Bailout: Just the Beginning

Ah, should have known this was going to happen. According to the Financial Times, all sorts of people are pressuing the U.S. Treasury and the Federal Reserve to provide further help to the economy, possibly a mix of a rate cut, letting money markets borrow money to fund their holdings, and maybe even offering unsecured loans to regulated banks. In other words, the U.S. government is going to become like a parent who always bails out the troubled child until things get so bad that it's no longer possible. I'm sure some would liken the current situation to the intervention of a doctor, but unfortunately the illness was the result of the stupidity of the institutions in danger. How is curing the symptoms going to change the underlying behavior? It's not, and chances are that the cash is not going to travel much farther than the banks and their largest customers - the ones they want to keep happy. I'm already hearing stories from small business owners suddenly finding their credit lines pulled. Many will make it through, but when you remember that the majority of employment in the country comes from small businesses, it makes you wonder whether it's the economy that's getting a bailout, or the most elite piece.

The Fed in an Insulated Nutshell

The Washington Post has a good editorial on the Fed that explains a lot. Yes, it's been worried about the credit crisis, but it's always worried about something, and that has kept the U.S. central bank from significantly raising interest rates for years. "No worry of inflation," it has claimed. Guess what? The Fed's definition of inflation comes with a pair of blinders:

Every American who drives or shops for groceries understands this [that prices of food and energy are soaring], except at the Fed, where they bow before something called "core inflation." This is a way of measuring prices without including food and energy, and so we are supposed to take comfort that "core inflation" is rising at only a 2.3% annual rate. Yet it is the Fed-induced price spike in food and energy since last August that has Americans in an uproar and Congress in a panic that may yet produce major policy blunders.

In other words, the Fed ignores some of the most potentially volatile basic commodities that there are.

In some sense, I can understand the impulse. When you want to see a trend, it's a common enough practice to eliminate wild variations to get an overall pattern and not go off on a quest after what is only a transitory effect. By the time you change policy, and maybe pass legislation, the variation is over, or moving in another direction, and you've committed yourself to a course of action that will now have an effect other than what you wanted.

But we're talking about oil more than doubling price - possibly tripling - and food prices that, experts say, are going to be up for a long time, possibly a decade. Changes this high, or that will go on for that long, are more than transitory, because they have a transforming effect. It could be enough to shift the economy from one steady state into another - an older term for the more fashionable "tipping point" phrase that represents the same well-established engineering concept.

One big factor in the price rises, and the overall shakiness of the economy, is the weakness of the dollar, and, as my feeble brain understands it, that results from pumping money into the system and keeping interest rates too low for too long so those who have money aren't screaming at you that they cannot borrow even more money cheaply enough.

Maybe borrowing is over rated. Yes, it's convenient, and, yes, it can make certain types of transactions possible. But there are a lot of companies with enough profits to invest sizable amounts into their new ventures. It's called capitalism, folks - you make capital and then you invest/risk big chunks of that to get to the next place. Those who want assured profits perhaps should be apprised of the nature of the endeavor. Real wealth comes from long-term investment and building, not from squeezing every possible dollar out of the business.

Instead of appeasing the loud cries, the Fed governors should grit their teeth and do the hard work that is necessary. Yes, people will scream and call for their heads, but they took the job, and it's their duty to take the actions necessary for the long-term health of the country. When you hear from person after person wondering whether they will be able to afford to heat their homes this winter, it's not healthy.

Roiling Financial Regulation

Today's the day that Treasury Secretary Paulson publicly rolls out his plans, as I understand it, to turn the Federal Reserve into a super regulator of all things business and eliminate a number of independent agencies, including the Securities and Exchange Commission. Although I'm all for trying to have one set of regulations for a given industry - for example, have mortgage lenders responsible to one agency - I think that has natural limitations. At issue is two aspects of firms: how they interact with the global financial infrastructure, and how they interact with shareholders.

