QE3: Get ready for influx of cash!

QE3 set to boost confidence but experts warn against simply loading up on equities.

A RIVER of cash is likely to wash over the global financial system soon, thanks to decisions by major central banks to unleash their monetary “bazookas” on the faltering global economy.

The money-printing ball started rolling last month when the European Central Bank (ECB) said it would make “unlimited” purchases of bonds from countries such as Italy and Spain.

The US Federal Reserve was next, announcing that a third round of asset purchases, known as quantitative easing (QE3), would start at the rate of US$40bil (RM122.5bil) a month until the job market recovers “significantly”.

It was soon followed by the Bank of Japan, which said it would extend its asset-purchasing scheme by 10 trillion yen.

A big chunk of that excess liquidity will likely flow into Asian financial markets as investors search for better returns, given the low interest rates in most countries.

It is tempting to think investors can simply load up on equities and ride a rally like previous rounds of quantitative easing but this is not so, say experts.

They believe that while QE3 will boost confidence and support markets, the euphoria will be checked by the reality that the real economy is in the doldrums.

The list of worries is long: China is decelerating fast, Europe remains mired in recession, and many US consumers are still looking for jobs.

With countervailing forces at work, wealth managers and analysts have plenty of ideas on what to buy and what to avoid.

Buy
> US, Asian equities 

Analysts believe the flood of money will do much to support markets, but not all will do equally well.

UBS Wealth Management regional chief investment officer Kelvin Tay believes defensive bourses such as Singapore and Malaysia will do less well than markets such as Taiwan, Hong Kong and China.

He added that what is also likely to boost shares in Asia, outside of Japan, is simply that some stock markets look cheap, based on a metric known as price-to-earnings ratio. Shares could rise 12% from current levels, he said.

DBS regional equity strategist Joanne Goh said the bank recently recommended an “overweight” for Chinese and Hong Kong stock markets, indicating that investors should buy into these markets. These markets are likely to do well because they are large, open and undervalued, she added.

Analysts’ views were slightly more mixed about US equities, with some believing they will get a boost from QE3, while others warned that the impact would be limited.

Matthew Rubin, Neuberger Berman’s director of investment strategy, said American shares do look relatively cheap compared with investment-grade bonds.

“The additional liquidity should further support a rise in prices,” said Rubin, who helps set strategy at the fund, which manages assets of US$194bil (RM593.9bil).

But Sean Quek, Bank of Singapore’s head of equity research, said past experience shows that US equities benefit less from quantitative easing.

“Also, current valuations are less attractive versus previous QE periods as well as global peers,” he said, adding that he has a neutral rating on American shares.

> Gold

Most analysts believe stocking up on gold and gold-related assets is a good move.

First, with the amount of cash expanding in the system, there could be the risk of higher inflation. And with the value of the currency likely to fall due to the huge amounts of cash flowing about, investors will want “real assets” to protect themselves.

Rubin noted: “Real assets such as precious metals will act as inflation hedges and are per­ceived as diversifiers to holding fiat currency.”

Chew Soon Gek, head of strategy and economic research for the Asia-Pacific at Credit Suisse Private Banking, believes precious metals will outperform other commodities.

“They are the most sensitive to monetary easing, inflation expectations and real interest rates,” she said.

She tips gold to hit US$1,850 (RM5,663.80) per ounce in a year, from the US$1,760 (RM5,388.40) now.

> High-yield securities

With interest rates likely to stay near zero for the next two years, analysts believe that the demand for high-yielding securities will remain strong.

In particular, companies that pay a good dividend and have strong balance sheets are likely to attract investors, say analysts.

“With the QE expected to suppress yields and the Fed’s commitment to keep interest rates low until mid-2015, dividends will remain an important driver of total returns,” said Quek.

He noted that firms giving investors good payouts have generally performed better in the past two years when rates have fallen.

Rubin also believes that high-yield corporate bonds as well as real estate investment trusts are good places to park money.

“The search for yield in a low interest rate environment will continue,” he said.

Avoid
> US dollar 

If there is one asset class that most analysts believe is to be avoided, it is the greenback.

The flood of US dollars into the system through QE3 will lead to what analysts term a “debasement” of the currency – essentially a depreciation. In fact, Rubin believes that cash, and not just the greenback, should be avoided.

“QE3 increases potential for inflation and depreciation of the dollar,” he said.

This may also affect Singapore investors who have taken positions in US equities, as the currency may erode gains or increase losses due to the exchange rate. Likewise, investors might want to avoid the euro.

The poor economic outlook and flood of cash into the market will likely send it down against Asian currencies such as the Singdollar.

Uncertain
> European equities

For investors who take a riskier approach to investing, European stock markets do offer an option. After all, some of the best bargains are made when everyone else is deserting them, said Henderson Global Investors.

The asset management firm said that even though the outlook is gloomy, many firms remain healthy, with global operations.

But Quek is cautious on the region, simply because many question marks over the overall health of the economy remain.

A recent run-up in share prices there, as a result of the ECB’s unlimited bond purchase decision, has also made European stocks more expensive and less attractive, he noted. “As such, we are maintaining a negative stance on Europe.”

> Property 

While previous rounds of quantitative easing may have been one of the causes of property price inflation, this may not be repeated with this latest round.

Singapore has introduced the additional buyer’s stamp duty of 10% that foreigners incur when buying homes. Tay thinks that while QE3 may keep property resilient, price rises will be capped.

But QE3 could still end up boosting the appeal of US property, says Dr Lee Boon Keng, head of the investment solutions group for Singapore at Bank Julius Baer, noting that the housing conditions were improving and rebounding from historical lows.

“The US economy continues a moderate recovery, aided by rising property prices which should have a multiplier effect on consumption and investment,” he said. — The Sunday Times/Asia News Network

By AARON LOW

 Related posts/articles

QE3 triggers fear of new currency wars! What it means?
New global currency wars warning!  QE3 triggers fear of new currency wars! What it means?

QE3 triggers fear of new currency wars! What it means?

A man watches the foreign currencies exchange rate in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Fear has crept into the foreign exchange markets: fear of central banks. Currency traders are rapidly shifting assets to countries seen as less likely to try to weaken their currencies, amid concern that the fresh round of US monetary easing could trigger another clash in the “currency wars”.

Fund managers are rethinking their portfolios in the belief that “QE3” – the Federal Reserve’s third round of quantitative easing – will weaken the dollar and trigger sharp gains in emerging market currencies. Such moves would cause a headache for central banks worried about the domestic impact of a strengthening local currency, leading to possible intervention.

High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights.

Some investors are allocating money towards countries with beaten-up currencies, such as India or Russia, or those with more benign central banks, such as Mexico, that do not have a history of frequent forex intervention.

Currencies whose central banks have either intervened or threatened to intervene since QE3 have been underperforming the US dollar as investors have steered clear.

The Czech koruna is the worst-performing major currency against the dollar since QE3 was launched this month, according to a Bloomberg list of expanded major currencies. The governor of the Czech central bank last week raised the prospect of forex intervention as a tool to stimulate the economy.

The Brazilian real is also weaker in the past two weeks after Guido Mantega, finance minister, made it clear that the government would defend the real from any fresh round of currency wars sparked by the Fed’s move.

Even the Japanese yen is weaker against the dollar overall since the Fed’s move, despite having clawed back all its losses after the Bank of Japan’s move to add to its bond-buying programme last week.

Currency desks at Baring Asset Management and Amundi are avoiding the Brazilian real, which the country’s central bank keeps managed at around R$2 against the US currency, and are instead buying the Mexican peso, where the central bank has signalled it is happy for the currency to appreciate further.

James Kwok, head of currency management at Amundi, said: “Mexico is an emerging market currency many managers like as they believe the central bank won’t intervene. The Singapore dollar and the Russian rouble are managed by a range, instead of one-way direction, and so are also good candidates for QE play.”

