The Libor problem is also a US Dollar problem

There is much to consider today as we consider the actions of our lords (ladies) and masters or rather our central bankers. Last night brought something which as we have noted before was in the category of “no surprises” sung about by Radiohead.

In view of realized and expected labor market conditions and inflation, the Committee decided to raise the target range for the federal funds rate to 1-1/2 to 1-3/4 percent. The stance of monetary policy remains accommodative,

That was of course the US Federal Reserve and I added the last bit because in a few words it tells us that they are not finished yet. Regular readers will be aware that I think it would be much better to simply raise rates to 2% and take a break as moving at at snail’s pace gives more time for something to go wrong. This brings me to two consequences of what is happening.


No not the scandals at least not yet! this time we are looking for the first time in a while at sustained increases. From Bloomberg yesterday.

The three-month London interbank funding rate rose to 2.27 percent Wednesday, the highest since 2008. The concern is that the Libor blowout may have more room to run, a prospect that borrowers and policy makers in various markets are just beginning to grapple with.

One way of looking at this is that as we expect more rises that seems reasonable and if we look at the past rather small fry.

Of course not all of us can remember 1994 and the financial world is of course to coin a phrase “resilient” at least according to the central bankers. This has led people to mull this.

“There has been sort of the perfect storm of factors tightening financial conditions,” said Russ Certo, head of rates at Brean Capital in New York. “Banks do have tremendous liquidity still, but it’s at a higher price.”

You may recall a few years back when worries about bank liquidity in US Dollars were all the rage. This was the era of central banks making agreements for foreign exchange swaps which were mostly ways of making sure they could get US Dollars for their banks from the original source ( the place that can print them at will….) if needed. Here is a refresher on the subject.

In November 2011, the Federal Reserve announced that it had authorized temporary foreign-currency liquidity swap lines with the Bank of Canada, the Bank of England, the Bank of Japan, the European Central Bank, and the Swiss National Bank. These arrangements were established to provide the Federal Reserve with the capacity to offer liquidity to U.S. institutions in currencies of the counterparty central banks (that is, in Canadian dollars, sterling, yen, euros, and Swiss francs). The Federal Reserve lines constitute a part of a network of bilateral swap lines among the six central banks, which allow for the provision of liquidity in each jurisdiction in any of the six currencies should central banks judge that market conditions warrant.

These exist for the opposite purpose as whilst the US Fed is describing things from its point of view and it may one day need some £’s Yen or Euros it is vastly more likely that the counterparty central bank will want US Dollars. After all if the world has a reserve currency in spite of some changes it is it and the likely song is from Aloe Blacc.

I need a dollar, dollar
Dollar that’s what I need
Well I need a dollar, dollar
Dollar that’s what I need
Said I said I need dollar, dollar
Dollar that’s what I need
And if I share with you my story would you share your dollar with me?

Oh and you may like to know that the US Federal Reserve eventually fell into line with the definition of temporary to be found in my financial lexicon for these times.

 In October 2013, the Federal Reserve and these central banks announced that their liquidity swap arrangements would be converted to standing arrangements that will remain in place until further notice.

The banks

In the end it all comes down to the “precious” of course and food for thought has been provided by what might be called the central bankers central bank choosing this morning to put this out on social media. From the Bank for International Settlements.

Non-US banks collectively hold $12.6 trillion of dollar-denominated assets – almost as much as US banks…….Dollar funding stress of non-US banks was at the center of the GFC. ( GFC= Global Financial Crisis).

They seem to be pointing the finger in one direction.

We find that Japanese banks pay a premium in their repurchase agreements (“repos”) with US MMFs. We show that the bargaining power of MMFs fund families, together with the particular demand for long term funding of Japanese banks, help explain this premium. ( MMF = Money Market Funds).

This has been a theme of my career which is that in terms of overseas buying ( UK Gilts, Australian property etc…) the Japanese overpay. Care is needed though as the stereotypical response of assuming stupidity ignores the possibility of a longer game being in play. In this instance they have responded.

 We provide evidence for European banks intermediating repos to Japanese banks, with economically significant estimated spreads from maturity transformation.

So any issues with the Japanese banks would also affect European ones? The mind boggles as of course contagion was supposed to be off the menu these days due to all the regulation and reform. As we look back I am reminded that it was European and on a smaller scale Japanese banks which dipped into these lines back in the day.

Would it be considered rude to point out that shares in my old employer Deutsche Bank are down another 2% as I type this? More significantly the 11.8 Euros is a fair bit lower than the 17.1 of mid-December.


As a consequence of the factors above this is also taking place. From Bloomberg reporting on some analysis from Citibank.

Strategists at the U.S. lender predict that the gap between the London interbank offered rate for dollars and the overnight indexed swap rate will continue to widen, potentially leading to a sharper tightening of financial conditions than central bankers have been anticipating. The differential between three-month rates has already more than doubled since the end of January to 55 basis points, a level unseen since 2009.

Now 55 basis points sounds much more grand that 0.55% but there is a flicker here as we try to price risk.


As you can see there are stresses in the financial system right now. Some of this was always going to take place when interest-rates went back up. But for me the real issue comes when we look at another market. This is because whichever way you look at the analysis here you would think that the US Dollar would be rising. You can arrive at that route by observing the apparent demand for US Dollars or by the higher interest-rates being paid in it or both. Yet it has been singing along to Alicia Keys.

