The views expressed in this column are those of the author and not SVB Financial Group.
Gimme back my
bullets
Put'em back where they belong
Ain't foolin' around 'cause I
done
had my fun
Ain't gonna see no more damage done
Gimme back my
bullets
-Lynyrd Skynyrd
The bullets we need for economic recovery
have been with us all along. For evidence, you need look no further than the
first report card on Fannie and Freddie since conservatorship.
The
Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) last week released their first
"Conservator's Report on the Enterprises' Financial Condition" and the numbers
are staggering.
The twins had just $78 billion in total capital at the
end of 2007, but this has been more than wiped away by $226 billion in losses
since that time. Much of the loss came from mortgages made in 2006 and 2007 at
the height of competition.
Looking back at the state of the market at
that time, it seems obvious investors had gone overboard in their determination
to provide capital to this sector. The myriad of "no-doc, no income, no equity,
no problem" activities during this time is enough to make any true credit
analyst puke.
But competing right alongside the insanity of the private
sector were the twins. In fact, the share of sub-prime and Alt-A loans climbed
from just 9 percent of the market in 2003 to an astounding 33 percent in 2006.
(Recall that "Alt-A" refers to loans that were assumed to be prime, but no one
ever really confirmed the data on the applications.)
Think about that
for a second. One-third of the mortgages being created were admittedly for
low-quality borrowers — or those borrowers who didn't want anyone investigating
their vital signs.
As publicly traded organizations, the twins had an
obligation to maximize shareholder wealth, but as government agencies they could
finance their growth at much lower rates than their competitors. And so they
did, expanding their business greatly as these loss figures now prove. But there
is hope on the horizon.
As I wrote earlier this month in my August
17 column, the Obama administration has finally kicked off a debate on what
to do with the twins and how the government should interact with the mortgage
market in the future.
It's a good thing this debate has been moved
forward from their previous target of 2011 as well. It can come none too soon
after digesting the Fed Chairman's speech in Jackson Hole last Friday. That
widely anticipated speech was to include a look into the Fed's remaining tools
for stimulating growth and avoiding deflation. But in my opinion, this glimpse
was disappointing at best.
There were three specific strategies Bernanke
described in brief, plus one he readily admitted had no support at the FOMC. The
three were:
- Expand the Fed's holdings of longer-term securities to bring down borrowing
rates across the curve. Unfortunately, companies are not restricted by rates so
much as a lackluster outlook for final demand as consumers remain on the
sidelines.
- The Fed could "ease financial conditions through its communication." If only
life were so easy!
- The Fed could lower the interest rate it pays to banks that are keeping
excess reserves there instead of lending them out. Today, the Fed pays 0.25
percent, so what the Chairman is saying is that banks would reject a new rate of
say 0.15 percent on their $1 trillion deposited there and instead lend the money
out elsewhere. My question is: Where can banks get 0.25 percent with the same
credit quality the Fed provides? (To be fair, Ben acknowledges this would have
only a "relatively small" effect on behavior and could do "permanent damage" to
the Fed funds market itself.)
Hmm, I'm trying to believe the Fed
isn't out of bullets.
The "extra" option (which apparently no one in the
Fed supports so why mention it in such a high profile speech) is to have the Fed
"increase its medium-term inflation goals above levels consistent with price
stability."
Frankly, this sounds a lot like option two above — let's
just figure out something to say that will get the economy moving again!
Unfortunately, the answer to our economic woes no longer resides at the
Fed. We have a demand problem that is not affected by the price of money
(interest rates). It is driven by consumers' concern about two things: their job
and their wealth.
I look forward to a long and healthy debate on how the
mortgage market should be regulated and how taxpayer dollars should be used in
support. But the solution will not come quickly and the economy will continue to
muddle along "for an extended period of time."
Deflation Not an
Issue
I should clarify that I am not saying the Fed is "out of bullets"
and that a deflationary spiral is upon us. Quite the contrary is true as long as
we solve our mortgage woes before we experience a cultural shift in consumer
behavior.
Consumerism is alive and well and will come back strongly once
these uncertainties are wiped clean. We look at the recent burst in savings as a
war chest for our next trip to the mall. The only question is when that will
occur.
Key Developments
Home sales plummeted in the latest
month, suggesting the real estate sector remains weak, especially now that the
federal home buyer tax credit has expired. Purchases of existing homes dropped
to a 3.83 million annual pace, the lowest in a decade of record keeping. At the
current pace, it would take 12.5 months to sell those houses. Sales of new homes
also hit a record low of 276,000 annual units. These depressed sales figures
came in light of lower median prices and cheaper borrowing rates.
The
U.S. economic recovery weakened in the second quarter more than previously
estimated, as GDP was revised down to 1.6 percent from 2.4 percent. The downward
revision was due to lower net export and inventories. The bottom line is that
after the strong 5.0 percent growth in Q4 of last year, GDP looks to have slowed
in each successive quarter, which suggests a very anemic economy.
Durable goods orders rose 0.3 percent in July after an upwardly revised
0.1 percent decline in June (previously -1.0 percent). However, this was well
below the forecast for an increase of 3.0 percent.
The views expressed in this column are
solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of SVB Financial
Group, or SVB Asset Management, or any of its affiliates. This
material, including without limitation the statistical information
herein, is provided for informational purposes only. The material is
based in part upon information from third-party sources that we believe
to be reliable, but which has not been independently verified by us and,
as such, we do not represent that the information is accurate or
complete. The information should not be viewed as tax, investment, legal
or other advice nor is it to be relied on in making an investment or
other decisions. You should obtain relevant and specific professional
advice before making any investment decision. Nothing relating to the
material should be construed as a solicitation or offer, or
recommendation, to acquire or dispose of any investment or to engage in
any other transaction.
SVB Asset Management, a registered
investment advisor, is a non-bank affiliate of Silicon Valley Bank and
member of SVB Financial Group. Products offered by SVB Asset Management
are not FDIC insured, are not deposits or other obligations of Silicon
Valley Bank, and may lose value.