He is concerned that another “big scale” intervention from Tokyo is on the cards after the BoJ failed to weaken the yen substantially this month, and is avoiding the currency as a result.

“We definitely take the intervention risk into account when investing in a currency,” says Dagmar Dvorak, director of fixed income and currency at Barings. “In Asia, intervention risk is fairly high. We have still got positions in the Singapore dollar but remain cautious on the rest of the region.”

Other investors are opting for currencies that have weakened substantially this year. Clive Dennis, head of currencies at Schroders, says: “Russia and India have currencies with strong rate support and levels which remain well below their best levels of the last year, hence pose less intervention risk. I like owning those currencies in a US QE3 environment.”

Some currencies are strengthening on a combination of Fed easing and domestic factors. While the Indian central bank is not seen as likely to intervene to stem any appreciation in the rupee, the currency has also been popular this month due to a reform package from the Indian government aimed at stimulating the economy.

Commodity currencies including the Russian rouble are responsive to expectations of a rise in commodity prices fuelled by Fed easing, while investors view the Mexican peso, along with the Canadian dollar, as a play on any economic recovery in the US because of their strong trade links.

However, some investors believe the QE3 effect could be lower this time. They argue that central banks in emerging markets face a tough decision over whether to weaken their currencies to help struggling exporters and stimulate growth, or allow them to strengthen to offset the impact of rising food prices.

In fact, the US dollar has shown signs of resilience since QE3 as fears over the health of the eurozone continue.

While flows into EM debt and equity funds rose substantially last week, according to data from EPFR Global, Cameron Brandt, research director, says this week’s flows looked more muted: “There’s a certain amount of reaction fatigue setting in.

By Alice Ross, FT.com

What QE3 means for China and rest of Asia?

 China recently announced plans to boost spending on subways and other transportation infrastructure to boost its economy. But China may not be as aggressive with stimulus as the Federal Reserve and European Central Bank.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Peter Pham, a capital market specialist and entrepreneur with expertise in institutional sales and trading, is the author of AlphaVN.com, an investing blog focusing on Vietnam and other markets in Southeast Asia
 
Now that most of the developed world's major central banks have all committed to some form of open-ended quantitative easing, we can start to make some concrete predictions about the effects this will have in Asia.

In general, QE is being undertaken in the West to stabilize debt markets that are deflating. So this may do little to actually stimulate sustainable economic growth. But, the uncertainty as to whether the central banks would act aggressively kept a lid on many emerging growth markets for months. Here's what may happen next.

China has been lowering interest rates but it cannot afford to do print money to buy bonds like other central banks have done. China's central bank can still announce more fiscal stimulus due to its strong trade surplus. The recent plan to spend $156 billion on domestic infrastructure is significant, but compared to the amount of money the Federal Reserve and European Central Bank may wind up spending, it might was well be $156.

The political situation in China is proving to be more volatile than we may have originally thought as the response to Japan's buying the Senkaku islands seems completely out of proportion with the level of threat or even insult this is represents. It speaks to a party that needs to redirect anger at its own mishandling of the economy.

That this is coming just a few months after Japan and China signed the most sweeping currency and trade agreement of any that China has signed with another country seems very odd.

Japan's response to the QE announcement by the Fed was to extend their existing QE program another 10 trillion Yen (~$128 billion US). That may sound like a lot but it's even less than China's most recent stimulus program.

This suggests that the Bank of Japan is uninterested in printing to oblivion at the same rate as the Fed and ECB, and that Japan will manage the yen's rise while shifting its focus towards more regional trade. Japan and China are each other's largest trading partners, which makes this row over the Senkaku Islands seem manufactured to force the Japanese to choose a side in the growing cold war between the U.S. and China.

So far, Japan has been trying to work with both sides. It is helping to internationalize China's yuan currency and is giving China a clear alternative to U.S. Treasuries with its own bonds. At the same time, Japan has stepped up its purchase of Treasuries, buying more than $200 billion's worth in the past 12 months.

I expect the Bank of Japan to continue to try and position the yen as an alternative regional reserve currency as other Asian nations like Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia try to lessen their reliance on the U.S. economy.

By keeping the yen strong versus the euro and the dollar, Japan can attract capital from overseas and use it to deploy it around Asia. There should be enough money sloshing around the region so that Asian nations can continue their trade with the West at current levels while also focusing more on regional growth.

The economies of Indonesia, Thailand and Malaysia are already growing above expectations this year despite volatility in their currencies because of the fear over Europe. With worries about Europe starting to wane, these countries, as well as the best companies in them, should have little trouble raising capital through bond sales.

The wildcards for Asia are Hong Kong and Singapore. We're already seeing signs of a property bubble in Hong Kong thanks to the Fed's four-year old policy of interest rates near zero. That's because Hong Kong's dollar is nominally pegged to the U.S. dollar.

Now that the Fed has implemented a program that will further debase the dollar -- and expand its already bloated balance sheet -- Hong Kong is being forced to reassess its currency peg. If they do not make changes, this could result in an even bigger property bubble. That would lead to loan problems for Hong Kong banks similar to those plaguing those in the U.S., Europe, China and, to a lesser extent, Singapore.

Since the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) pegs its interest rates to that of the Fed, its economy is vulnerable to a property bubble like the one in Hong Kong. Inflation is currently above 4% and has recently been above 5%. While Singapore's banks are all very well capitalized and their foreign exchange reserves are higher than their annual GDP, the Fed's QE3 policy will put pressure on an economy already dealing with sluggish growth.

But all in all, the latest round of QE is mostly bullish for Asia as it creates some certainty after the past 12 months of extreme uncertainty. Even though the actions by central banks in the West appear to indicate that their economies are worse than the headlines make it seem, the mere fact that the Fed and ECB have acted should reassure investors throughout Asia.

By Peter Pham @CNNMoneyInvest
Newscribe : get free news in real time 

Related post:

New global currency wars warning!

New global currency wars warning!

The recent money-pumping measure by the United States has been criticised by Brazil as a protectionist move which will adversely affect developing countries.

THE recent announcement by US Federal Reserve chief Ben Bernanke that the United States would be renewing its pumping of money into the banking system has been acclaimed by some parties as a move to revive its faltering economy.

But the Fed’s measure to revive “quantitative easing” is not being welcomed by all. It has instead caused anxiety in some developing countries.

Their fear is that a large part of the massive amounts of money being unleashed into the financial markets may fail to boost the US economy but will find its way as unwanted capital flows into some developing countries.

Bernanke announced that the Fed would purchase US$40bil (RM124bil) per month of mortgage-linked assets from the market, and do so continuously until the jobs situation improves.

The hope is that cheap and abundant money will encourage entrepreneurs and consumers to spend more and spark a recovery.

However, previous rounds of such quantitative easing did not do much for the US economy.

A large part of the extra funds were placed by investors not in new US production but as speculative funds in emerging markets or in the commodity markets, in search of higher returns.

In developing countries that received the funds, adverse effects included an inflation of prices of property and other assets, as well as appreciation of their currencies which made their exports less competitive.

On the other hand, the US dollar depreciated because of the increased supply of US dollars and the reduced interest rates, making US exports more competitive.

Brazil has been in the forefront of developing countries that are critical of the US money pumping. Last week, the Brazilian finance minister Guido Mantega called the US Fed measure a “protectionist” move that would re-ignite global currency wars.

Mantega told the Financial Times that the third round of quantitative easing would only have a marginal benefit in the United States as the already high liquidity in the United States is not going into production.

Instead, it is really aimed at depressing the dollar and boosting US exports.

Japan has also decided to expand its own quantitative easing programme in response to the US move, and this is evidence of tensions and a currency war, said Mantega.

In previous rounds of liquidity expansion in recent years, Brazil has been one of the developing countries adversely affected by sharp currency appreciation, which reduced its export competitiveness and facilitated import increases.

Recently, Brazil’s currency, the real, has weakened from the high of 1.52 real to the dollar to the present two real, which has improved its competitiveness.

