Fed asks for new powers

Reuters Staff
May 8, 2008 13:13 UTC

For Central Banking junkies out there, Grep Ip is the journalist you need to read. He covers all things Fed for the WSJ. Yesterday he published a fascinating article about the Fed’s request to start paying interest on reserves held in its vaults. This would give the Fed yet more power to control the money supply, and would help avoid the consequence of pushing the Federal Funds rate toward 0% if they’re forced to act more aggressively to pump liquidity into the markets (see Economic Busts: Japan, circa the last 18 years).  It would probably also discourage banks from hiding assets in off balance sheet vehicles.  The more assets banks have ON the balance sheet, the more 0% interest reserves they must park at the Fed.

(more…)

COMMENT

A good post that explains simply what others can go on for pages about. So is credit inherently inflationary? We hear about the danger of “printing money” by governments. That would be inflationary by definition since nothing is being created of value to accompany the increase in circulated money.Lending, on the other hand, is money being created with the idea of something new coming along with it that it will buy, a house being built for example. It also brings an obligation to repay the loan, bringing future money into the present, you might say.So, again, is extending credit in itself inflationary to any degree?

Posted by Clif | Report as abusive

NYT: Fannie/Freddie fears spreading

Reuters Staff
May 7, 2008 20:30 UTC

Good to see the NYT jumping on board the argument I made in January on the op-ed page of the Baltimore Sun (hat tip JJW) (update: the CS Monitor is joining the bandwagon too–hat tip Patrick). A snippet from the NYT piece:

As home prices continue their free fall and banks shy away from lending, Washington officials have increasingly relied on two giant mortgage companies — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac— to keep the housing market afloat.

But with mortgage defaults and foreclosures rising, Bush administration officials, regulators and lawmakers are nervously asking whether these two companies, would-be saviors of the housing market, will soon need saving themselves.

The companies, which say fears that they might falter are baseless, have recently received broad new powers and billions of dollars of investing authority from the federal government. And as Wall Street all but abandons the mortgage business, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac now overwhelmingly dominate it, handling more than 80 percent of all mortgages bought by investors in the first quarter of this year. That is more than double their market share in 2006.

But some financial experts worry that the companies are dangerously close to the edge, especially if home prices go through another steep decline. Their combined cushion of $83 billion — the capital that their regulator requires them to hold — underpins a colossal $5 trillion in debt and other financial commitments.

The companies, which were created by Congress but are owned by investors, suffered more than $9 billion in mortgage-related losses last year, and analysts expect those losses to grow this year. Fannie Mae is to release its latest financial results on Tuesday and Freddie Mac is to report earnings next week.

The companies are sitting on as much as $19 billion in additional losses that they have not yet fully acknowledged, analysts say. If either company stumbled, the mortgage business could lose its only lubricant, potentially causing the housing market to plummet and the credit markets to freeze up completely.

And if Fannie or Freddie fail, taxpayers would probably have to bail them out at a staggering cost.

……

  •