PDA

View Full Version : Will Fed's Moves Work? If Not, What Can It Do Next?


The Spanish Armada
10-10-2008, 02:36 PM
Efforts by governments worldwide to stop a slide in financial markets haven't worked yet and the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury may have to consider more dramatic measures.
This week the Fed has moved to pump potentially trillions of additional dollars into the nation's banks and leading corporations. And it led the way on emergency interest rate cuts by central banks around the globe Wednesday morning.

As the global selloff ontinues, the U.S. government is now said to be considering steps that include taking direct investments in banks, as well as guaranteeing their debt and insuring all deposits.
But experts say the Fed's actions may not be enough to stop the global economy from plunging into the worst downturn seen in at least 25 years, if not since the Great Depression.
Even those praising the Fed say it's not clear what it would take to calm markets.
"I think they've been pretty inventive and pretty unrestrained," said Tom Schlesinger, executive director of the Financial Markets Center, a think tank that follows the Fed. "But I'm not sure what it would take to stem the fear in the markets. It's such a contagious and irrational phenomenon, and feeding on itself and compounding itself day by day."
What the Fed Has Already Done....
On Tuesday, the Fed unveiled a plan to lend directly to the nation's major companies by buying up an unlimited amount of the $1.3 trillion in commercial paper, short-term loans that businesses use to operate day-to-day, on the market.
The Fed also announced it was doubling the size of its term auction facility, a program the Fed created last year to lend banks money for up to 85 days at a time, to $300 billion. The Fed added it was prepared to boost the term auction facility to $900 billion by year's end.
Despite this, banks still appear to be reluctant to lend money and stock markets around the globe have continued to fall. On Thursday, the Dow industrials plunged nearly 700 points to a five-year low and markets worldwide plunged.
Experts say there are worries that the global economy is now sliding towards recession and that there is relatively little that the Fed or other central banks can do to stop that. The International Monetary Fund warned Wednesday that the world's economy will slow sharply this year and next.
"They're looking a bit more impotent with each action," said Lakshman Achuthan, managing director of the Economic Cycle Research Institute, about the Fed.
Achuthan said that since major banks around the world are cutting back on their lending, that dwarfs the economic muscle of the world's central banks and governments.
But in a speech Tuesday, Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke vowed that the Fed would do whatever it takes to try to fix the credit crunch.
"To support growth and reduce the downside risks, continued efforts to stabilize the financial markets are essential," he said. "The Federal Reserve will continue to use the tools at its disposal to improve market functioning and liquidity."
Experts say they don't think Wednesday's global rate cuts are the last steps the Fed plans to take. And many have suggestions as to what the Fed might do to get banks in the business of lending again.
More Cuts On the Way?
The first step is probably the most traditional one - further rate cuts.
According to closely watched interest rate futures, investors are pricing in an 84% chance of another quarter point cut at the Fed's next meeting, a two day session that concludes on Oct. 29. That would leave the central bank's key fed funds rate at 1.25%.
Many experts believe the Fed would not want to take rates below 1% - which is where they were for 12 months in 2003 and 2004. Some have blamed those low rates for helping to create an environment of easy lending that contributed to the housing bubble.
Yet, the Bank of Japan's key interest rate is already at 0.5%. And some argue that it would be justified for the Fed to lower rates to that level, or even to 0%, because of current conditions.
"Why not? If you're facing a situation where you need to lower the rates all the way to zero to keep the economy from going over the precipice, why wouldn't you do that," said Lyle Gramley, a former Fed governor now working as an economist for the Stanford Group.
Regardless of how far the Fed is willing to cut, more cuts are expected by other central banks, most notably the European Central Bank. That's because the ECB had not been cutting rates during the past year and have more room to lower rates.
Other Options for the Fed
Bill Gross, the chief investment officer at giant bond manager Pimco, wrote this week that another step the Fed could take is to become a clearing house for trades of a variety of exotic and arcane financial instruments such as collateralized debt obligations or credit default swaps. These have traditionally been traded directly between two firms rather than in an open market.
"We believe that the Federal Reserve must now act as a clearing house, guaranteeing that institutional transactions clear," Gross wrote in his most recent commentary.
Schlesinger agreed, saying that while the Fed would normally never think to take such an active role in markets, these are far from normal times.
Gramley said he also believes that the Fed may supplement its efforts to help larger firms by starting to lend money to small and medium sized businesses as well.
The Fed could agree to buy small business loans from banks that are backed by collateral, such as inventories or equipment. Gramley said the loans could be purchased on a non-recourse basis, meaning the Fed, and not the bank, assumes the risk if the loan goes bad.
That would free the banks from the need to raise more capital if the loans sour and could make them more willing to make such loans once again.
"The Fed can work aggressively enough to break the logjam," Gramley said.
Can Anything Work but Time?
Still, Schlesinger is worried that there is little that the Fed or other government entities can do to fix the current crisis of confidence gripping financial markets.
A painful recession may be the only way for the markets to work the problems out of the system - with further declines in housing prices and deeper job losses likely a result.
"I wish I had a silver bullet. But the fear is disconnected from underlying fundamentals at this point," said Schlesinger. "What will thaw it out is a sense among lenders that a modicum of trust has been restored in these complicated, opaque markets."
But Gramley said that even if recent or future actions by the Fed aren't enough to stop the economy from slowing further, they can still have a positive effect.
"Even if it's not going to prevent the recession from deepening, what it can prevent is a huge meltdown," said Gramley.

