Inflation: Not this ship, sister

Alright so the Fed isn't going to defend the 10yr at 3%, and in fact appears to be targeting the belly of the yeild curve. That doesn't change the fundamental problem of deflation. Near term, based entirely on technicals, I've made a small short play in Treasuries. But I'm really just looking for a new entry on the long-side.

Almost exactly 2-years ago, I made my now famous (in my own mind) analogy of inflation to a Monopoly game. Basically my point was inflation wasn't about the price of any given property (or good) but the price of all the properties. Allowing any given good (at the time it was energy) to rise isn't, in and of itself, inflation.


Now there is fear that the Fed and Treasury's activities, especially the Fed's recent panache for "crediting bank reserves" (which means printing money). Here is the chart for M1 and M2 up 14% and 9% respectively in the last year.

Back to my Monopoly analogy. We might think of the M's as the actual multi-colored cash that each player has. As I demonstrated two years ago, an increase in cash available should cause the price level to rise, but only if you hold the savings rate constant.


Speaking more technically, you could say that an increase monetary base would have some multiplied impact on transactable money. In your textbook from college, this only involved banks and their willingness to lend. Actually, most often text books assume banks want to lend as much as they are legally allowed, which isn't the case right now. But I digress.


The securitization market makes this all much more complicated. The supply of loanable funds isn't just a function of cash in the banking system, but also cash invested in the shadow banking system. Right now net new issuance in ABS (meaning new issuance less principal being returned in old issues) is negative, meaning supply of funds from the shadow banking system is contracting.

This contraction of funds doesn't show up anywhere in the Ms, at least not directly, but obviously it matters in terms of consumers ability to buy goods. And it isn't just about availability of credit, which had everything to do with liquidity. Its about demand for credit also. Consumers want to save, they don't want to borrow right now. The following chart of household liabilities shows consumers actually decreased their total liabilities in 2008, the first year-over-year outright decline since the Federal Reserve began keeping the data in 1952.

Consumers are like a Monopoly player who has mortgaged all his properties. Passing GO doesn't cause him to buy more houses, it causes him to unmortgage his properties! That isn't inflation!


Getting back to consumers, it isn't clear to me that consumers are actually running out of money. Check this chart of the Household Financial Obligation Ratio, basically a debt service coverage ratio for consumers.

So consumers might not have to repay debt all at once, which is nice. It means a second-half recovery of sorts remains in play. But the large losses in assets coupled with out-sized debt ratios are going to cause consumers to keep saving at an elevated level. Check out liabilities as a percentage of disposable income.

This isn't a perfect ratio, since liabilities is a stock and income is a flow. But with declining asset values (both homes and financial assets), means that consumers are actually going to have to rely on incomes to pay debt service. Or for that matter to qualify for loans. So I'd think this ratio moves back toward 100%. That implies $3.6 trillion. TRILLION. It will be repaid over time to be sure, but it will remain a continual drag on consumer spending levels.

So keep this in mind when you think about the size of Fed/Treasury programs. $3.6 trillion. Are we worried about $800 billion for the "Stimulus Package" or the $1 trillion revised TALF? Not in terms of inflation.

I'm looking forward to the day when I'm worried about inflation. It isn't today.

TALF: Anoat system?

This is the second time I've made an Anoat allusion in a week. That has to be a record of some kind.

Anyway, how worried should we be about the lack-lustre start to the TALF? The thing that really worries me long-term is that we fall into a deflationary spiral, which really would result in Great Depression: Episode II. As you can see in this graph...


... bank reserves have sky-rocketed. Meaning that while the Fed has been busy "crediting bank reserves (i.e. printing money) to pay for their programs, banks have been shoving that money under the proverbial mattress.

The so-called shadow banking system is even worse. The ABS market has completely collapsed (at least until the TALF, more on that coming). Thus all spigots to consumer credit have slowed to a trickle. That has serious implications for the de facto money supply, which by my estimation is sharply negative.

TALF aims to reverse that. We might not be able to force banks to lend, and maybe we really want them to rebuild capital anyway. And we do want consumers to save and rebuild their own balance sheets. But we also don't want them to over-save. That's how we become Japan. But if we get a decent new issue ABS market doing, then at least consumers who can afford credit can access credit.

The TALF was supposed to work by basically giving a tax-payer subsidized free lunch. A nearly guaranteed arbitrage. But in fact, no one is showing up at the Fed to take out TALF loans.

Its worrisome, but we shouldn't panic yet. First, we don't really care how much the Fed lends under the TALF program. We actually only care that the ABS market gets back on its feet. So far, we've only had very high quality ABS deals get done since the TALF: a couple auto loan deals, a couple credit card deals, and a student loan deal back by the Department of Education.

