We face a fiscal crisis today of a magnitude that we have not faced in our lifetime.” With personal income tax receipts sinking 14.8% between last April and October, forecasts now call for a state deficit as high as $10 billion over the next 15 months (according to Bloomberg). New York City is facing a $3 billion deficit for the next year.

California Governor Gray Davis from his State of the State Address: “Tonight, I come before you with a challenge as great as any in our state’s history – and a real plan to meet that challenge… On Friday, I will send you one of the toughest budgets ever presented. It will be balanced. It will be responsible. It will make significant cuts in nearly every program. And it will return this state to sound financial footing…my budget will erase the $35-billion shortfall and eliminate the structural deficit… Our current fiscal structure has not been updated in 25 years to reflect either our changing economy or demographics. Our budgets have become painfully dependent upon extremely volatile sources of revenue, constraining our ability to make long-term vital public investments. It’s high time to shake free of this boom-bust syndrome… State government will need to do more with less – and we will. But we also need to do more to create new jobs now and to stimulate our economy… My goal is to help create 500,000 new jobs over the next four years. I’m proposing a new California Jobs plan that will put more Californians to work – not in years, but in weeks. We’ll begin with “Build California” – a new initiative to accelerate the flow of billions of dollars into our economy. Last November, the voters of this state did their part by approving $18 billion in bond measures for better schools, affordable housing and new water projects. In December, I asked the State Allocation Board to expedite $5.5 billion from our new School bond… These funds will finance 1,000 new schools… We will also fast-track our $2.1 billion housing bond… I will also direct my agencies to accelerate freeway and public transit projects by one full year… Moreover, I will recommend that the UC Board of Regents Pension Fund invest in California housing…” (Perhaps this CA deficit problem is not as restrictive on spending as I first imagined…)

Today from Bloomberg: “California, confronting a record $35 billion budget deficit, may borrow for the first time to cover obligations to employee pension funds. Governor Gray Davis and Assembly Speaker Herb Wesson are considering selling pension bonds to raise about $800 million owed to retirement funds for state teachers and other employees, said spokeswomen for Davis and Wesson. States such as New Jersey have used pension bonds to raise money pledged to worker retirement accounts without raising taxes. The borrowers are betting returns achieved by the funds will exceed the cost of the debt and reduce the need to contribute more to the plans later. The risk is that returns lag, leaving the states paying interest on the debt while still having to pump money into the funds.”

Well, the much-coveted “reflation” elixir appears to be off to a gangbusters start. And with the corporate bond market coming to life, the mortgage Credit system continuing to fire on all cylinders, and government borrowing poised for a record year, Team Reflation should be careful for what they wish for. Indeed, the Economic Cycle Research Institute's future inflation gauge monthly index rose to 116.6 in December (up from Dec. 2001's 96.4), the highest level since October 2000.

Recent historic speeches by Ben Bernanke and Alan Greenspan have paid tribute to Milton Friedman’s revisionist analysis that the Fed’s derelict failure to create adequate money supply was a major cause of the Great Depression. Dr. Bernanke noted Friedman’s premise that if (Governor of the New York Federal Reserve Bank) Benjamin Strong would not have died in 1928, it is quite likely that he would have held the “bubble poppers” at bay, while adding sufficient liquidity to thwart deflationary forces: “Friedman and Schwartz argues in their book that if Strong had lived, many of the mistakes of the Great Depression would have been avoided.” I have argued that such post-Bubble policy analysis is generally misdirected, and there’s no need to rehash yet again this week. But I would like to share some interesting (and hopefully pertinent) material found reading through Lester V. Chandler’s 1958 biography – Benjamin Strong Central Banker.

“Never forget that (the Federal Reserve) was created to serve the employer and the working man, the producer and the consumer, the importer and the exporter, the creditor and the debtor; all in the interest of the country as a whole.” (“A reminder written by Benjamin Strong and always kept in the top drawer of his desk.) (page 1)

“The original theory of the Federal Reserve was that it would make money available primarily by rediscounting for its members ‘short-term, self-liquidating commercial paper arising out of the production, distribution, and sale of goods and services.’ …Thus the emphasis was often placed on the quality of paper discounted rather than its quantity… Emphasis shifted inevitably, though slowly, from the quality of paper discounted to its quantity, and from passive accommodation to positive regulation.”

“What no one could foresee, and what would have displeased the Democrats who sponsored the (Federal Reserve) act and so greatly distrusted 'Wall Street,' was that leadership in the System would soon be exercised by an official not even mentioned by title in the act – the Governor of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, who was a former Wall Street banker.” (page 12)

Reading through Chandler’s detailed account of the creation and early years of the Federal Reserve, I was reminded of the major influence the rampant inflation of 1917-1920 and subsequent deflationary bust had on the young Federal Reserve System. It clearly had a profound effect on Benjamin Strong. I found it fascinating to follow the transformation of a cautious, prudent Strong to that of revolutionary and activist central banker (to the world). It was actually quite similar to the transformation we have witnessed of Alan Greenspan. Financial and economic innovation, rampant financial speculation, and truly extraordinary domestic and international developments made for sweeping, complex changes and issues. Experimental, activist central banking was thought by those in power as the answer. Businessmen, investors and, importantly, the speculators wanted to believe. But in the end the activists absolutely lost control of their experiment and it all ended in disaster.

