Defining the “extended period”

Nov 13, 2009 15:51 UTC

Another tidbit from Rosenberg, who offers guidance on what the Fed means when it says it will keep rates low for an “extended period”…

FED CAN’T RAISE RATES UNTIL AFTER 2011

The reason — there is a wave of mortgage refinancings coming in the housing market for one, and not only that, but in the commercial space, there are $2.7 trillion of debt coming due through 2011 and another $1.5 trillion of leveraged loans….In other words, the default rate is going to rise even further and the Fed tightening policy would only aggravate that situation. In other words, the Fed is simply immobile for at least the next two years.

I’ve argued in this space many times that the Fed is trapped. Our monetary system, which is fueled by credit expansion, simply doesn’t work in reverse. To avoid deflation, credit must always be expanding in the aggregate. If the private sector won’t borrow, the public sector must….and vice versa. If they de-lever in tandem, we get deflation.

We’re told to be panicked by the prospect of deflation and yet the solution we’ve been given — unprecedented public credit expansion + inflation of new asset bubble — leaves us worse off than when we started.

Alan Greenspan’s 1% interest rates inflated a disastrous credit bubble. We think 0% rates and quantitative easing will lead to a different result?

COMMENT

Success brings profit; failure brings loss. If that’s a fundamental tenant then it has been profoundly violated.

Error #1 – Excessive credit expansion has brought an economic explosion that resulted in huge failures. America economic managers have deliberately allowed this to happen after 2000.
Error #2 – Much of financial failures were covered up, by transferring them to the government books. This was the deliberate act of Hank Paulson and Congress.
Error #3 – With the government books, which are already loaded in giant debt, bloated in further debt, it now tries to hide it by setting basic interest rate to zero. This is a deliberate Fed policy of Bernanke.

#1-#3 are nothing more than bailouts and cover-ups. The grand managers who were responsible for explosions tried to stabilize the explosion. This game of hiding has now reached a stage of no-more-buck-passing. Interest rate must be maintained at zero because any attempt to raise it will blow up the government and the economy further. This is the Japan Black Hole. It can last for decades – the Lost Decades.

So there you have it. America squandered the benefits of USSR collapse, did not learn from Japan post-bubble mistakes, and destroyed its own industrial base for the quick money. It refused to accept the same painful measures it, under the arm of the IMF, dosed out to Asian countries who blew up in the 1998 Asia Economic Crisis.

What arrogance, what disregard for sound economics, what irresponsibility to current and future generations! What betrayal to the millions who hold trillions of America bonds. If this is capitalism, America version, then no country in their right mind will want to adopt it. America richly deserves the gift of the economic black hole.

Posted by The Real Deal | Report as abusive

Rosenberg: Unemployment headed to 12-13%….

Nov 11, 2009 15:30 UTC

…but that doesn’t mean the overall employment picture will get a lot worse.

From today’s “Breakfast with Dave” e-mail:

There are serious structural issues undermining the U.S. labour market as companies continue to adjust their order books, production schedules and staffing requirements to a semi-permanently impaired credit backdrop. The bottom line is that the level of credit per unit of GDP is going to be much, much lower in the future than has been the case in the last two decades. While we may be getting close to a bottom in terms of employment, the jobless rate is very likely going to be climbing much further in the future due to the secular dynamics within the labour market.

But in a nutshell, to be calling for a 12.0-13.0% unemployment rate is meaningless except that it is very likely going to be a headline grabber. The most inclusive definition of them all, the U6 measure of the unemployment rate, which includes all forms of unemployed and underemployed, is already at 17.5%. The posted U3 jobless rate that everyone focuses on is at 10.2% (though if it weren’t for the drop in the labour force participation rate, to 65.1% from 66.0% a year ago, the unemployment rate would be testing the post-WWII high of 10.8% right now). The gap between the U6 and the official U3 rate is at a record 7.3 percentage points. Normally this spread is between 3-4 percentage points and ultimately we will see a reversion to the mean, to some unhappy middle where the U6 may be closer to 15.0-16.0% and the posted jobless rate closer to 12%. This will undoubtedly be a major political issue, especially in the context of a mid-term elections and the GOP starting to gain some electoral ground.

Think about it. We haven’t yet hit bottom on employment but that will happen at some point. Employment is not going to zero, of that we can assure you. But when we do start to see the economic clouds part in a more decisive fashion, what are employers likely to do first? Well, naturally they will begin to boost the workweek and just getting back to pre-recession levels would be the same as hiring more than two million people. Then there are the record number of people who got furloughed into part-time work and again, they total over nine million, and these folks are not counted as unemployed even if they are working considerably fewer days than they were before the credit crunch began.

So the business sector has a vast pool of resources to draw from before they start tapping into the ranks of the unemployed or the typical 100,000-125,000 new entrants into the labour force when the economy turns the corner. Hence the unemployment rate is going to very likely be making new highs long after the recession is over — perhaps even years.

This last bit explains why the cyclical pressures on inflation are likely to stay low for some time. But wage-push isn’t the kind of inflation we need to be worried about.

To sign up for Rosenberg’s e-mails, go to Gluskin, Sheff’s website.

COMMENT

It seems to me that there are forces at work artificially aiding the stock market in this current rise. As I talk to my daughter (a banker at Wells Fargo) the stories of forclusures are not abaiting. My son (a private stock broker) attempts to comfort me, but is worried regarding the low dollar–which is why I think the stock market appears to be on the rise. I am 52 years old and I cannot remember a time when so many of my contemporaries have been out of work. I have an attorney friend that cannot finance a commercial building that he recently finished (and he has good credit). My point is that this rollercoaster is coasting and it can only coast downhill. I don’t believe that anyone in congress can really believe that when we hit bottom how low it will be. U3 or U6…it won’t matter.

Posted by Gerald Dietz | Report as abusive

Rosenberg: “Welcome to the era of consumer frugality”

Aug 10, 2009 16:16 UTC

Gluskin Sheff’s David Rosenberg on last week’s consumer credit figures.

U.S. consumer credit outstanding fell $10 billion in June, the fifth decline in a row during which the debt balance has shrunk $60 billion or 5.5% at an annual rate.  Both figures are unprecedented.  As the chart below shows, the YoY trend, at -2.8%, is also running at its steepest contractionary rate in over five decades.  Welcome to the new paradigm of savings, asset liquidation and debt repayment [in] the era of consumer frugality. After 20 years of living beyond their means, American consumers will be spending the next several years living below their means, and no, this will not be the end of the world, but it will put a firm ceiling on overall demand growth for some time to come.

Here’s the chart to which he refers (click to enlarge in new window):

rosenberg-consumer-credit-growth

The chart depicts the growth of consumer credit.  Not the total level.  Consumer credit isn’t actually contracting unless the line goes below 0%.  And this excludes mortgage debt.

The data on consumer credit is here.

So is consumer credit too high?  I suspect it most certainly is.  But to make that normative judgment, you have to compare credit to something like disposable income or household net worth.  I’m working on putting that data together.

  •