The Hurt Locker

Definition: noun. a period of immense, inescapable physical or emotional pain.



The Hurt Locker and the problem of the liquidity trap.

Paul Krugman's definition of the liquidity trap, the Keynesian view:

[a] liquidity trap may be defined as a situation in which conventional monetary policies have become impotent, because nominal interest rates are at or near zero: injecting monetary base into the economy has no effect, because base and bonds are viewed by the private sector as perfect substitutes. By this definition, a liquidity trap could occur in a flexible price, full-employment economy; and although any reasonable model of the United States in the 1930s or Japan in the 1990s must invoke some form of price stickiness, one can think of the unemployment and output slump that occurs under such circumstances as what happens when an economy is trying to have deflation — a deflationary tendency that monetary expansion is powerless to prevent.[29]


Excellent comment this week by R. Glenn Hubbard, dean of the Columbia Business School and former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President George W. Bush, and Peter Navarro, a professor of economics at the Merage School of Business at the University of California-Irvine:

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2010/09/10/desperate-times-do-not-always-call-for-desperate-measures/

"The fundamental flaw in Washington’s stimulus logic is the incorrect assumption that America’s current economic woes began with the 2007 recession. In fact, the roots of our slow-growth problem date back at least a full decade.

From 1946 to 1999, GDP grew annually at 3.2 percent, but since then, we’ve only averaged about 2.5%. On a cumulative basis, this seemingly small difference adds up to about 10 million jobs we failed to create.

What these statistics add up to is not a short term cyclical downturn, but rather longer-term trouble driven by four major structural imbalances in America’s GDP “growth driver equation.”


Overconsumption:

From 1946 to 1999, consumption averaged 64 percent of GDP but over the last decade, that share jumped to 70 percent. This increase was fueled not by rising wages, but rather by a housing bubble and a mortgage refinancing wave that turned American homes into ATM machines. This overconsumption has been mirrored in a low saving rate and a second major structural imbalance – underinvestment.

Underinvestment:

Business investment in research and development, technological innovation, and the new productive capacity required for the job creation process has been the single most important missing ingredient in our economic recovery – and for renewed long-term prosperity. Yet the current administration seeks only to raise the regulatory and tax burdens of business.

Chronic trade deficits:

These have been equally destructive. During the 2000s, our current account deficit more than doubled and likely reduced our annual GDP growth rate by a half a percent or more.

Excessive government spending:

This spending has provided some short-term stimulus. However, an overfed Uncle Sam represents the ultimate seed of destruction through upward pressure on taxes and interest rates and a stark future of sharp cuts in defense, education, and infrastructure spending."

"Over the long — and short — term, in implementing any stimulus, we should favor tax cuts to stimulate business investment as the best way to stimulate job creation. Reducing the fiscal burden of entitlement programs is also essential to restoring prosperity."

Federal Government Debt: Total Public Debt



In relation to the raging inflation/deflation debate, Bill Gross at PIMCO has decided to put a wager on it. A 8.1 billion USD wager...quite meaningful (notional value of derivatives position tied to the Consumer Price Index).
They bought inflation floors in size...

"Inflation floors, structured as options on the consumer price index for all urban consumers, are similar to insurance. The buyer of the contract pays a premium at the outset in return for the right to receive a payment after 10 years should the CPI decline during this period."

The bet is that the USA will not be like Japan and are not on a verge of entering a similar lost decade as Japan did.

As I previously discussed in relation to the heated deflation/inflation debate, we are going through a deleveraging period, which meant deflation in some asset prices (real estate, etc.) but inflation in other items, such as food items (up 16% since 2009). In a previous post I argued you could have both deflation and inflation at the same time as currency values are being debased. The latest new record of Gold is of no suprise and the trend is up and up, given we can expect a second round of QE in November in the US.

The rise in food prices are strong inflationary forces at play which is probably creating a lot of headaches for the Bank of England given its inflation target of 2%. You can therefore expect the UK to rise interest rates sooner than expected which will coud increase the risk for a double-dip recession due to the current constraints in household balance sheets. I hope Mervyn King still has plenty of ink in his pen, as he will definitely have more letters to write to the chancellor in the coming months...


http://noir.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aqqEDrWMDO3w&pos=3

“We think the possibility that the U.S. goes 10 years with stagnant or falling prices is remote,” Mihir Worah, the head of Pimco’s real return portfolio management team, said in an e- mailed response to questions. “The options were priced at rich levels to the underlying” risk, added Worah, whose funds invest in Treasury inflation protected securities."

