Rolfe Winkler

No, not really.

Raising the discount rate a quarter point is a start, but as the Fed went to pains to explain, it doesn’t indicate broader tightening of credit. For that we have to wait for some combination of the Fed shrinking its balance sheet along with a hike in the Fed funds rate and, perhaps more importantly, a hike in the rate paid on banks’ excess reserves.

But meaningful tightening may never happen. Unless we get a dollar crisis — a possibility if the printing press runs on high too long — the Fed won’t be able to raise rates for the simple reason that it is trapped.

Why? Two reasons jump to mind:

1. Banks are still carrying trillions of dollars of loans collateralized by real estate, loans that will lose significant value and wipe out still-thin capital cushions if interest rates move up in any substantial fashion.

Remember that real estate prices move in the opposite direction of interest rates. Incomes can support a certain monthly payment for a mortgage. Higher rates mean a larger component of that monthly payment has to go towards interest. The price has to correct accordingly.

2. America is still deep in debt. Federal, state and municipal governments, private pension plans, households, in the aggregate we still owe lots of money. And that debt is constantly being rolled over. Raising rates would make rolling the debt much more difficult, stopping the “recovery” in its tracks and leading to massive deflation.

The Fed would only risk that if it were faced with a dollar crisis. It would be wrong to expect such a crisis any time soon. But after multiple cycles of quantitative easing — the first round may be winding down, but expect it to come back in the future — a dollar crisis may not seem so far-fetched.

In the meantime, don’t be fooled. Bernanke has shown no sign that he’s willing to put up with the kind of recession that is needed for the economy to de-lever. Meanwhile the federal government will keep borrowing to make sure that we don’t.

Housing rebound in Canada spurs talk of new bubble (Dvorak, WSJ) Last week Paul Krugman toasted the sobriety of Canadian banks. Among other things, he said that low rates aren’t enough to cause a bubble since Canadian rates are low and, well, they don’t have a bubble. If this article is to be believed, Krugman didn’t look closely enough. Banks may use less leverage in Canada, but low rates are encouraging households to borrow big — debt to disposable income is a bubbly 1.42x. Key quote in this piece is near the bottom, where a real estate agent notes that rising prices mean rents are only barely covering mortgage payments for real estate investments. The best definition of a bubble is when debt service payments finally eclipse rents. Then buyers/lenders are betting on continued appreciation, which can only be driven by still-easier credit. Canadian real estate appears to be headed in that direction.

Fed’s Bullard: Housing should be key in reg reform (Daly, Reuters) A good point. And the Fed should use its authority under HOEPA to make sure all mortgages are underwritten so that borrowers can make a full payment.

Fed group eyes insurance fund for repo market (Cooke/Comlay, Reuters) Insurance funds are dangerous. They have a habit of increasing moral hazard.

Fed to bare tightening plan (Hilsenrath, WSJ) Wouldn’t it be better to increase reserve requirements than to increase interest rates paid on excess reserves? The second plan pays banks to do something the Fed could simply require if it wanted to…

Hedge-funder sues to keep rent at $380 (Dealbook)

Red Mist: Who matters in China’s financial system is barely understood (Economist)

Madison WI bus driver highest paid city employee (Mosiman, WIStJournal) $159k….thanks to a great union contract.

The world capital of killing (Kritsof, NYT)

WW1 camoflauge to defeat Uboats (Twistedsifter) Fascinating.

Worst airline ad ever?

Bernanke didn’t have staff support on AIG bailout (Ed Harrison) Ed has a copy of a letter from Rep. Darrell Issa, in which he claims Fed staffers weren’t keen on bailing out AIG. He wants another subpoena.

Fed as chump or Fed as crony (Yves Smith) Long form thoughts about why Tim Geithner’s defense yesterday was troubling.

