|
For
months, even before the end of QE2, analysts and prognosticators have been
saying the Fed will have to do another QE and another, endlessly. These
folks were surprised when it didn’t come last month, and predicted
confidently that it would come this month especially because Bernanke extended
the September meeting to two days. I said then, and I still believe it,
that QE3 will come, but not as quickly as most people think (or hope).
So
today, the Fed gave us, in addition to their normal pap about “downside
risks” and “exceptionally low rates” forever, two new
policies: (1) they will sell $400B worth of Treasurys of 3 years or shorter
maturity, and buy $400B worth of Treasurys with 6 to 30 year maturity; and
(2) the Fed will reinvest the proceeds when mortgages it owns are paid.
The
markets became very volatile after the announcement. When the dust
settled, we had S&P down 3%, every currency, including the yen, down
substantially on the day (much less from the day’s highs around 3:30pm
EDT), copper down hard, crude, and even gold and silver down, down, and
down. Copper and the precious metals continue to sink as I write this.
Obviously,
the Fed’s decision disappointed and underwhelmed market
participants. It has become a cliché to say that there is a
“Bernanke Put”, i.e. he won’t let stocks fall. One
commenter said that today’s decision moved the Put farther out of the
money.
I
don’t think that the Fed cares about the stock market, in
particular. I think it cares about its member banks interests, in this
case their balance sheets.
The Fed might care about the stock market if it is a means to its ends, as in
the following chain. If stock prices rise, then investors feel
wealthier. If they feel wealthier, then they buy homes and invest in
businesses and commercial real estate. If they buy and invest, this
firms up asset prices. These are the assets on bank balance sheets, so
firming up the prices will bolsters said balance sheets.
So
today the Fed threw the stock market under the bus, or at least allowed it to
go under the bus. Let’s look at what the Fed did in lieu of more
outright printing.
The
simpler of the two policies is: the Fed will reinvest the money it gets from
mortgages that are paid or prepaid. This is nothing more than the Fed
saying they will continue to hold their balance sheet at its current
size. They do not want to withdraw liquidity. One theory says
this paves the way for Treasury to announce a giant re-finance for
everyone. We shall see.
“Operation
Twist” as the financial blogosphere has been calling it is simple in
its mechanics. Sell short duration and buy long duration
Treasurys. I am not sure that I believe they will sell anything.
They surely do not want the interest rate on the short end of the yield curve
to rise, much less for the yield curve to invert! But perhaps demand is
so strong that they haven’t had to manipulate short end anyways for
months? I don’t know and they aren’t saying.
By
plowing money into the 6-30 year maturities, they will push up bond prices
there. Since the interest rate and the bond price are a see-saw,
mathematically and rigidly related, this will push down the rate of interest
on 6+ year bonds. I would guess that the Fed thinks that this will spur
more borrowing and lending. The theory is that with lower rates,
businesses will make a case to borrow for new projects (I think they have
many reasons not to). And investors will be forced to take more risk to
earn a decent yield. Maybe, but I remain doubtful.
It
will, however, have other consequences. I predict the following:
1.
The
spreads between municipal or corporate bonds to Treasurys will widen.
Yields on those will go down (where there isn’t growing risk of
defaults as with many munis), but not as much as Treasurys will.
2.
Bond
speculators (is there any such thing as a genuine saver who has been buying
30-year bonds to hold for three decades??) will be rewarded with capital
gains. Good for them.
3.
The
capital that goes to bond speculators comes out of the capital accounts of
the bond issuers. It's a zero-sum game. When interest rates rise,
bond speculators lose and bond issuers gain. When rates fall, the
opposite.
4.
One of
the banks’ (illicit) source of risk-free profits is reduced.
Yield curve arbitrage, borrowing short to lend long, will become less
profitable.
5.
Where
bond issuers have access to the markets to “roll” their
liabilities, the new payments will be lower. In theory this would allow
them to borrow more (which is what the Fed intends). In practice, we
shall see. Certainly governments will, as there is little or no
personal downside to the politicians who make such decisions.
6.
Any
borrowing that only makes sense because the interest rate was further reduced
is, almost by definition, malinvestment. Such borrowings will not be
paid back. Car buyers would do well to consider the total cost of
ownership over the life of that 84-month 15% interest loan with the balloon
at the end and “affordable” payments. The same is true with
government and corporate borrowers: there are other considerations than
monthly payment.
7.
Assuming
any business does borrow at the new, lower rate, it will have a permanent
competitive advantage over its competitors who borrowed at the old, higher
rate. The new borrower will either be able to produce the same good at
lower cost (due to lower debt service) or be able to attract customers to the
new restaurant, hotel, resort, cruise ship, shopping mall, etc.
Customers love higher ceilings, lavish landscaping, opulent gilding dripping
from the marble columns, etc.
8.
Thus
capital destruction will continue and accelerate.
9.
The
process of halving of interest rates will continue. It is just as
damaging to go from 1.5% to 0.75% as it was to go from 12% to 6%.
10.
Debt
accumulation will continue.
11. All, of course, until it cannot
continue.
|