Interestingly, the young Ben Strong used language such as “the heresies of Greenbackism and fiat money” and stated that “if the United States Government embarks once more upon the expedient or experiment of issuing fiat paper…the day will come when we will deeply regret it.” Strong, along with other founding members of the Fed, saw inflation as an evil that must be fought at considerable cost if necessary. The history of repeated inflationary booms and busts left little room for any other view. I found the following quotes regarding efforts to deal with an inflationary Bubble early after the Fed’s formation especially interesting considering current views on such matters.

During 1919, “everyone was talking about the speculative mania. Speculation there certainly was – speculation in the stock market and in commodities. But this was no mere speculative bubble confined to the surface of the economy. It was a rapid and insistent rise of spendings that penetrated almost every market for goods and services, raising not only prices for output but wages and other costs as well.” (page 136)

Federal Reserve inflation had played a key role in helping finance the war effort, but this inflation had taken on a life of its own. Fed leadership was resolved to conquer the beast.

Adolph C. Miller, economist and founding Federal Reserve Board Governor (served 22 years) in a letter dated February 26, 1919: “The most serious part of inflation is, after all, the aftermath. We sow the wind to reap the whirlwind. Somehow or other we have got to come down off the perch. But this is an uncomfortable process for nearly everybody and, for some, a very costly and ruinous one. We shall be fortunate in this country if we get off without some very serious financial trouble and some very serious political troubles growing out of the currency and credit disorders. That has always been true in the past and I am terribly afraid will be true in the present instance…I am satisfied that the expansion that has gone on throughout the year 1918 and that we shall undoubtedly have during the year 1919, is pretty nearly all pure inflation. On every side the evidence of the demoralization and the serious disturbance of established relationships that this unsettling of prices has brought is at hand… There has got to be liquidation, there can be no question of that.”

Benjamin Strong (letter dated February 6, 1919): “The day of deflation approaches. The process of deflation is a painful one, involving loss, unemployment, bankruptcy and social and political disorders, whereas the process of inflation brings in its train prosperity, employment, rising prices, a happy absence of bankruptcies and general state of contentment, all of which leads me to the point of this letter, namely, that mistakes by the present Treasury Administration from now on will bring retribution of a very certain and definite character which was not likely during the days of war excitement and expansion, but which is now beginning to loom up most definitely during the distasteful days of paying the damages… If inflation is arrested at its present level the readjustment of prices and the losses resulting will be no greater than that now fixed by the existing price level. If inflation continues…the liquidation will be arrested and our later troubles will be the greater. Notwithstanding the hardships and losses resulting, I believe you will agree that it is inevitably necessary that our banking position must be gradually deflated… Our policy in this country has so far been the soundest of any, we have avoided a debasement of our circulating media…”

“…In 1920-21 the Federal Reserve had not yet developed this concept of its functions – to use its powers continuously and positively to promote maximum employment, the highest sustainable rate of economy growth, and stable price levels. Almost unquestionably, it was still operating under a prewar theory of central banking in which the dominant guides to policy were financial rather than economic. The Federal Reserve Act, much influenced by foreign experience and assuming the continued function of an international gold standard, had not intended that a new System should manage money positively and continuously with the prime purpose of achieving some desired behavior of employment, business activity, and prices. Any such suggestion would have been considered heretical. Rather, its dominant purpose should be to assure ‘sound’ financial conditions, which meant first of all maintaining gold payments and avoiding financial crises. A central banker accepting this set of priorities naturally feared inflation more than deflation and insisted that on some occasions deflation was necessary for the attainment of primary financial objectives.” (page 183)

“In May, 1920, inflation gave way to deflation and depression.” It was, indeed, a painful experience and the young Fed came under intense criticism. “…The depression experience had a great influence on (Strong’s) thinking and on future Federal Reserve policies.” “Like most other Federal Reserve officials, he believed that some deflation of bank credit was essential and that some price reductions were inevitable and desirable. Within three years, Strong himself had rejected many of these ideas.” “All this (cautious, passive central banking) was soon to change when Strong and other Federal Reserve officials came to understand and use open-market operations as an instrument of policy… the old standards were soon to be rejected, partly because of the painful experience.”

“No other peacetime period in the history of the System has witnessed a faster development of both Federal Reserve thinking and policies than that starting around the end of 1921 and culminating in 1924… Theirs had now become a philosophy of positive regulation, and they were consciously using their powers to promote high and stable levels of business activity and employment, stability of price levels, and “European monetary reconstruction.” (page 189) “The year 1922 witnessed the first large-scale purchases (open-market purchases of government securities) and the beginning of the use of this instrument for policy purposes.”

