Showing posts with label ECB. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ECB. Show all posts

Friday, September 5, 2014

THE FED: “STAND BY YOUR (MARKET)”

9/5/14

Wall Street’s perennial favorite parlor game has been trying to get into the head of whoever is Fed chairman and deciding when s/he will be adjusting monetary policy one way or the other.   See, for example, TAPER TALK, THE FEDAND THE FINANCIAL MEDIA:   WHAT WOULD JESUS SAY?, 12/19/13.  The last few years, and even the last few months, have seen this game in full swing.  Yours truly may as well join the fun since he is as likely as anybody else to be right…or wrong.

It’s general consensus that the Fed won’t be raising short rates until sometime next year, probably around the middle of next year, after winding down its quantitative easing (“QE”) on the long end of the curve by the end of this year as scheduled.   Yours truly suspects, though, that the consensus might be early on the increase in short rates.  Yes, today’s jobs number indicate that the economy remains shaky and still needs the methadone of the Fed’s easy money policy.  But further contributing to my belief that we might be waiting until 2016 to see the end of what I referred as Ben Bernanke’s (and now Janet Yellen’s) War on the Elderly is the dollar’s amazing strength.  As the financial media are nearly constantly pointing out, the dollar is now trading at its year to date high against the euro.  But the greenback is also at or very near year to date highs against the British pound and the yen as well.   This economy can’t take sustained currency strength against our trading partners/financial rivals, or so the popular wisdom, which this Fed rarely defies, would have it.  Hence rates will stay low a long, long time, especially since the European Central Bank (“ECB”) seems to have jumped on the “toss the paper out of helicopters…go on, it’s good for you!” bandwagon yesterday.  


This enthusiasm for competitive debasement of currencies doesn’t look like it will end well, but old codgers like yours truly have been saying that for years now and, so far, we haven’t been right.  For now, the party continues; the hangovers are tomorrow’s problems.

Monday, March 18, 2013

THE CYPRUS DEPOSIT “TAX”: “DON’T CRY FOR ME (NICOSIA)!”

3/18/13

Cyprus’s looming decision to effectively confiscate part of every bank account in the country as a means of partially financing a bailout of the Cypriot banking system is the big financial news story today, and deservedly so.  Whether I can say anything spectacularly original about the story I don’t know, but perhaps I can add some fresh insight.



Like legions of others, I am appalled that, should this proposal pass (As of this writing, the vote in the Cypriot parliament has been postponed until Tuesday and the banks will remain closed until Thursday.), the new law will run roughshod over centuries of corporate law and established business practice.   While the senior debt of the banks will remain unscathed, depositors, who are at least pari passu (equal in terms of liquidation payouts…not a literal Latin translation) with and probably at least structurally senior to the senior debt, will take hits ranging from, at this writing, 3% to 15% depending on how much money they have in the bank.  Deposit insurance will make no difference; as of this writing, insured and uninsured depositors will pay the same “tax.” This defies both law and practice and certainly rattles the confidence not only of insured depositors but also of investors.  The ramifications for the reliability of deposit insurance are obvious.  In addition, bondholders and potential bondholders, and not only in Cyprus or even only in Europe, have to be asking something like “If the government can override law and established practice to benefit me, why can’t it do the same thing to hurt me?”   This does not create an environment that is conducive to prudent risk taking.  

On the other hand, one might easily, and justifiably, retort that the bondholders’ rights were ignored in the bankruptcies of General Motors and Chrysler.   Many of us bemoaned the abuse of the law in those cases and predicted dire consequences for the bond markets and the investment environment in general.   So far, though, we have seen no effects.  It’s as if no one cares.   But remember that people, and especially the current generation of financial, political, media, and business leaders, have a hard time dealing with the long run.   Their sense of history is lacking and their memories, and attention spans, are short.