"Pimco Chief Executive Officer Mohamed El-Erian said last month the chance of deflation in the U.S. is around 25 percent."

Deflation then inflation is still the ongoing theme, which might lead us to Stagflation 70s style.

The latest inflation figure in the UK is of no surprise: August's consumer price inflation came in at 3.1 %. QE is working just fine...I kept saying the results of QE would be more inflation down the line, in April, in March...



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/8003750/UK-inflation-is-uncomfortably-high-says-Bank-of-England-rate-setter-David-Miles.html

"Inflation has been above the central bank's 2pc target since December 2009 although policymakers have argued that it is largely down to one-off factors and should subside over time."

Can the policymakers please specify the time frame? They won't...

High UK inflation no conspiracy:
By James Mackintosh

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/81dacaae-c038-11df-b77d-00144feab49a.html?ftcamp=rss



Jacques Rueff, a great French economist clearly saw the strategy behind Keynes General Theory of Employment which is currently being used in the UK with QE:

http://www.moneyweek.com/news-and-charts/economics/homage-to-jacques-rueff-88380.aspx

"Keynes came up with a subterfuge. The central bank should cause price inflation during a slump, he proposed. Rising prices for 'things' meant that salaries - in real terms - would go down. That was the greasy scam behind Keynes' General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money: inflation robbed the working class of their wages without them realizing it. The poor schmucks even thank the politicians for picking their pockets: "salary cuts without tears," Rueff called them."

Bill Bonner also adds in his hommage to Jacques Rueff the following:

"Rueff died in 1978. Had he lived, he probably would have been as surprised as we have been by the stamina of the monetary horses. Except for a brief rest while Paul Volcker was managing the stables, they have run from bubble to bubble... delivering more liquidity wherever it would do the most damage. All the while, inflation continued to cut the price of labour. Between 1974 and 1984, real wages fell as much as 30%. Then, more moderate levels of inflation held them down for the next 24 years.

But Rueff’s insight comes with a warning. The faith-based, dollar-dependent monetary system is like a loaded pistol in front of a depressed man. It is too easy for the US to end its financial troubles, Rueff pointed out, just by printing more dollars. Eventually, this “exorbitant privilege” will be “suicidal” for Western economies, he predicted."

Bill Bonner concludes:
"Paul Volcker put the pistol in the drawer. Ben Bernanke has found it. And Jacques Rueff must look on in amusement to see what happens next."

http://www.thedailybell.com/1114/Britain-to-See-Inflation-Risk.html

"Until the 1970s, classic Keynesian economists seem to have believed that it was impossible to have a stagnant economy along with an aggressive monetary stimulus program. In slumps, central banks should print money, and more money, to stimulate via government spending and bank lending. Of course, while such Keynesian solutions may not stimulate the economy much (not with real jobs anyway), they do lead to inflation, and then price inflation, especially in severe slumps. Hence, stagflation..."

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article21501.html

"Krugman's monetary solution to a liquidity trap is sustained inflation, where the central bank reverses fears of future deflation by instead causing an increase in the price level through massive monetary pumping (Krugman estimates this to be in the area of $10 trillion, borrowing the figure from a prior study conducted by Goldman Sachs)."

Housing in the US is still in the hurt locker:

More pain to come unfortunately. There is a huge shadow inventory that needs to be worked through. Banks reposession runs unabated. Housing starts at rock bottom still.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/39175282

"RealtyTrac, an online foreclosure sale site, will release its monthly numbers on Thursday, but sources there confirm the number of repossessions will come in just shy of 100,000 for the month.
That is the highest since the site began tracking in 2005. July's repossession number was the second highest on record. The last highest was 93,777 in May of 2010."

U.S. Home Prices Face Three-Year Drop as Supply Gains:

http://noir.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aPjDFWbLAdd8&pos=10

“Whether it’s the sidelined, shadow or current inventory, the issue is there’s more supply than demand,” said Oliver Chang, a U.S. housing strategist with Morgan Stanley in San Francisco. “Once you reach a bottom, it will take three or four years for prices to begin to rise 1 or 2 percent a year.”

Gains Versus Inflation

"If the market doesn’t fall to its natural bottom, price gains in the next five to 10 years won’t keep pace with inflation as the difference is made up “on the backend,” said Barry Ritholtz, chief executive officer of FusionIQ, a New York research company. Price increases that fail to at least match inflation are the same as reductions in value, Ritholtz said."

"The Obama administration’s effort to help mortgage holders, the Home Affordable Modification Program, or HAMP, is another source of future inventory as owners with new loan terms re- default, Ritholtz said. About half of the modifications done in 2009 were behind in payments by the first quarter of 2010, according to the Treasury Department."