From Ben Strong, November 1922: “Since the Federal Reserve System has found its position as a large lender it becomes one of the most important factors in the economic machine because it must, whether it wishes to or not, exercise control over the volume of credit, which in turn has such a far reaching effect upon prices, wages, etc… the Federal Reserve, as the central factor in the control of credit, must rely upon the application of wisdom and intelligence of the first order. There are no automatic penalties which would apply as in ordinary times to an orgy. In view of that, students of the System should watch it, criticize its affairs, protect it against invasion from political or other sources…” (page 199)

“From Ben Strong, July 1923: “Our job is credit. It makes no difference if it’s a deposit or a bank note. If we regulate and keep fairly constant the volume of this credit, - always with due regard to gold imports and exports…- we are doing our whole duty.” (page 202)

It would appear that Benjamin Strong’s heart was in the right place, but also fair to say he had no idea at the time how this powerful new mechanism would fuel asset inflation and foster a dangerous Wall Street speculative Bubble. How financial Credit, once unleashed, would prove impossible to contain. “The easy-money policy of 1924 was of historic importance. It was the first large and aggressive easing action deliberately taken by the Federal Reserve for the purposes of combating a decline of price levels and business activity and of encouraging international capital flows.” (page 241) Repeated interventions were deemed necessary, including the historic aggressive easing of monetary conditions to assist the Bank of England during 1927. With each liquidity injection, the flood of finance to New York only quickened. Each year the speculators become more emboldened and the maladjusted economy more distorted. By the arrival of 1929, the Fed was faced with a radically imbalanced system, with goods and commodity prices moving in one direction and asset prices in another; some sectors of the economy overheated, many turning very weak. The Fed attempted to manage systemic liquidity and the quantity of credit creation, but it had become hopelessly impotent in directing finance to productive purposes. Speculative finance had come to dominate. Benjamin Strong and the Fed, in their effort to do too much, had completely lost control.

Adolph Miller, in 1931, regarding the Fed's aggressive 1927 operations: “…it was the greatest and boldest operation ever undertaken by the Federal Reserve system, and, in my judgment, resulted in one of the most costly errors committed by it or any other banking system in the last 75 years. I am inclined to think that a different policy at that time would have left us with a different condition at this time.” (page 438)

Most Depression era economists and analysts held similar views to Miller: Fed operations had fueled a most dangerous strain of inflation and precarious speculative Bubble. Even Alan Greenspan in the sixties spoke of the Depression as a result of the Fed repeatedly putting “coins in the fuse box.” (The Transformation of Alan Greenspan.) Yet, Milton Friedman’s revisionist analysis pinning the blame on the post-Bubble Fed for not creating sufficient money supply was what people wanted to hear in the early sixties. It, today, clearly suits Greenspan, the Fed and Wall Street just fine.

“The philosophy of the American government of (Strong’s) day was not, of course, the classical one of laissez-faire, but it was certainly one of limited objectives and limited intervention in economic affairs. No government during the period would have seriously considered assuming the heavy responsibilities that have now become commonplace. Nor would it have expected the central bank to do so. Such ideas were alien to those responsible for the establishment of the Federal Reserve System. They assumed that the new System, like the government, would be one of limited objectives and limited intervention. Of course they expected it to prevent crises and panics and to reform the banking system in several other respects. But they foresaw neither the need nor the opportunity for any basic modification of the functioning of the international gold standard. They saw no need because they were pleased with the gold standard… Strong was among the first to recognize that the old rules of central banking, which implicitly assumed a smoothly functioning international gold standard, were obsolete and that radically new concepts of central banking would have to be developed.” (page 477)

The Transformation of Benjamin Strong, the transformation of monetary regimes, the transformation of economics, and the transformation to everlasting inflation.

01/03/2003 Issues 2003 *


Stocks are out of the 2003 blocks quickly. For the week, the Dow and S&P500 were up 4%. The Transports gained 3% and the Utilities 4%. The Morgan Stanley Consumer and Morgan Stanley Cyclical indices increased 4%. The small cap Russell 2000 gained 2%, and the S&P400 Mid-Cap index added 3%. The technology sector was strong, with the NASDAQ100 gaining better than 3%. The Morgan Stanley High Tech index added 5% and the Semiconductors 6%. The Street.com Internet index advanced 5% and the NASDAQ telecommunications index 4%. The Biotechs were up about 2%. The financial stocks rallied as well, with the Securities Broker/Dealer index up 6% and the Banks 4%. With the mighty bullion up another $1.90, the HUI gold index added 2%. The CRB (commodity) index added 1% this week, after finishing 2002 up 23%.

The Credit market is reacting negatively to mounting inflationary pressures. For the week, two-year Treasury yields jumped 15 basis points to 1.75%. Five-year yields surged 23 basis points to 2.97%, while the 10-year saw its yield jump 21 basis points to 4.02%. The long-bond yield rose 17 basis points to 4.95%. Benchmark Fannie Mae mortgage-back yields popped 23 basis points, while the implied yield on agency futures increased 19 basis points. The spread on Fannie’s 5 3/8% 2011 note narrowed one to 40, while the benchmark 10-year dollar swap spread was unchanged at 45. Corporate Credit spreads widened marginally. The dollar was about unchanged for the week.

With the exception of yesterday’s surprisingly strong ISM manufacturing survey, economic reports were almost universally dismal as 2002 came to its conclusion. The four-week average for Initial Jobless Claims rose to the highest level in three months. With forecasts at 86 (up two points from November), the Conference Board’s December Consumer Confidence index was reported at 80.3 (its sixth drop in seven months). Importantly, the Present Situation index dropped 8.4 points to 69.9. This index has now dropped 41.3 points since May to the lowest level since January 1994. Those believing jobs were plentiful dropped to the lowest level since early 1994, while those viewing jobs as hard to find surged to the highest level since mid-1994. And while the percentage of respondents that expect to purchase a home ticked up slightly, it is worth noting that figure remains well below the year ago level. Notably, Consumer Confidence declined in all regions, with the 20.2 point drop in New England the largest.