Oh baby
I, I, I, I’m fallin’
I, I, I, I’m fallin’

I keep on

You can represent this by the UK Pound £ being in the US $1.41s or the Japanese Yen being in the 105s take your pick. The latter is off though because if Japanese banks are so keen for US Dollars why is the Yen so strong? To my mind that is much more worrying than Libor on its own as we switch to Carly Simon.

Why?……Don´t know why

Meanwhile returning to the shores of the UK I expect Royal Bank of Scotland to be along. After all it has been in everything else.


Is the US economy at a turning point?

Yesterday brought us some significant news from the US economy. One segment of this was the testimony given by the new Chair of the US Federal Reserve Jerome Powell as everyone combs his words looking for any signs of a change in policy. The sentence from the written testimony that has drawn most attention is below.

In gauging the appropriate path for monetary policy over the next few years, the FOMC will continue to strike a balance between avoiding an overheated economy and bringing PCE price inflation to 2 percent on a sustained basis. ( PCE is Personal Consumption Expenditure )

The reason for that is the use of the word “overheated” which brings with it all sorts of value judgements and implications. This was added to by the phrase he added to this.

My personal outlook for the economy has strengthened since December.

We also got an explanation of what was driving such thoughts.

 In particular, fiscal policy has become more stimulative and foreign demand for U.S. exports is on a firmer trajectory. Despite the recent volatility, financial conditions remain accommodative.

The nod to fiscal policy was a change of emphasis from his predecessor Janet Yellen as I am reminded of the analysis of the US Congress on the subject we looked at on February the 8th.

The Joint Committee staff estimates that this proposal would increase the average level of output (as measured by Gross Domestic Product (“GDP”) by about 0.7 percent relative to average level of output in the present law baseline over the 10-year budget window.

The underlying position

The thoughts above added to the existing situation which Chair Powell described thus.

Turning from the labor market to production, inflation-adjusted gross domestic product rose at an annual rate of about 3 percent in the second half of 2017, 1 percentage point faster than its pace in the first half of the year.

So the fiscal policy will add to an already strengthening situation and the emphasis is mine.

Economic growth in the second half was led by solid gains in consumer spending, supported by rising household incomes and wealth, and upbeat sentiment. In addition, growth in business investment stepped up sharply last year, which should support higher productivity growth in time.

The reason I have highlighted that bit is because Chair Powell had explicitly linked it to wage growth.

Wages have continued to grow moderately, with a modest acceleration in some measures, although the extent of the pickup likely has been damped in part by the weak pace of productivity growth in recent years.

If we switch to the section on employment we see a continuing theme.

Monthly job gains averaged 179,000 from July through December, and payrolls rose an additional 200,000 in January. This pace of job growth was sufficient to push the unemployment rate down to 4.1 percent, about 3/4 percentage point lower than a year earlier and the lowest level since December 2000.

Are we seeing a hint of Phillips Curve style analysis which would predict wage growth acceleration? We did get told he likes policy rules.

Personally, I find these rule prescriptions helpful

Also you may note that he hinted at a pick-up in jobs growth in January which comes when the unemployment rate tells us that according to old policy rules we have what would have been considered to be full employment. It was also interesting that he skirted what we might call the missing eleven million or so via the drop in the participation rate.

the labor force participation rate remained roughly unchanged, on net, as it has for the past several years

I am not sure that it all be blamed on retiring “baby boomers” as we were told.

So we are told that the economy is strong and got a pretty strong hint that higher wage growth is expected and of course that follows the 2.9% growth seen in January in average hourly earnings.

Wages should increase at a faster pace as well.

What about inflation?

That is supposed to pick-up as well as we continue our journey on a type of virtual Phillips Curve.

 we anticipate that inflation on a 12-month basis will move up this year and stabilize around the FOMC’s 2 percent objective over the medium term.

These days it is something of a residual item in speeches by central bankers. This is for two main reasons. The first is that they have really been targeting output and the labour market. The second is that even after an extraordinary amount of QE they failed to generate the ( consumer) inflation they promised and so they are de-emphasising it.


This subject flickered onto some radar screens yesterday as they observed this from the Census Bureau.

The international trade deficit was $74.4 billion in January, up $2.1 billion from $72.3 billion in December.
Exports of goods for January were $133.9 billion, $3.1 billion less than December exports. Imports of goods
for January were $208.3 billion, $0.9 billion less than December imports.

This is something which has been rising as we note this from the Bureau of Economic Analysis or BEA earlier this month.

For 2017, the goods and services deficit increased $61.2 billion, or 12.1 percent, from 2016. Exports
increased $121.2 billion or 5.5 percent. Imports increased $182.5 billion or 6.7 percent.

So we may well be seeing economic growth sucking in imports yet again or a different form of overheating. Thus the words of Chairman Powell above on exports were both true ( they are up) and to some extent misleading as imports have risen faster. This is reinforced with my usual caution about monthly trade data by  the size of the January  goods deficit which is the largest for ten years. If we allow for the fact that the shale oil and gas boom flatters the figures the numbers take a further turn for the worse.

Consumer Confidence

We return to the same theme as we note this.

The Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index® increased in February, following a modest increase in January. The Index now stands at 130.8 (1985=100), up from 124.3 in January. The Present Situation Index increased from 154.7 to 162.4, while the Expectations Index improved from 104.0 last month to 109.7 this month.

So another signal looks strong.


