The question was asked if it made sense for Treasury to permit bids and awards at negative interest rates in marketable Treasury bill auctions. DAS Rutherford noted that there were operational issues associated with such a rule change, but that the hurdles were not insurmountable. It was the unanimous view of the committee that Treasury should modify auction regulations to permit negative rate bidding and awards in Treasury bill auctions as soon as feasible. Rutherford noted that any decision on this policy change would likely be made at the May refunding.

Fun times.

It’s an incredible result; stunning, really. I just wish it didn’t make me so depressed.

I salute the innovation and cheer on the profits. That is capitalism at its finest and we need more of it.

It’s that f***king mountain of cash (now up to $100 billion) that concerns me, because it’s symptomatic of what is holding America (and Britain) in the economic doldrums.

The return Apple will be getting on that cash will be miniscule, if it’s positive at all, and conceivably negative.  Standing next to that, their return on assets excluding cash is phenomenal.

Why aren’t they doing something with the cash? Are they not able to expand profits still further by expanding quantities sold, even in new markets? Are there no new internal projects to fund? No competitors to buy out? Why not return it to shareholders via dividends or share buybacks?

Logically, a company holds cash for some combination of three reasons: (a) they use it to manage cash flow; (b) they can imagine buying an outside asset (a competitor or some other company that might complement them) in the near future and they want to be able to move quickly (and there’s no M&A deal that’s agreed upon faster than an all cash deal); or (c) they want to demonstrate a degree of security to offset any market perceived risk with their debt.

Apple long ago surpassed all of these benefits.  The net marginal value of Apple holding an extra dollar of cash is negative because it returns nothing and incurs a lost opportunity cost.  So why aren’t their shareholders screaming at them for wasting the opportunity?

The answer, so far as I can see, is because a significant majority of AAPL’s shareholders are idiots with a short-term focus. They have no goddamn clue where else the money should be and they’re just happy to see such a bright spot in their portfolio.  Alternatively, maybe the shareholders aren’t complete idiots — Apple’s P/E ratio has been falling for a while now – but the fundamental point is that they have a mountain of cash that they’re not using.

In 2005 that wouldn’t have been as much of a problem because the shadow banking system was in full swing, doing the risk/liquidity/maturity transformation thing that the financial industry is meant to do and so getting that money out to the rest of the economy.[*] Now, the transformation channel is broken, or at least greatly impaired, and so nobody makes any use of Apple’s billions. They just sit there, useless as f***, while profitable SMEs can’t raise funds to expand and 15% of all Americans are on food stamps.

Don’t believe me?  Here’s a graph from the Bank of England showing year-over-year changes in lending to small- and medium-sized enterprises in the UK.  I can’t be bothered looking for the equivalent data for the USA, but you can rest assured it looks similar.  The report it’s from can be found here (it was published only a few days ago).  The Economist’s Free Exchange has some commentary on it here (summary:  we’re still in trouble).

So what is happening to all that money?  Well, Apple can’t exactly stick it in a bank account, so they repo it, which is a fancy way of saying that they lend it to a bank (or somebody else in the financial industry) and temporarily take some high quality asset like a US government bond to hold as collateral.  They repo it because that’s all they can do now — there are no AAA-rated, actually safe, CDO tranches being created by the shadow banking system any more, they’re too big to make use the FDIC’s guarantee (that’s an excellent paper, btw … highly recommended) and so repo is all they have left.

But the financial industry is stuck in a disgusting mess like some kid’s hair with chewing gum rubbed through it. They’re all just as scared as the next guy (especially of the Euro problems) and so they’re parking it in their own accounts at the Fed and the BoE.  As a result, “excess” reserves remain at astronomical levels and the real economy makes no use of Apple’s billions.

That’s a tragedy.

[*] Yes, the shadow banking industry screwed up. They got caught up in real estate fever and sent (relatively) too much money towards property and too little towards more sustainable investments. They structured things in too opaque a manner, failed to have public price discovery and operated under distorted incentives. But they operated. Otherwise useless cash was transformed into real investment and real jobs. Unless that comes back, America and the UK will stay in their slow, painful household deleveraging cycle for another frickin’ decade.

The phrase “X is consistent with Y” is actually a very, very weak statement.  All it’s saying is that X doesn’t provide evidence against Y.  Here’s a handy flow chart:

X is … Y:    ”consistent with” < “suggestive of” < “evidence for” < “proof of”

A veto stops a thing from happening (think of the UN Security Council).  The fiscal compact is going to go ahead, just without Britain.  Therefore, Britain did not veto it; they declined to take part.

That is all.