The New York Purchasing Managers index sank almost 15 points to a contractionary 41.4, the lowest reading since January. While remaining above 50, the Chicago Purchasing Managers index declined a more-than-expected three points to 51.3. Curiously, the Chicago New Orders index dropped almost eight points to 53, while Prices Paid jumped about five points to 62.1 (the highest level since August). November Durable Goods Orders dipped 1.4% (expectations of up 0.8%), with Unfilled Orders declining to the lowest level since 1996.

New Home Sales came in at a record rate of 1.069 million (up 14% y-o-y). Interestingly, however, we see that the national median price dropped $11,600 to $167.300, the lowest in 14 months. In a sign of a slowdown at the upper-end, the median New Homes price is down $23,300 since June. And while it garners little attention, the number of new homes for sale continues to ratchet up. At 335,000 units, the inventory of new homes is up 9% y-o-y to the highest level since August 1996. Elsewhere, Existing Home Sales were reported at a somewhat weaker but still strong 5.56 million rate (up 6% y-o-y). With average (mean) prices for Existing Home sales up 11.2% ($20,400) y-o-y, and sales volumes up 6%, annualized Calculated Transaction Volume jumped almost 18% ($170 billion) to $1.13 Trillion. Y-o-y, average (mean) prices were up 15.6% in the Northeast, 16% in the Midwest, 7.8% in the South, and 9.3% in the West. It is also worth noting that outside of the 12.7% jump in the West, home sales levels slowed noticeably. The national inventory of existing homes increased to 2.34 million, up 12% to the highest level since June 1998.

One word rather succinctly describes the economy’s 2002 performance: unbalanced. And while many an economist is quick to underscore the year’s ballpark 3% GDP growth, the financial markets clearly began to appreciate the poor quality of “output” growth. This is an important development for the dollar.

To set the stage for Issues 2003, it is helpful to briefly review key developments from last year. Credit system stress began to build in the spring after a flurry of major bankruptcies, including Global Crossing, K-Mart, NTL, and Adelphia. The dollar began to come under significant selling pressure in April, with widening Credit spreads and faltering corporate liquidity soon to follow. Then in late June and early July, with the revelation of massive fraud and the subsequent implosion at WorldCom, systemic stress took a rather dramatic turn for the worse. Stocks were in near free-fall, the dollar was sinking precipitously, and spreads were widening sharply. But with rates collapsing and the GSE’s struggling to keep their gargantuan balance sheets and derivative books in balance, the latest imperious round of “reliquefication” fell squarely upon the banks.

With an historic mortgage refi boom in full bloom during the third quarter, the Commercial Banking sector expanded holdings of Financial Assets at a record annualized pace of $698 billion, a rate double that from 2001. During the second and third quarters, Commercial Banking sector mortgage lending averaged an annualized $323 billion, compared to full-year 2001’s $130 billion. Bank consumer lending averaged $58 billion, versus 2001’s $16.6 billion. Over a 34-week period commencing in April, Commercial Banking sector Total Assets surged an unprecedented $629 billion, or 15% annualized. During this period, Commercial and Industrial loans dropped $50 billion. The liquidity surge did stabilize equities and the dollar, but was insufficient to arrest ballooning Credit spreads. The corporate bond market was slipping into a precarious state of illiquidity and dislocation. Hedge funds began to come under fire for shorting corporate bonds, while speculative activity in the Credit default swap arena mushroomed. Elsewhere, impaired European insurance companies and financial conglomerates were in full international retreat. The global “risk” market was at the brink.


Quietly, worsening Credit conditions at home began spreading from the corporate to the consumer sector. There were revelations of serious issues at Capital One (with bond yields widening to 10%), ongoing problems at Household International (with its $125 billion of managed assets) and Conseco was in dire straits. Heightened liquidity concerns saw Household bond spreads widen to almost 800 basis points by late October. Spreads also ballooned for major consumer lenders Ford and Sears, as well as others. Fannie responded to heightened systemic stress in October by expanding its Book of Business at a 21% annualized rate (strongest since March). The Fed’s surprise 50 basis point cut on November 6th (Dr. Bernanke gave a speech commemorating Milton Friedman’s birthday on the 8th), followed the next week by HSBC’s surprise acquisition of moribund Household International, were sufficient to resolve the marketplace dislocation, with spreads, stocks and the dollar abruptly reversing course. Those caught on the wrong side of systemic dislocation hedges and speculations ran for cover. For American households, it was refi madness.

Broad money supply surged $255 billion over a 10-week period commencing in early October, a 16% annualized rate. Rampant reliquefication was exceedingly successful in inflating Treasury and agency prices, while liquidity meandered back to the corporate bond market. In a noteworthy change from the past, these measures had quite modest affects on equities while they undercut the dollar. Gold, energy, and commodity prices, in general, surged and finished 2002 with the strongest price gains in years.

