Blogs

Geo-Graphics

A graphical take on geoeconomics.

Latest Post

Steel Productivity has Plummeted Since Trump’s 2018 Tariffs

Studies have shown that tariffs depress productivity in protected industries. U.S. steel is a case in point.

Read More
Monetary Policy
Is Bernanke Right on QE3 and the Mortgage Market?
Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke defended QE3 at his September 13 press conference by arguing that it would lower mortgage rates and increase home prices.  Over 80% of U.S. household debt is mortgage debt, so the extent to which he is right could be of considerable consequence to the future path of economic recovery.  Among the skeptics is the Financial Times, whose lead story on September 17 emphasized processing backlogs at major mortgage originators, which would block the transmission mechanism from Fed mortgage-backed securities (MBS) purchases through to lower mortgage rates. Yet just after the announcement of QE1 in November 2008, which committed the Fed to buying $500 billion in MBS (expanded to $1.25 trillion the following March), mortgage and refinancing applications spiked to much higher levels than they’re at today – and the spread between 10-year Treasurys and 30-year mortgages still fell rapidly and massively, as the graphic above shows.  Bernanke has history on his side here. Financial Times: QE3 Hit by Mortgage Processing Delays Video: Ben Bernanke's September 13 Press Conference Steil and Walker: Bernanke's "Risk-On, Risk-Off" Monetary Policy Eavis: An Enigma in the Mortgage Markets That Elevates Rates
Budget, Debt, and Deficits
How Ryan Gets His Budget Savings
In his Path to Prosperity, Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan called for $40 trillion in spending over the next 10 years, $7 trillion less than President Obama called for in his 2013 budget.  What accounts for the gap? $1 trillion is from Medicaid and other health programs. Another $1.4 trillion comes from anticipated (wished for?) interest-cost savings ($4.3 trillion compared with $5.7 trillion).  So where does Ryan make his really big cuts? “Other” mandatory spending.  $631 billion was spent on these programs in 2011, though Ryan proposes paring this to only $349 billion by 2018.  Over ten years, Ryan slashes a whopping $3.5 trillion vis-à-vis Obama, targets unspecified, from this large and broad category, which includes political minefields like unemployment compensation, retirement benefits, earned income and child tax credits, food assistance, and veteran benefits.  This sounds a lot like a New Year’s pledge to cut 1,000 calories a day from the category of “meals.” Ryan: The Path to Prosperity Obama: The President's Budget for Fiscal Year 2013 CBO: A Closer Look at Mandatory Spending Elmendorf: Achieving a Sustainable Federal Budget (Video)
Budget, Debt, and Deficits
Tax Expenditures and the Budget Deficit
“Tax expenditures” are an opaque form of government spending that operates through the tax code – instead of the government making direct payments to individuals or institutions, tax credits are issued.  In total, they cost the U.S. government about $1.1 trillion annually – roughly equivalent to the country’s enormous budget deficit. Deficit reduction plans, including Paul Ryan’s Path to Prosperity and Simpson-Bowles, have proposed eliminating tax expenditures as a means of making the tax code simpler and less distortionary. Cutting tax expenditures, however, is politically challenging – in some cases perhaps impossible.  Take, for example, the imputed rental income from which homeowners benefit - that is, the estimated income they would get if they rented out their homes, while living in rental accommodations themselves. Subsidyscope estimates that not taxing this income cost the government $27 billion in FY 2009. But taxing imputed rental income would be brutally hard to sell as an elimination of a distortionary tax break. Who benefits from tax expenditures?  This varies widely by item.  As seen in the figure above, of the seven precisely measurable tax expenditures worth over $20 billion, three accrue disproportionately to households earning over $200,000 a year.  The largest such is the mortgage interest tax deduction, costing the government over $80 billion a year.  It is less a means of encouraging home ownership than a means of encouraging the well-off to borrow more than they need to buy bigger homes than they need.  American legislators should summon the courage to follow the British example and phase it out. Ryan: The GOP Budget and America's Future Video: Erskine Bowles on Deficits Subsidyscope: Pew's Tax Expenditure Database The Atlantic: Why the Mortgage Interest Tax Deduction Is Terrible