Update:

Okay, that isn’t quite all.  Just to be clear, I think that Cameron did the wrong thing.  I believe that, at a minimum, he should have committed to bringing the proposal to the UK parliament.  It may well have been voted down at that point, but nevertheless it should have happened.  Parliament is sovereign in the UK.  This was a serious proposal with potentially significant consequences from either agreeing to it or walking away from it; the people of Britain deserved to have their elected representatives decide.

I am undecided on whether signing up to the pact would be in the best interests of the UK.

• Immediately establish a single, Euro area-wide bank deposit guarantee scheme.  A single currency must absolutely ensure that a Euro held as money in Greece be the same as a Euro held as money in Germany.  That means that retail and commercial deposits in each should be backed by the same guarantee.  I have no firm opinion on how it should be funded.  The classic manner is through a fee on banks proportional to their deposits, but if Euro area countries ultimately prefer to use a Tobin-style tax on transactions, that’s up to them.  Just get the thing up and running.  Of course, a unified deposit guarantee also requires a unified resolution authority in the event of an insolvent bank collapsing.  There are many and varied forms that fiscal union can take; this is the most urgent of them all.  I am shocked that this does not already exist.

• The ECB should switch from targetting current inflation to expected future inflation.  The Bank of England already does this.  Accepting that any effect of monetary policy on inflation will come through with a lag (or at least acknowledging that current inflation is backward looking), they “look through” current inflation to what they expect it to be over the coming few years.  This is important.  Current inflation in the Euro area — i.e. the rate of change over the last 12 months — is at 3%.  On the face of it, that might make an ECB policymaker nervous, but looking ahead, market forecasts for average inflation over the coming five years are as low as 0.85% per year in Germany.  They will be much lower for the rest of the Euro area.  Monetary policy in the Euro area is much, much too tight at the moment.  At the very least, (a) interest rates should be lowered; and (b) the ECB should announce their shift in focus toward forward inflation.

• The ECB should start to speak more, publicly, about forms of current inflation that most affect future inflation.  This follows on from my previous point, but is still logically distinct.  The Fed likes to focus on “core” inflation, stripped of items with particularly volatile price movements.  I don’t much care whether it is non-volatile prices or nominal wages, or even nominal GDP.  I just want the ECB to be speaking more about something other than headline CPI, because it is those other things that feed into future headlines.

• The ECB’s provision of liquidity to the banking system, while currently large, is not nearly large enough.  The fact that “German Bunds trade below the deposit facility rate at the ECB and well below the Overnight Rate” is clear evidence of this.  I currently have no opinion on whether this ought to be in the form of increasing the duration of loans to Euro area banks, relaxing the collateral requirements for loans or working with member countries’ treasuries to increase the provision of collateral.  I certainly believe (see my second point above) that interest rates should be lowered.  The point, as far as is possible, is to make replacing lost market funding with ECB funding more attractive to banks than deleveraging.

• A great deal of Euro area sovereign debt is unsustainable; hair-cuts are inevitable and they should be imposed as soon as possible (but, really, this requires that a unified bank resolution authority be established first).  The argument for delaying relies on banks’ ability to first build up a cushion of capital through ongoing profitability.  When banks are instead deleveraging, the problem is made worse by waiting.

• Credit Default Swaps must be permitted to trigger.  The crisis may have its origins in the the profligacy of wayward sovereigns (frankly, I think the origins lie in the Euro framers not appreciating the power of incentives), but the fundamental aspect of the crisis itself is that various financial assets, previously regarded as safe, are coming to be thought of as risky.  By denying market participants the opportunity to obtain insurance, Euro area policymakers are making the problem worse, not better.  Market willingness to lend to Greece in 2025 will in no way depend on how we label the decisions made in 2011 and 2012.

• Every member of the Euro periphery should be in an IMF programme.  Yes, I’m looking at you, Italy.  If the IMF does not have sufficient funds to work with, the ECB should lend to it.  All politicians in Euro periphery countries should be speaking to their electorates about multi-decade efforts to improve productivity.  These things cannot be fixed in two or three years.  They can, at best, be put on the right path.

• For every country in an IMF programme, all sovereign debt held by the ECB should be written down to the price at which they purchase it.   If the ECB buys a Greek government bond at, say, a 20% discount to face value, then that bond should be written down by 20%.  The ECB should not be in a position to make a profit from their trading if Europe finds its way through the overall crisis.  Similarly, the ECB should not be in a position to take a loss, either — they should not be required to take a hair-cut below the price they pay for Euro area sovereign debt.

Note that I have not yet used the phrase “Euro bond” anywhere.  Note, too, that a central bank is only meant to be a lender of last resort to banks.  The lender of last resort to governments is the IMF.