With the general financial market backdrop in mind, let’s now analyze some of 2002’s monetary developments. Broad money supply (M3) expanded by $465.4 billion, or about 6% during the past year. Over two years, M3 ballooned an historic $1.46 Trillion, or almost 21%. It is instructive to dig a bit deeper and make comparisons. During 2001, broad money supply surged $990 billion, or about 14%. Institutional Money funds were actually that year’s fastest growing component, surging $406 billion, or 52%. The financing of GSE balance sheets played no small part in 2001’s expansion of Money Market Fund assets (Freddie Mac, for example, increased short-term borrowings by 36% to $250 billion for the year; the FHLB 30% to $122 billion; and Fannie Mae 23% to $343 billion). But the GSE’s may have in combination actually reduced short-term borrowings during 2002. Therefore, we should not be surprised to see that the growth rate for Institutional Money Fund assets dropped to 5%, while Retail Money Fund assets declined 4% during the past year. For 2002, the expansion of Savings Deposits accounted for the vast majority of money supply growth, jumping $462 billion, or 20%. The fastest growing money supply component, however, was Repurchase Agreements (“issued by depository institutions”) that surged 25% to $476 billion.

The untold story of 2002 is the surge in Primary Dealer Repurchase Agreements (repos). Twelve-month gains of almost $400 billion, or 20%, put outstanding repos at about $2.4 Trillion. This enigmatic financing vehicle played a critical role in financing the past year’s unprecedented mortgage debt growth. First, repos surely financed GSE balance sheet growth; an expansion this time financed primarily by long-term (“agency”) bond issuance. Second, the repo market has come to play a major role in financing speculative holdings of mortgage-backed securities. We are left to ponder the degree of leveraged speculation the repo market has come to finance, though it does appears to have developed into THE key liquidity mechanism. Financing Treasuries, agencies, and mortgage-backs in the Repo market (borrowing short, lending long) provides virtually free speculative profits in a collapsing rate environment like 2002. Thus, last year’s extraordinary growth was supported by an unusually hospitable financing environment. Things won’t always be so good.

To be sure, and despite some close calls, it was another banner year for Wall Street Structured Finance. While December’s numbers have yet to be included (from Bloomberg data), annualized agency mortgage-backed security issuance of $1.36 Trillion was up 26% from 2001. CMO (“collateralized mortgage obligations”) issuance jumped 47% for the year to $806 billion. The asset-backed securities (ABS) marketplace enjoyed another record year, with issuance up 14% to $429 billion. Home equity-backed ABS issuance jumped 40% to $142 billion (up from 2000’s $49 billion).

Annualizing Fed data (after three quarters) for ‘02, we see that combined structured finance (GSE balance sheet growth, agency mortgage-backs, and asset-backed securities) expanded at a 10.7% rate ($780 billion) to $7.84 Trillion (up 92% over 19 quarters). GSE growth was at an annualized 9% ($208b), agency mortgage-backs 12% ($339b), and ABS 11% ($233b). The “structured finance ratio” (combined GSE, MBS and ABS growth, divided by total non-financial/non-federal Credit growth) averaged 77% during the first three quarters, compared to 54% in ’97 and 56% in 2000.

Amazingly, third quarter Total Mortgage Credit growth of $941 billion (annualized) was 88% of total non-finance/non-federal Credit growth, while averaging 82% over the first three quarters. This compares to 39% during 1997, 49% during 2000, and 63% during 2001. Annualized 2002 non-financial Corporate debt growth collapsed to 3.8% of total non-financial/non-federal debt growth. This compares to 1997’s 37% and 2000’s 34.8%. These ratios help to illuminate an extremely unbalanced Credit system, and one need look no further for an explanation of the extraordinarily imbalanced U.S. economy.

In last year’s “Issues 2002,” I questioned whether the Great Credit Bubble would survive another year. It did. The Credit system was sustained by truly unbelievable (and conspicuous) lending and speculative excess running rampant throughout real estate finance. In a normal environment, one would have expected consternation from prudent central bankers. Yet the Greenspan Fed not only refused to restrain the dangerous, out of control excesses, it acted specifically to bolster the Great Mortgage Finance Bubble. Indeed, in the midst of an unprecedented lending and speculative frenzy, the Fed was trumpeting its capacity to use the “printing press” to ward off any fledgling risk of a “deflationary” bust. In a normal environment, one would have expected consternation from the “bond market vigilantes.” Yet the largest bond management house in the world is outspoken in its support for the “Bernanke Put” and “a devaluation of all paper currencies.” Truly, the financial world has been turned completely upside down, and as challenging as it is, we must factor this into our analysis.

I strongly recommend a careful reading of the latest missive from Pimco’s Paul McCulley. His piece certainly changed the direction I was heading for this week’s Bulletin. From McCulley (his underlines): “Over thirty years ago, America was forced to bust up the Bretton Woods arrangements, because America didn’t want to deflate sufficiently to keep gold from rising above $35 an ounce. Today, just the opposite problem exists: America needs to inflate the money stock, while devaluing it against gold, so as to keep private sector debt obligations from sinking into a deflationary abyss. And the world needs the same thing: a broad based, wholesale devaluation of all paper currencies versus a basket of globally-traded “stuff.” Mr. McCulley also wrote that the “ditching” of Bretton Woods was a “regime shift, not just a cyclical wiggle in monetary affairs.”