Bernanke seen winning second term (Felsenthal, Reuters)

FOMC statement, redacted (David Merkel) Picking apart the Fed’s FOMC Statement yesterday. The headline is that they still see rates staying low for an “extended period,” which is problematic language/policy in my opinion because it will lead to bank/investor complacency. Quantitative easing, i.e. printing electronic money to buy MBS and other paper, will end on schedule at the end of March. Look for it to pick up again in the future. To fight off deflation, the Fed will be forced into multiple rounds of quantitative easing….just like the Bank of Japan.

Bono invests in Yelp (Bits) Elevation Partners, the VC firm funded by U2′s lead singer (among others), is committing $100 million to the local search site. No word on the % stake the money will buy, but $75 million will be paid to existing shareholders to cash them out. Good deal for Yelp? We know that they turned down a $500m offer from Google recently. If Elevation is getting anything less than 20% of the company for this investment, it would value the company at greater than $500 million.

Prime Minister: Greece victim of “rumors” (Bloomberg) Yeah, uh huh. And Wall Street was unfairly maligned by short sellers worried about capital shortages in fall ’08.

Freddie delinquencies increase sharply (CR)

Divided SEC makes climate another “risk” (Scannell/Hughes, WSJ) Investors aren’t clamoring for this information in 10-Qs. The Republican commissioners have this one nailed: “a breathtaking waste” of the SEC’s time/resources and a foolish, misguided gesture to put the SEC’s imprimatur on an agenda about which it has zero expertise.

How to report the news (YouTube) Brilliant.

Academics fight rise of creationism at universities (Guardian) I had no idea this was a problem outside of the American bible belt.

VIDEO: Dump truck destroys pedestrian bridge in Turkey (Break) A guy on the bridge sees trouble coming but freezes…..doesn’t think to run back….

Jon Stewart on Obama’s war against bankers…

Tim Geithner’s appearance in front of Congress today was another embarrassment, perhaps more for the people’s representatives than the Treasury Secretary. Still, Geithner offered a clumsy defense for paying out 100¢ on the dollar to AIG’s counterparties, which included more than Goldman Sachs.

What they lacked in knowledge and nuance, Congress made up for in volume and OUTRAGE. The worst moment I saw was the utterly bogus comparison by Rep. Stephen Lynch between AIG’s payout to Goldman (100¢ on the dollar!) and the bailout offer for Bear Stearns shareholders (only $2 per share). 100 is a bigger number than 2, you see.

Geithner was lucky to be doing battle with such an unprepared, unimpressive group.

His defense, such as it was, amounted to the following:

Had the Fed imposed haircuts on AIG counterparties, it would have led to AIG’s credit rating being downgraded and the company (and consequently the economy) would have collapsed.

But AIG had already been downgraded, that’s why the government stepped in with a bailout. At that point the firm’s liabilities were taxpayer backed, so it strains credulity to say that extinguishing certain CDS it had written would cause systemic fallout in and of itself. Essentially what was happening here was unused insurance contracts were being extinguished. (Imagine a pro-rata refund from your insurer for a homeowner’s policy it wants to cancel…)

And there was precedent for this kind of negotiation. Eric Dinallo, former Commissioner of the NYS Dept. of Insurance and current candidate for Eliot Spitzer’s old job, had previously negotiated haircuts on CDS written by the monoline bond insurers. They were never forced into a taxpayer bailout. Did anyone at the Fed pick up the phone to consult Dinallo? Why not?

At the hearing, Geithner said he took “great pride” in his judgment to pay out 100¢ on the dollar to AIG counterparties because, he claims, it saved us from economic catastrophe.

No doubt the system was on the verge of collapse. But the biggest threat was undercapitalized banks. The payout to AIG counterparties was just a backdoor bailout for them. As Dan Alpert of Westwood Capital points out:

Every dollar of [haircut] would…amount to a dollar less of capital on bank balance sheets today (actually more, because in the interim the affected banks made money with that capital). If the discount was more than a little, some of the institutions would have required “front door” bailouts, or would have failed.