If Euro area policymakers really want to engage in a fiscal union (a.k.a. transfers) beyond the absolutely essential creation of a unified bank deposit guarantee scheme, it is perfectly possible to do so in a minimal fashion that does not lessen the sovereignty of any member nation:  Have a newly created European Fiscal Authority (with voluntary membership) provide the minimum universally agreed-on level of unemployment benefits across the entire area, funded with a flat VAT.  Any member country would retain the ability to provide benefits above and beyond the minimum.  This will have several benefits:

• Since its membership would be voluntary and it would provide only the minimum universally agreed level, it cannot, by definition, constitute a practical infraction on sovereignty;
• It will help provide pan-European automatic stabilisers in fiscal policy;
• It will provide crucial intra-European stabilisation;
• It will increase the supply of long-dated AAA-rated securities at a time when demand for them is incredibly high; and
• It will decrease the ability of Euro member countries to argue that they should be able to violate the terms of the Maastricht Treaty at times of economic hardship as at least some of the heavy lifting in counter-cyclical policy will be done for them.

———————-

Update 30 Nov 2011, 13:05 (25 minutes after first publishing the post):

It would appear that the world’s major central banks have announced a coordinated improvement in the provision of liquidity to banks.  This is a good thing. Press releases:

• Bank of England
• Bank of Canada
• ECB
• Bank of Japan
• Swiss National Bank
• Federal Reserve

The crisis of 2007/2008 and the present Euro-area difficulties may both be interpreted, from a policymaker’s viewpoint, as a combination of two related events: an exogenous change in the relative supplies of high- and low-risk assets and, subsequently, a classic liquidity crisis. A group of assets that had hitherto been considered low risk suddenly became viewed as high risk. The increased supply of high-risk assets pushed down their price, while the opposite occurred in the market for low-risk assets. Unsure of their counterparties’ exposure to newly-risky assets, the suppliers of liquidity then withdrew their funding. Note that we do not require any change in financial intermediaries’ risk-aversion (their risk appetite) in this story. Tightening credit standards, common to any downturn, serve only to amplify the underlying shock.

Central banks responded admirably to the liquidity crises, supplying unlimited quantities of the stuff and generally at Bagehot’s recommended “penalty rate”. In response to the first problem, and being concerned primarily with effects on the real economy, central banks initially lowered overnight interest rates, trusting markets to correspondingly reduce low-risk and, in turn, high-risk rates. When overnight rates approached zero and central banks were unwilling to permit them to become negative, they turned to QE, mostly focusing on forcing down low-risk rates (out of a concern for distorting the allocation of capital across the economy) and allowing markets to bring down high-risk rates.

Consequently, QE tightens spreads over overnight interest rates and since spreads over blew out during the crisis, this is commonly seen as a positive outcome and even a sign that the overall problem is being resolved. However, such an interpretation misses the possibility, if not the fact, that broader spreads are rational market reactions to an underlying shift in the distribution of supply. In such a case, QE cannot help but distort otherwise efficient markets, no matter what assets are purchased.

Indeed, limiting purchases to low-risk assets may serve to further distort any “mismatch” between the distributions of supply and demand. Many intermediaries operate under strict, and slow moving, institutional mandates that limit their exposure to long-term, high-risk assets. Such market participants are simply unable, even in the medium term, to participate in the portfolio rebalancing that CBs seek. The efficacy of such a strategy may therefore decline as those agents that are able to participate become increasingly saturated in their purchases of high-risk debt (and in so doing are seen as risky themselves and so unable to raise funds from the constrained agents).

Furthermore, QE in the form of open market purchases of bonds, no matter whether they are public or private, automatically implies a bias towards large corporates and away from households and small businesses that rely exclusively on bank lending for credit. Bond purchases directly lower interest rates faced by large corporates (through portfolio rebalancing), but only indirectly stimulate small businesses or households via bank funding costs. In an environment with reduced competition in banking and perceived fragility in the financial industry as a whole, funding costs may not decline in response to QE and even if they do, the decline may not be passed on to borrowers.

In any event, a direct consequence of QE at the ZLB must be a reduction in the expected profitability of the financial industry as a whole and with it, a corresponding decline in the industry’s ability to withstand negative shocks. Given this trade-off, optimal policy at the ZLB should expressly consider financial system fragility in addition to inflation and the output gap, and when the probability of a negative shock rises, the weight given to such consideration must correspondingly increase.

How, then, to stimulate the real economy? Options to mitigate such a trade-off might include permitting negative nominal interest rates, at least for institutional investors; engaging in QE but simultaneously acting to improve financial industry resilience by, for example, mandating industry-wide constraints on dividends or bonuses; or, perhaps most importantly, acting to “correct” the risk distribution of long-term assets. The first of these is not without its risks, but falls squarely within the existing remit of most central banks. The second would require coordination between monetary and regulatory policy, a task eminently suited to the Bank of England’s new role. The third requires addressing the supply shock at its source and so its implementation would presumably be legislative and regulatory.