ABS traders I've talked to say there is plenty of demand for those deals, but for whatever reason it isn't TALF demand. Its possible that buyers have other funding options away from the TALF. Amidst worries about Congressional interference in compensation and other BS, I'd sure as hell take some other funding option even if it were at a higher cost. The ability to bring back my girlfriend from the dead just isn't worth making a deal with Darth Pelosi.

There is also supposedly strong secondary demand for ABS, which is stuff that wouldn't be TALF eligible anyway. Its almost like a market that's properly functioning! People are looking for good bonds at decent spreads!

Anyway, its possible that the TALF actually revives the market without being used heavily. This is basically what happened with the Fed's commercial paper program. It revived that market at least to the point where the top issuers can access the market.

So the thing to watch is not TALF loans, which I'm sure is what the media will focus on. Watch ABS issuance.

I suppose I could hot wire this thing...

I expect the Federal Reserve to announce a program to buy long-term U.S. Treasuries. If not at today's meeting, then soon. Interestingly, most commentators I read don't expect the Fed to move in this direction, but to me it seems too easy not to do it.

The Fed's big fear is deflation. We know the Fed has had the printing presses in high gear for several months now, yet still consumer prices barely move. Today we got CPI, a meager 0.2% over the last year. The cash the Fed is producing isn't turning into consumption. As I've said many times, if consumers don't spend more money, at least nominally, there can't be inflation.

Inflation nuts like to complain about the rapid growth of monetary aggregates. M2 for example has risen 9.8% in the last year, or $736 billion dollars. But note that this has almost all translated into excess reserves at banks, which have gone from about $1 billion a year ago, to $622 billion today. In practical terms, money available for consumption is falling.

If the Fed wants to create inflation, it is going to need to overwhelm banks desires for additional excess reserves. That's going to be very tough given that banks are looking at continued increases in loss reserves (despite Citi/BofA's claim that they are profitable). BCA is predicting an additional $1 trillion in losses at banks before the credit crisis is over.

To this end, the TALF is great idea. This program aims to stimulate consumer lending directly, bypassing banks, by reinvigorating the asset-backed securitization market. Already Nissan is doing an auto loan securitization tomorrow, and another major manufacturer is going to follow suit this week. These two deals will combine for $5 billion.

That's all well and good, but it won't address the problem that consumers might not want to borrow. Household liabilities are currently 134% of disposable income, according to the Fed's Flow of Funds report. In addition, households have also seen their net worth decline by $13 trillion. Consumers must continue to save aggressively in order to offset these losses. And despite what some Keynesians say, consumers need to have a decent asset base before a lasting recovery can take hold.

But a lasting recovery can't happen under deflation. Deflation has more destructive power than half the starfleet. Deflation will push home prices even lower, thus exacerbate the problem of negative home equity specifically, and wealth destruction generally.

Currently the Fed is buying Agency debt and Agency mortgage-backed securities (MBS). That program has been a success so far in bringing down spreads on those bonds, especially considering the massive flight away from these securities by foreign buyers.

But that's just the thing: the Fed has brought down the spread on these bonds. The Fed program has helped prevent mortgage rates from rising in recent weeks as Treasury rates rose. But we won't see mortgage rates actually fall until Treasury rates fall. Remember that MBS typically have servicing spread of 50bps, meaning that if investors will buy MBS with a 5% coupon, that translates into a 5.5% actual mortgage rate. So if the Fed wants to see mortgage rates at 4.5%, they have to get investors to buy mortgage bonds at 4%. Investors simply aren't going to buy a mortgage security at a 4% yield if the 10-year Treasury is at 3%.

Forcing Treasury rates lower will be relatively easy. The Bank of England has already set the precedent. On March 5, the Bank of England announced it would be purchasing up to £75 billion in gilts over the next three months. The day after the announcement, even before the first actual purchase, the 10-year Gilt had already fallen by 30bps.

When Treasury yields fall, it puts indirect pressure on all other yields. No other segment of the investing world is so instrumental in pricing so many other investments. The Fed could buy MBS, and bring MBS rates lower, then buy corporates to bring those rates lower, then buy ABS, and munis and CMBS, etc. etc. Or it can just buy Treasury bonds and bring all rates lower at once.

Not only would forcing Treasury yields lower be impactful, it would also easier to achieve. The MBS market is about $8.9 trillion and is made up of thousands of individual securities. By contrast, there is only one 10-year Treasury bond, with about $40 billion outstanding. All the Fed has to do is target the 10-year Treasury and all rates will react substantially from there.

General Electric: Kobayashi Maru

Credit default swaps on GE Capital traded as wide as 20 points up front area this morning. For some color on what this means, in the days following Lehman's collapse, Goldman Sachs never traded this wide and Morgan Stanley might have ticked this wide, but only for a day or two.