That’s why everyone is still so angry about this, and Goldman’s ridiculous claims that it would have been fine even absent the $12.9 billion it received from taxpayers via AIG. Sure, they’ve paid back TARP. But here’s another $12.9 billion of your money that’s helping to fund their bonus pool.

Jim Rickards offers a good closing thought on the matter:

What was actually done [in the AIG bailout] shows a breathtaking lack of imagination and legal skill on the part of the people involved.  The Fed and Treasury do have an obligation to save the system, but they have no obligation to save each and every member of the system.  That’s a big difference.  You may need to build a firewall but it’s important to build it in the right place.  Makes sense to protect the little guy but where was the national security interest in protecting Goldman? This is why I am just speechless when I hear Geithner testify that though he was utterly surrounded by ex-Goldman people they somehow had NO IMPACT on his judgment to save Goldman.  How blind and unaware can you be?

Not so blind that you can’t be Treasury Secretary…

Geithner has reservations on US banks (Wutkowski/Eder, Reuters) More evidence that Geithner is a goner. Will Volcker replace him? Sheila Bair could be a dark horse. She has lots of Democratic fans on the Hill despite being appointed by a Republican. In any case, Geithner was on PBS last night defending the plan.

A closer look at the Volcker rule (Felix) Capitol Hill may not be taking Obama’s rule very seriously. They think it was just a way to spin the news cycle away from the fact that healthcare will fail now that the Dems have lost their 60th vote in the Senate. Moreover, they don’t think Obama’s actually going to wage the fight against Wall Street that he claims he’s ready for.

Bernanke faces tougher vote in Senate (Reddy/Paletta, WSJ)

Fed secrecy claims bogus redacted AIG details already public (Adams, Naked Capitalism) More detail in a second post here.

FDIC and Bank of England to cooperate on resolution of troubled cross-border financials (FDIC) Next time a big financial blows itself up, Sheila Bair and Mervyn King want to make sure they’re prepared to deal with it in tandem.

NYC will move (a little bit) of its money (Traub, HuffPo) Bloomberg puts a little bit of support behind the Move Your Money campaign.

Chavez accuses U.S. of using weapon to cause Haiti quake (Moran, Digital Journal) “Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has accused the United States of causing the devastating 7.0 magnitude earthquake in Haiti, which killed possibly 200,000 people. Chavez believes the U.S. was testing a tectonic weapon to produce eco-type devastations.”

National Enquirer eyes Pulitzer (Kurtz, WaPo) …for breaking the John Edwards affair/love child story. Incidentally, he admitted paternity in a press release yesterday. Where was he when the release went out? Haiti, helping earthquake victims. I’m not going to criticize anyone for going to help Haitians, but it’s not hard to see that Edwards isn’t doing this because he’s the charitable type….

Quote of the Day, from Behind the Numbers:

A trend we are noticing is that many companies are reporting their results and comparing them to last year, or the last two years, and claiming that they have returned to margin and revenue growth. However, when compared to two or three years ago (i.e. pre-meltdown), the companies are reporting lower margins and lower growth rates (revenue, stores, etc.). Yet, these companies have now returned to pre-meltdown valuations. In other words, the companies are trading at “historic” valuations, but with lower margins and much lower prospects for future revenue growth than was true when those historic valuations were set.

Smart Bottlenose Dolphins….

Must Read – Short sale fraud + follow-up (Olick, CNBC) Great sleuthing from Diana Olick. Sounds like outright fraud being committed by big banks. One follow up question: In many cases, the second-lien holder is also the first lien holder. How is that impacting short-sales?

Buffett opposes bank fee (CNBC) See 2/3rds down the page. Obfuscation worthy of a banker. This should come as no surprise as Buffett is Wells’ top shareholder. He previously opposed the bank stress tests because it diluted his shareholdings. Nevermind that the stress test forced the bank to raise desperately needed capital. It’s a shame, really. As his career winds down, he’s sacrificed his reputation as a financial straight-shooter to protect his wealth.