But the new liquidity expansion in the United States may again cause a flood of funds to enter Brazil and reverse the currency trend.

In such a situation, Brazil may be forced to take measures to stop the real from appreciating, said the minister.

Previously, the country had taken capital controls to discourage inflows of foreign funds.

What has irritated Brazil even more is an accusation by the US Trade Representative Ron Kirk that Brazil has become protectionist in raising some tariffs, even though the Brazilian measures were within its rights in the WTO framework.

Brazil’s Foreign Minister Antonio Patriota last week wrote to Kirk pointing out the unfairness of a protectionist US accusing Brazil of protectionism.

“The world has witnessed massive monetary expansion and the bailout of banks and industrial companies on an unprecedented scale, implemented by the United States and other developed countries,” said Patriota.

“As a result, Brazil has had to cope with an artificial appreciation of its currency and with a flood of imported goods at artificially low prices.”

He pointed out that the United States was a major beneficiary, as it almost doubled its exports to Brazil from US$18.7bil (RM58bil) to US$34bil (RM105bil) from 2007 to 2011.

“While you refer to WTO-consistent measures adopted by Brazil, we, on our side, worry about the prospect of continued illegal subsidisation of farm products by the United States, which impact Brazil and other developing countries, including some of the poorest countries in Africa.

“The US has managed in a short period to remarkably increase its exports to Brazil and continues to reap the benefits of our expanding market. But it would be fairer if those increases took place in an environment not distorted by exchange rate misalignments and blatant Government support”.

As the quantitative easing from the United States and Japan is only going to take effect in future, it remains to be seen whether history will repeat itself – it will have minimal effect on the United States and Japanese economic recovery but will cause problems for developing countries – or whether it will be different this time.

GLOBAL TRENDS By MARTIN KHOR

Related posts:
Currency wars: Scholar acccuses U.S. of hypocrisy ..
Currency wars 'hurt global markets', World leaders seek ...
Currency Wars: U.S. Economy Needs More Fiscal ...

US Growing Unemployed: A Case of Benign Neglect

Photo: REUTERS/Shannon Stapleton

The political power of the working class has diminished in recent decades, and that helps to explain why US politicians have not paid enough attention to the unemployment problem.

The high unemployment rate ought to be a national emergency. There are millions of people in need of jobs. The lost income as a result of the recession totals hundreds of billions of dollars annually, and the longer the problem persists, the more permanent the damage becomes. Why doesn’t the unemployment problem get more attention? Why have other worries such as inflation and debt reduction dominated the conversation instead? As I noted at the end of my last column, the increased concentration of political power at the top of the income distribution provides much of the explanation.

Consider the Federal Reserve. Again and again we hear Federal Reserve officials say that an outbreak of inflation could undermine the Fed’s hard-earned credibility and threaten its independence from Congress. But why is the Fed only worried about inflation? Why aren’t officials at the Fed just as worried about Congress reducing the Fed’s independence because of high and persistent unemployment?

Similar questions can be asked about fiscal policy. Why is most of the discussion in Congress focused on the national debt rather than the unemployed? Is it because the wealthy fear that they will be the ones asked to pay for monetary and fiscal policies that mostly benefit others, and since they have the most political power their interests – keeping inflation low, cutting spending, and lowering tax burdens – dominate policy discussions?

There was, of course, a stimulus program at the beginning of Obama’s presidency, but it was much too small and relied far more on tax cuts than most people realize. The need to shape the package in a way that satisfied the politically powerful, especially the interests that have captured the Republican Party, made it far less effective than it might have been. In the end, it had no chance of fully meeting the challenge posed by such a severe recession, and when it became clear that additional help was needed, those same interests stood in the way of doing more.

Republican policymakers give us all sorts of excuses for blocking further action to help the unemployed. We are told the problem is structural – there is a geographical or talent mismatch between labor availability and labor needs – and nothing can be done to help. But something can be done. We can help workers move to where the jobs are, encourage firms to locate in areas where workers are readily available, and help with job retraining. If mismatches are really the problem, why aren’t Republicans leading the charge on these policies? If they care about the unemployed rather than the tax burden of the wealthy, then why are they allowing community colleges – one of the best ways we have of providing job training for new and displaced workers – to be gutted with budget cuts?

We are also told that the deficit is too large already, but there’s still plenty of room to do more for the unemployed, as long as we have a plan to address the long-run debt problem. But even if the deficit is a problem, why won’t Republicans support one of the many balanced budget approaches to stimulating the economy? Could it be that these policies invariably require higher income households to give something up so that we can help the less fortunate? Tax cuts for the wealthy are always welcome among Republicans no matter how it impacts the debt, but creating job opportunities through, say, investing in infrastructure?

Forget it. Even though the costs of many highly beneficial infrastructure projects are as low as they get, and even though investing in infrastructure now would save us from much larger costs down the road – it’s a budget saver, not a budget buster – Republicans leaders in the House are balking at even modest attempts to provide needed job opportunities for the unemployed.

The imbalance in political power, obstructionism from Republicans designed to improve their election chances, and attempts by Republicans to implement a small government ideology are a large part of the explanation for why the unemployed aren’t getting the help they deserve.

But Democrats aren’t completely off the hook either. Centrist Democrats beholden to big money interests are definitely a problem, and Democrats in general have utterly failed to bring enough attention to the unemployment problem. Would these things happen if workers had more political power?

When we talk about leveling the playing field, it is generally in terms of economic opportunity. However, leveling the political playing field is just as important, and in the past unions provided workers with a powerful voice in the political arena. But unions have largely faded from the scene, leaving workers with very little organized power. Correcting the political imbalance this has created through the renewed political empowerment of the working class must be part of any attempt to improve our response to serious recessions.

It also suggests a solution — renewed political empowerment of the working class — but that’s easier said than done.

By MARK THOMA, The Fiscal Times
Newscribe : get free news in real time 

Malaysian hacker jailed in US

Tweet

By JOSEPH KAOS Jr  joekaosjr@thestar.com.my

WASHINGTON: A US District judge sentenced a Malaysian to 10 years in prison for hacking into the US Federal Reserve and other banks.

Lin Mun Poo, a Malaysian citizen, had admitted earlier this year to hacking into the US central bank, various private financial institutions and possessing stolen bank card and credit card numbers, officials said.

According to AFP, he also admitted to hacking into a Fed computer server and installing a malicious software code there.

Lin, who is from Ipoh, travelled to the United States in October last year “for the purpose of selling stolen credit card and bank card numbers” but a purchaser was in fact an undercover US agent, according to prosecutors.

When he was arrested, Lin held over 122,000 stolen bank card and credit card numbers.

The US Justice Department said Lin's “cybercrime activities also extended to the national security sector”, including hacking into the computer system of a Pentagon contractor that provides systems management services for military transport and other military operations.



“Today's sentence sends the message to hackers around the world that the United States is no place to conduct their business,” US Attorney Loretta Lynch said in a statement on Friday.

Dhillon Andrew Kannabhiran, founder and chief executive officer of hackers community Hack in The Box, said the stiff 10-year sentence was meant to deter hackers from hacking into government networks.

“Details of the case are not clear to me, but you can argue that 10 years for computer crime is harsh by any standards,” Dhillon told The Star.

“It's definitely a sentence which is meant to send a message.”

Dhillon said the hacker was “asking for trouble”.

“Hacking is a tool. Just like a knife can be used by a chef to prepare a meal or to stab someone. It is your motives that sets you apart. People who use their skills to commit financial fraud are not hackers, but just criminals,” he said.

Lin, according to a fellow hacker, deserved his punishment.

“Most hackers have the skills to breach a computer security system. But once you use your skills for malice, then you have committed a crime,” said a computer security consultant who wished to be identified as Sam.

“If you are caught, you deserve to be punished like any other criminal.”

Sam said most people with hacking expertise, like himself, were hired by companies to “test” their computer security system.

