Archive

Reuters blog archive

from The Great Debate:

The danger in shutting down national security

The nation awoke Tuesday to find much of the federal government closed for business. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives had refused to fund essential government functions until the rest of Congress and President Barack Obama agreed to reverse a healthcare law passed three years ago and deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court. By doing so, they put reversing healthcare reform ahead of protecting the nation.

Hundreds of thousands of national security professionals are now on furlough. The latest Office of Management and Budget guidance notes no function has been discontinued that would “imminently threaten the safety of human life or the protection of property.” The Defense Department made clear that “military personnel would continue in normal duty status.”

But even furloughing “non-essential personnel” undermines U.S. security. It hits three critical areas: the Defense Department’s civilian employees, the intelligence community and the agencies that respond to health emergencies.

As of October 1 at 12:01 a.m., hundreds of thousands of national security personnel that are not on duty, including as many as 400,000 Defense Department civilian personnel were told not to come to work. According to the Pentagon’s own guidance, this includes all intelligence activities not in direct support of excepted activities -- like the conflict in Afghanistan.

from MacroScope:

Letter of the Lew: Treasury comments on change of guard at troubled IRS

Here are comments from a U.S. Treasury official on Secretary Jack Lew’s meeting with incoming Acting IRS Commissioner Daniel Werfel this morning, following a scandal of political targeting that cost the previous acting commissioner his job. Treasury officials knew about the problem as early as last June, according to this report in the Wall Street Journal:

Secretary Lew met with incoming Acting IRS Commissioner Werfel this morning and directed him to conduct a thorough review of the organization in an effort to restore public confidence in the IRS and ensure the organization is providing excellent and unbiased service to the taxpayer. Secretary Lew also requested that he take actions immediately as appropriate, and that within the next 30 days, Werfel report back to the President and him about progress made in three areas: 1) ensuring staff that acted inappropriately are held accountable 2) examine and correct any failures in the system that allowed this behavior to happen and 3) take a forward-looking systemic view at the agency’s organization.

from Unstructured Finance:

“I’m from the Treasury, and I’m here to help”

Ronald Reagan famously said that the “nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.'” But according to a report from SNL, the government may actually help banks when it forces them to add directors to their boards. Every bank CEO's worst nightmare is having the government name directors to his or her board. Usually, banks pack their boards with clients or prominent people that offer prestige and potential business leads, but little substantive oversight. At the smaller banks that SNL is focusing on, that often amounts to people like the owner of the local car dealership, or the owner of the local golf equipment seller. (For a stereotypical example of a community bank’s directors, consider the board of Smithtown Bancorp, which was sagging under the weight of failed loans before being taken over by People’s United Bank in 2010.)
The Treasury, on the other hand, tends to appoint people with actual banking experience, who can do what board members are supposed to do: keep an eye on management for the benefit of shareholders. The government only does so for banks that have lost their way: the Treasury has the right to name directors to boards of banks that received bailout money under the Troubled Asset Relief Program, and that missed six quarters of dividend payments. Typically, these appointees are bankers with more than 20 years of experience.
By SNL’s reckoning, the banks with Treasury-appointed directors have racked up median stock gains of 50.38 percent since taking on the new board members, compared with a median gain of 28.22 percent in an index of bank stocks.
Of course there may be other reasons for this outperformance - for example, it may be that small bank stocks in general have outperformed larger bank stocks over the relevant time frame, or that relatively weak banks have been in greater demand from value investors betting on an improving economy. But it may also be that the government has found a fix for the principal-agent problem at banks that have stumbled into trouble.

from Breakingviews:

Next economic “It girl” is about to be discovered

By Agnes T. Crane
The author is a Reuters Breakingviews columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.