In other Buffett news: He’s opposed to Kraft’s bid for Cadbury (he’s a big Kraft shareholder) and he split his shares, something he never wanted to do. So not a great day for the Oracle.

FT as shameless Fed booster (NakedCapitalism) Yves takes down the FT piece that said the Fed has made a killing on its AIG holdings.

CRE prices up 1.0% in November, not expected to continue (CR) Moody’s released its data for CRE prices for November today. They showed a month over month uptick for the first time in a while. That said, this is not a super reliable index due to the few number of data points available. And Moody’s says to expect prices to head back down.

Scott Brown successfully capitalized on bank bailout blues (Bottari, CMD) Walker Todd sent a missive over this morning noting, too, that while the healthcare bill’s unpopularity certainly played a role in Brown’s surprise win, anger over Obama’s kowtowing to banks may have pushed him over the edge. Unfortunately, Republicans are equally captured by the bank/homeowner lobby.

Foreclosure efforts failing b/c don’t reduce principal (Nasiripour, HuffPo) Helpful confirmation of a fact that is well-known.

Obama/Dems reach deal on debt, pay-go, fiscal commission (Alarkon, The Hill) A good start, but doesn’t sound like the kind of fiscal commission we really want….i.e. something like the base-closing commission that made recommendations that Congress was forced to vote on without amending.

China asks some banks to limit lending on insufficient capital (Jun/Dingmin, Bloomberg)

NY governor adds soda tax, raises cigarette tax, sanctions cage fighting in proposed budget (Kramer, WCBS)

Multitasking (imgur)

ht CSQT….

Reader note: This is Jim’s second piece in an ongoing debate with Warren Mosler about the economy. Here are links to previous posts in the series: Writer biographies / Mosler #1 / Rickards #1 / Mosler #2.  There will be one more post from each writer.

by James Rickards

Before I lay siege to Warren Mosler’s remedies, let me say he’s a brilliant guy I’ve admired for 25 years going back to his days at AVM.  I got reacquainted in 2004 when I lived in St. Croix and Warren ran for Congress from the Virgin Islands.  His campaign ads were 5-minute infomercials; tutorials on economics and gems of sound fiscal advice.  But this is a debate, so let’s begin.

Warren makes eleven points and I agree with two – the elimination of payroll taxes and converting banks into utilities.  Payroll tax elimination spurs consumption and stimulates job creation. As for banks, we need them, we just don’t need casinos that call themselves banks.  Bring back Glass-Steagall, separate deposit and loan functions from proprietary trading and banish the latter to hedge funds.  Speculation should survive on its own dime.

I don’t need to take the rest point-by-point because they’re the same thing – an unlimited belief in the Fed’s power to print money.  Warren calls for a $500 per capita state rebate, a federal job for all takers, direct Treasury funding of housing, unlimited deposit insurance, no debt ceiling, Treasury overdrafts at the Fed and federal purchase of foreclosed homes. He doesn’t propose free ice cream for children but I don’t see why not; just print some money and go for it!

Warren’s program would work if the world had as much faith in the dollar as he does.  But it doesn’t, and neither do the American people. If we were all captives of a government dollar monopoly with no alternative, then maybe his plan would work for awhile.  But we do have alternatives in land, art, commodities and the oldest form of money – gold.  It’s no coincidence that when FDR debased the dollar in 1934 he simultaneously banned private ownership of gold.  He knew citizens would hoard gold when he trashed the dollar so he made that illegal.  One of Reagan’s lasting gifts to the American people was a law in 1985 which made U.S. mint gold coins available to average citizens.  Now when the Fed cranks up the printing presses, citizens have a choice.  Foreign central banks have the same choice in terms of gold bullion and commodities such as oil and copper which serve as stores of value and industrial inputs.