“Most of us use our skills to make a decent, legitimate living.”

 Related post: 

• Malaysian charged with hacking into US bank, highly skilled

• Rightways: Hackers, not all hack for the heck of it! Who are the ...

A "great haircut" for U.S. growth

Tweet

A "great haircut" to kick-start U.S. growth

By Jennifer Ablan and Matthew Goldstein NEW YORK 

(Reuters) - More than three years after the financial crisis struck, the U.S. economy remains stuck in a consumer debt trap.

It's a situation that could take years to correct itself. That's why some economists are calling for a radical step: massive debt relief. Federal policy makers, they suggest, should broker what amounts to an out-of-court settlement between institutional bond investors, banks and consumer advocates - essentially, a "great haircut" to jumpstart the economy.

What some are envisioning is a negotiated process in which cash-strapped homeowners get real mortgage relief, even if it means forcing banks to incur severe write-downs and bond investors to absorb haircuts, or losses, in some of the securities sold by those institutions.

"We've put this off for too long," said L. Randall Wray, a professor of economics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. "We need debt relief and jobs and until we get these two things, I think recovery is impossible."

The bailout of the nation's banks, a nearly trillion dollar stimulus package and an array of programs by the Federal Reserve to keep interest rates near zero may have stopped the economy from falling into the abyss. But none of those measures have fixed the underlying problem of too much U.S. consumer debt.

At the start of the crisis, household debt as a percentage of gross domestic product was 100 percent. Today it's down to 90 percent of GDP. But by historical standards that is high. U.S. households are still more indebted than their counterparts in Austria, Germany, Spain, France and even Greece - which is on the verge of defaulting on its government debt.

Tens of millions of U.S. citizens remain burdened with mortgages they can no longer afford, in addition to soaring credit card bills and sky high student loans. Trillions of dollars in outstanding consumer debt is stifling demand for goods and services and that's one reason economists say cash-rich U.S. companies are reluctant to hire and unemployment remains stubbornly high.

Take Donald Bonner, for example, a 61-year-old from Bayonne, New Jersey, who lost his job working on a dock in June. Back in March, he attended a "loan modification" fair held by JPMorgan Chase in New York. He has lived in his home since 1970, but was on the verge of losing his job. After falling behind on his $2,800-a-month mortgage, he sought to reduce his monthly payment. Bonner says the bank denied the request on the grounds that he is ineligible because his income is higher than the minimum threshold set by the Federal government for loan modifications.

"They keep asking me for additional documentation," Bonner said on Friday. "It seems to me there is never enough documentation and it has to be renewed every month. It does make you wonder with all this bailout money these banks have received, they don't want to lend the money."



DEBT JUBILEE

The idea of substantial debt restructurings and a haircut for bondholders has been raised by financial pundits, including Barry Ritholtz and Chris Whalen, two popular analysts and bloggers.

Renowned economist Stephen Roach, currently non-executive chairman of Morgan Stanley Asia, has gone a step further, calling for Wall Street to get behind what others have called a "Debt Jubilee" to forgive excess mortgage and credit card debt for some borrowers. The notion of a Debt Jubilee dates back to biblical Israel where debts were forgiven every 50 years or so. In an August appearance on CNBC, Roach said debt forgiveness would help consumers get through "the pain of deleveraging sooner rather than later." (here)

But it's not just the liberal economists and doom-and-gloom financial analysts calling for a great haircut. Even some institutional investors, who might suffer some of the impact of debt reductions on their portfolios, are seeing a need for a creative solution to the mess.

"If there is something constructive that can be done it should be," said Ash Williams, executive director of the Florida State Board of Administration, which oversees $145 billion in public investments and pension money. "You don't want to reward bad behavior and you don't want to reward people who were irresponsible. But if there is a way to do well by doing good, then let's take a look at it."

To be sure, consumer debt levels have been coming down since the crisis began. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York reported in August that outstanding consumer debt has fallen from a peak of $12.5 trillion in third quarter of 2008 to $11.4 trillion. (NY Fed report: tinyurl.com/3uuvk8d) That's a sign that consumers are getting less indebted.

But U.S. households are still carrying a staggering burden of debt.

As of June 30, roughly 1.6 million homeowners in the U.S. were either delinquent on mortgages or in some stage of the foreclosure process, according to CoreLogic. And the real estate data and analytics company reports that 10.9 million, or 22.5 percent, of U.S. homeowners are underwater on their mortgage -- meaning the value of their homes has fallen so much it is now below the value of their original loan.

CoreLogic said the figure, which peaked at 11.3 million in the fourth quarter of 2009, has declined slightly not because home prices are appreciating but because a growing number of mortgages are entering foreclosure.

The nation's banks, meanwhile, still have more than $700 billion in home equity loans and other so-called second lien debt outstanding on those U.S. homes, according to SNL Financial.

Debts owed by American consumers account for almost half of the nearly $9 trillion in worldwide bonds backed by pools of mortgages, car loans, credit card debt and student loans, which were sold to hedge funds, insurers and pension funds and endowments.

And that doesn't include the $4.1 trillion in mortgage debt sold by government-sponsored finance firms Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Kenneth Rogoff, professor of economics and public policy at Harvard University and former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, has said the ongoing crisis should be called the "Second Great Contraction" because U.S. households remain highly leveraged. He says the high level of consumer debt is what distinguishes this from other recessionary periods.

COMPETING INTERESTS

For those in favour of a radical solution, there are a lot of headwinds.

Any debt reduction initiative must confront the issue of "moral hazard" - the appearance of giving a gift to an unworthy borrower who simply made unwise spending choices.

Institutional investors who own securities backed by pools of mortgages are reluctant to see struggling homeowners get their mortgages reduced because that means those securities are suddenly worth less. Any write-downs that banks are forced to take could imperil their capital levels.

Banks and bondholders, meanwhile, have competing interests. This is because mortgage write-downs depress the value of the securities in which mortgages are pooled and sold to investors. Big institutional investors like BlackRock have long argued that any meaningful principal reduction on a mortgage must also include a willingness by banks to take their own write-downs on any home equity loans, or second liens, taken out by the borrower on the property.

The banks continue to hold those second liens on their balance sheets and so far have been reluctant to mark down the value of those loans, even though the borrower often has fallen behind on their primary mortgage payments.

In other words, bondholders are taking the position if they must suffer losses, so must the banks.

"Institutional investors, pension funds and hedge funds all have fiduciary obligations and they can't necessarily agree to haircuts solely because it may be good social policy," Sylvie Durham, an attorney with Greenberg Traurig in New York, who practices in the structured finance and derivatives area.

Tad Rivelle, chief investment officer of fixed-income securities at TCW, which manages about $120 billion of which $65 billion is in U.S. fixed income, doesn't support a big haircut. But he says he can see why some economists and consumer advocates would favor debt reductions and debt workouts as way of dealing with the financial crisis and freeing up more money for spending.

Barry Ritholtz, director of equity research at Fusion IQ and a popular financial blogger, said the standoff between the banks and bondholders is untenable and doing a good deal of harm. An early critic of the bank bailouts, Ritholtz says bankers and bondholders are all in denial and both need to get far more pragmatic.

"They'd be bankrupt if not for the bailouts," says Ritholtz of the banks' position. "For their part, bondholders need to understand that we're not earning our way out of this mess and should eat losses now before they get nothing."

TIME FOR A MEDIATOR?

Given the standoff, there's a sense nothing will happen unless federal policymakers make the first move. The Fed reports that 71 percent of household debt in the U.S. is mortgage-related.

But so far Washington policymakers seem more content to rely on voluntary measures. The two main programs set up by the Obama administration to reduce home mortgage debt - the Home Affordable Refinance Program and the Home Affordable Modification Program - have had limited success.

To date, the U.S. Treasury Department reports that those voluntary programs have resulted in 790,000 mortgage modifications, saving those borrowers an average of $525 a month in payments. Many of those modifications, however, were for borrowers paying high interest rates, not ones underwater on their mortgages.