‘Day of Reckoning’

“The belief has been: if we stimulate sales with a tax credit and delay foreclosures with modifications, the market would stabilize,” said Ritholtz, author of “Bailout Nation.” “We’re just putting off the day of reckoning and drawing out the pain by not letting the housing market hit its bottom.”

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Albert Einstein.

Just the facts on housing in the US:

"Owners of about 11 million homes, or 23 percent of households with a mortgage, owed more than their property was worth as of June 30, according to CoreLogic. Another 2.4 million borrowers had less than 5 percent equity in their houses and probably would lose money on a sale after paying broker fees and closing costs, CoreLogic said Aug 25."

Deep sea fishing: Housing starts still at rock bottom



From the excellent Calculated Risk blog:

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2010/09/two-key-housing-problems.html

"The excess supply is keeping pressure on residential investment, and therefore on employment and economic growth. As new households are formed, the excess supply will be absorbed - but this is happening very slowly."

"It takes jobs to create households, and usually housing is the key driver for employment growth in the early stages of a recovery. So this is a trap: the excess supply means weak employment growth, leading to few new households, so the excess supply is absorbed slowly - putting off more robust employment growth.







The excess supply is also pushing down house prices (prices are just starting to fall again). Lower prices will eventually help clear the market, however lower prices will push more homeowners into negative equity."

"Negative equity frequently leads to distressed sales (short sales or foreclosures), and losses for lenders."

It will take a long time to clear the mess in US housing. A long, painful process to clear the excesses of the housing bubble.

Honey, I Shrunk the Balance Sheet...

This crisis is very acute because it is a Balance Sheet Recession and the implications will be severe for many years to come, given the extent of the repairs that needs to be achieved following the catastrophic damages inflicted by the cheap credit fuelled bubble we have been victims of.

The Balance Sheet Recession:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3d89a930-220d-11de-8380-00144feabdc0.html

In an article published by Roger Altman (chairman and CEO of Evercore Partners and former deputy Treasury secretary in the Clinton Administration) in the Financial Times, we have a very good summary of the damages inflicted to Households and the implications for the recovery.

"What is unusual is that this is a balance-sheet driven recession, centred on the damaged financial condition of both households and banks. These weaknesses mandate sub-normal levels of consumer spending and overall lending for about three years.

In contrast, most postwar recessions had a different sequence – rising inflationary pressures, a monetary tightening to counter them and, then, a slowdown in response to higher interest rates. This was the pattern of the sharp 1980-81 slowdown.

None of that happened here. Instead, we saw a housing and credit market collapse that caused enormous losses among households and banks. The result was a steep drop in discretionary consumer spending and a halt to lending. To see why recovery will be slow, we can look at the balance sheet damage. For households, net worth peaked in mid-2007 at $64,400bn (€47,750, £43,449bn) but fell to $51,500bn at the end of 2008, a swift 20 per cent fall. With average family income at $50,000, and falling in real terms since 2000, a 20 per cent drop in net worth is big – especially when household debt reached 130 per cent of income in 2008."

You can clearly see in the graph below the severity of the damages inflicted to US households in the current recessions compared to previous ones:



Furthermore on Balance Sheet Recession:

http://www.adamsmithesq.com/archives/2009/04/the_balance_sheet_recessi.html

"Recessions as described or dissected by Econ 101 are income-shock driven, not balance-sheet shock driven. Typically, rising inflation compels the Fed to tighten money and raise interest rates and the predictable slowdown follows as (a) business investment contracts because of higher funding costs (b) causing all the industries and suppliers associated with that investment to contract (c) laying off their workers and cutting their orders to their own suppliers (d) leading to further employment contraction (e) decreased consumer spending (f) decreased demand for business products and services, and so on until inflation is tamed and the Fed can ease off the brake and back onto the gas.

Alternatively, of course, a single sector can become a bubble unto itself (the dot-com boom or the S&L crash of the 1980's) or an exogenous shock (the OPEC price spike of the early 1970's) can prompt a recession, but the single-sector bubbles are typically self-contained and parochial in scope and the exogenous shock bring forth a plethora of innovation and plain old readjustments (turn down the thermostat and stock up on sweaters?) that hasten recovery.

This time is different.

This time everyone--households, small businesses, big busineses, banks, investment banks, and yes, law firms--has seen their net worth hosed. The problem with recovering wealth is that it takes so much longer than it does to recover income."

