SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Giordano Bruno who wrote (362611)3/16/2008 11:39:22 PM
From: ldo79  Respond to of 436258
 
Bank of England sounds alert on credit crisis's impact on economy

By Sean O'Grady, Economics Editor
Monday, 17 March 2008

The Bank of England will warn today that credit markets have "deteriorated again" and that there is a serious danger of further writedowns by the banks, with the difficulty of securitising loans and mortgages posing a particular problem for the property market and the economy as a whole.

The Bank's latest Quarterly Bulletin was compiled prior to last Friday's rescue of Bear Stearns by the United States Federal Reserve and JP Morgan, but highlights the parlous state of the US housing market. It warns of "considerable uncertainty" over the "ultimate scale and location of the losses across the global financial system, not least because of further increases in delinquency rates on the underlying mortgages in the United States."

Once again, the Bank voiced its worries about how the credit crisis will affect the wider UK economy, and how the problems might lead to a vicious circle. "This could act as a drag on economy activity and in turn could prompt further deterioration in the quality of banks' assets and limit their ability and willingness to lend."

Charles Bean, chief economist of the Bank, said he had hoped for better times after the co-ordinated injection of liquidity by the world's leading central banks last December, but had been disappointed by how the new year had panned out.

"There were some signs of improvement in sterling money markets around the turn of the year, but during February conditions deteriorated again and wider funding markets remained impaired," Mr Bean said. "Furthermore, UK equity markets fell quite sharply in January and became more volatile."

A further co-ordinated injection of liquidity by the Fed, the European Central Bank, the Bank of England and others last week only partially succeeded in reassuring markets fearful of the near certainty of a recession in the American economy.

The Bank also drew attention to concerns about so-called "monoline" firms, which insure banks against potential losses on debt instruments. The Bulletin states: "A particular source of uncertainty was banks' exposures – both direct and indirect – to financial guarantors, and the potential losses associated with further credit rating downgrades to these institutions. Banks have various contractual exposures to financial guarantors (also known as monoline insurers)."

The Bank added that this danger had not yet passed. "Some of the major financial guarantors remained on review for downgrade by the ratings agencies," it said. "In the event of further downgrades, the value of the guarantees provided against the underlying assets would fall. This could lead to additional marked-to-market losses on banks' asset portfolios and in turn to further writedowns."

Looking ahead, the Bank also warned that the spread of portfolio insurance to protect investors' returns could prove self-defeating. It said: "Portfolio insurance could, in certain circumstances, interact with market frictions, such as illiquidity or imperfect information, to increase market volatility."



To: Giordano Bruno who wrote (362611)3/17/2008 12:28:10 AM
From: Real Man  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 436258
 
Don't worry. This is bigger than the Fed. Plenty of LTCMs
out there, Bear now, Lehman soon. Bear was 14 Trillion
counterparty. That's US GDP. CITI is 38 Trillion counterparty.
That's almost 3x US GDP. JPM is 4x US GDP counterparty.
Got Domino effect? LTCM was 1 Trillion counterparty. -g-
No wonder they are acting a lot faster these days -ggg-
uk.youtube.com

Gonna be a USD plunge. Equities are not immune. That's gonna
be real value here




To: Giordano Bruno who wrote (362611)3/17/2008 4:08:54 AM
From: stan_hughes  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 436258
 
So what's your point? That's nothing new. It's called the "slippery slope" effect, my friend. No wonder Rogers wants to abolish the Fed.

NB -- this is from Aug 13, 2007, i.e. back when everybody was cheering the Fed's "big save" of the market, but not paying attention to much else

The Fed Bought What?

By John Paul Koning
Posted on 8/13/2007

The US Federal Reserve injected $38 billion dollars into the economy via temporary open market operations this Friday. This is the largest number of temporary repurchase agreements (specifically, one business day repos) entered into by the Fed since September 11, 2001. Back in 2001, Fed purchases of treasuries exceeded $30 billion for the four consecutive days after the collapse of the World Trade Towers, total temporary injections into the banking system amounting to a whopping $295 billion.

What is significant about Friday's repurchase agreements is not so much their size, but the securities that the Fed exchanged for money: mortgage-backed securities (MBS). Indeed, the entire $38 billion dollar injection went to MBS purchases, the largest open market purchase of this asset type ever conducted by the Fed, smashing the previous record of $8.6 billion set back in September of 2005.