In fact, Bank of America, one of the nation's largest mortgage lenders, said it has offered just 40,000 principal reductions to its borrowers.

U.S. administration sources told Reuters that they support the concept of carefully targeted principal reductions for underwater borrowers. But these sources, who did not want to be identified, say the administration cannot mandate banks and bondholders to accept any principal reductions absent Congress authorizing the procedure.

The sources point out that federal authorities don't have a "magic wand" - even at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-backed home-loan titans.

These sources explain that even though Fannie and Freddie are effectively owned by the federal government, they are controlled by an independent regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency. And it's up to the FHFA, and not the administration, to approve any principal reductions on home loans involving Fannie and Freddie.

An FHFA spokeswoman declined to comment. The agency has repeatedly taken the position that its first job is protect taxpayers' return on investment in Fannie and Freddie rather than reducing mortgages for underwater borrowers.

CLOCK TICKING

The fear of some economists is that the economy may be going into a double dip recession. That means precious time is being lost if a negotiated approach to debt reduction isn't taken now.

But the banks also have their own big debt burdens to deal with. Next year alone, U.S. banks and financial institutions must find a way to either pay off or refinance $307.8 billion in maturing debt, compared to the $182 billion that is coming due this year, according to Standard & Poor's.

This maturing debt for U.S. banks comes at a time when they must start raising capital to deal with new international banking standards and are facing the possibility of a new recession that will crimp earnings. (Bank of America story: link.reuters.com/sys63s)

Beyond bank debt, hundreds of billions of dollars in junk bonds sold to finance leveraged buyouts also are maturing soon. S&P says "the biggest risk" comes in 2013 and 2014, when $502 billion in speculative-grade debt comes due.

Still, there are still plenty of economists who say the concern about consumer debt is overdone and that doing anything radical now would only make things worse. One of those is Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Analytics, who says a forced write-down or haircut of debt "would only result in a much higher cost of capital going forward and result in much less credit to more risky investments."

He said significant progress has been made in reducing private sector debt, and draconian debt forgiveness measures would be a mistake. "Early in the financial crisis I was sympathetic to passing legislation to allow for first mortgage write-downs in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, but the time for this idea has passed," says Zandi.

Still, the notion of a debt write-down and bondholder haircuts will probably be around as long as the unemployment rate stays high and the housing market remains depressed.

Indeed, it has been two years since the notion of a "Debt Jubilee" made it into the popular culture when Trey Parker and Matt Stone used it for an episode of the politically incorrect cartoon "South Park." In the episode aired in March 2009, (here), one of the characters used an unlimited credit card to pay off all the debts of the residents of South Park to spur the economy.

At the time, the idea seemed like just a funny satire on the nation's economic mess. But now it seems like no joke at all.

(Reporting by Jennifer Ablan and Matthew Goldstein; Additional reporting by David Henry and Joseph Rauch; Editing by Michael Williams and Claudia Parsons)

Think Twice About Paying Off Your Mortgage, Retirees!

Tweet

Retirees: Think Twice About Paying Off Your Mortgage

NEW YORK (CNBC) -- The countdown to retirement is on for millions of baby boomers and, thanks to a lifetime of diligent saving, some have amassed enough wealth to pay off their mortgages and live debt free. 


Conventional wisdom says it's best to pay off your mortgage before retirement, but given the low-interest rate environment, and the need to preserve cash in an unstable economy, that strategy is no longer absolute.

"Paying off your house is one goal, but having a zero-mortgage liability is not the answer for everyone," says Jennie Fierstein, a certified financial planner (CFP) in Westborough, Mass. "If you don't have a stream of resources to replenish it, you might do yourself a disservice by taking money out of the bank to pay off your mortgage."

Retirees themselves, it seems, are equally torn as to the most prudent course of action.

According to the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, 41% of U.S. households aged 60 to 69 in 2007 maintained a mortgage. Of these, 51% had sufficient assets to repay their loans.

When it pays to borrow
 
While most financial planners agree that owning your home free and clear during retirement is a worthy goal, Elaine Bedel, with Bedel Financial Consulting in Indianapolis, says there are times when it makes more financial sense to keep your money in the market and use the earnings to pay off your loan.

That's particularly true, she says, if you need to invest (however conservatively) for growth.

"There are a few of my clients who feel like if they don't take the risk to get the growth, they're not going to be able to meet their retirement objectives and live the lifestyle they want," says Bedel. "If you take a big chunk out of your nest egg and the income it was generating was being used to meet your mortgage payments, as well as additional living expenses, that may not be the right thing to do."

CFP Fierstein agrees, noting most retirees are advised to withdraw no more than 4% from their nest egg each year to ensure they won't outlive their income.

Thus, if you take $200,000 out of a $500,000 portfolio to pay off your house, your income based on that 4% drawdown rate would drop to $12,000 from $20,000 per year. (The $20,000, of course, would have had to help pay for your mortgage.)

"It's very dangerous to tie up all your money in your house, because your house is not going to generate
income," says Fierstein. "It's nice security, but you lose flexibility and depending on how conservatively you invest your remaining portfolio you may not have enough income to live on."



What's your rate?

When determining whether to pay off or keep your mortgage, you should also consider your interest rate.

If the average after-tax return on your investments is greater than the after-tax cost of your mortgage, it may make sense to keep your money invested, says Fierstein.

Don't forget to factor in the effect of the mortgage-interest tax deduction.

If you're in the 30% tax bracket and you're able to claim the full deduction, a 5% loan is really only costing you roughly 3.5%.

Thus, you'd only have to earn 4% on your investments to make it worth your while. (Given the low interest-rate environment, however it's nearly impossible to achieve that rate of return on more conservative, fixed-income products such as bonds and certificates of deposit.)

"It's hard to find comparable risk-free investments, so you have to be able to stomach a loss if you want to go that route," says Jean Setzfand, AARP's vice president of financial security. "You can't get a plain vanilla CD anymore, because those rates are too low."

Getting close
 
If you're nearing retirement but haven't yet quit, the case for keeping your mortgage and continuing to invest is more clear -- at least until you part ways with the boss.

According to a 2007 study by the Federal Reserve, directing extra money towards your low-interest mortgage loan at the expense of continued contribution to your 401(k) is a costly mistake.

Image via Wikipedia
Some 38% of the U.S. households that are accelerating their mortgage payments instead of saving in a tax-deferred account, such as a 401(k) or traditional IRA, are making the "wrong choice," it concluded.

For those households, reallocating their savings towards a tax-deferred account instead would yield a mean benefit of 11 cents to 17 cents per dollar, depending on the choice of investment assets in the account. In all, the study notes, "those misallocated savings are costing U.S. households as much as $1.5 billion per year."

When to pay it off

Despite the limited scenarios in which keeping a mortgage during retirement might make sense, AARP's Setzfand and financial planners Bedel and Fierstein agree that most retirees would be better off eliminating debt (however low the interest rate) for the peace of mind it affords.

Money, after all, isn't just about the math.

"I think for the general population our guidance is still the old adage of paying off your mortgage before you retire," says Setzfand of AARP. "There isn't anything as safe as being rid of that mortgage and that burden before you hit a period of your life where you're not bringing in a paycheck."

Indeed, mortgages consume 20% to 30% of the typical household's fixed expenses.

While some maintain that using savings to pay off one's mortgage is unwise, as it leaves you less cash on hand for unexpected expenses, such as medical costs and home repairs, Anthony Webb, the research economist who authored the Center for Retirement Research study, believes that argument lacks validity.

Households "need to consider what they would do if the bad event actually happened," he writes. To wit, how they "would maintain their mortgage payments once their financial assets had been spent."

Remember, too, says Bedel, you can always take out a home equity line of credit on your paid off home, which can satisfy the need for cash reserves.

