Posts Tagged ‘Add new tag’

Inflation debate information

Friday, January 15th, 2010

As you probably aware, by March 31, 2010, the US Federal Reserve will have completed the purchase of $1.25 trillion of federal agency mortgage paper from Fannie, Freddie and broker-dealers.  The mechanics of this process starts with the Fed printing money and paying this newly minted money to the sellers of the mortgage paper.  When the sellers are private companies, such as banks, this can cause the money supply and monetary base in the US to rise significantly.  The banks can choose to invest, lend or deposit the funds at the Federal Reserve in an interest bearing account.  Because the velocity of money has not increased (as of 1/15/10), this means that, so far, the banks, constrained by current or future loan problems, have deposited the sales proceeds at the Federal Reserve.  Currently, analysts do not know exactly how much of the mortgage paper was sold by banks versus Fannie and Freddie, which makes the analysis more difficult.  These details will not be available for another few months.

As long as these deposited reserves remain at the Fed, the monetary base has increased, but the money multiplier has not started ($1 of reserves can be leveraged around 10x).  The worry for all investors is: when and why will the banks move money from their Fed interest bearing accounts and lend and/or invest the money for a higher rate of return?  This would increase the money multiplier and eventually cause inflation. Right now, the largest part of the Fed’s balance sheet is comprised of GSE-based residential mortgages.  The great debate centers around the how to “unwind” or “exit” the program of holding GSE-based residential mortgages.  If the Fed signals they will begin to sell, these securities will drop in value very quickly in anticipation of the largest owner of these securities coming to market.  That is not a good option.  The Fed could just hold the mortgages until maturity, but that would cause another set of problems.  The Fed could completely stop purchasing mortgage bonds from Fannie and Freddie.  In essence, the Fed is trapped, as all options have less than perfect outcomes.

The Fed can increase the reserve deposit rates offered to banks holding deposits there at any time.  The Fed could raise those reserve deposit rates if they feel banks are beginning to loan or invest those original mortgage paper proceeds.  They can also engage in term deposit auctions of bank’s deposits at the Fed, thus “locking in” money and avoiding this money leaking into the economy.  These actions do not withdraw liquidity from the banking system as asset sales would; they only temporarily limit the effects of the money multiplier.  It appears likely the Fed can manipulate and extend this system for quite some time.

Bottom line:  This is a complicated topic.  Investors should pay attention to the reserve deposit rate, as well as other policy interest rates.  The inflation debate centers on more than just the increase of the Fed’s balance sheet.

Always Asking, Never Assuming™

Christopher Holtby

Borat’s brutal affect on global and domestic bond investing

Friday, May 1st, 2009

You all remember the 2006 mockumentary, Borat, based on a character from Kazakhstan.  This country has been swept into the financial crisis, and it is likely to create a hall of mirrors for bond investors.

Emerging countries were large revenue sources for the major investment banks of the past.  Those banks provided loans, trading capital, access to structured product desks, etc.  Morgan Stanley has Kazakhstan’s largest bank, BTA, as a client.   During the heyday, BTA was offered all the magical financial alchemy products available through Morgan’s various services.  Earlier this year, as the financial crisis swept through Kazakhstan, the government took control of BTA.   BTA was focused on servicing its loans and its creditors such as Morgan Stanley.  Everything worked well until last week.

Last week, Morgan Stanley and another bank demanded repayment of those loans, making BTA trip into partial default.  Why would Morgan want a loan to default, even partially?  Look at the CDS market.  As of last week, there were $700 billion in CDS contracts on BTA registered with the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation.  Firms have been placing bets on whether BTA will blow-up.  It is possible that Morgan could have structured CDS contracts to profit from a BTA default in excess of the total dollar loan commitments.   Ethics aside, it is a very smart trade to force a company into default, allowing you to avoid negotiations and make money very quickly, thus increasing your IRR on that capital allocation.  The issue for regulators is that somebody else is holding the opposite side of the BTA CDS trade and will take the loss.   Hmmm.

Bottom line:  CDS contracts make it very hard to figure out the motivations and incentives of creditors.  If it can happen to a bank in Kazahstan why can’t it happen to a company in America?   Add a new line of questioning/thinking to your line-up.  

 

Always Asking, Never Assuming™

Christopher Holtby