If further QE is deemed wise, it may also be necessary to grit one’s teeth and shift purchases out to (bundles of) riskier assets, if only maximise their effect. Given the distortions that already occur with low-risk purchases, this may not be as bad as it first seems.

Active monetary research can help inform all of these options, but more broadly, should perhaps focus not just on identifying the mechanisms of monetary transmission but also consider their resilience.

Or, perhaps, there should be a straight discount on payroll taxes for an employee that was unemployed when hired, but the duration for which the discount applies should be proportional to the length of time they had been unemployed.

Either way, this should be a permanent part of the tax system – thereby providing another automatic stabiliser to fiscal policy, both in boom times and recessions.

This idea is not unique to me.

This idea is conditional on Central Bank policy not reducing the fiscal multiplier to zero.

I’m disappointed, but not surprised, at the split between cuts to “discretionary” and “mandatory” spending. I choose to hope that at their big, joint summit on the deficit it’ll mostly be entitlement reform, as Americans like to call it, and tax reform.

I’m also disappointed, but again not surprised, that the cuts are not distributed in such a way as to make them stimulative (or at least not contractionary) in the immediate term. On the other hand, as in Britain, there’s a reasonable political economy argument to be made that fiscal retrenchment, conditional on deciding that it needs to happen, must be front-loaded to minimise the PDV of political pain.

I do in principle like the grim-trigger approach to the bipartisan negotiations on phase two of the whole thing, US politics being what they are. I’m dissapointed that increased taxes aren’t in the trigger, but appreciate why they’re not. I’m not at all sure that the gutting of defense spending in the trigger is as asymmetrically bad for the GOP as the Democrats would have liked.

I very much hope that votes in the joint summit to determine phase two cuts are kept sealed (for, say, at least a presidential term).

The Economist has a recent — and excellent — write-up on the idea.  My opinion, informed in no small part by Tyler Cowen’s views (here, here and here) is this:

• Technically, it’s magnificent.  It overcomes some technical difficulties that used to be thought insurmountable.

• As a medium of exchange, it’s an improvement over previous currencies (through the anonymity) for at least some transactions

• As a store of value (i.e. as a store of wealth), it offers nothing [see below]

• There are already many, many well-established assets that represent excellent stores of value, whatever your opinion on inflation and other artefacts of government policy

• Therefore people will, at best, store their wealth in other assets and change them into bitcoins purely for the purpose of conducting transactions

• As a result, the fundamental value of a bitcoin rests only in the superiority of its transactional system; for all other purposes, its value is zero

• For 99.999% of all transactions by all people everywhere, the transaction anonymity is in no way superior to handing over physical cash or doing a recorded electronic transfer

• Therefore, as a first approximation, bitcoin has a fundamental value of zero to almost everybody and of only slightly more than zero to some people

• Therefore, the recent massive run-up in the bitcoin-to-Any-Currency-You-Care-To-Name exchange rate is a pure bubble and last Friday’s 30% drop in the bitcoin-USD exchange rate will not be the last

This thing is only ever going to be interesting or useful to drug dealers and crypto-fetishists.  Of those, I believe that drug dealers will ultimately lose interest because of a lack of liquidity in getting their “money” out of bitcoins and into hard cash.  That only leaves one group …

A note on money as a store-of-value:  When an asset pays out nothing as a flow profit (e.g. cash, gold, bitcoin), then that asset’s value as a store-of-value [1][2] is ultimately based on a) the surety that it’ll still exist in the future and b) your ability to convert it in the future to stuff you want to consume.  Requirement a) means that bread is a terrible store of value — it’ll all rot in a week.  Requirement b) means that a good store of value must be expected to have strong liquidity in the future.  In other words, there must be expected future demand for the stuff.  If you think your government’s policies are going to create inflation, putting your wealth in, say, iron ore, will be an excellent store of value because the economy at large will (pretty much) always generate demand for the stuff.

That makes gold an interesting case.  Since there isn’t really that much real economic demand for gold, using it as a store of value in period T must be based on a belief that people in period T+1 will believe that it will be a good store of value then.  But since we already know that it has very little intrinsic value to the economy, that implies that the T+1 people will have to believe that people in period T+2 will consider it a store of value, too.  The whole thing becomes an infinite recursion, with the value of gold as a store-of-value being based on a collective belief that it will continue to be a good store-of-value forever.

Forecast GDP:  Actual + no further shocks

Natural GDP:  Forecast + full utilisation (i.e. no current or residual shocks, either)

Potential GDP:  Natural + fully flexible prices

Efficient GDP:  Potential + no market power

That then gives three different versions of an output gap:  Actual minus Natural, Potential or Efficient.

For some models, there is no difference between Natural GDP and Potential GDP.  I don’t like those models.