If you can't pay off your mortgage in full without depleting your nest egg, says Fierstein, at least shoot for a more manageable monthly payment.

"I strongly advocate trying to pay down your mortgage, so when you reach retirement you're not faced with a standard of living crisis," she says. "There is some wisdom to paying off a portion of your mortgage so you have minimal payments and some left over in an emergency fund."

A generation ago, retirement planners often started with the premise of a paid off home, using Social Security, company pensions, and other income sources to help their clients cover living expenses.

Today, however, with interest rates at historic lows and many retirees chasing returns to offset losses incurred during the market meltdown, a mortgage-free retirement is not necessarily the long-term goal.

Deciding what makes sense for you depends on your financial profile, interest rate, and your ability to stomach risk.

-- Written by Shelly K. Schwartz, special to CNBC

Newscribe : get free news in real time

Dark clouds over US and Europe !

Tweet

WHAT ARE WE TO DO By TAN SRI LIN SEE-YAN

Within the past couple of weeks, the world has changed. From a world so used to the United States playing a key leadership role in shaping global economic affairs to one going through a multi-speed recovery, with the emerging nations providing the source of growth and opportunity. This is a very rapid change indeed in historical time. What happened? First, the convergence of a series of events in Europe (contagion of the open ended debt crisis jolted France and spread to Italy and Spain, forcing the European Central Bank or ECB to buy their bonds) and in the US (last minute lifting of the debt ceiling exposed the dysfunctional US political system, and the Standard & Poor's downgrade of the US credit rating) have led to a loss of confidence by markets across the Atlantic in the effectiveness of the political leadership in resolving key problems confronting the developed world. Second, these events combined with the coming together of poor economic outcomes involving the fragilities of recovery have pushed the world into what the president of the World Bank called “a new danger zone,” with no fresh solutions in sight. Growth in leading world economies slowed for the fourth consecutive quarter, gaining just 0.2% in 2Q'11 (0.3% in 1Q'11) according to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. The slowdown was marked in the euro area. Germany slackened to 0.3% in 2Q'11 (1.3% in 1Q'1) and France stalled at zero after 0.9% in 1Q'11. The US picked up to 0.3% (0.1% in 1Q'11), while Japan contracted 0.3% in 2Q'11 (-0.9% in 1Q'11).

A construction worker guides a beam into place in Philadelphia. Picture: AFP Source: AFP

IT’S not always sunny in Philadelphia. The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia has reported severe dark clouds over the area’s factory sector. 

The US slides

Recent data disclosures and revisions showed that the 2008 recession was deeper than first thought, and the subsequent recovery flatter. The outcome: Gross domestic product (GDP) has yet to regain its pre-recession peak. Worse, the feeble recovery appears to be petering out. Over the past year, output has grown a mere 1.6%, well below what most economists consider to be the US's underlying growth rate, a pace that has been in the past almost always followed by a recession. Over the past six-months, the US has managed to eke out an annualised growth of only 0.8%. This was completely unexpected. For months, the Federal Reserve had dismissed the economy's poor performance as a transitory reaction to Japan's natural disaster and oil price increases driven by turmoil in the Middle East. They now admit much stiffer headwinds are restraining the recovery, enough to keep growth painfully slow. Recent sentiment surveys and business activity indicators are consistent with expectations of a marked slowdown in US growth. Fiscal austerity will now prove to be a drag on growth for years. Housing isn't coming back quickly. Households are still trying to rid themselves of debt in the face of eroding wealth. Old relationships that used to drive recoveries seem unlikely to have the pull they used to have. Historically, consumers' confidence had tended to rebound after unemployment peaked. This time, it didn't happen. Unemployment peaked in Oct 2009 at 10.1% but confidence kept on sinking. The University of Michigan's index fell in early August to its lowest level since 1980. Thrown in is concern about the impact of the wild stock market on consumer spending. Indeed, equity volatility is having a negative impact on consumer psychology at a time of already weakening spending.

Traders in the oil options pit of the New York Mercantile Exchange – the oil price slipped as US growth was revised down in the second quarter. Photo: AP

Three main reasons underlie why the Fed made the recent commitment to keep short-term interest rates near zero through mid-2013: (i) cuts all round to US growth forecasts for 2H11 and 2012; (ii) drop in oil and commodity prices plus lower expectations on the pace of recovery led to growing confidence inflation will stabilise; and (iii) rise in downside risks to growth in the face of deep concern about Europe's ability to resolve its sovereign debt problems. The Fed's intention is at least to keep financial conditions easy for the next 18 months. Also, it helps to ensure the slowly growing economy would not lapse into recession, even though it's already too close to the line; any shock could knock it into negative territory.

The critical key

Productivity in the US has been weakening. In 2Q11, non-farm business labour productivity fell 0.3%, the second straight quarterly drop. It rose only 0.8% from 2Q10. Over the past year, hourly wages have risen faster than productivity. This keeps the labour market sluggish and threatens potential recovery. It also means an erosion of living standards over the long haul. But, these numbers overstate productivity growth because of four factors: (a) upward bias in the data - eg the US spends the most on health care per capita in the world, yet without superior outcomes; (b) government spending on military and domestic security have risen sharply, yet they don't deliver useful goods and services that raise living standards; (c) labour force participation has fallen for years. Taking lower-paying jobs out of the mix raises productivity but does not create higher value-added jobs; and (d) off-shoring by US companies to China for example, but they don't enhance American productivity. Overall, they just overstate productivity. So, the US, like Europe, needs to actually raise productivity at the ground level if they are to really grow and reduce debt over the long-term. The next wave of innovation will probably rely on the world's current pool of scientific leaders - most of whom is still US-based.



US deficit is too large

The US budget deficit is now 9.1% of GDP. That's high by any standard. According to the impartial US Congressional Budget Office (CBO), even after returning to full employment, the deficit will remain so large its debt to GDP will rise to 190% by 2035! What happened? This deficit was 3.2% in 2008; rose to 8.9% in 2010, pushing the debt/GDP ratio from 40% to 62% in 2010. This “5.7% of GDP” rise in the deficit came about because of (i) a fall of “2.6% of GDP” in revenue (from 17.5% to 14.9% of GDP), and (ii) a rise of “3.1% of GDP” in spending (from 20.7% to 23.8% of GDP). According to the CBO, less than one-half of the rise in deficit was caused by the downturn of 2008-2010. Because of this cyclical decline, revenue collections were lower and outlays, higher (due to higher unemployment benefits and transfers to help those adversely affected). They in turn raise total demand and thus, help to stabilise the economy. These are called “automatic stabilisers.” In addition, the budget deficit also worsened because, even at full-employment, revenues would still fall and spending rise. So, the great recession did its damage.

Looking ahead, the Obama administration's budget proposals would add (according to CBO) US$3.8 trillion to the national debt between 2010 and 2020. This would raise the debt/GDP ratio to 90% reflecting limited higher spending, weaker revenues from middle and lower income taxpayers, offset in part by higher taxes on the rich. Even so, these are based on conservative assumptions regarding military spending, no new programmes and lower discretionary spending in “real” terms. No doubt, actual fiscal consolidation would imply much more spending cuts and higher revenues. According to Harvard's Prof M. Feldstein, increased revenues can only come about, without raising marginal tax rates, through what he calls cuts in “tax expenditures,” that is, reforming tax deductions (eg cutting farm subsidies, eliminating deductions for ethanol production, etc). Such a “balanced approach” to resolve the growing fiscal deficit will be hard to come-by given the political paralysis in Washington. Worse, the poisonous politics of the past two months have created a new sort of uncertainty. The tea partiers' refusal to compromise can, at worse, kill off the recovery. The only institution with power to avert danger is the Fed. But printing money can be counter-productive. Fiscal measures are the preferred way to go at this time. Even so, the US fiscal problems will mount beyond 2020 because of the rising cost of social security and medicare benefits. No doubt, fundamental reform is still needed for the long-term health of the US economy.