That the Pimco bond family fully supports the inflationist perspective trumpeted by Milton Friedman, Alan Greenspan, and Ben Bernanke is both fascinating and worth pondering. Sure, the “debate” is couched in terms of the risks of “inflation” and “deflation.” But I believe the heart of the matter lies elsewhere. Hyman Minsky analyzed contemporary finance and economics in term of “Wall Street Finance,” and the “Wall Street Paradigm.” “Ditching” the Bretton Woods gold anchor cut loose the U.S. monetary system. And (agreeing with Mr. McCulley) it ushered in an historic (and experimental) monetary regime paradigm shift. Over time, especially following aggressive financial deregulation and the rise of the pro-Wall Street Greenspan dynasty, the Wall Street Paradigm took full control of the monetary reins.

McCulley and others are today calling for the Fed and Treasury to use all inflationary means to fight some nebulous evil with the fully loaded label “deflation.” In my mind, however, it is increasingly clear that the overriding objective is to preserve the Wall Street Paradigm - the Structured Finance Monetary Regime. And, importantly, there is overwhelming evidence that the Greenspan Fed and Washington are fully behind Wall Street in its determination to reign supreme over the U.S. money and Credit system (while disregarding attendant risks and costs). The alternative is deemed unacceptable.

This is not a tirade as much as it is setting the backdrop for our analysis for Issues 2003. We learned during 2002 that uncontrolled mortgage lending excess is more than acceptable to our central bankers. Wall Street, once again, proved there isn’t a speculative Bubble it won’t fall head-over-heals in love with (Are we to place society’s financial system and economy in the trust of The Street’s capricious heart?). The Mortgage Finance Bubble was nurtured to dangerous extremes, and we should at this point assume that all efforts will be made to sustain this inflationary Credit and speculative Bubble. The alternative will be deemed unacceptable. The consequences going forward include a continuation of 2002’s unprecedented non-productive debt growth and Current Account deficits. Financial fragility will be an ongoing issue, as will dollar weakness. To sustain the Wall Street Paradigm will require massive, unrelenting creation of new dollar claims - Credit to support levitated asset prices and a debt-ridden, maladjusted economy. That the endemic asset Bubble today includes tens of Trillions of equity, real estate, and Credit market instruments ensures that the inflationary path will be a treacherous obstacle course, quite likely insurmountable.

How much money and Credit will be required to sustain myriad and endemic domestic asset Bubbles with $500 billion (Current Account deficits) exiting annually to the rest of the world? How will so much monetary fuel somehow flow evenly and to where it is most needed? Well, it can’t and won’t. Commodity Speculator Paradise? And how long will it make sense for global players and the leveraged speculating community to hold low-yielding dollar assets? After a very difficult 2002, will scores of impetuous hedge funds prove to have weak hands when it comes to their dollar and U.S. Credit market speculations? When others are printing money playing gold, crude and euros? To what extent have global players hedged dollar exposure in the swaps and derivatives market? What is the risk of a derivative/speculative unwind dollar crisis along the lines of SE Asia, Russia, or Argentina? Are currency crises a permanent fixture in the unharnessed, endemic Credit and speculative excess, post-Bretton Woods Wall Street Monetary Regime? Why would the dollar be immune to these dynamics? Issues 2003.

In his most recent contribution to the Inflation vs. Deflation debate, Jim Grant made an interesting pronouncement: “Inflation is a monetary phenomenon. Deflation is a credit phenomenon.” Well, as reasonable as Jim’s analysis appears, a strong case can be made for the exact opposite. In contemporary finance, there is a fine line between “money” and Credit. During a Credit-induced boom, a wide swath of companies and financial institutions can procure purchasing power (for investing, spending, or speculating) through the issuance of myriad liabilities/IOUs (securities, book entries, either paper, electronic or otherwise). Good times find lenders content to hold Enron “trade paper,” WorldCom notes, telecom junk bonds, Conseco manufactured housing securitizations, National Century healthcare asset-backs, risky CDO tranches, and AmeriCredit securitizations (as long as they are wrapped in AAA Credit insurance!). Credit growth (liability creation) creates purchasing power, the inflationary fuel so easily husbanded during prosperous times (much of it seductively inflating asset prices!). Perceived safe, secure, stores of nominal value, monetary liabilities – Money – are a sideshow, at best (“Cash is Trash”). But when the glorious boom eventually turns confounding bust - and greed gives way to fear, sleepless nights, and risk aversion - the limelight returns to the safety and liquidity of money, as it has for centuries. This is no anachronistic intellectual sermonizing, but a truism of finance and economics of potentially momentous importance for 2003.

The Great Credit Bubble survived 2002 specifically because the liabilities created throughout the Wall Street “Structured Finance” Monetary Regime maintained their “moneyness.” At key inflection points, there is a thin line between “safe haven” status and a crisis of confidence. The prices of GSE liabilities (debt and mortgage-backs) surged, despite being issued in incredible quantities. The prices of bonds insured by MBIA, Ambac, and the other Credit insures rose as if these risky, thinly capitalized insurers hadn’t a care in the (uncertain, hostile) world. GE maintained its pristine Credit ratings and continued to enjoy basically unlimited access to new finance. The marketplace even accommodated troubled companies such as Capital One and Sears, transforming risky consumer loans into perceived safe asset-backs. Increasingly risky mortgage loans were converted into safe “money” like never before. I often ponder how much this entire amazing process should be taken for granted. And, for the first time, 2002 saw some skepticism as to the soundness and consequences of the massive GSE Bubble. The year also saw some discussion regarding the appropriateness of top ratings for key monetary players such as GE and MBIA. J.P. Morgan, a key player in transforming risky loans into safe “money,” found itself in trouble. These types of issues are not going away and concerns will only harden over the year.