If we start with the analysis of Chair Powell we see that the US Federal Reserve plans to continue interest-rate rises this year and that it means to do so either 3 or more likely 4 times. This is based on the view that otherwise the economy will overheat as discussed above. Let me add a personal view to this which is the current madness of going along at 0.25%, why not raise by 0.5% in March and then sit back for a while and see what develops? Monetary policy has long lags and if you take ages to act you are at an ever greater risk of being proved wrong.

Another factor in this is the data I have looked at above as I have held something back until now which is troubling. Here is the extra bit from the consumer confidence figures.

Consumer confidence improved to its highest level since 2000 (Nov. 2000, 132.6).

Now if we look at the trade in goods figures the deficit was last higher in January 2008 a time when consumer confidence was high in many places too. What happened next in both instances?

If we continue with that line of thought we find that the oil market may be giving a hint as well.

Another reason I think to act more decisively now as after all interest-rates will only be 1.75% to 2% after a 0.5% rise a level I have long argued for and then wait and see. After all we could be seeing a flicker of a road to QE4.

What is happening with fiscal policy?

A feature of the credit crunch era has been the way that monetary policy has taken so much of the strain of the active response. I say active because there was a passive fiscal response as deficits soared caused on one side by lower tax revenues as recession hit and on the other by higher social payments and bank bailout costs. Once this was over the general response was what has been badged as austerity where governments raised taxes and cut spending to reduce fiscal deficits. Some care is needed with this as the language has shifted and often ignores the fact that there was a stimulus via ongoing deficits albeit smaller ones.

Cheap debt

Something then happened which manages to be both an intended and unintended consequence. What I mean by that is that the continued expansion of monetary policy via interest-rate reductions and bond buying or QE was something which governments were happy to sign off because it was likely to make funding their spending promises less expensive. Just for clarity national treasuries need to approve QE type policies because of the large financial risk. But I do not think that it was appreciated what would happen next in the way that bond yields dropped like a stone. So much so that whilst many countries were able to issue debt at historically low-levels some were in fact paid to issue debt as we entered an era of negative interest-rate.

This era peaked with around US $13 trillion of negative yielding bonds around the world with particular areas of negativity if I may put it like that to be found in Germany and Switzerland. At one point it looked like every Swiss sovereign bond might have a negative yield. So what did they do with it?


This morning has brought us solid economic growth data out of Germany with its economy growing by 0.6% in the last quarter of 2017. But it has also brought us this.

Net lending of general government amounted to 36.6 billion euros in 2017 according to updated results of the Federal Statistical Office (Destatis). In absolute terms, this was the highest surplus achieved by general government since German reunification. When measured as a percentage of gross domestic product at current prices (3,263.4 billion euros), the surplus ratio of general government was +1.1%.

So Germany chose to take advantage of being paid to issue debt to bring its public finances into surplus which might be considered a very Germanic thing to do. There is of course effects from one to the other because their economic behaviour is one of the reasons why their bonds saw so much demand.

But one day they may regret not taking more advantage of an extraordinary opportunity which was to be able to be paid to borrow. There must be worthy projects in Germany that could have used the cash. Also one of the key arguments of the credit crunch was that surplus countries like Germany needed to trim them whereas we see it running a budget surplus and ever larger trade surpluses.

In the detail there is a section which we might highlight as “Thanks Mario”

 Due to the continuing very low-interest rates and lower debt, interest payments decreased again (–6.4%).


The Swiss situation has been similar but more extreme. Membership of the Euro protected Germany to some extent as the Swiss Franc soared leading to an interest-rate of -0.75% and “unlimited” – for a time anyway – currency intervention. This led to the Swiss National Bank becoming an international hedge fund as it bought equities with its new foreign currency reserves and Switzerland becoming a country that was paid to borrow. What did it do with it? From its Finance Ministry.

A deficit of approximately 13 million is expected in the ordinary budget for 2018.

So fiscal neutrality in all but name and the national debt will decline.

 It is expected that gross debt will post a year-on-year decline of 3.3 billion to 100.8 billion in 2018 (estimate for 2017). This reduction will be driven primarily by the redemption of a 6.8 billion bond maturing combined with a low-level of new issues of only 4 billion.

The UK

Briefly even the UK had some negative yielding Gilts ( bonds) in what was for those who have followed it quite a change on the days of say 15% long yields. This was caused by Mark Carney instructing the Bank of England’s bond buyers to rush like headless chickens into the market to spend his £60 billion of QE and make all-time highs for prices as existing Gilt owners saw a free lunch arriving. Perhaps the Governor’s legacy will be to have set records for the Gilt market that generations to come will marvel at.

Yet the path of fiscal policy changed little as indicated by this.

Or at least it would do if something like “on an annual basis” was added. Oh and to complete the problems we are still borrowing which increases the burden on future generations. The advice should be do not get a job involving numbers! Which of course are likely to be in short supply at a treasury………..

But the principle reinforces this from our public finances report on Wednesday.

Public sector net borrowing (excluding public sector banks) decreased by £7.2 billion to £37.7 billion in the current financial year-to-date (April 2017 to January 2018), compared with the same period in the previous financial year; this is the lowest year-to-date net borrowing since the financial year-to-date ending January 2008.

So we too have pretty much turned our blind eye to a period where we could have borrowed very cheaply. If there was a change in UK fiscal policy it was around 2012 which preceded the main yield falls.