Eurozone stumbles

Looming large as a risk factor is Europe's long running sovereign debt saga, which is pummelling US and European financial markets and business confidence. So far, Europe's woes and the market turmoil it stirred are worrisome. The S&P 500 fell close to 5% last week extending losses of 15.4% over the previous three weeks, its worse streak of that length in 2 years, and down 17.6% from its 2011 high. The situation in Europe has been dictating much of the global markets' recent movements. The eurozone's dominant service sector was effectively stagnant in August after two years of growth, while manufacturing activity, which drove much of the recovery in the bloc shrank for the first time since September 2009. Latest indicators add to signs the slowdown is spreading beyond the periphery and taking root in its core members, including Germany. The Flash Markit Eurozone Services Purchasing Managers' Index (PMI) fell to 51.5 in August (51.6 in July), its lowest level since September 2009. The PMI, which measures activity ranging from restaurants to banks, is still above “50”, the mark dividing growth from contraction. However, PMI for manufacturing slid to 49.7 the first sub-50 reading since September 2009. Both services and manufacturing are struggling.

Going forward, poor data show neither Germany nor France (together making- up one-half the bloc's GDP) is going to be the locomotive. Indeed, the risks of “pushing” the region over the edge are significant. Germany faces an obvious slowdown and a possible lengthy stagnation.

European financial markets just came off a turbulent two weeks, with investors fearing the debt crisis could spread further if Europe's policy makers fail to implement institutional change and new structural supports for the currency bloc's finances. In the interim, the ECB has been picking up Italian and Spanish bonds to keep borrowing costs from soaring. The action has worked so far, but the ECB is only buying time and can't support markets indefinitely. So far, the rescue bill included 365 billion euros in official loans to Greece, Portugal and Ireland; the creation of a 440 billion euros rescue fund; and 96 billion euros in bond buying by the ECB. Despite this, market volatility and uncertainty prevail. Europe is being forced into an end-game with three possible outcomes: (a) disorderly break-up - possible if the peripherals fail in their fiscal reform or can no longer withstand stagnation arising from austerity; (b) greater fiscal union in return for strict national fiscal discipline; and (c) creation of a more compact and more economically coherent eurozone against contagion; this implies some weaker members will take “sabbatical” from the euro. My own sense is that the end-game will be neither simple nor orderly. Politicians will likely opt for a weak variant of fiscal union. After more pain, a smaller and more robust euro could emerge and avoid the euro's demise. Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman gives a “50% chance Greece would leave and a 10% odds of Italy following.”

Leaderless world

The crisis we now face is one of confidence. Starting with the markets across both sides of the Atlantic and in Japan. This lack of confidence reflected an accumulation of discouraging news, including feeble economic data in the US and Europe, and signs European banks are not so stable. The global rout seems to have its roots in free-floating anxiety about US dysfunctional politics and about euroland's economic and financial stability. Confidence is indeed shaky, already spreading to businesses and consumers, raising risks any fresh shock could be enough to push the US and European economies into recession. Business optimism, at best, is “softish.” Consumers are still deleveraging. Unfortunately, this general lack of confidence in global economic prospects could become a self-fulfilling prophecy. In the end, it's all about politics. The French philosopher Blaise Pascal contends politics have incentives that economics cannot understand. To act, politicians need consensus, which often does not emerge until the costs of inaction become highly visible. By then, it is often too late to avoid a much worse outcome. So, the demand for global leadership has never been greater. But, none is forthcoming not for the US, not from Europe; certainly not from Germany and France, or Britain.

The world is adrift. Unfortunately, it will continue to drift in the coming months, even years. Voters on both sides of the Atlantic need to demand more from their leaders than “continued austerity on autopilot.” After all, in politics, leadership is the art of making the impossible possible.

Former banker, Dr Lin is a Harvard educated economist and a British Chartered Scientist who now spends time writing, teaching and promoting the public interest. Feedback is most welcome; email: starbizweek@thestar.com.my.

US downgrade spells more chaos; QE3 in the making; Time for US to stop blames, take responsibility!

Tweet

Downgrade spells more chaos

Global Trends By MARTIN KHOR

The US credit downgrade – coming after a weak solution to its debt ceiling crisis and signs of a new recession – is signalling greater turmoil ahead in the global economy.

LAST week was a tumultuous time for the global economy as stock markets plummeted on a series of bad news in the United States and Europe. But this may only be the start.

This week is likely to usher in even more turmoil as the prospects for recovery have suddenly turned negative.

After several other dramatic events, last week ended with the US’ credit rating losing its AAA status to AA+.

It was only one notch down, this downgrade was by only one (Standard and Poor’s) out of three rating agencies, and it had been half expected.

Nevertheless, it marks the end of an era. For the first time since 1917, the US does not enjoy an AAA rating.

It has long been assumed that the US dollar and its Treasury bills are the safest of havens.

There may be some practical effects of the downgrade as some funds which prefer or are allowed to only invest in AAA investments may have to find alternatives.

The US dollar is also expected to depreciate further, thus raising fresh questions about the role of the dollar in global trade and as the world’s reserve currency.

Manufacturers and traders are asking whether they should trade their goods in currencies other than the US dollar to avoid making losses.

This was shown in yesterday’s Sunday Star report on the reactions of Malaysian businessmen to the news of the downgrade.

The Federation of Malaysian Manufacturers’ president Tan Sri Mustafa Mansur urged Malaysians to consider trading in Chinese renminbi (as China is poised to be the world’s largest economy and a lot of Malaysia’s trade is with China) and in other currencies to avoid losses in export earnings from the continuing use of the US dollar.



Besides the use of the dollar as the main medium of exchange (the currency for global trade), it is also, by far, the world’s most important reserve currency, thus making it the global store of value.

Since almost all countries hold a major portion of their foreign reserves in US dollar assets (especially US Treasury bills), there has been increasing fears worldwide over the safety and value of their US investments.

First, there was the scare of possible default by the US Government in debt servicing, because of the White House-Democrats-Republican wrangling on the government’s debt ceiling.



On Aug 1, just a day before the deadline, a deal was struck in which the debt ceiling would be raised by US$2.1 trillion (RM6.32 trillion), provided the government slashes the same amount in its budget deficit over 10 years, with the bulk of how to do so to be decided by a bipartisan committee later.

This gives temporary respite, and the world will likely witness a repeat of the messy Washington budget conflict when the committee starts work.

As a caustic commentary in Xinhua news agency put it, the higher debt ceiling “failed to defuse Washington’s debt bomb for good, only delaying an immediate detonation by making the fuse an inch longer”.

Second, the S&P’s credit downgrade has articulated the fears of the investment and policy-making circles.

The confused and confusing atmosphere surrounding Washing­ton politics has seriously eroded confidence in the ability of the US to handle its budget, debt, fiscal, financial and economic policy issues.

Only political analysts who specialise in US politics can fully explain and anticipate the intricacies and implications of the views and tendencies of the various branches of the Republican Party (especially its Tea Party component and its effects on the Party’s congressional positions), the Democratic Party and the Administration.

But even non-specialists comprehend that there is a serious governance problem in the US which is affecting the rest of the world.

Its political system is experiencing a gridlock which will affect the US dollar, the US economy and the world economy’s prospects for what seems to be a long time to come.

Third, the US economy shows increasing signs of stalling leading to a new recession.

Last week’s indicators for consumer spending, manufacturing and services output were negative, and some prominent economists gave a 50:50 chance of a double dip recession.

Recession is made more likely by the inability of the Obama administration to take effective recession-busting measures.

Congress will block any new significant fiscal stimulus (as the debt ceiling crisis and solution show), while a new round of printing and injecting money through quantitative easing, which is being considered, may only have limited positive effects.

All these point to a further weakening of the US economy and the US currency, at least in the short term.
These three developments, all in one week, have galvanised those in business, trade, finance and policy making to re-think the role of the dollar and the US economy in the global economy.

