"Contrarian" Naivete From TNR

Now that the "Wall-Street-controls-Washington" meme has gained traction, especially among the center-left, the oh-so-contrarian New Republic has taken to arguing that this isn't exactly true. After explaining several weeks ago that Simon Johnson's diagnosis of the United States as an emerging market crisis on steroids disquieted him, Noam Scheiber explains that the idea of Wall Street controlling the levers of power is problematic, since "Wall Street" is not a monolithic entity. To illustrate his case, Scheiber cites the recent controversy over mortgage cram-downs. When cram-down legislation, which would allow bankruptcy judges to renegotiate mortgages, came up in the Senate, lobbyists representing bankers and investors holding securitized mortgages united in opposition to the legislation. From Scheiber's piece:

When Obama unveiled his own housing plan in February, he asked Congress to revive the cram-down idea as part of a carrot-and-stick approach to helping borrowers. The carrot would be cash incentives--a series of $1,000 payments--for banks to perform modifications. Cram-down would serve as the stick.

Almost immediately, investors and banks joined forces to snap that stick like a twig. Investors hated the cram-down idea because they worried judges would force them to accept, say, lower interest payments for the sake of distressed borrowers. The big banks had similar worries for the mortgages they keep. Many also hold on to second liens (basically, second mortgages) after they sell off the first and worried judges would wipe those out entirely. And both groups generally feared the arbitrary ways judges might wield their power.

But then the script got flipped. The banks switched sides. Back to the article:

But a funny thing happened while the big banks and investors were uniting against the cram-down push: The banks cut their own deal. Top executives at four large banks--Citigroup, Bank of America, J.P. Morgan, and Wells Fargo--descended on Congress to proclaim they'd love nothing more than to modify mortgages, just like the president wants. It's just that, with all those greedy investors out there, you never know who's going to sue. The solution, they argued, was a "safe harbor" provision: Give us legal immunity, and we'll modify all the loans you send us.

Different classes of financiers going at each each other! See - Wall Street can't really control Washington if they're busy infighting. Scheiber explains that this conflict between banks and hedge funds is like the Iran -Iraq War: "Where there are no obvious good guys, the next best thing may be two powerful rivals beating each other to a pulp."

But why did the banks change their minds when it came to cramdowns? What were the fissures that led to the split up between banks and hedge funds over this issue? Scheiber explains that it was a matter of political savvy. From the article:

If the fight in Congress was essentially over who would eat hundreds of billions of dollars in housing market losses, the genius of the banks was to realize early on that, given the political environment, it wasn't going to be homeowners. That left them duking it out with investors, even if the latter weren't aware of it....

In the end, the problem for investors was largely sociological. Banking is a heavily regulated industry; in order to succeed, a bank's top executives must be as deft at navigating Washington as they are at lending money. But, with a few important exceptions, most hedge funds live by a meritocratic credo: You make money by having the more sophisticated computer model or arbitrage strategy. "Traditionally, investors aren't lobbyists, they don't have an eye toward Washington".

In short: banks are used to the ways of Washington and did a better job reading the political winds, so they abandoned their opposition to cramdowns. However, this ignores a key fact: the banks rely on the government for survival, both directly via capital infusions and indirectly in the form of FDIC-guaranteed debt. Is it inconceivable that the government, ahem, told the banks that it would be an awful shame if populist rage over cramdowns hamstrung Congress from going back for TARP II? After all, didn't something similar more or less seem to happen back in February when JP Morgan, BofA, and Citgroup agreed to a foreclosure moratorium? Not even considering this possibility smacks of remarkable credulity and naivete. If this is the case, then the degree to which the financial services industry owns our government is even more depressing. Even when the government has enough leverage over the banks to turn them against the hedge funds, the hedge funds still won. This hardly seems cause to break out the champagne.

Feldstein: The Coming Inflation

Harvard professor and former Reagan chief economic adviser has been making the rounds warning that sharp inflation threatens to choke off any economic recovery on the horizon. Here he is on Bloomberg explaining the case he made in a recent op-ed in the Financial Times. From the FT:

The US last week showed its first signs of deflation for 55 years, prompting inevitable fears of further deflation in the future. Yet the primary reason for the negative rate of US inflation is the dramatic 30 per cent fall of commodity prices. That will not happen again. Moreover, excluding food and energy, consumer prices are up 1.8 per cent from a year ago. That is the good news: the outlook for the longer term is more ominous.

This is slightly misleading. Yes, excluding food and energy, consumer prices were up 1.8% from last year, but almost all of that increase came from price increases in tobacco products due to new taxes. Deflation is still the most immediate threat to the economy. Back to the piece:

The unprecedented explosion of the US fiscal deficit raises the spectre of high future inflation. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the president’s budget implies a fiscal deficit of 13 per cent of gross domestic product in 2009 and nearly 10 per cent in 2010. Even with a strong economic recovery, the ratio of government debt to GDP would double to 80 per cent in the next 10 years.