The two topics are really separate. If you are focused, by your nature, on the greatest efficiency for doing business, you aren't necessarily looking at the need to keep company shareholders informed and making corporate decisions as transparent to the investors as possible. Putting everything under one roof could be a conflict of interests, and one side or the other might be slighted. Even if you wanted to argue for the combination of the two areas, would doing it under the Fed really be that wise? The agency is semi-autonomous and doesn't directly answer to the government, even if it must keep everyone informed of what it does. I'm not sure that I'd want more extensive power over markets and financial activities regulated by such a body.

JP Morgan to Sweeten Bear Honeypot

It sounds as though JP Morgan may have to up its offer for Bear to $10 a share, and the entire situation is creating an interesting dilemma. ON one hand, the Fed is looking to ensure that commerce continues. It's not that Bear Stearns itself is so important to the economy so much as its position as a middleman in so many transactions. The problem is that if Bear had gone into bankruptcy, then the court would have had no choice under the law but to freeze all transactions in which it took part, no matter what it was actually doing. That could be a big enough hiccough to derail enough commerce that suddenly everything would come tumbling down.

So the Fed wanted to keep this from happening, and I can understand that. But Bear Stearns is a publicly-traded company, and the public that trades the company was pretty upset about the price being only $2 a share when it had gone for as much as $30 on Friday - and that was a loss of two-thirds of its value. According to a New York Times story, shareholders were ready to head to court.

On one hand, I don't have a lot of sympathy for the shareholders. They wanted the high return and were happy to overlook the questionable nature of the business that the bank was doing. Hey, it's capitalism, and there's risk. Why is it that so often so many people who have money to invest suddenly want welfare for the rich? But the intriguing issue is which governmental (quasi or not) agency has precedence when it comes to the conflict of interests? Can the Fed encourage a fire sale, or does the SEC have to come in on the side of investors, who want as much money per share as they can get?

The new offer must be approved by the Fed, which had initially balked at the new price.

If the Fed balks, does the deal come apart? This seems like a deal that is so important to the economy that the Fed is effectively powerless to say no, which means it has little leverage in a negotiation.

A new deal could raise even more questions about the Fed’s involvement in the negotiations. As part of the original deal, the Fed guaranteed to take on $30 billion of Bear’s most toxic assets. The central bank had also directed JPMorgan to pay no more than $2 a share for Bear to assure that it would not appear that the Bear shareholders were being rescued, people involved in the negotiations said Sunday night.

Might not the SEC say, "Sorry, folks, but the directors can't legally agree to such a deal?" I don't know that different branches of business regulation have ever clashed in such a way.

Cracks in the Financial Fissure

So JP Morgan Chase & Co. is going to buy Bear Stearns. That may seem like a rescue, but it's not. This is yet another crack in the world's money foundation. First the UK government felt it had to take over North Rock, then the Fed was trying to support Bear Stearns through JP Morgan, but it has instead turned into an outright acquisition at $2 a share. Let's get some perspective on this. If you look at a chart, like this one from the Wall Street Journal, notice that the 52-week stock high was $170.23 and the low was $26.85. This isn't a "fire sale" as some in the media portray. This is bankruptcy and selling off the assets without the intervention of a court. And what is the Fed doing? Here's how the WSJ phrases it:

The Federal Reserve announced one of the broadest expansions of its lending authority since the 1930s in an effort to stem a credit crisis that is engulfing the financial system and threatening a deep recession.

For the first time securities dealers, effective today and for at least the next six months, may borrow from the Fed on much the same terms as banks. The Fed also lowered the rate charged on such borrowings from what's known as its discount window by a quarter of a percentage point, to 3.25%, and extended the maximum term to 90 days from 30.

This is a panicked attempt to keep everyone from taking that final plummet that Bears enjoyed. There isn't money because many people are no longer trusting the systems. But to keep things afloat, the Fed has potentially opened the flood gates. After all, it was large investment houses and banks - and the greedy credulity of investors - that landed everyone here in the first place. So now the country is supposed to trust their judgment with even more money? Maybe it's necessary to keep the whole system from freezing up, like an engine without oil, but only at the risk of having so much money out there that they dollar loses a lot more value.