  • Monetary Policy
    Benchmarking the Fed’s Dual-Mandate Performance
    The Fed has a dual mandate to pursue price stability and maximum employment.  How should these be defined?  In January, the Fed set itself a long-run inflation target of 2%, while in June the midpoint of Fed board members’ and Reserve Bank presidents’ long-run unemployment predictions was 5.6%.  Our figure above shows actual inflation and unemployment performance relative to these targets going back to 2002.  What stands out is the divergence that opens up, particularly on the unemployment front, after Lehman Brothers failed in September 2008.  The sum of the deviations reached its peak in July 2009, as shown in the small box in the upper left of the figure.  Though it has since declined fairly steadily, it is still well above zero – zero being a benchmark for fulfilling the combined mandate.  This suggests that the Fed’s doves should continue to hold the upper hand. Federal Reserve: Objectives in Conducting Monetary Policy Federal Reserve: Longer-Run Goals and Policy Strategy Hilsenrath: Gauging the Triggers to Fed Action Mallaby: Show Some Real Audacity at the Fed
  • Europe and Eurasia
    More Evidence That LIBOR Is Hazardous to Economic Health
    Central bankers necessarily spend a great deal of time studying economic and market data that they believe to be forward-looking indicators of the economy’s health.  One such is the so-called “LIBOR-OIS spread” – the spread between the London Interbank Offered Rate (the rate at which major banks can supposedly borrow from each other, unsecured by collateral, for three months) and the Overnight Indexed Swap rate (which reflects market expectations of the overnight unsecured rate over a three-month period).  LIBOR is generally higher than OIS because of liquidity and credit risk (the risk that the borrowing bank will default on a loan).  European Central bank (ECB) board member Benoît Cœuré, echoing thoughts expressed by Alan Greenspan and others in the past, recently referred to the LIBOR-OIS spread as “a standard measure of tensions in unsecured markets.” It goes up when such tensions go up, and down when such tensions go down. The LIBOR-OIS spread can be low, however, even when banks are in appalling financial health.  How is this possible? The problem starts when the government begins tracking such a measure to determine whether it needs to do something.  The reason is that when statistical measures are targeted for policy purposes they tend to lose the information content that recommended them for that role in the first place.  This common pitfall in economic policymaking has been termed “Goodhart’s Law,” having been first articulated by British economist and former Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee member Charles Goodhart back in 1975. Could Goodhart’s Law be at work with the LIBOR-OIS spread?  We believe so.  In March, after the ECB ended its Long-Term Refinancing Operations (LTRO), which provided banks with over €1 trillion in 3-year 1%-interest loans, the LIBOR-OIS spread continued the downward trend it started on after the program was launched last December – as shown in the main graphic above.  By Cœuré’s logic, this indicated that LTRO had succeeded in addressing earlier worries about the ability of major European banks to attract vital funding. But look what happens to the price of 5-year credit default swaps (CDS) on the members of the LIBOR bank panel after LTRO ends – it soars.  A huge, and highly unusual, gap opens up between the CDS price and the LIBOR-OIS spread.  The small box in the upper left of the graphic shows that CDS prices and the LIBOR-OIS spread were highly correlated over the two years to the start of LTRO, but that this relationship collapses thereafter.  This indicates that whereas banks are happy to lend to each other for three months, given that they’re now awash with ECB cash, the end of LTRO combined with a renewed deterioration of Spanish and Italian sovereign bond prices led to rapidly revived fears of bank defaults within 5 years. In other words, the LTRO policy intervention significantly reduced the information content of the LIBOR-OIS spread.  CDS prices are now a more valid indicator of the health of the eurozone banking system – which is poor and deteriorating. Cœuré: The Importance of Money Markets St. Louis Fed: The LIBOR-OIS Spread as a Summary Indicator Financial Times: ECB Emergency Aid Is"No Silver Bullet" Chrystal and Mizen: Goodhart's Law—Its Origins, Meaning and Implications for Monetary Policy