Here’s where complexity theory comes in.   Each citizen, company and central bank is an interdependent agent with a threshold for dollar rejection based on the thresholds of others.  Some will not flee the dollar unless many others go first.  But some have already bought gold and others are on a hair trigger.  What does the complete system look like? Are we in the critical state where a small shift brings the entire edifice crashing down – the tipping point? It’s impossible to say, but we’re certainly closer than ever.  Warren’s cavalier approach to printing money as the cure for all ills guarantees the greatest disease of all – destruction of the dollar.

James G. Rickards is a writer, lawyer and economist. Twitter.com/JamesGRickards.

Paul Volcker’s speech to the Economic Club of NY last week (pdf) was generally reported as the latest example of the former Fed Chairman calling for more substantive financial system reform. He did repeat those points, but the focus of his speech was about the importance of the Fed maintaining its regulatory and supervisory authority over the banking system. At a certain point, this seems the stuff of absurdist theater. If the Fed never intends to use its regulatory authority, why insist the authority be maintained?

The problem with his speech is that while he acknowledges the Fed is badly staffed — mostly with economists/mathematicians, few from business/banking — he doesn’t address the clear failure on the part of the FOMC to 1) grapple with bubbles nor 2) to get serious about sensible reforms. He bemoans “reform light,” but that is precisely what the Fed is delivering.

Volcker wants tougher rules for derivatives trading, yet Pat Parkinson — the man Bernanke appointed as the Fed’s top bank regulator — has long favored a hands-off approach to derivatives. Volcker argues proprietary trading and other risky activities should be spun-off from commercial banks. It makes no sense for such risky activities to be backstopped by the financial system safety net — deposit insurance and last resort lending from the Fed. Yet Bernanke has done nothing to indicate he’ll separate the two.

Volcker is correct that the Fed should play a vital role in regulating the banking system. But this assumes the guys in charge actually use their regulatory power. Bernanke hasn’t done so. Instead he adopted his predecessor’s deregulatory zeal and penchant for bailing out the system.

Continuing the pattern of the last 25 years, the next financial market emergency is likely to be more disruptive than the last. The Fed has already lost so much credibility that when the next one hits, it’s not hard to envision it being neutered.

Tim Geithner covered up AIG’s payments to counterparties (DealBook) Timmy G. knew it looked bad for AIG to pay out 100¢ on the dollar to counterparties like Goldman. So he told AIG to shut up.

Obama buget will raise “carried interest” tax (Comstock, Business Insider) Awesome proposal from the Prez. Recall that hedge-funders and PE guys can treat their partnership income as capital gains. As a result they’re only taxed at 15% instead of normal income tax rates of 35%. Last time this came up, Chuck Schumer killed it. This time it’s likely to happen.

Obama OKs taxing high-end health plans (Werner, AP) Another good move. It’s Republicans who’ve argued that such health plans should be taxed so this will get bipartisan support if Dems get on board. Unions oppose it so this demonstrates some backbone from Obama.

New Japanese finance minister calls for more stimulus, weaker yen (Kajomoto/White, Reuters) Debt surpassing 200% of GDP doesn’t faze the new guy…

Redrado fight roils Argentina’s markets (Cowley, WSJ) Argentina’s president wants to fire the central bank chief for refusing to release reserves to pay down debt. He says he won’t go. He has the backing of Congress too. RBS says it’s an opportunity to buy Argie debt.

Banks favorite Dem set to replace Dodd (Grim, HuffPo) Tim Johnson is from SD, the home of credit card processors. He’s the only Dem who voted against credit card reform. He also opposes cramdowns and is a supporter of pay-day lenders…

Fed conflicted on MBS purchase program (Aversa, AP) The Fed has promised to stop printing money to buy mortgage-backed securities this March, after buying $1.25 trillion total. There are many who think the Fed is trapped and can’t step away. Not only will they never sell what they bought (effectively monetizing mortgage debt) but they’ll continue buying to support the housing market. Minutes from the latest Fed meeting suggest that some officials indeed think the program will have to keep going…

Schwarzenegger seeks U.S. funds (Woo/Carlton, WSJ) He says the nation’s taxpayers owe California money…

H&M says it will no longer destroy unworn garments (Dwyer, NYT) Jim put a good article in yesterday’s Times criticizing H&M for this practice. They responded quickly.