I know there's the theory that some institutions are too large to fail, because you can't afford to have them out of business. But I'm wondering if what we're facing is more like a case of fiscal gangrene, in which you amputate a limb or the patient itself dies. Those who worship at the altar of capitalism must realize that can't adopt a deity and then insist on only the friendly parts. That's like saying you want to be a fundamentalist Christian but believe in only heaven and not hell. and I'm afraid that we're only just beginning to see the literal hell that we'll all be forced to pay.

Banks Doing Worse Than Saying

Whatever the banks say publicly about the credit crunch, it appears to be a lot worse. An article in the Financial Times of two days ago mentions how banks have been quietly borrowing a huge amount over the last few weeks - $50 billion - from the Fed under a new mechanism that the U.S. central bank introduced two months ago:

The use of the Fed’s Term Auction Facility, which allows banks to borrow at relatively attractive rates against a wider range of their assets than previously permitted, saw borrowing of nearly $50bn of one-month funds from the Fed by mid-February.

US officials say the trend shows that financial authorities have become far more adept at channelling liquidity into the banking system to alleviate financial stress, after failing to calm money markets last year.

However, the move has sparked unease among some analysts about the stress developing in opaque corners of the US banking system and the banks’ growing reliance on indirect forms of government support.

It's not just in the US that there are signs of problems. The government of the U.K. decided to preemptively nationalize mortgage lender and bank Northern Rock. And now Credit Suisse has "revealed $2.85bn of losses on structured credit positions caused in part by “pricing errors” by some of the Swiss investment bank’s traders." That will mean re-examining 2007's stated financial results. And so central banks print more money - it has to coem from somewhere - while banks face just how badly they have been managed, as that's all you can describe the need to run for funds and the inability to see a multi-billion dollar loss in advance.

Pushing a Rope

Well, looks like everyone from the president to the Fed's chairman is ready for economic stimulus. There's only one problem, as I heard Robert Reich state well on Marketplace Morning Report. I have my own way of thinking about it. A rope can be a great tool to get something moving, but only if you are pulling on it hard enough. Push, and the mass of fiber collapses.

The problem with current proposals to stimulate the economy is that the people in charge are forgetting this simple yet telling physical experience. To put a few hundred into the hands of many, given the rise in energy and food prices, means that they might almost, but probably not quite, stay where they were. That's just holding the rope, not pulling. The richest part of the populace would have more free capital, but there's only so much they can consume; there are just not enough of them to make a difference.

Trying to get businesses to invest is like pushing the rope. Companies spent 15 to 20 years relearning the lesson that it makes no sense to invest in infrastructure, capacity, and inventory that you don't need. Make the money available, and corporations won't invest money in stimulating ways because for them it is a waste. Instead, they'll look for other places to park the cash that might offer some return.

And to stimulate the economy, the government and the Fed effectively have to loosen the money supply, reducing the value of the dollar and burying the country under the weight of even more debt and unsupported currency. Better we should realize that sometimes you have to wait out unpleasant news rather than get a nasty rope burn trying to finagle your way out of it.

Adolescent Investing

You've undoubtedly seen the news stories today about the loss in stocks in the face of the quarter percent interest rate drop by the Fed. The standard rationale being offered is that Wall Street expected a half point drop. That is equivalent to saying that a screaming teenager's tantrum about not getting to do something his or her friends are doing. It's not - the problem is a lack of maturity and realism on the part of the one doing the screaming.

It's clear that Wall Street invests based on emotion, and not strictly on logic. People like Alan Greenspan have pretty much said so, and if you look at the way stocks react, you can see direct evidence and not even wait for the experts to weigh in. So, investors wanted a double cone and instead got a single scoop, and so decided that they'd go home and pout.

In other words, there's no reason to get that upset or worried about the market, because it's as useful as getting twisted up over a teenager on a rant. What the grown-up parent or investor does is take all this in stride and do what is necessary anyway.