In the short run, it is difficult to find alternatives to the dollar as a unit of exchange or as a store of value, mainly because the euro is in a crisis of its own, the Japanese economy faces its own difficulties and the Chinese currency is not convertible enough.

But many agree that in the long run, a solution or solutions must be found. Otherwise, the global trading and monetary systems could be in a disarray.

There is nothing like a crisis or an emergency to collapse a long run into a short run.

If the US and European crises continue to unfold without respite, the world is in for financial and economic turmoil similar to or even worse than the recent 2008-2009 great recession.

Solutions will therefore have to be urgently sought.

Smaller QE3 may be necessary to prevent US double dip recession

By YAP LENG KUEN  lengkuen@thestar.com.my

PETALING JAYA: With the US economy possibly sliding into a double dip recession soon, there are expectations of a third round of quantitative easing (QE3), which may involve smaller amounts.

“It is not a popular decision but may be the only reaction from the US Fed to keep the economy going,'' said Pong Teng Siew, head of research at Jupiter Securities.

“The Fed has limited options especially with no more government spending to stimulate the economy. Fiscal policy that involves government spending is out in the wake of arguments related to the US debt ceiling where the only acceptable solution to the Republicans is to cut spending, and not raise revenue.

“QE3 may involve smaller purchases of Treasury instruments at the longer end of the yield curve. This may help to drive down the yield where the medium term rates may also move down in tandem. In this way, interest costs may also be reduced.

 

“This time, there are less resources available, hence probably smaller amounts under QE3. Also, the market itself may reject larger amounts,'' said Pong.

There may be a resultant boost to the stock markets on a smaller scale. However, the European debt problem especially in Italy represents a situation that is likened to an elephant in a room.''

“As long as there are upward pressures in the Italian government bond yields, there will be downward pressure on the stock markets in Europe,'' said Pong, adding that investors should stay light on selected plantation, oil and gas and consumer-related companies.

Bloomberg reported on Friday that the difference in yield, or spread, between Italy's 10-year bond and German bunds widened to 389 basis points on Thursday, after closing at 368 basis points the previous day.

 Lee: ‘This time round, headline and core inflation have been creeping up.’

It said Spain's 10-year spread also rose six basis points to 398, as European Central Bank debt purchases failed to reassure investors that officials in the region would solve the sovereign crisis.

QE refers to the Fed's decision to buy US Treasury bonds in an attempt to inject liquidity into the market.

The previous rounds of QE1 and QE2 had not produced a lasting impact on the US economy which is holding the weight of inflation and higher debt levels.

CIMB Investment Bank head of economics Lee Heng Guie said full-year growth estimate for the US economy had been revised from 2%-3% to 1.5%-2%, raising the odds of a double dip recession by 30%.

Moreover, the cut in the US credit rating by Standard & Poor's would have a double whammy impact on the lethargic economic recovery in the US, Lee added.

In a recent update, Lee noted that the US second quarter real gross domestic product growth came in at a tepid annualised rate of 1.3%, short of the 1.8% consensus forecast.

Consumer spending in the United States, hurt by higher gasoline prices and auto chain supply disruptions, rose by only 0.1% (2.1% in Q1), the slowest in two years.

“We expect the Fed to take more actions, such as buying of bonds, if the economy appears in danger of stalling,'' said Lee.

However, he does not think that inflation and inflation expectations are heading towards the point which would prompt the Fed to consider further large asset purchases.

Lee recalled that before the second phase of quantitative easing (QE2) was implemented, the trend of disinflation and deflationary risk formed a strong case for the Fed to pump in extra liquidity.

“This time round, headline and core inflation have been creeping up,'' he said. “With inflation and unemployment rising at the same time, the Fed will find it difficult to justify yet another cash injection.''
Should the Fed detect firmer signs that the US economy is faltering, it may:

• Adjust forward guidance to push back timing expectations on the first rate hike.

• Shift back market expectations on when it will shrink its balance sheet. (In April, Fed chairman Ben Bernanke had signalled that the Fed may reinvest the proceeds from its bond purchase when they mature).

•  Intervene in the credit market through direct loans or adjust interest rates payable on bank reserves to spur bank lending.

 Other economists expect slower growth in the United States but not necessarily recession.

A banker told StarBiz that banks in general were adopting a cautious stance in view of the world and eurozone economic conditions.

“The US leaders have mainly taken temporary measures but the real issues like debt are not addressed,'' he said. “The debt problem remains while their agreements have to be bipartisan.

“From their behaviour, there seems to be a lot of politicking in the US especially on the economy. As a world leader, that does not give a good picture to the whole world.

Their decision to cut US$2.4 trillion or more in spending in ten years will have an impact on the world economy. Hopefully, for Malaysia, the economic transformation projects and its own economic growth will provide the momentum forward.

“The business is there but banks have turned cautious on lending and are diversifying into services, fee-based income, niche areas and wealth management,'' said the banker.

 Commentary: It's time for U.S. to stop blames, take responsibility

(Xinhua)

The White House on Saturday challenged the ruling by Standard & Poor's to downgrade U.S. long- term credit rating form top rank of AAA to AA+, citing the agency' s decision relied on faulty math and in haste.

Disappointingly, instead of reflecting on themselves and sitting down to fix problems in a cooperated way, the Democrats and Republicans in Washington are questioning the creditability of the downgrade ruling and blaming each other for the ever-first shame of slipping out top credit rating club.

During the angry finger-pointing, the U.S. politicians seemed to have forgotten Wall Street's severest losses in almost three years last week, forgotten mounting concerns about double-dip recession, and forgotten the criticism over their irresponsibility showed during the debt arm-twisting from all over the world.

The world has seen enough useless bipartisan debate. The bond- holders are losing confidence. The investors have started to escape markets to stay in cash, showing their fears of uncertainty.

S&P managing director John Chambers said "The political gridlock in Washington leads us to conclude that policymakers don' t have the ability to put the public finances of the U.S. on a sustainable footing ".

The alarm has rung. It is time for the naughty boys in Washington to stop chicken games before they cause more damages. It is time for the policy-makers in Washington to settle down, to show some sense of responsibility and fix their fiscal problems.

The United States is not only the biggest debtor, who must pay its large amount of obligations, but also the printer of international reserve currency, which has the responsibility to assure the value of other countries' foreign reserve assets.

If the country's governors kept wrangling for their own interest, ignoring the voices from domestic and aboard, how can their people trust them and where will the confidence for a better economic scenario come from?

If the world's largest debtor kept eating May's grain in April and kept robbing Peter to pay Paul without fiscal discipline, eagerness to balance budget or effective efforts to boost sluggish economy, how can the creditors keep lending without doubts?

According to analysts, risk of dollar devaluation increased after this downgrade, not to speak of the possibility to see more cuts in the next two years with a negative credit rating outlook.

Whether admitted or not, the U.S. central bank tended to maintain a cheap dollar for the export's sake aftermath the financial crisis, which already squeezed world foreign reserves.

Currently, the U.S. is facing a high unemployment rate of 9.1 percent and almost stalled economic growth. But the Federal Reserve's "silver bullets" have run out after two round of quantitative easing. For fiscal stimulus, there is only little room considering the excessive debt and austerity agreement. For the desperate policymakers, to boost export seems to be the last way to kick the U.S. economy. From this point, the U.S. has every motive to maintain a weak dollar.

Before the U.S. makes any move, please remind it: don't forget your responsibility as the issuer of reserve currency to maintain the stable value of the dollar. Don't become blind to the great risks that a fluctuated exchange rate could pose to international financial markets and a weak greenback could pose to the world fragile economic recovery by lifting dollar-denominated commodities prices.

The history is a guide. What we should learn from the financial crisis is to be selfish could only hurt yourself and drag others into water.

It is time for the U.S. to tighten belts and solve structural problems, in order to resume reputation and restore world confidence. 

 Latest US and global market and business news, pictures and videos from AP-Wire