Bond yields

There have been one or two false dawns on this front, partly at least created by the enthusiasm of the Bank of Japan and ECB to in bond-buying terms sing along with the Kaiser Chiefs.

Knock me down I’ll get right back up again
I’ll come back stronger than a powered up Pac-Man

This may not be entirely over as this suggests.

“Under the BOJ law, the finance ministry holds jurisdiction over currency policy. But I hope Kuroda would consider having the BOJ buy foreign bonds,” Koichi Hamada, an emeritus professor of economics at Yale University, told Reuters in an interview on Thursday.

However we have heard this before and unless they act on it rises in US interest-rates are feeding albeit slowly into bond yields. This has been symbolised this week by the attention on the US ten-year yield approaching 3% although typically it has dipped away to 2.9% as the attention peaked. But the underlying trend has been for rises even in places like Germany.


Will we one day regret a once in a lifetime opportunity to borrow to invest? This is a complex issue as there is a problem with giving politicians money to spend which was highlighted in Japan as “pork barrel politics” during the first term of Prime Minister Abe. In the UK it is highlighted by the frankly woeful state of our efforts on the infrastructure front. We are spending a lot of money for very few people to be able to travel North by train, £7 billion or so on Smart Meters to achieve what exactly? That is before we get to the Hinkley Point nuclear power plans that seem to only achieve an extraordinarily high price for the electricity.

One example of fiscal pump priming is currently coming from the US where Donald Trump seems to be applying a similar business model to that he has used personally. Or the early days of Abenomics. Next comes the issue of monetary policy where we could of course in the future see news waves of QE style bond buying to drive yields lower but as so much has been bought has limits. This in a way is highlighted by the Japanese proposal to buy foreign bonds which will have as one of its triggers the way that the number of Japanese ones available is shrinking.

Could US fiscal expansionism lead us to QE4?

The credit crunch era has been one where monetary policy has taken centre stage. There are many ways of expressing this but one is that technocrats ( central bankers) have mostly run the economic show as elected politicians have chosen to retreat to the sidelines as much as possible. Whatever you may think of President Trump he is not someone who is happy to be on the sidelines as he has exhibited publicly once or twice with some pushing and shoving. But more importantly we are seeing something of a shift in the balance of US economic policy as the monetary weapon gets put away at least to some extent but the fiscal one seems to be undergoing a revival.

A relatively small reflection of this was last night’s budget deal. We have become used to talk of a US government shutdown followed by an eleventh hour deal and no doubt there is a fair bit of both ennui and cynicism about the process. But as the Washington Post notes as we as giving the national debt can another kick there was this in the detail.

According to outlines of the budget plan circulated by congressional aides, existing spending caps would be raised by a combined $296 billion through 2019. The agreement includes an additional $160 billion in uncapped funding for overseas military and State Department operations, and about $90 billion more would be spent on disaster aid for victims of recent hurricanes and wildfires.

An increase in military spending was a Trump campaign promise so it is no surprise but spending increases come on top of the tax cuts we saw at the end of last year.

The Trump Tax Changes

According to the US Committee for a Responsible Fiscal Budget there was much to consider.

The final conference committee agreement of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) would cost $1.46 trillion under conventional scoring and over $1 trillion on a dynamic basis over ten years, leading debt to rise to between 95 percent and 98 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by 2027 (compared to 91 percent under current law). However, the bill also includes a number of expirations and long-delayed tax hikes meant to reduce the official cost of the bill. These expirations and delays hide $570 billion to $725 billion of potential further costs, which could ultimately increase the cost of the bill to $2.0 trillion to$2.2 trillion (before interest) on a conventional basis or roughly $1.5 trillion to $1.7 trillion on a dynamic basis over a decade. As a result, debt would rise to between 98 percent and 100 percent of GDP by 2027.

This is a familiar political tactic the world over where the numbers depend on others taking the difficult decisions in the future! One rather sneaky move is the replacement in terms of income tax thresholds of inflation indexation by the US Consumer Price Index by the chained version which is usually lower. So jam today but more like dry toast tomorrow.

Won’t this boost the economy?

There are enough problems simply doing the direct mathematics of government spending and revenue but the next factor is how do they effect the economy? Well the US Congress has given it a go.

The Joint Committee staff estimates that this proposal would increase the average level of output (as measured by Gross Domestic Product (“GDP”) by about 0.7 percent relative to average level of output in the present law baseline over the 10-year budget window. That
increase in output would increase revenues, relative to the conventional estimate of a loss of $1,456 billion over that period by about $451 billion. This budget effect would be partially offset by an increase in interest payments on the Federal debt of about $66 billion over the budget

The idea of tax cuts boosting the economy is a reasonable one but the idea you can measure it to around US $451 billion is pure fantasy. To be fair they say “about” but it should really be if you will forgive the capitals and emphasis “ABOUT“. Anyway for the moment let us move on noting that there is already a fair bit of doubt about the impact on the US deficit over time from US $1 trillion or so to a bit over US $2 trillion.

What is the deficit doing?

According to the US CBO ( Congressional Budget Office) it has been rising anyway in the Trump era.

The federal budget deficit was $174 billion for the first four months of fiscal year 2018, the Congressional
Budget Office estimates, $16 billion more than the shortfall recorded during the same period last year.
Revenues and outlays were higher, by 4 percent and 5 percent, respectively, than during the first four
months of fiscal year 2017.