Lucky climbers (YouTube) Watch all 29 seconds…

Puppy glasses…

Was the global financial crisis a mathematical error? (Steve Keen, Business Spectator) Keen’s latest. Another great piece explaining the flaws of neoclassical economics. (ht Yves)

Not just Tiger’s temptations (Glanville, NYT) Another great column from ex-Cub/Phillie Doug Glanville.

Housing crash leads to falling divorce rate (Waller, WSJ)

Fed proposes selling term deposits to absorb excess reserves (Torres, BusinessWeek) To prevent banks from lending too much of the free money it gave them, the Fed will sell them CDs.  Earning interest on free money is another reason why it’s good to be a banker…

In new way to edit DNA, hope for treading disease (Wade, NYT) “Only one man seems to have ever been cured of AIDS, a patient who also had leukemia. To treat the leukemia, he received a bone marrow transplant in Berlin from a donor who, as luck would have it, was naturally immune to the AIDS virus.”

Video tour of 96 sq ft house (Unclutterer)

Lots ‘o lights (imgur) Impressive Xmas decorating.

Polar bear attack…

In his latest missive to investors (pdf link here), Eric Sprott asks if our Ponzi economy is at risk of collapse. In fiscal 2009, foreigners scooped up $698 billion of Treasuries while the Fed upped its holdings by $286 billion. But the public debt increased $1.9 trillion. So who bought all the rest? According to Treasury, “other investors” bought $510 billion, up from just $90 billion in 2008. With the Fed’s printing press turned off, the question for next year is whether “other investors” can buy more Treasuries than they did this year…

As we have seen so illustriously over the past year, all Ponzi schemes eventually fail under their own weight. The US debt scheme is no different. 2009 has been witness to spectacular government intervention in almost all levels of the economy. This support requires outside capital to facilitate, and relies heavily on the US government’s ability to raise money in the debt market. The fact that the Federal Reserve and US Treasury cannot identify the second largest buyer of treasury securities this year proves that the traditional buyers are not keeping pace with the US government’s deficit spending. It makes us wonder if it’s all just a Ponzi scheme.

Sprott has over $4 billion under management, the majority of which is in physical bullion, both gold and silver.

This blog has also argued that the American economy is a pyramid scheme:

At the end of the day, flushing more debt through the system is the only lever policy-makers know how to pull. Lower interest rates, quantitative easing, deficit spending, it’s all the same. It’s all borrowing against future income. Each time we bump up against recession, we borrow a bit more to keep the economy going. With garden variety recessions, this can work. Everyone wants the good times to continue, so no one demands debts be paid back. Creditors accept more IOUs and economic “growth” continues apace. If it sounds like Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme, that’s because it is.

Each time Bernie’s scam got a few too many investor withdrawals, he’d simply plug the hole by raising more investor cash. The guys at Fairfield Greenwich were making so much in fees, they were happy to funnel more his way. But at a certain point, Ponzis get too big. There simply aren’t enough new investors to pay off older ones. In the aggregate, the same is true for Western economies. Their debt loads are now so huge, they are simply unpayable.

Naturally, policy-makers sound just like Ponzi-schemers: Just give us a little more cash to get us through this rough patch and everything will be copacetic. Ben Bernkanke at the National Press Club alluded to the famous quote by St. Augustine: “Oh Lord, give me chastity, but do not give it yet.” President Obama convened his “fiscal responsibility” summit days after passing the stimulus bill and days before proposing huge increases in health care spending.

Like pyramid schemes, fractional reserve banking systems simply don’t work in reverse. “It’s A Wonderful Life” demonstrates why.There must always be new money coming into the system to refinance debts. If investors/depositors suddenly demand their money back, the system crashes.

Deflation to a central banker is like withdrawals from a Ponzi scheme. Too much at once and the scheme collapses. The Fed’s (impossible) job is to make sure it never does.