The fall in networth implies that everyone is working hard to repair balance sheets.
This produces weak demand for funds and credit. It will take years to go through the deleveraging process.
Households and Companies are moving from profit maximization to debt minimization.
Everyone is hoarding cash. Cash is king. According to the Federal Reserve, businesses are hoarding about 1.8 trillion USD in cash.





Consumer Credit Collapsing and Banks Hoarding Cash as well:



David Rosenberg in his Breakfast with Dave article on the 16th of August, analyses the cash hoarding situation and implications:

https://ems.gluskinsheff.net/Articles/Breakfast_with_Dave_081610.pdf

"BANKS LENDING ALL RIGHT ... TO UNCLE SAM!"

"The banks are still sitting on an unprecedented cash hoard and doing nothing with it. Consider that on a 13-week rate change of basis:
•
C&I loans are down at a 1.2% annual rate.
•
Home equity lines of credit are down at a 4.1% annual rate.
•
Residential mortgages are down at a 2.9% annual rate.
•
Commercial real estate loans are down at a 9.2% annual rate.
•
Credit card loan balances are down at a 6.7% annual rate.
Meanwhile, cash on bank balance sheets have expanded at a 10% annual rate over this time frame and purchases of government securities have ballooned at a 21.3% annual rate. In fact, since the end of June, the banks have bought a huge $83 billion of government/agency bonds, the third most over such a short time frame. Just in case you were wondering who has been the culprit behind this phenomenal rally in the Treasury market."


Households in the US are deleveraging big time:



And they are deleveraging at an incredible fast rate:



How far will debt to income fall?



We can see a big surge in the amounts in personal savings in the US:





At the same time the government is trying to make up for the big drop in consumer spending by running a huge deficit!



What are the implications of a Balance Sheet Recession and why Japan is a very bad exemple to follow in a Balance Sheet Recession:

In his latest weekly letter, John Mauldin quotes Charles Gave, writer as well as founder of the excellent Macro Research house Gavekal:

http://www.2000wave.com/article.asp?id=mwo091010

"The only way that one can expect Keynesian policies to break the 'paradox of thrift' is to make the bet that people are foolish, and that they will disregard the deterioration in their balance sheets and simply look at the improvements in their income statements.

"This seems unlikely. Worse yet, even if individuals are foolish enough to disregard their balance sheets, banks surely won't; policies that push asset prices lower are bound to lead to further contractions in bank lending. This is why 'stimulating consumption' in the middle of a balance sheet recession (as Japan has tried to do for two decades) is worse than useless, it is detrimental to a recovery.


TPC from the excellent website "The Pragmatic Capitalist" does a great job as well in analysing the deleveraging process induced by this acute Balance Sheet Recession:

http://pragcap.com/the-deteriorating-macro-picture

Businesses and consumer are using their surpluses to pay down their debts and increases their savings due to the damages they have suffered in the dowturn as well as increased uncertainties instead of spending or investing.





Keynes argued that in a liquidity trap, consumers and businesses are so fearful to spend or invest that they hoard cash, this is excactly what is happening right now. And because the Federal Reserve cannot lower interest rates below zero, it runs out of room to force more money into the economy.

What could be a solution to reverse the course?

How could the Balance Sheet be rapidly repaired?

Tax cuts stimulate the economy when they involve reductions in tax rates!

Permanent cuts in marginal rates of the payroll tax, capital gains tax and double taxation of dividends could be positive to stimulate investment as well as employment.
The negative dynamics such as anticipated future tax increases are the main reason why consumers and companies are hoarding cash.

Instead of having an already inefficient stimulus, how about 1 trillion USD in tax cuts? Would we need more? Would that restore confidence? Entice people to invest and recruit? Would that help small businesses to drag us out of the recession given they have always pulled the economy out of a recession when they thrive?

Tax cut would be appropriate given it would increase consumer's credit lines. The consumer would either consume more or save more (and maybe buy Goverment bonds in the process...).

Economic 101 reminder:
GNP = C + I + G + NX

where:

C = consumption spending by individuals
I = investment spending (business spending on machinery, etc.),
G = government purchases
NX = net exports

Consumer spending typically equals two-thirds of GNP.

Reducing taxes, pushes out the aggregate demand curve as consumers demand more goods and services with their higher disposable incomes. Supply side tax cuts are aimed to stimulate capital formation. If successful, the cuts will shift both aggregate demand and aggregate supply because the price level for a supply of goods will be reduced, which often leads to an increase in demand for those goods.

How about cutting corporate taxes?