As you can see revenues are doing pretty well and in fact are being led by taxes on income being up by 8%. However spending rose even faster at an annual rate of 5% which at a time of economic growth gives us food for thought. There was one curious detail and one familiar one in this.

Social Security benefits rose by $11 billion (or 4 percent) because of increases both in the number of beneficiaries and in the average benefit payment.

That seems odd at a time of economic growth but the next bit reminds us that the rise in inflation has a cost too due to index-linked bonds called TIPS.

Outlays for net interest on the public debt increased by $13 billion (or 14 percent), largely because of differences in the rate of inflation.

More Spending?

It looks as though we will find out more about the much promised infrastructure plan next week. From Bloomberg.

President Donald Trump expects to release on Monday his long-awaited plan to generate at least $1.5 trillion to upgrade U.S. roads, bridges, airports and other public works, according to a White House official.

How much of this will come from the government is open to debate. The modern methodology is to promise some spending ( in this case US $200 billion) and assume that the private-sector will do the rest. One of the more extraordinary efforts on this front was the Juncker Plan in the Euro era which assumed a multiplier of up to twenty times. But returning stateside we can see that there will be upwards pressure on spending but so far we are not sure how much.


In my opening I suggested that the United States was switching from monetary expansionism to fiscal expansionism. Let me now introduce the elephant in this particular room.  From the Atlanta Fed

The GDPNow model forecast for real GDP growth (seasonally adjusted annual rate) in the first quarter of 2018 is 4.0 percent on February 6, down from 5.4 percent on February 1.

They may well be somewhat excitable but if we look at the 3.2% predicted by the New York Fed the view is for pretty solid economic growth. So the fiscal position should be good especially if we add in the fact that for all the media hype treasury bond yields are historically still rather low. Yet none the less the fiscal pump is being primed. Or to put it more strictly after a period of pro-cyclical monetary policy we now seem set for pro-cyclical fiscal policy.

There are obvious implications for the bond market here as there will be increases in supply on their way. No doubt for example this has been a factor in pushing the thirty-year bond yield above 3%. You might have expected more of an impact but I am increasingly wondering about something I suggested some time ago that the path to higher interest-rates in the United States might be accompanied by QE4 or a return to bond buying by the US Federal Reserve. Should the economy slow at any point which would boost the deficit on its own then we could see it. Also this could be a factor in the weaker US Dollar as in is it falling to reflect the risks of a possible return to Quantitative Easing?

The deep question here is can we even get by these days without another shot of stimulus be it monetary,fiscal or both?

Me on Core Finance TV




What are the consequences of rising bond yields?

So far in 2018 we have seen a move towards higher bond yields across the financial world. This poses more than a few questions not least for the central banks who went to unparalleled efforts in terms of scale to try to reduce them. This as I pointed out on the 6th of December led to some changes.

The credit crunch era has brought bond markets towards the centre stage of economics and finance. Before then there were rare expressions of interest in either a crisis or if the media wanted to film a response to an economic data release. You see equities trade rarely but bonds a lot so they filmed us instead and claimed we were equities trades so sorry for my part in any deception!

At the moment they are back in the news and this morning the Bank of Japan responded. From the Wall Street Journal.

The Bank of Japan took on the market and won—for now.

As Japanese 10-year bond yields threatened to break through the 0.1% mark early Friday, the bank threw down the gantlet and offered to buy out every player in the market.

If we step back for a moment it is hard not to have a wry smile at the Bank of Japan defending a yield on a mere 0.1%!  Not much of a yield or a bear market is it? It poses the question of how strong the economic recovery might be if that is all we can take. Overall it is a consequence of this.

“Today’s action was aimed at firmly implementing the bank’s policy target of guiding the 10-year yield around zero, taking into consideration recent large increases in long-term yields,” a senior BOJ official said. For the BOJ, “around zero” essentially means up to but not including 0.1%.

I am not so sure about the “large increases in long-term yields” story as in fact the thirty and forty-year yields have been dropping. But the response was as follows.

The bank offered to buy an unlimited amount of JGBs with remaining maturities of five to 10 years at a fixed rate of 0.11%, the same level it used on two previous occasions. Yields slipped to 0.85% from 0.95%.

This poses a couple of questions. Firstly for the argument that the Bank of Japan is tapering its bond buying or QE ( which is called QQE in Japan) as offering to buy an “unlimited amount” is hardly tapering. The issue here you may note is rather like that of the Swiss National Bank defending the Swiss Franc at 1.20 which suddenly found it was intervening on an enormous scale. So what looks like tapering could morph into expansion quite easily. How very Japanese!

Also I guess if you own 40% or so of a market as the Bank of Japan does you too would be touchy and nervous about any rise in yield and fall in prices. Time for En Vogue on its tannoy loudspeakers.

Hold me tight and don’t let go
Don’t let go
You have the right to lose control
Don’t let go

Maybe our songstresses even had a view for us on how likely it is that the central banking control freaks will reverse course.

I know you think that if we move too soon it would all end

The UK

This is an intriguing one as you see the ten-year Gilt yield has risen to 1.58% this morning  Here is how Bloomberg reflects on this.

Ten-year gilt yields climbed five basis points to 1.58 percent as of 9:29 a.m. London time, after touching 1.59 percent, their highest level since May 2016. The yield has surged about 40 basis points this year.