Bernanke says he’ll stop printing money to absorb debts, and he may for a time. But the American Ponzi has grown so large, the private credit system is, IMHO, no longer capable of generating sufficient debt finance to keep it going. So to avoid a debt deflationary depression the Fed will have to rev up its printing press again.

Japan has been wrestling with its own Ponzi collapse for 20 years, keeping it at bay with trillions of dollars worth of deficit spending and money printing.

Hasn’t worked for them and it won’t work for us.

Fed repeats “exceptionally low” for “an extended period” (Fed statement) The Fed maintains that it isn’t raising rates for the foreseeable future, but repeated that it plans to end MBS asset purchases by April next year. Too bad we can’t get a surprise rate hike in order to chase risk back out of credit markets…

Wells’ CLO deal called “landmark” (Paulden, Bloomberg) The return of CLOs would be the latest sign that Wall Street is dancing again.

Big decision looms on Fannie and Freddie (Timiraos/Hagerty, WSJ) Suggests Obama could expand his commitment to Fannie and Freddie beyond $400 billion while he’s still able to unilaterally. If he waits till next year, Congress would have to approve.

Man of the Year: Ben Bernanke (Time) Ha! Ben should have said thanks but no thanks. Ten years ago Time christened Rubin/Greenspan/Summers as The Committee to Save the World. In the fullness of time, all have been proven failures. Time’s endorsement is final confirmation that Bernanke too is a failure.

Norway raises rates (Kremer, Bloomberg) More fodder for yesterday’s Norway thesis. Higher rates make for a more attractive currency…

Some debt-laden graduates wonder why they bothered with college (ABC News) Full of choice quotes: “You’re led down this path of needing to go to college,” [says one indebted grad]. “The college diploma is the new high school diploma.”

Spend more. Get less. The worst fun city in America (Wachs/Eskenazi SFWeekly)

The year in photos, part 1, part 2 and part 3 (The Big Picture) More from the best photo blog on the web.

Canadian ice-fishing…

Volcker criticizes bankers (Dealbook) “Wake up gentlemen.” Indeed.

Geithner extends TARP to next October (Treasury) He buries the lead near the bottom of his letter. It had been scheduled to expire in December. Nothing so permanent as a temporary government program….

50% bonus tax would hit 20,000 London bankers (Aldrick/Armitstead, Telegraph) What’s to stop banks from boosting salaries in response? This is a backwards way to shrink the banking sector. Recapping balance sheets (i.e. bankruptcy) is the way to go.

Greek finance minister says no risk of default (Lacqua/Petrakis, Bloomberg) Reminds me of last year when every troubled bank reassured us that liquidity and capital were solid. When they have to make that comment publicly, you know the run is already on.

MUST READ—Greek debt could be timebomb for euro (Reuter, Spiegel)

Gerry Corrigan’s case for large integrated financials (Johnson, Baseline Scenario) Corrigan is one of the more responsible folks in the banking sector, yet he’s repeating the same old tripe that we “need” large banks.

Fed keeps testing the exit (NY Fed) It’s third tri-party reverse repo test in the last week. This, again, is one of the mechanisms that the Fed says it will deploy to pull liquidity out of the system, when and if it decides to.

Hillary ex-pollster Mark Penn got $6m of stimulus funds (Bolton, The Hill)

Drug dealer takes a snowday (imgur) Clever…

Tiger, lion, bear form unusual friendship (Telegraph) see below…

From the Fed: Statement regarding reverse repurchase agreements

…in the coming weeks, as an extension of this work, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York plans to conduct a series of small-scale, real-value transactions with primary dealers. Like the earlier rounds of testing, this work is a matter of prudent advance planning by the Federal Reserve. It does not represent any change in the stance of monetary policy, and no inference should be drawn about the timing of any change in the stance of monetary policy in the future.