Copyrighted, CNNMoney. All Rights Reserved.

Subvert
10-10-2008, 05:07 PM
I'm a member of the Church of Soros...

Denmark Offers a Model Mortgage Market
There is a safe way to securitize home loans.
By George Soros

The American system of mortgage financing is broken and needs a total overhaul. Until there is a realistic prospect of stabilizing housing prices, the value of mortgage-related securities will erode and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's efforts will come to naught.

There are four fundamental problems with our current system of mortgage financing.

First, the business model of Government Sponsored Entities (GSEs) in which profits accrue to the private sector but risks are underwritten by the public has proven unworkable. It would be a grave mistake to preserve the GSEs in anything resembling their current form.

Second, the American style of mortgage securitization is rife with conflicts where entities that originate, securitize and service mortgages are generally not the same as those that invest in mortgage securities. As a result, the incentives to originate sound mortgages and to service them well are inadequate. No wonder that the quality of mortgages degenerated so rapidly.

Third, mortgage-backed securitizations, which were meant to reduce risk by creating geographically diversified pools of mortgages, actually increased risk by creating complex capital structures that impede the modification of mortgages in the case of default.

Finally, and most fundamentally, the American mortgages market is asymmetric. When interest rates fall and house prices rise, mortgages can be refinanced at par value, generating the mortgage equity withdrawals that fueled the housing bubble. However, when interest rates rise and house prices fall, mortgages can only be refinanced at par value even though the market price of the securitized mortgage has fallen.

To reconstruct our mortgage system on a sounder basis, we ought to look to the Danish model, which has withstood many tests since it was brought into existence after the great fire of Copenhagen in 1795. It remains the best performing in Europe during the current crisis. First, it is an open system in which all mortgage originators can participate on equal terms as long as they meet the rigorous regulatory requirements. There are no GSEs enjoying a quasimonopolistic position.

Second, mortgage originators are required to retain credit risk and to perform the servicing functions, thereby properly aligning the incentives. Third, the mortgage is funded by the issuance of standardized bonds, creating a large and liquid market. Indeed, the spread on Danish mortgage bonds is similar to the option-adjusted spread on bonds issued by the GSEs, although they carry no implicit government guarantees.

Finally, the asymmetric nature of American mortgages is replaced by what the Danes call the Principle of Balance. Every mortgage is instantly converted into a security of the same amount and the two remain interchangeable at all times. Homeowners can retire mortgages not only by paying them off, but also by buying an equivalent face amount of bonds at market price. Because the value of homes and the associated mortgage bonds tend to move in the same direction, homeowners should not end up with negative equity in their homes. To state it more clearly, as home prices decline, the amount that a homeowner must spend to retire his mortgage decreases because he can buy the bonds at lower prices.

The U.S. can emulate the Danish system with surprisingly few modifications from our current practices. What is required is transparent, standardized securities which create large and fungible pools. Today in the U.S., over half of all mortgages are securitized by Ginnie Mae, which issues standardized securities. All that is missing is allowing the borrowers to redeem their mortgages at the lower of par or market.

Because of the current havoc in the mortgage market, there is no confidence in the origination and securitization process. As a result, a government guarantee is indispensable at this time, and may be needed for the next few years. As the private sector regains its strength, the government guarantees could, and should, be gradually phased out.

How to get there from here? It will involve modifying the existing stock of mortgages, so that the principal does not exceed the current market value of the houses, and refinancing them with Danish-style loans. The modification will have to be done by servicing companies that need to be properly incentivized. Modifying mortgages that have been sliced and diced into securitizations may require legislative authorization. The virtual monopoly of the GSEs would be terminated and they would be liquidated over time.

A plan to reorganize the mortgage industry along these lines would inspire the confidence that would allow a successful recapitalization of the banking system with the help of the $700 billion package approved last week.

Mr. Soros is chairman of Soros Fund Management and the author of "The New Paradigm for Financial Markets" (Public Affairs, 2008).