This is considered a bear market which as someone who has definitely seen such moves in a day and maybe when we were ejected from the ERM in 1992 maybe an hour is hard to take. So let us settle on a QE era bear market. Also the QE link comes back in as the high for UK Gilts was driven by the panic buys of late summer 2016 when the Bank of England dove into the market like a kamikaze pushing the yield down to 0.5%. From time to time apologists for such moves claim that QE does not make losses but if you pay 120 for something and get back 100 at maturity what is that please?

Intriguingly at least one player may have been wondering about a real bear market. From James Mackintosh in the WSJ.

The trade goes like this: borrow £750 million ($1 billion) for 100 years at a time when money is basically free. Invest it in shares. Pocket the difference.

Okay perhaps not a real bear market as that would affect shares too and as you see below the money is cheap in historical terms but not free.

 The scale of that demand was shown Wednesday when Wellcome’s 100-year bond was more than four times oversubscribed with a coupon of just 2.517%, the lowest ever paid on a corporate century bond.

That is not likely to be much in real yield terms and I would much rather be Welcome that those who bought the bonds. They think along the lines I pointed out in my post on Monday on pensions and the distorted world there.

Wellcome Chief Investment Officer Nick Moakes says ultralong bonds are distorted by rules forcing insurance companies and pension funds to buy them at any price, creating an uneconomic demand he is happy to satisfy with a bond issue

Of course buying equities at what is something of a top after a succession of all-time highs might be a case of not the best timing.

The US

This is the leader of the pack on such matters on two counts. It is the world’s largest economy and it currently has a central bank which is in the process of raising interest-rates. It’s central bank is even reducing its stock of bonds albeit at a snail’s pace. If we stick with the domestic impact then it is led by the thirty-year yield which has nudged over 3%. This means that the thirty-year fixed mortgage rate is now 4.23% as we look for the clearest link between the financial world and the real economy.

If we look at the shorter end of the scale we see that the rate rises so far combined with the expectations of more have seen the two-year yield rise to 2.16% as opposed to the 1.2% of this time last year. So there has been a tightening of monetary conditions all round from this route.


There is a lot to consider here and let us start with the economics. A rise in bond yields tightens monetary conditions and in that sense is a logical response to the better economic environment. However it is awkward for central banks who have paid more than the 100 they will get from their treasury on maturity as politicians have got used to spending the explicit and implicit profits. If they sell their holdings then they will exacerbate the price falls and weaken their remaining stock.

Moving to the foreign exchanges we have seen something rather odd. If you buy the US Dollar you get 2.8% right now if you put the money in a ten-year US Treasury Note whereas if you buy the Japanese Yen you only get 0.9%. So the US Dollar is rising right? Eh no, as I have covered many times. Of course some may be buying now thinking that an US Dollar in the 109s is attractive combined with picking up a 2.7% relative yield. Similar arguments can be made for the Euro and UK Pound £ albeit with smaller yield differentials.

Here is another thought for you. Imagine a Swiss or German version of Wellcome if there is one and how cheaply they could borrow for 100 years. Actually with its international position it could presumably have borrowed in Euros. Perhaps it is bullish of the UK Pound £……..brave if you look back 100 years.

Meanwhile if the bond bear market and its consequences are all too much there is apparently something which can take the pain away.



What are the consequences of a weak US Dollar?

So far 2018 has seen an acceleration of a trend we saw last year which is a fall in the value of the US Dollar. The latest push was provided by the US Treasury Secretary only yesterday at Davos. From Bloomberg.

“Obviously a weaker dollar is good for us as it relates to trade and opportunities,” Mnuchin told reporters in Davos. The currency’s short term value is “not a concern of ours at all,” he said.

“Longer term, the strength of the dollar is a reflection of the strength of the U.S. economy and the fact that it is and will continue to be the primary currency in terms of the reserve currency,” he said.

The way it then fell it is probably for best its value is not a concern as the rhetoric was both plain and transparent.

A day before Trump’s scheduled arrival in the Swiss ski resort of Davos for the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin endorsed the dollar’s decline as a benefit to the American economy and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said the U.S. would fight harder to protect its exporters.

The response to the words is a pretty eloquent explanation of why policy makers have a general rule that you do not comment on the level of the exchange rate. Not only might you get something you do not want there is also the issue of being careful what you wish for! Sadly the Rolling Stones were not on the case here.

You can’t always get what you want
But if you try sometime
You’ll find
You get what you need

However you spin it we are in a phase where the US government is encouraging a weaker dollar as part of the America First strategy. It has already produced an echo of the autumn of 2010 if this from the Managing Director of the IMF is any guide.

 “It’s not time to have any kind of currency war,” Lagarde said in an interview with Bloomberg Television.

Criticising someone for rhetoric by upping the rhetoric may not be too bright. Also there are more than a few examples of countries trying to win the race to the bottom around the world.

What does a lower US Dollar do?

Back in November 2015 Stanley Fischer gave us the thoughts of the US Federal Reserve.

To gauge the quantitative effects on exports, the thick blue line in figure 2 shows the response of U.S. real exports to a 10 percent dollar appreciation that is derived from a large econometric model of U.S. trade maintained by the Federal Reserve Board staff. Real exports fall about 3 percent after a year and more than 7 percent after three years.The gradual response of exports reflects that it takes some time for households and firms in foreign countries to substitute away from the now more expensive U.S.-made goods.

Also imports are affected.