The next economic “It girl” is about to be discovered. In 2008, the obscure Baltic Dry Index was suddenly the subject of every financial conversation. The TED spread and the ABX also briefly rocketed to fame. Now, as investors try to find a telltale gauge of when interest rates will start rising, the JOLTS report, forward curves and the overnight index swap could soon be in vogue.

from MacroScope:

For whom the bell will not toll: Fed ditches old-school tech in policy release

It's had a good run, and will remain in use for the purposes of alerting reporters that "Treasury is in the (press) room.” But when it comes to the Federal Reserve's monetary policy decisions, which are also released out of Treasury, the central bank is ditching the old ringer.

Until the last FOMC decision, reporters would be guided by a 10 second countdown followed by a loud clinging of the bell pictured above. Now, news agencies will report the news at the set time of 2 pm – so there's no wiggle room in the hyper competitive world of microsecond timings that give robot-traders an edge.

from MacroScope:

The fallacy of Fed ‘profits’ (and ‘losses’)

Richard Fisher, the Dallas Fed’s colorfully hawkish president, enjoys touting the remittances that the central bank makes yearly to Treasury, earned, circularly enough, mostly on the returns of the Treasury bonds the Fed holds. Here’s Fisher in September 2010:

All the emergency liquidity facilities that the Federal Reserve instituted were closed down and did not cost the taxpayers of this great country a single dime. Indeed, last year, as we finished up this work, the Federal Reserve paid $47.4 billion in profits to the Treasury. Imagine that! A government agency that (a) created programs that actually worked as promised, (b) made money for the taxpayers in the process and (c) undid the programs – all in the space of about 28 months – once they had done their job.

from The Great Debate:

The economy needs a ‘unity Cabinet’

The election left us with a status quo political lineup, one that failed to make any meaningful fiscal progress over the past two years. So is it realistic to expect that we can avoid the fiscal cliff and achieve some sort of "grand bargain"? Yes, it is possible, and here is how to do it:

First, President Barack Obama should form a "unity Cabinet" to demonstrate to the public and Congress that he wants to bring the nation together and accelerate progress on key challenges. It should include Democrats, Republicans and independents. All should be respected in both parties, have meaningful private-sector experience and credibility within and outside the Washington Beltway.

from Breakingviews:

U.S. Treasury stake not the millstone GM makes out

By Antony Currie
The author is a Reuters Breakingviews columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.

General Motors’ Dan Akerson deserves an A for effort. The automaker’s chief executive and his colleagues reckon the U.S. government’s 26.5 percent ownership hurts the Motown manufacturer’s image and its ability to hire people. But it’s not the millstone they make out.

from MacroScope:

Who would benefit from floating-rate Treasury notes?

The U.S. Treasury Department announced on Wednesday it would begin issuing floating rate notes (FRNs), even if such a new program is at least a year away from implementation. The rationale behind these short-term securities is to give investors protection against the possibility of a sudden spike in interest rates. The Federal Reserve has held overnight rates near zero since late 2008, helping to anchor borrowing costs of all maturities.

But is issuing variable rate securities really a good idea from the taxpayers’ standpoint? Stephen Stanley, chief economist at Pierpoint Securities, thinks not. He believes Treasury officials are getting played by sell- and buy-side investors and their respective vested interests. The Treasury has made the decision in part due to the recommendations of the Treasury Advisory Borrowing Committee (TBAC), made up exclusively of members of the financial industry.

from MacroScope:

What the Fed twisteth, Treasury issueth away

So much for policy coordination. Just days after the Treasury published a note touting its progress in lengthening the average maturity of its outstanding bonds, the Fed decided to extend Operation Twist – a policy aimed at doing the exact opposite. By selling an additional $267 billion in short-dated bonds to buy long-term ones, the Fed is trying to take Treasuries with longer maturities out of the market, to lower yields and entice investors to take on more risk.

In a narrow sense, the Treasury’s approach is perfectly reasonable: U.S. interest rates are at historic lows, so it stands to reason that the government should lock in that low cost of borrowing for the longest period possible. However, in the context of an economy that remains exceedingly weak – and where the only source of stimulus appears to be a reluctant central bank – the move could be viewed as somewhat incongruous.

  •