There is ample historic evidence of the link between fiscal profligacy and subsequent inflation. But historic evidence and economic analysis also show that the inflationary effects can be avoided if the fiscal deficits are not accompanied by a sustained increase in the money supply and, more generally, by an easing of monetary conditions.

The key fact is that inflation rises when demand exceeds supply. A fiscal deficit raises demand when the government increases its purchase of goods and services or, by lowering taxes, induces households to increase their spending. Whether this larger fiscal deficit leads to an increase in prices depends on monetary conditions. If the fiscal deficit is not accompanied by an increase in the money supply, the fiscal stimulus will raise short-term interest rates, blocking the increase in demand and preventing a sustained rise in inflation.

In short: fiscal deficits alone will not cause inflation; loose monetary policy is the key issue. As Mark Thoma and Scott Sumner recently explained, expansionary fiscal policy need not lead to the economy overheating if monetary policy counteracts it (this is why our multiplier estimates are largely questions of theory rather than empirical fact). Since the Fed normally tries to meet its inflation targets, it normally acts as such a countervailing force. In this deflationary environment, however, Bernanke & Co. have been so desperately trying to induce inflation that they risk unleashing it on a much larger scale than they want. As Feldstein explains:

But now the large US fiscal deficits are being accompanied by rapid increases in the money supply and by even more ominous increases in commercial bank reserves that could later be converted into faster money growth. The broad money supply (M2) is already increasing at an annual rate of nearly 15 per cent. The excess reserves of the banking system have ballooned from less than $3bn a year ago to more than $700bn (€536bn, £474bn) now....

The deep recession means that there is no immediate risk of inflation. The aggregate demand for labour and goods and services is much less than the potential supply. But when the economy begins to recover, the Fed will have to reduce the excessive stock of money and, more critically, prevent the large volume of excess reserves in the banks from causing an inflationary explosion of money and credit.

This will not be an easy task since the commercial banks may not want to exchange their reserves for the mountain of private debt that the Fed is holding and the Fed lacks enough Treasury bonds with which to conduct ordinary open market operations. It is surprising that the long-term interest rates do not yet reflect the resulting risk of future inflation.

Once the economy begins to recover - something Feldstein doesn't see happening until 2010 - banks will likely begin putting these excess reserves to work. The Fed's ability to pull back the money supply will be hampered by not only a lack of T-bills to sell, but also by the fact that so much of the collateral it has to sell are toxic assets of dubious value. From a deflationary spiral to stagflation, here we come!

Given these considerations, it is difficult to see what alternative policies Feldstein wishes Bernanke would pursue. Feldstein readily admits that the banks will be struggling to survive for the next two years, and that aggregate demand will remain weak. In this context, the Fed's massive injections of liquidity certainly seem defensible. And yet if the Fed succeeds in mitigating this downward pressure on the economy, the chances of them successfully pulling back the massive liquidity it has injected look negligible. Do we have any other options? And isn't stagflation preferrable to a deflationary spiral? At least the Fed can easily cure stagflation - pull a Volcker and raise short-term rates until the inflation is wrung out of the economy. Deflation is an altogether different beast. Whether the Fed actually can get us out of this liquidity trap and halt the downard pressure on prices is more a matter of theory than fact. We seem to only have bad and less bad choices ahead.

Relaxation Tests

About those "stress" tests...turns out they're not so stressful. From the New York Times:

Regulators say all 19 banks undergoing the exams will pass them. Indeed, they say this is a test that a bank simply will not fail: if the examiners determine that a bank needs “exceptional assistance,” the government, that is, taxpayers, will provide it.

This is beyond farcical. If banks cannot fail the stress test by definition, then it is not a stress test. The notion that banks can both require "exceptional assistance" and "pass" their stress test is so absurd that it boggles the mind that anyone will fall for this. But, of course, some investors and talking heads (read: CNBC) will go bonkers when they see the headlines that the banks all passed, and they will pour into financials. Eventually, once writedowns continue to exceed puffed up earnings, even the slowest investors will realize that the banks are a bad bet. At that point, it will become apparent what an enormous waste of time this entire stress test exercise has been.

The saddest part is that the stress tests could have been the first step in a viable banking rescue. If Geithner had honestly assessed the banks' books and put hopelessly insolvent banks into receivership, there would be justified public confidence in the remaining banks. This is what FDR's banking holiday accomplished during the Great Depression. Unfortunately, Geithner seems to think that the minimal appearance of transparency and accountability is a good substitute for actual transparency and accountability. He is badly mistaken.

Pretending insolvent banks are healthy, pouring endless subsidies into them to prop zombie institutions up - it's all so Japanese. Weren't we supposed to have learned from their lost decade? And with each dollar siphoned off to Wall Street, Obama is throwing his presidency away...Maybe Obama and his political advisers will wake up and realize that flirting with economic stagnation is not a path to electoral success. We can only hope that they finally admit what an unmitigated disaster Geithner has been, and undo this mistake.