The low exchange rate pass-through helps account for the more modest estimated response of U.S. real imports to a 10 percent exchange rate appreciation shown by the thin red line in figure 2, which indicates that real imports rise only about 3-3/4 percent after three years.

This means that the overall economy is affected as shown below.

The staff’s model indicates that the direct effects on GDP through net exports are large, with GDP falling over 1-1/2 percent below baseline after three years. Moreover, the effects materialize quite gradually, with over half of the adverse effects on GDP occurring at a horizon of more than a year.

Okay we need to flip all of that around of course because we are discussing a lower US Dollar this time around. Net exports will be boosted which will raise economic output or GDP over time.

How much?

If we look at the US Dollar Index we see at 89.1 it has already fallen by more than 3% this year. The recent peak was at just over 103 as 2016 ended so we have seen a fall of a bit under 14%. The official US Federal Reserve effective exchange rate has fallen from 128.9 in late December 2016 to 116.8 at the beginning of this week so 116 now say. Conveniently that gives us a fall of the order of 10%.

So if we look up to the preceding analysis we see that via higher exports and reduced imports US GDP will be 1.5% higher in three years time than otherwise.

What about inflation?

There is a lower impact on the US because of the role of the dollar as the reserve currency and in particular as the currency used for pricing the majority of commodities.

While the Board staff uses a range of models to gauge the effect of shocks, the model employed in figure 4–as well as other models used by staff–suggests that the dollar’s large appreciation will probably depress core PCE inflation between 1/4 and 1/2 percentage point this year through this import price channel.

You may note that Stanley Fischer continues the central banking obsession with core inflation measures when major effects will come from food and energy. It would be entertaining when they sit down to luncheon to say that we are having a core day so there isn’t any! Have you ever tried eating an i-pad?

So inflation may be around 0.5% higher.

What about everybody else?

The essential problem with reducing the value of your currency to boost your economy via exports is that overall it is a zero-sum game. As you win somebody else loses.  So the gains are taken from somebody else as no doubt minds in Beijing, Tokyo and Frankfurt are thinking right now. Of course pinning an actual accusation on the United States is not easy because of its persistent trade deficits.

Furthermore the exchange-rate appreciation seen elsewhere will not be welcomed by the ECB ( European Central Bank) and particularly the Bank of Japan. The latter is pursuing an explicit Yen depreciation policy to try to generate some inflation whereas what it has instead seen is a rise towards 109 versus the US Dollar. Of course workers and consumers will have reason to thank the lower dollar as lower inflation will boost their spending power.

Later today we will see how Mario Draghi handles this at the ECB policy meeting press conference. He finds himself pursuing negative interest-rates and still substantial if tapering QE and a stronger currency. It is hard for him to be too critical of the US though when even Christine Lagarde is saying this.


Of course that takes us back to a past competitive depreciation which Germany arranged via its membership of the Euro.


There is a fair bit to consider here. As it stands it looks as though the US economy will benefit over the next 3 years (convenient for the political timetable) by around 1.5% of GDP at the cost of higher inflation of 0.5%. There are two main problems with this type of analysis of which the first is simply the gap between theory and reality. The smooth mathematical curves of econometrics are replaced in practice by businesses and consumers ignoring moves for as long as they can and then responding but by how much and when? So we see a succession of jump moves. The other issue is that exchange-rates are usually on the move and can change in an instant unlike economies leaving us wondering which exchange-rate they are responding too?

Next we have the awkward issue of a country raising interest-rates and seeing a currency depreciation. Theory predicts the reverse. I have a couple of thoughts on this and the first is about timing. In my opinion exchange-rates these days move on expectations of an event so they have already happened before it does. So the current phase of interest-rate rises was reflected in the US Dollar rise from the summer of 2014 to the spring of 2015. That works because if anything we have seen fewer rate rises than expected back then and the bond market has fallen less. As to the Federal Reserve well with the US Dollar here and inflation with a little upwards pressure it will therefore find a scenario which makes it easy for it to keep nudging interest-rates higher.

Meanwhile there are other factors which are hard to quantify but seem to happen. For example a lower dollar coming with higher commodity prices. Hard to explain and of course there are other factors in play, But it seems to have happened again.

Me on Core Finance TV



What is happening to US consumer credit and car loans?

If we take a look at the US economy then we see on the surface something which looks as it is going well. For example the state of play in terms of economic growth is solid according to the official data.

Real gross domestic product (GDP) increased at an annual rate of 3.2 percent in the third quarter of 2017 (table 1), according to the “third” estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the second quarter, real GDP increased 3.1 percent.

Looking ahead the outlook is bright as well.

The New York Fed Staff Nowcast stands at 3.9% for 2017:Q4 and 3.1% for 2018:Q1.

That would be a change as the turn of the year has tended to under perform in recent times. Also if we use the income measure for GDP the performance is lower. But if we continue with the data we see that both the unemployment rate ( 4.1% in December) and the underemployment rate ( 8.1% in December) have fallen considerably albeit that the latter nudged higher in December.

Less positive is the rate of wage growth where ( private-sector non farm) hourly earnings are currently growing at 2.5%. This is no doubt related to this issue.

In the 2007-2016 period, annual labor productivity decelerated to 1.2 percent at an annual average rate, as compared to the 2.7 rate in the 2000-2007 period.