The type of mortgage-backed securities the Fed bought are created when bundles of individual mortgages originated by commercial banks are guaranteed by quasi-governmental agencies such as the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) and Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), then split apart and sold to investors. Homeowners pay interest on these mortgages, interest payments flowing through to the final holders of MBS.

For those who have gone through the Economics 101 treatment of the Fed, the sudden appearance of MBS in Fed open market operations might seem odd. Professors have always taught that when the Fed expanded the money supply it did so by buying government bonds and bills. Indeed back in September 2001, the Fed provided liquidity by buying what it has always traditionally bought; treasury securities. So why is the Fed buying MBS now, and when did it acquire the authority to do so?

First a note on how open market purchases work. The Fed uses what are called open market operations to control the Federal Funds rate, the rate at which large commercial banks lend cash to each other overnight to fulfil their reserve requirements to the Fed. The Fed sets a target for the federal funds rate and defends it by either withdrawing or injecting money according to the requirements of commercial banks. It injects by buying securities from the banks with freshly created checking deposits, or money. This injection increases the reserves commercial banks hold, allowing these banks to expand credit to businesses and consumers. The Fed withdraws money by selling securities to commercial banks and receiving money as payment, thereby reducing reserves and removing credit from the system.

The Fed conducts both temporary open market operations and permanent ones. Permanent, or outright operations, inject cash and remove securities from the banking system forever. The Fed keeps the securities it has acquired outright in the System Open Market Account, aptly initialed SOMA (in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, the drug soma is produced to keep citizens in a steady state of happiness, much like the Fed's SOMA). Temporary operations, the ones entered into this Friday, involve 1–14 day repurchase or reverse repurchase agreements whereby the Fed purchases (or sells) securities in return for cash with an agreement that the commercial bank on the other side of the deal will buy back (or sell back) the securities after a period of days.

Temporary reverse repurchase operations, the short-term withdrawal of money from the banking system, are rare. The Fed has only engaged in 16 reverse repos since late 2000, versus 1247 repurchases. This imbalance means that the Fed is almost always augmenting commercial bank reserves by buying securities, allowing the banks to use their larger reserves to expand credit and borrowing. Thus the rate defended by the Fed is lower than the rate at which the commercial banks would be willing to lend each other if the Fed did not exist.

Back to Friday's MBS purchases. Historically, the Fed's open market operations have been confined to US Treasuries. Clauses 3 to 6 of the Guidelines for the Conduct of System Operations in Federal Agency Issues ensured that Federal Reserve operations could not engage in temporary purchases of securities issued by federal agencies like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

In an August 1999 Fed meeting officials temporarily suspended clauses 3 to 6, giving themselves the authority to freely purchase Ginnie Mae–, Freddie Mac–, and Fannie Mae–issued MBS on a provisional basis without hindrance on size and timing. The reason given: it needed full reign to inject money into the banking system in preparation for the year 2000 crisis. The period for which the temporary suspension was to extend was from October 1, 1999 through April 7, 2000.

The year 2000 crisis proved a dud. But rather than removing the temporary suspension on buying MBS, the Fed renewed the suspension in 2000 and 2001 before permanently striking off clauses 3 to 6 in 2002. In recent Fed documents, only clauses 1 and 2 are listed. This storyline may sound familiar to Fed watchers. The Fed was founded in response to the crisis of 1907, and had its ability to increase the money supply dramatically increased during another crisis, the Great Depression, where gold convertibility was suspended.

Since the Orwellian rewriting of the Guidelines the Fed has been gradually expanding its MBS purchases, which reached a crescendo this Friday. This (relatively) new power of the Fed is startling given the current liquidity crisis prevailing in the mortgage markets of late. By openly stating its willingness to buy thousands of mortgages and temporarily to expose itself to the financial health (or lack thereof) of the homeowning public, and doing so when the rest of the world is shunning them, the Fed is propping up mortgage markets, and thereby the housing market. This despite the fact that open market operations are not supposed to support individual sectors of the market or channel funds into issues of particular agencies.

While the purchases are only temporary (the cash must be returned by Monday) one wonders how long before the Fed grants itself the power to buy MBS permanently. Either way, the Fed's response shows that it is worried about the growing mortgage crises and willing to do anything to buy its way out of it.


Unfortunately, by buying up MBS and propping up the market the Fed will only cause more harm than it already has.

mises.org