DJPrato
10-11-2008, 06:30 PM
^^^

It seems one premise this evaluation is based on is wrong. That the housing bubble was fueled by investment flipping in hot housing markets rather than entitlement-esque legislation that pushed lower-income individuals into debt to buy homes.

Flippers didn't default. People living beyond their means did. Government forced a legislative altruism onto an industry all too happy to take advantage of anyone willing to go into debt.

The Danish systems makes what should be a very safe and conservative investement arena (when government stays out of it) and turns it into the equivilant of a bond market.

thoughtbombing
10-11-2008, 06:33 PM
in some cases, those flipping houses were living beyond their means as well :D

Subvert
10-13-2008, 03:47 PM
Flippers didn't default. People living beyond their means did. Government forced a legislative altruism onto an industry all too happy to take advantage of anyone willing to go into debt.

Wow, talk about one-sided. You'd be hard pressed to document that flippers and those on their 2nd and 3rd+ home weren't defaulting on the coasts, as well as people taking out home equity loans. I'd argue that this is quite the opposite.

People need to get it through their heads in simple terms.... it was the mortgage backed securities that lead to all of these problems. Investors disassociated with the actual business being conducted, and therefore not doing their due diligence, which lead to the mortgage writers to see dollar signs and approve more poorly conceived loans, just so they could parlay off large blocks of mortgages as new investment packages. Individuals didn't cause this. This was clearly systemic.

mikemcgrath
10-13-2008, 03:58 PM
i heard today that lending alot of this money to european banks will also raise the value of the dollar again, putting it back as the worlds fav currency.

coincidence? i think not.

The Spanish Armada
10-13-2008, 04:29 PM
Wow, talk about one-sided. You'd be hard pressed to document that flippers and those on their 2nd and 3rd+ home weren't defaulting on the coasts, as well as people taking out home equity loans. I'd argue that this is quite the opposite.

People need to get it through their heads in simple terms.... it was the mortgage backed securities that lead to all of these problems. Investors disassociated with the actual business being conducted, and therefore not doing their due diligence, which lead to the mortgage writers to see dollar signs and approve more poorly conceived loans, just so they could parlay off large blocks of mortgages as new investment packages. Individuals didn't cause this. This was clearly systemic.


Its not that he's one-sided... the behavior fits... America as a whole has lived beyond its means, thus you have ppl trying to flip to get that golden dollar. Fuelled by blind opportunity that the housing market had no end; there's always an end. There are a lot of responsible parties involved that made this happen, blaming any one cause does nothing to explain the collapse.

between politicians pushing bills the enabled organizations like Freddie and Fannie, Investors willing to take a big risk in high return investments of the mortgage bond securities, and general Americans trying to get their piece of the pie, the American Dream who really couldn't afford it.

And if you pay attention to the world markets... Investor's make the world go round. Without Investor Confidence or Depositor Confidence the world market has ground to a halt. Investors have pulled out of even the most conservative stocks to cash out, either hold on to it, or invest in T-Bills or guaranteed securities. Depositors world wide have gone back to behavior of the great depression almost crushing banks that desperately need those deposits.

thoughtbombing
10-14-2008, 03:30 AM
No it will not work. No debt based economy will work. "GROWTH" and "MARKET CYCLES" are man-made and used to be illegal. Look up the term Usury.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury

It's a wiki link, yea, but it's also the definition of a word a bit of the religious context... etc... it's been going on for a very long time. It is forbidden by all of the Abrahamic faiths... Christians, Jews and Muslims. It's why Jesus supposedly overturned the tables of the money changers in the temple.

Debt based economy is to blame. Talking about never owning your home. Stupid talk.

andrewboie
10-14-2008, 08:14 AM
Hey Prato, a great deal of these people went into debt due to medical expenses. Not like you care, of course. They should have had the decency to just roll over and die.

thoughtbombing
10-14-2008, 01:57 PM
Hey Andrew, before Medicare there were these things called County and Catholic charity hospitals where better care was often given, and then there were private hospitals. Nobody was turned away on the basis of being unable to pay.

That was back when it COST MONEY. Free Healthcare won't be free. We'll all be so poor that we can't afford it.

And what good does it do to "not see one dime of tax increase" under 250k? What we need is LESS TAXES, not the SAME TAXES with more programs.

Less taxes, Less spending. If I had more to donate to charitable hospitals, or some started popping up due to need, I'd donate. Would you though?

Prolly not, as you feel no personal responsibility. And your idea of social programs involves government intervention. Mine involves local civil action. Ask Ghandi what is more likely to work.

EDENFLUX
10-16-2008, 04:56 AM
they are setting up for the amero!
the Europeans did the same thing with the banks before they converted over to the euro.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIEP7jreJ-Y