In my opinion there are a number of things coming together to create this problem, beyond the obvious that GE was highly exposed to various areas of the economy now weakening. First, GE may have had a legitimate AAA-rated business model if one assumed that access to short-term financing was always and everywhere a given. Now that's obviously not the case. You simply can't make the case for any firm being rating AAA who needs constant access to short-term markets. That's even forgetting all about GE's exposures. So GE will be downgraded from AAA, its only a question of when and by how much.

On top of that, there are thousands of investors who bought GE securities over the years with the attitude that "hey, its AAA! What's the risk?" Some of those buyers had dumped the bonds over the course of the last year as it became increasingly obvious that GE would be impacted by the financial crisis. Bill Gross was saying as much on CNBC this morning. These buyers include everyone from big foreign investors to little retail accounts. And why can't I shake the feeling that it also includes Mr. Gross himself?

And remember that a lot of the same people got burned with AIG, which was also AAA-rated just a few years ago.

GE Capital's business model can be boiled down to this: every risk has a price, and we'll price every risk. Note that this was basically the same business model AIG was running. Maybe GE is running it better, but its the same idea. And that's not to say that GE is going to have the same fate as AIG. But consider the conundrum: GE has huge de facto leverage which it needs to reduce. But it cannot sell enough assets at today's distressed prices to actually reduce leverage. You'd like to think that if the assets are good, GE can just let time and normal cash flow solve their problem.

But that isn't a realistic option. First, if ratings agencies downgrade GE Capital enough they'll have to post additional collateral against existing contracts, and that's exactly what the proximate cause of AIG's collapse. Second, GE Capital really can't operate with less than a AA rating or so. The funding costs would be too high. Maybe they could get away with A, but certainly not BBB. But under current circumstances, I really think BBB is the right rating. Again, you'd like to think GE Capital could go into quasi-run off and eventually regain a decent credit rating, but I just don't think market conditions allow for that sort of slow transition.

This is also why I doubt they could do a spin-off of GE Capital. If GE combined is looking at a A-level rating, GE Capital alone would either get a much lower rating, or GE Inc. would have to pledge even more cash to GE Capital in the spin-off. On top of all that, from a shareholder perspective, if you believe in GE Capital long-term, why sell now when valuation is going to be at a minimum?

These kinds of no-win scenarios are an unfortunate consequence of current economic conditions. Firms need to rejigger their leverage and asset mix, but the problem is so universal that no one has the cash to transact. Then you have companies who probably could have survived had they been granted the luxury of time, but no such luxury is available.

What would really help GECC is for the TALF to be expanded such that GECC could unload assets at decent valuations into the secondary market. Or else the Aggregator Bank helps them out. Otherwise its difficult to see what good options GE has.

Clumsy and Random Thoughts

Just as Geithner is about to speak...

• They want to call the Bad Bank an "Aggregator" bank. Does that mean we can call it "Aggie Mae?" I think back to Rod Stewart... "Oh Aggie I wish I'd never seen your face..."
• The TALF remains an under-rated part of the effort to jump-start consumer lending. The Fed will have a conference call on the TALF on Thursday 2/12 at 3PM. The number is 1-866-216-6835, Access Code 296081

TARP II: Find a way into the detention block!

Details are emerging about the new financial rescue package. Some of the items the Wall Street Journal has reported sound far more market-friendly than what I had feared.

The centerpiece is the bad bank. While not exactly what I talked about last week, this bad bank will be funded with private sector money. Its daring, but if it can work, then I think it will achieve some of the goals I laid out in that post. A privately funded bad bank should involve less government intervention than would otherwise be.

Another key element will be a FDIC-insured covered bond program. I talked about creating a government-backed covered bond program backed by some limited government guarantee. Now it looks like it will be a reality. Basically banks will be able to issue FDIC-insured debt with maturities as long as 10-years as long as that debt is backed by loans. I'd expect this to be restricted to new loans, because the idea is to get credit flowing again.

Remember that covered bonds differ from securitizations in that the debt is an obligation of the issuing bank no matter what. So even if the loans which "cover" the bond go into default, the bank still has to pay. With a securitization, the bank sells all its risk to investors in the securitization. From a moral hazard perspective, the beauty of the covered bond program is that the risk stays with the bank who originated the loans. The FDIC (i.e. tax payers) are only on the hook in the event that the bank goes under. And we're already on the hook for that!

From a "fix" the economy perspective, the covered bond program gives banks a guaranteed profit as long as it can underwrite good loans. The bank's cost of funds for 10-year FDIC insured covered bonds would be about 4.5% (my own estimate, maybe lower). How easy is it to make loans well north of 4.5%? By implementing this program, the government is telling banks not to worry about their funding sources, just worry about lending the money to worthy borrowers.