Blooming Housing Crisis

All the powers that be in economic circles keep saying that the housing crisis hasn't spilled over yet into the rest of the economy. But this is sounding like so much whistling in the dark - or, perhaps, trying to keep those ever irrational markets from wigging out - and it's not clear that they can keep it up with a straight face. First, the Wall Street Journal Online reports:

In a model of central-banker understatement, Mr. Bernanke noted to the Economic Club of New York that "the past several months have been an eventful period for the U.S. economy." And he recounted the mortgage meltdown, market panic and increase in Fed anxiety about the economy that prompted a reversal of the Fed's risk balance toward growth worries and the resulting half-percentage-point reduction in the cost of borrowed money last month. While members of the Federal Open Market Committee agreed Sept. 18 that "significant spillovers [from housing-market trouble] to household and business spending were not yet evident," the downside risks to both had clearly increased, exacerbated by "somewhat downbeat consumer sentiment, and slower growth in private-sector employment."

The WSJO continues, calling feedback that the Fed is getting from local bankers and executives "a darker description" than that collected and published before the Fed came out with its Beige Book report, a collection of "anecdotal information on current economic conditions" each branch of the Fed gathers from "key business contacts, economists, market experts, and other sources." The Treasury department is trying to build a coalition that will help stabilize the mortgage markets, August housing starts in Japan were down 43 percent from the same period in 2006, and, according to NPR, the US foreclosure rate is the highest it's been since the Great Depression. At this rate, how can conditions not spill into the rest of the economy. It sounds as thought it already has, only no one has wanted to be the first to say it.

Greenspan and Trusting the Market

In a 60 Minutes interview, Leslie Stahl asked former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan whether he knew what was going on in the sub-prime lending market. His answer?

While I was aware a lot of these practices were going on, I had no notion of how significant they had become until very late. I didn't really get it until very late in 2005 and 2006.

Huh? An economist with his experience didn't understand that lenders will be happy to take outrageous risks if they think they can sell off the loans and not have to deal with the defaults? It's not as though no one brought it up. According to the CBS story, former Fed governor Ed Gramlich said that he had proposed examining the lending practices, but that Greenspan rejected the idea. Apparently that is the case:

"I thought that…we would not be capable of doing what he was suggesting," Greenspan says.

"But if sitting on them, taking some regula-what…" Stahl asks.

"Well, I think not," Greenspan replies.

"Even looking into it?" Stahl asks.

"It's nothing to look in to particularly because we knew there was a number of such practices going on, but it's very difficult for banking regulators to deal with that," Greenspan says.

So, he knew they were going on. I cannot - simply cannot - believe that Greenspan couldn't see the writing on the Wall Street, not after warning about irrational exuberance. No way to check on this? Not even with all the intellectual power and computing systems that the Fed has? Couldn't find a way to do some random checking on credit scores that were probably part of the lending record versus the size of loan and verified income? No way to see how many of the loans depended on lenders not verifying income, maybe? I don't believe it. This wouldn't be rocket science. and then there was this interchange:

"Just remember we raised interest rates at every meeting from June of 2004 till I got out of office," he says.

"You raised rates in 2004. But only after you held interest rates at historically low level for three years, while the bubble, the housing bubble was forming," Stahl points out. "And that you had 13 rate cuts in that period of time."

"It was our job to unfreeze the American banking system if we wanted the economy to function. This required that we keep rates modestly low," Greenspan explains.

Unfreeze the banking system? This sounds dubious. American companies had clearly over-invested in the 1990s and it would take them years to digest all that spending. Low interest rates weren't needed for investment - they were needed to get consumers to spend.

Perhaps Greenspan truly believed in the market the way I see many treat it, almost as a form of religion. Free everything up and it will all work out. I somehow don't think he's try to rig the system to let certain people take advantage. When asked about the major American car companies, he replied, "I would suggest they focus on selling, creating better cars for their customers," rather than depend on lowered interest rates. Perfectly sound advice. They aren't selling because they aren't producing products that consumers want most.

But there's a problem with the market-cures-all vision of unfettered capitalism. Depending on a market isn't relying on some invisible, rational, impartial mechanism that evens out the bumps. It means trusting to human greed, fear, and emotional goads that cause people to do the most unbelievably stupid things. Lending large sums at high interest rates, which will only go up, to people who will be unlikely to maintain payments is stupid business. It's hoping that enough of the money will come in to cover the losses. This isn't business; it's gambling.

As happens with most such decisions, what people do is rationalize why what they want to do really makes sense. Maybe that's what Greenspan was doing - hoping that things would work out as they were "supposed to."