These forthcoming operations are being conducted to ensure operational readiness at the Federal Reserve, the triparty repo clearing banks, and the primary dealers. The operations have been designed to have no material impact on the availability of reserves or on market rates. Specifically, the aggregate amount of outstanding transactions will be very small relative to the level of excess reserves, and the transactions will be conducted at current market rates.

Bernanke has said that the Fed has the power to mop up excess reserves. Reverse repo transactions, whereby the Fed sells securities in exchange for cash, are one of the arrows in his quiver. The question is whether he’ll actually use it. The rise in gold’s price is a bet he never will, not in any meaningful way. He can’t. He’s trapped: If he goes hawkish, he’ll hammer the economy.

But if he doesn’t, he’ll just reflate a larger credit bubble.

Is gold going to $6,300? Dylan Grice, an analyst with Societe Generale, says it’s possible, given the decline in central bank credibility. But investors need to keep one thing in mind: Gold is merely a vehicle to protect the purchasing power of money.

Gold is surging because investors see that the Federal Reserve — more concerned with deflation and unemployment than sound money — may be trapped in a never-ending cycle of monetary accommodation.

Ben Bernanke says he won’t monetize debt, but he already has. His Fed has bought $300 billion of Treasuries and is on pace to buy $1.45 trillion of government-backed mortgage debt all of which is being salted away indefinitely on the Fed’s balance sheet.

Why indefinitely? Because the Fed has no intention of unwinding its balance sheet so long as the economy is stressed. Witness comments this week from Bernanke, Fed Vice Chairman Don Kohn and San Francisco Fed President Janet Yellen all suggesting that the Fed’s “extended period” of low interest rates can be measured in years, not months. Today St. Louis Fed President James Bullard said rates aren’t going up till 2012.

So long as deficit spending continues, if the Fed wants to avoid deflation, it will be forced to monetize more debt.

[Elsewhere, capital controls are being erected in emerging economies like Brazil, Taiwan, and possibly Indonesia in order to keep speculative waters at bay. As Hong Kong's chief executive remarked last week, a dollar carry trade spawned by low rates threatens to inflate dangerous asset bubbles in emerging markets the same way low Japanese rates did in the '90s.]

Exploding debt throughout the developed world means other central banks face similar pressure.

(Click chart to enlarge in new window, reprinted with permission)

So confidence in paper currencies is waning.

Some people say it is absurd to buy gold; the metal has no intrinsic value. That may be. But is it any less absurd to hold paper? The best that can be said for paper is that if you lend or invest it, tomorrow someone will give you more paper in return. This is fine so long as its purchasing power is maintained. But it isn’t. A 2009 dollar is worth a 1914 nickel.

Eventually the value of all the paper you’ve accumulated goes to zero. The trick is to turn that paper into tangible assets with tangible value.

Gold may be volatile, but at least it maintains its real value:

(click chart to enlarge in new window, reprinted with permission)

Grice contends that the price of gold could reach $6,300 an ounce. He explains: “The U.S. owns nearly 263 million troy ounces of gold (the world’s biggest holder) while the Fed’s monetary base is $1.7 trillion. So the price of gold at which the U.S. dollar would be fully gold-backed is currently around $6,300. Gold is very cheap — at current prices, the USD is only 15 percent gold-backed.”

Absurd you say? It happened 30 years ago. President Nixon ended the Bretton Woods global monetary system and his compliant Fed Chairman Arthur Burns let inflation run wild. So by 1980 gold spiked to a level at which the dollar was “overbacked” according to Grice.

Did gold overshoot in 1980? Sure, but only because Paul Volcker was willing to hammer the economy to re-establish the Fed’s credibility. Today’s Fed has been very clear that it isn’t willing to put up with a recession of any kind in the service of sound money.

All of that said, investors should be careful. Grice’s chart shows that, over the long run, gold is likely to do no better than protect your purchasing power. An ounce of gold today buys a good men’s suit; in 100 years, it is likely to buy the same.

So gold won’t make you rich. But it may protect you from becoming poor.