The last piece of this bailout that I think will really matter is the TALF. Similar to the covered bond program, the TALF will guarantee profits to banks and other financial institutions as long as they can make good loans. Combined with the covered bond program, this should eliminate the hoarding of cash at banks.

The real trick is how the government is going to incent private investors into the bad bank. I think that if the government guaranteed some percentage of the initial purchase value, private investors would come in. I'm not sure how high this number has to be, but there is a number.

TALF: Quicker, easier, more seductive

The Fed has expanded the Term Asset-Backed Loan Facility (TALF), which AI first discussed here. Here is the quick recap of the facility.

1) Fed will loan funds for purchase of recently issued ABS. This was clarified to mean ABS issued after January 1, 2009 made up of loans no older than October 2007. The ABS must be rated AAA, and be made up of student loans, auto loans, small business loans, or credit cards.

2) Loans will be non-recourse and not marked-to-market. The borrower will not have to deal with margin calls due to price declines.

3) The loan term will be up to 3-years, originally was only 1 year. That is extremely positive for the potential success of this program. See below.

4) The loan rate will be set at "yield spreads higher than in more normal market conditions but lower than in the highly illiquid market conditions that have prevailed during the recent credit market turmoil." In other words, lower than the rate paid on the asset.

So what has the Fed done here? Created an easy arbitrage. All investors have to do is do accurate credit work, and this is a guaranteed profit. Note that the 3-year term seals this thing. 3-years is basically the entire life span of most eligible collateral, so it eliminates the last thing an investor needed to worry about. Given a 1-year term, investors would have worried that the end of 1-year, new financing might not be available. But by the end of 3-years, the asset will be all but gone.

Also through this facility, the Fed can really control consumer lending rates. The rate on newly issued AAA ABS will be stuck at a level slightly higher than the Fed's lending rate. Banks which are currently hoarding cash will fall over themselves to buy ABS and pledge them into this facility.

Now don't read this as especially bullish for the overall economy. I still see this as a facility intended to aide in quantitative easing, and not a "fix" for the recession. Or put another way, a means of preventing the economy from getting still worse. But as far as ABS go? Should get that market rolling again.

We need? What about you need?

The Fed's new Term ABS Loan Facility (TALF) announced this week could be a significant step in improving credit availability. While many of the details of the program are not yet known, there is already several take aways.

First, this looks and smells a lot like a back-door way of reviving some of the TARP's original concept. Consider what we already know about the program. Eligible collateral for the TALF will basically include AAA-rated bonds within the major non-housing ABS sectors: auto loans, student loans, credit cards, and SBA loans. TALF loans will have a one-year term and will be non-recourse to the borrower. The facility appears to be oriented toward banks and insurance companies, but may actually be available to anyone. TALF loans "will no be subject to mark-to-market or re-margining" which is a critical part of the program.

Now put these criteria together and consider the effect. A bank may originate loans of the above types, then get funding from the Fed at an attractive rate. There is no need to worry about the funding being taken away suddenly because of changing haircuts, nor is there any worry about interim marks impacting economic results. The originator does have an incentive to make a good loan, since the Fed is going to require some haircut. But as long as the originator can make good loans, the eventual profit will be the differential between the lending rate and the Fed borrowing rate.

Let's look at a real life example. COMET 2008-A6 A6 is a credit card ABS issued in May. The original deal spread was +110bps over 1-month LIBOR with a 2.4 year average life. Currently bonds of this type are trading with a spread of around 600bps, which makes the dollar price of this bond around $89.

Analyzing asset-backed bonds gets complicated because bond holders get monthly principal and interest payments. But in simple terms, the bond is yielding LIBOR +600bps. If the Fed is willing to lend at LIBOR +50 or 100bps, banks will quickly gobble up high quality ABS paper. As a result, the yield spread on this kind of ABS will contract until its closer to the Fed's lending rate. If the COMET bond were to go from LIBOR +600 to LIBOR +300, the bond's price would appreciate by 5.5 points.

There would be two important knock-on effects. First, it would create a price floor for similar ABS which isn't pledged into a Fed facility, alleviating mark-to-market problems banks are currently facing. Second, it will allow for new origination in ABS, which will help rejuvenate consumer credit.

The primary beneficiary will be the ABS securities itself. Next would probably be the bigger holders of ABS paper, which include banks and P&C insurers. Companies involved in securitization will also benefit: credit card issuers like Capital One and student lenders like Sallie Mae. There is already talk that this program could be extended to Commercial MBS, which would benefit REITs tremendously.

Disclosure: Long certain ABS as well as Sallie Mae