As we contemplate Issues 2003, we fully expect the spotlight to shine brightly on J.P. Morgan, Fannie, Freddie, GE, MBIA, Ambac, the other money center banks, the Wall Street firms, the mortgage insurers, and the other risk players. These institutions are now accepting an exponential rise in risk through their aggressive risk intermediation operations (transforming larger quantities of increasingly risky loans into perceived safe securities). That international risk players are in retreat only increases the amount of risk that must be absorbed by the U.S. financial sector.

To this point, however, the Structured Finance Monetary Regime maintains its capacity to create “money” in unlimited quantities and the U.S. economy retains is primary competitive advantage (issuing top-rated securities). But Credit Bubble dynamics now dictate that enormous and unrelenting Credit inflation will be necessary to forestall the undoing of the likes of Fannie, Freddie, MBIA, JP Morgan, GE, - the entire Monetary Regime. Inflate or Die. Accordingly, as long as the Wall Street Structured Finance Paradigm retains its Supreme Reign over the Power of Money, we should expect an incessant flood of dollar balances wreaking financial havoc at home and abroad. This is a U.S. systemic problem, a dollar problem, an economic problem, and a global problem.

At this point, we are forced to assume that it is the goal of the Federal Reserve, the White House, the GSEs, Pimco, (global central bankers?) and Wall Street to preserve at all cost the Wall Street Structured Finance Monetary Regime. This is quite a formidable cabal that is today as focused as it is determined. We no longer contemplate the possibility that Greenspan and Washington are oblivious to acute financial and economic fragility. They’re on the case and, especially after 2002, there is no turning back. Again, the alternative is simply unacceptable. A breakdown of the Structured Finance Monetary Regime would mean an end to unlimited “money” creation and a (deflationary) collapse in the divergent U.S. asset Bubbles (real and financial) and hopelessly distorted economy.

It is my view that inflation is largely a Credit phenomenon. A savage deflation, as was witnessed in the thirties, is a phenomenon of monetary regime breakdowns. We are living at an historical crossroads in 2003. Unstable financial markets and a vulnerable dollar are assured. The risk of expanding inflationary manifestations from a deranged U.S. Credit system is rising by the week, especially for commodities with inelastic supplies (gold and oil!).

But always lurking out there will be the risk that conspicuous cracks widen in the foundation of the Wall Street Paradigm. There are clearly vulnerable players, and if one institution winds up in serious trouble, the daisy chain of risk intermediaries and speculators becomes acutely frail. Yet, the dollar is the greatest wild card for the Wall Street Monetary Regime. If the dollar decline becomes disorderly and currency derivative markets dislocate, all bets are off. Thus far, dollar weakness has had no impact on spreads (especially for agency bonds) or interest rates. We don’t expect this curious aberration to last. The Fed and U.S. financial sector are hopelessly locked in Credit Bubble dynamics, with inflating dollar balances devaluing claims held by our foreign Creditors. The rubber meets the road when expected currency losses overwhelm gains from inflating dollar asset prices, especially agencies and Treasuries.

Recall the old slogan, “You are What You Eat.” Well, we believe “An Economy is How it Lends” (and how is speculates!). Minsky used the terminology “Money Manager Capitalism” in his cogent analysis of finance’s keen influence on the real economy. I have in the past expanded this analysis while coining the phrase “Financial Arbitrage Capitalism.” “Structured Finance” can be read “speculative finance,” and the contemporary Wall Street Paradigm can be viewed as a Regime of Leveraged Speculation. There is today no separating the speculators or asset Bubbles from monetary matters. Regrettably, debt financing business investment and actual goods producing enterprise is deficient for the speculating arbiters and financial engineers, while only becoming more unsatisfactory as the size of the speculative pool of finance balloons. The leveraged players treasure the characteristics and liquidity of GSE and top-rate “structured instruments,” with this mechanism becoming the commanding Monetary Process injecting finance into the real economy. These processes became rather discernable during 2002, with non-productive mortgage and consumption-related debt the order of the day. Issues 2003 and beyond should recognize the ramifications from a monstrous leveraged speculating community (and consequent unfathomable securities holdings) becoming the linchpin of the Wall Street Paradigm. You can joyfully eat Big Mac’s and fries daily for years until one day an unseen clogged artery reminds one of the cost of being a junk food junkie.

Leveraged speculation certainly played a momentous role in supporting the Wall Street Paradigm and the U.S. economy throughout 2002. Heroic perhaps, but it will prove in the end self-defeating. Endemic leveraged speculating is fueling real estate inflation, over-consumption, and untenable trade deficits. And importantly, if surreptitiously, mushrooming non-productive debt is exacerbating financial fragility and economic maladjustments. Inflation will not convert these specious financial claims into sound Credits (or make right a maladjusted economy!), but will instead create only weaker claims in larger quantities. This is a central facet of Credit Bubble analysis. Both of these Credit inflation manifestations – financial fragility and economic maladjustments - were clearly revealed during 2002, and we expect them to become even more prominent during 2003.