So a familiar pattern we have observed in many places although the US is better off than more than a few as it has real wage growth albeit not a lot especially considering the unemployment rate and at least has some productivity growth.

Interest-rates are rising

Whilst wages have not risen much in response to a better economic situation interest-rates are beginning to. The official Federal Reserve rate is now 1.25% to 1.5% and is set to rise further this year. If we move to how such things impact on people then the 30 year (fixed) mortgage rate is now 4.06%. It has had a complicated picture not made any easier by the current government shutdown but in broad terms the downtrend which took it as low as 3.34% is over.

How much debt is there?

As of the end of the third quarter of 2017 the total mortgage debt was 14.75 trillion dollars. This is not a peak which was 14.8 trillion in the spring/summer of 2008 but if we project the recent growth rate we will be above that now. Of course the economy is now much larger than it was then.

If we move to consumer credit then we see the following. It was 3.81 trillion dollars at the end of November and that was up 376 billion dollars on a year before.

In November, consumer credit increased at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 8-3/4 percent. Revolving credit increased at an annual rate of 13-1/4 percent, while nonrevolving credit increased at an annual rate of 7-1/4 percent.

So quite a surge but care is needed as the numbers are erratic and October gave a much weaker reading. So we wait for the December data. If we look into the detail we see that student loans were 1.48 trillion dollars as of September and the troubled car loans sector was 1.1 trillion dollars. For perspective the former were were 1.05 trillion in 2012 and the latter 809 billion.

In terms of interest-rates new car loans are 5.4% from finance companies and 4.8% from the banks for around a 5 year term. Credit cars debt is a bit over 13% and personal loans are 10.6%.

Credit cards

The Financial Times is reporting possible signs of trouble.

The big four US retail banks sustained a near 20 per cent jump in losses from credit cards in 2017, raising doubts about the ability of consumers to fuel economic expansion……Recently disclosed results showed Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America and Wells Fargo took a combined $12.5bn hit from soured card loans last year, about $2bn more than a year ago.

It suggests that the rise in lending that has been seen is on its way to causing Taylor Swift to sing “trouble,trouble,trouble”

Yet borrower delinquencies are outpacing rising balances. While still less than half crisis-era levels, the consultancy forecasts soured credit card loans will reach almost 4.5 per cent of receivables this year, up from 2.92 per cent in 2015.

The St.Louis Federal Reserve or FRED is much more sanguine as it has the delinquency rate at 2.53% at the end of the third quarter of 2017. So up on the 2.29% of a year before but a fair way short of what the FT is reporting.

Maybe though there have been some ch-ch-changes.

“The driving factor behind the losses is that banks are putting weaker credits on the books,” said Brian Riley, a former credit card executive and now a director at Mercator.

Car Loans

According to CNBC lenders are being more conservative in the automobile arena.

The percentage of subprime auto loans saw a big decline in the third quarter despite growing concerns that auto dealers and banks are writing too many loans to borrowers with checkered credit histories, according to new data.

In fact, Experian says the percentage of loans written for those with subprime and deep subprime credit ratings fell to its lowest point since 2012.

In terms of things going wrong then we did not learn much more.

In the third quarter, there was a slight decrease in the percentage of loans 30 days overdue and slight increase in those that were 60 days delinquent.

Although a development like this is rarely a good sign.

Meanwhile, Experian says the average term for a new vehicle auto loan hit an all-time high of 69 months, thanks in part to a slight increase in the percentage of loans schedule to be repaid over 85 to 94 months.

“We’re starting to see some spillover to loans longer than 85 months,” said Zabritski.

This morning’s Automotive News puts it like this.

Smoke expects higher interest rates and tighter credit this year will drive many consumers to buy a used vehicle instead of a new one. Most of those buying used cars will be millennials, who are often saddled with student loans and remain credit challenged, he said.

It is no fun being a millennial is it? Although I suppose much better than being one in the last century as we have so far avoided a world war.

This piece of detail provides some food or thought.

Last year, the U.S. Federal Reserve raised interest rates three times for a total of 75 basis points, and data show that auto-loan lenders have been tightening credit for six straight quarters, but auto loans for “superprime borrowers” increased by just 20 basis points, Smoke said.

Are lenders afraid of raising sub-prime borrowing rates? Not according to The Associated Press.

Subprime buyers got substantially better rates even a year ago. The average subprime rate of 5.91% last year has jumped to 16.84% today, Smoke says. For a 60-month loan of $20,000, that means a monthly payment hike of more than $100, to $495.


There is a fair bit to consider here as we mull how normal this is for the mature phase of an economic expansion? Also how abnormal these times have been in terms of whether the benefits of the economic growth have filtered down much to Joe Sixpack? After all wage growth could/should be much better and the unemployment figures obscure the much lower labour participation rate. We will be finding out should interest-rates continue their climb as we mull the significance of this.

Securitisations of US car loans hit a post-financial crisis high in 2017, as investor demand for yield continued to provide favourable borrowing conditions across a range of credit markets. Wall Street sold more than $70bn worth of auto asset backed securities, which bundle up car loans into bond-like products, this year, the highest level since 2007, according to data from S&P Global Ratings. ( Financial Times).

One thing we can be sure of is that we will be told that everything is indeed fine until it can no longer possibly be denied at which point it will be nobody’s ( in authority) fault.

Jimmy Armfield

Not only a giant in the world of football in England but in my opinion the best radio summariser by a country mile. RIP Jimmy and thank you.