Sure, there are extenuating circumstances here.   Cypriot banks are unusually heavily funded by deposits, so there aren’t many senior bondholders to go after.   (But there are plenty of uninsured deposits; uninsured deposits exceed insured deposits in the Cypriot banking system and, as the Wall Street Journal pointed out in today’s (Monday, 3/18’s) editorial on the subject, it looks like relatively modest “tax” on uninsured deposits could raise the 6 billion or so euros expected of depositors in the bailout deal.)   Cypriot banks are havens for money laundering and other nefarious financial finagling, and any deposit tax will thus hit, say, Russian gangsters much harder than the Cypriot in the street.  And, after all, Cyprus is too small to set much of a precedent. There were also extenuating circumstances in the GM and Chrysler bailouts, though.   But the law is the law and is not to be brushed aside due to extenuating circumstances.   Politicians, and others who would like to take your money, can always come up with extenuating circumstances.

There are many who are assuring us that there will be no runs on European banks because the European Central Bank (“ECB”) has at its disposal an assortment of tools, including its aggressive use of Long Term Refinancing Operations (“LTROs”) to keep the banks solvent and/or liquid.  But such mechanisms would be useful in this situation only in an indirect way, if at all.   In this case, a run would not have its genesis in a fear that depositors’ money will disappear; a run would emerge from the fear that a portion of seemingly insured deposits will be seized in the form a one time deposit “tax,” as in Cyprus.   Instead of “I’d better get my money out before it’s all gone,” the fear would be “I’d better get my money out before the government takes (some) percent of it.”   The motivation would be different, but the result would be the same.  At that point, such mechanisms as the LTROs would be brought in to stem the chaos, but the chaos would have wrought its damage, and possibly would continue.

U.S. markets don’t seem to much care about Cyprus; they closed today (Monday, 3/18/13),the first trading day after news of the planned deposit tax leaked, down only modestly after a tougher night in Asia and a wild ride here.  But, again, memories and attention spans are short among the people who seem to matter in today’s world, as is the sense of history of those same people to whom we, perhaps foolishly, entrust so much.

Tuesday, February 19, 2013

“TO WAR! TO WAR! THE (CENTRAL BANKS ARE) GOING TO WAR!...YOU THINK THIS (CURRENCY’S) IN BAD SHAPE, JUST WAIT ‘TIL I GET THROUGH WITH IT!”

2/19/13

European Central Bank (“ECB”) President Mario Draghi was an active participant in last week’s G-20 meeting in Moscow, the conclave at which financial officials from throughout the world fell all over themselves denying that they were engaging in manipulation of the value of the currencies under their tutelage.   Yesterday, Mr. Draghi again insisted that the ECB has no target for the euro’s value.

So why did Mr. Draghi, as this morning’s (i.e., Monday, 2/19/13’s, page A8) Wall Street Journal reported, suggest

significant further gains in the euro zone’s currency may prompt stimulus measures from the ECB.

If the ECB’s stimulus measures are designed only to juice the euro zone economy and any consequences for the euro are purely ancillary, why would further gains in the euro prompt further stimulus measures?   One could argue, with only a slightly out of kilter face, that a strong euro might hurt euro zone exports, slow its economy, and thus prompt stimulative action, but that would appear to an objective observer to be only a rationalization.

Mr. Draghi’s engaging in at best only slightly clothed currency manipulation is also indicated by his also saying yesterday

“The exchange rate is important for growth and stability.”

On the other side of the world, new Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is threatening to attempt to legislate a less independent Bank of Japan (“BOJ”) if the bank doesn’t reach the 2% inflation target the BOJ set under pressure from Mr. Abe.  At least Mr. Abe is threatening to eliminate the BOJ’s independence legislatively; in this country, the Bush/Obama Administration stole the Fed’s virtue (to little protest from, indeed the willing submission of, Obsequious Ben and His Merry Men) without bothering to deal with the niceties of the law.

It’s bad enough that the world’s central banks are obviously engaging in a currency war.   That they are out and out lying about it, and assuming that we are too stupid to see through their diaphanous ruse, is perhaps even worse.