To nurture inflation today is to stoke the attendant Bubbles in leveraged speculation and Mortgage Finance. As neat and tidy as it may sound, it is simply impossible to provide a little goosing to global goods prices without throwing additional fuel on destabilizing U.S. asset inflation. And this gets to the heart of the matter: Indelible Monetary Processes at the core of the Wall Street Monetary Paradigm assure destabilizing lending and speculative excess. This is a reality of contemporary finance and economics that absolutely destroys the efficacy of the inflationists’ policies propagated by the likes of McCulley, Bernanke, Greenspan, and Friedman. They should all go back and study John Law’s Mississippi Bubble experience. Dr. Friedman in the past has made the ridiculous claim that there is no such thing as destabilizing speculation. Mr. McCulley goes so far as to aver that both debtors and creditors can benefit today from inflation. Who then, might we ask, is losing out to the bevy of speculators? And what are the consequences when these financial arbiters move to cash in their dollar chips?

The inescapable dilemma posed by enormous Credit-induced speculations is that they eventually must unwind. Such a circumstance will lead to sinking assets prices and a Credit collapse, the question is only from what levels. It is a speculative dynamics issue, not an issue of monetary deflation. Bursting Bubbles may certainly lead to a collapse in the underlying Credit that financed the asset inflation, but monetary inflation cannot make right a speculative Bubble (as John Law and the French learned the hard way). Our greatest criticism of the Greenspan Fed has been its coddling of the leveraged speculators. Never before had central bankers enjoyed such a powerful and instantaneous monetary mechanism. This expedient was negligently abused and is now largely impotent. The residual is truly frightening.

We are today left with untenable financial and economic Bubbles addicted to Credit excess, over-liquefied financial markets, and ultra-low interest rates. It is tempting for those involved to couch the risk of a collapsing speculative Bubble in terms of a general risk of deflation. But prolonging speculative Bubbles only postpones the inevitable painful day of reckoning. The best that can be hoped for, at least from a 2003 financial markets point of view, is a scenario where rampant liquidity extends the life of this historic Bubble. We are all left to hope our currency suffers no more than an orderly decline.

And, the strange thing is, as long as the Wall Street Money Machine churns out massive additional dollar claims, the wildly distorted service-sector economy can muddle through and things really won’t seem so bad. But the wildness lurks beneath. The less arcane issues such as mounting local, state and federal government deficits may this year become important issues. If a major Credit insurer falters (perhaps in CDOs or Credit default swaps), muni finance immediately becomes a major issue. Then there’s the unmitigated financial disaster unfolding out in California (How much Credit inflation/“currency devaluation” would suffice to reignite the technology Bubble?) The dire consequence of a California housing bust is a not insignificant justification for more of the inflationists’ stew. And while pundits have their eyes on the spectacular housing inflations in California and the Northeast, we would expect serious problems to manifest first in the “marginal” housing markets in places like Dallas, Atlanta, Denver, Phoenix, and Las Vegas (similar to the signal missed when the small caps put in highs and began their descent while everyone was transfixed by the tech and Internet moonshots). And speaking of (exporting) real estate inflation, it is interesting to read this week of housing Bubble concerns in South Korea and China.

Meaningful U.S. mortgage problems may perhaps still be some time away (the system remains in the midst of feverish lending excess). But we see no escaping consumer Credit problems this year. Importantly, we expect tightening Credit availability to blow headwinds on the consumption-based economy. And the day ultra-easy Credit availability begins to tighten in mortgage and auto land will prove a major inflection point for the U.S. economy. We’ll have our eyes keenly focused on the marginal mortgage-backs (home equity and subprime) and the entire asset-backed marketplace. We have been waiting for the marketplace to impose some discipline, but we’ve witnessed the opposite. This is but one more testament to the dysfunctional nature of the Wall Street Monetary Regime (and a distinct contrast to a gold standard). Excesses are not self-correcting but instead reinforcing. As we saw with the technology, Internet and telecom debt Bubbles, things go to gross excess before ending in spectacular busts.

After three years of stock market losses, most would surely consider such a pessimistic view for 2003 as indicative of a “permabear” mentality. But I would like to be very clear about this: From my analytical framework, 2002 basically followed what I consider a worst-case scenario. Mortgage Credit excess went to unprecedented extremes, Credit market leveraged speculation appears to have gone to unprecedented extremes, trades deficits went to unprecedented extremes, and a highly imbalanced Bubble economy suffered only further debilitating distortions. The Fed used its bullets sustaining the Credit Bubble and, despite assurances to the contrary, has little ammunition remaining for when it’s desperately needed.

The good news is that the economy did muddle through 2002. The bad news is that cost of muddling was high and is today rising sharply. If the latest reliquefication’s tempered influence on stocks and dreadful impact on the dollar were ominous, the economy’s performance in the face of unprecedented liquidity and mortgage refis was darn right alarming. How much money and Credit would be required today to reignite the boom, and what would be the consequences? Or perhaps the more relevant question would concern where and how sufficient systemic Credit creation will be garnered when this protracted refi boom finally comes to an end.