Here is what Peter Ferrara in Forbes, thinks about it:

http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/04/tax-cut-stimulus-opinions-contributors_0204_peter_ferrara.html

"Here are the components of a plan that would work to restore economic growth precisely because they do focus on governing economic incentives. America's corporations suffer from a federal corporate tax rate of 35%, close to 40% with state taxes. This is the second-highest rate in the industrialized world, just a bit behind Japan, which may cut its rate soon. The European Union cut its average corporate tax rate from 38% in 1996 to 24% in 2007. Germany and Canada each recently adopted a top corporate rate of 19%, with Canada's slated to fall further to 15%. India and China have lower corporate rates as well.

Ireland adopted a 12.5% corporate rate in 1988, when it had the second-lowest per capita income in Europe. Today, Ireland enjoys the second-highest incomes in Europe, and it raises more in corporate taxes as a percent of gross domestic product than the U.S. does with a tax rate three times higher.

For the U.S. economy to remain internationally competitive, the federal corporate rate should be slashed to 20%. The heavily burdensome federal corporate capital gains rate should also be cut from 35% to the current individual rate of 15%, and that individual rate and the dividends tax rate of 15% should be made permanent. The capital gains tax is a second level of taxation on capital, not a loophole providing lower rates for capital income."

We need to do whatever we can to boost the private sector:

"The reduction in rates improves incentives for savings, investment, business creation and expansion, job creation, entrepreneurship and work by allowing people to keep a greater percentage of the reward produced by these activities."

Also Peter Ferrara makes a very important point:

"In addition, America needs deregulation to unleash the private sector to produce more oil and natural gas, from offshore and onshore, and to build more nuclear power plants. This would build a powerful energy industry, adding to GDP and creating jobs."

Why America needs urgent deregulation and massive investment from the private sector in the Energy sector?

John Mauldin told us why in his latest letter:

http://www.2000wave.com/article.asp?id=mwo091010

"If the US is going to really attempt to balance the budget over time, reduce our personal leverage, and save more, then we have to address the glaring fact that we import $300 billion in oil (give or take, depending on the price of oil).

This can only partially be done by offshore drilling. The real key is to reduce the need for oil. Nuclear power, renewables, and a shift to electric cars will be most helpful. Let us suggest something a little more radical. When the price of oil approached $4 a few years ago, Americans changed their driving and car-buying habits.Perhaps we need to see the price of oil rise. What if we increased the price of oil with an increase in gas taxes by 2 cents a gallon each and every month until the demand for oil dropped to the point where we did not need foreign oil? If we had European gas-mileage standards, that would be the case now.

And take that 2 cents a month and dedicate it to fixing our infrastructure, which is badly in need of repair. In fact, the US Infrastructure Report Card (www.infrastructurereportcard.org), by the American Society of Civil Engineers, which grades the US on a variety of factors (the link has a very informative short video), gave our infrastructure the following grades in 2009: Aviation (D), Bridges (C), Dams (D), Drinking Water (D-), Energy (D+), Hazardous Waste (D), Inland Waterways (D-), Levees (D-), Public Parks and Recreation (C-), Rail (C-), Roads (D-), Schools (D), Solid Waste (C+), Transit (D), and Wastewater (D-).

Overall, America's Infrastructure GPA was graded a "D." To get to an "A" would requires a 5-year infrastructure investment of 2.2 trillion dollars.

That infrastructure has to be paid for. And we need to buy less oil. And we know price makes a difference. The majority of that 2 cents would need to stay in the states where it was taxed, and forbidden to be used on anything other than infrastructure.

(And while we are at it, why not build 50 thorium nuclear plants now? No fissionable material, no waste-storage problem, and an unlimited supply (at least for the next 1,000 years) of thorium in the US. The reason we chose uranium was to be able to produce nuclear bombs, among other reasons.) We'll get into this and more when we get to the chapter on the way back for the US."

Why not try something else rather than pointless Government spending, which is no substitute for real growth coming from a repaired private sector.

As a conclusion let me quote Brian S. Wesbury and Robert Stein in an article published in Forbes:

http://www.forbes.com/2008/12/08/friedman-cut-taxes-oped-cx_bw_rs_1209wesburystein.html

"There are many positive alternatives that are not being formally discussed. This is a mistake. And more to the point, the last time the government tried to bail out the economy with drastic action, we ended up in the Great Depression. If we really want to "change" the way government and the private sector interact, why is the U.S. government still trying the same old policies that failed in the past? Tax cuts have worked before, so if deficits don't matter, why not try a different kind of surge--a private-sector, incentive-creating one?"