"The worst has passed"

Published: April 30, 2009 - 07:57
This article received :  16 Comments

I remember visiting the NY Fed in November 2006. The chief economist of the central bank's branch presented his economic outlook. His (the Fed's) view was that the worst in the housing market was behind us. To underscore this opinion, he showed the graph of Toll Brothers, one of the major house builders in the States. Toll Brothers had been rebounding from 22 to above 30 USD, a sign for the Fed that the worst was over. It was quite odd to witness the Fed making a bullish opinion based on the stock price of a company.

Today, we see that the Fed is again becoming optimistic, with statements that the worst is behind us. Bloomberg writes:

The Federal Reserve refrained from increasing purchases of Treasuries and mortgage securities, signaling the worst of the recession may be over.

Bernanke said in an interview with CBS’s “60 Minutes” program that aired March 15 that the Fed’s efforts so far had brought down mortgage rates, among evidence of “green shoots” in some markets.

A month later, the Fed chief gave a speech saying there were signs that the “sharp decline” in the economy was slowing, indicating a potential “first step” toward a recovery. His outlook is partly supported today by a 2.2 percent gain in consumer spending in the first quarter, the most in two years. Consumer spending accounts for 70 percent of the economy.

Officials cut the benchmark lending rate to as low as zero in December and switched to using direct bond purchases and loans to support credit markets.

“The Fed is following an extraordinarily expansionary policy,”
William Poole
, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute in Washington and former president of the St. Louis Fed, said before policy makers issued their statement. “There is I think accumulating evidence that we may not be all that far from a bottom” of the contraction. Poole spoke in an interview with Bloomberg Radio.

Now I hope that the Fed's 'bullish' view is not based on a similar observation as in 2006 of stock prices, not using Toll Brothers this time but the S&P500 recent performance. The market rally is indeed rather impressive, but not unusual after one of the sharpest corrections in history. The staying power of this bear market rally remains to be seen.

Today the Case Shiller housing index was released. It didn't confirm Bernanke's optimism. Housing prices in some areas in the US have halved. The average drop since the top is around a third of its peak value. Miami, San Francisco and Detroit are amongst the hardest hit by the real estate crisis.

Source: bespoken

So the Fed seems to mimick the 'Toll Brothers act' of the NY Fed. Only, in 2006 when leaving the Fed building, the economist whispered to us "I hope you believed my propaganda" in an effort to keep his own credibility and to warn us for the things to come.

16 Comments

  1. Theo 

    On 29 Apr, 2009

    To any econometric model in the US they need to add an extra variable... the American Dream (read BS factor).
    It should be counted opposite to the T rules... when the economy is down, the AD factor goes up 2x

    After taking in Office, Obama tried telling the American people how bad things really were. he was told to inject some American Dream into his speeches. Next thing you know, he came out with how strong the fundamentals of the economy were!
  2. incognito 

    On 29 Apr, 2009

    Interesting story, it confirms what we already knew: the fed plays its role in the show. And the show sucks.

    I can't post this on the previous thread, so I take the liberty of posting it here:

    I don't think that a theoretical fed funds rate of minus 5% is nonsense (goldman sachs calculated that it should be minus 6%). On the contrary: it makes perfect sense.

    Geert seems to use sustainable growth and potential growth as synonyms, but they aren't

    sustainable growth focuses, if I understood it correctly, on demand: it's growth, fuelled by demand that's not dependent on an unsustainable credit boom

    while potential growth focuses on supply: it's non-inflationary growth

    the problem in the US is that potential growth is much higher than sustainable growth

    if the US economy doesn't reach its potential growth, inflation will turn negative

    but that potential growth is not sustainable

    so, the US has to choose between the pest (sustainable growth and deflation) and the cholera (potential growth via unconventional measures)

    it has chosen for the cholera, and therefore for the equivalent of minus 5 percent, and it will continue to do so, until the bitter end (hyperinflation?)

    I believe that it was Kondratieff who once said that a capitalistic economy can't continue to steer a way between the scylla of deflation and the charybdis of hyperinflation

    how did the US economy get into this catch 22 situation?

    once you've created a credit boom, you will be confronted with too much supply (high potential growth), once the credit bubble bursts,

    also, in an economy with a big gap between the rich and the poor, there can develop a gap between sustainable growth (demand side is dependend on credit) and potential growth (supply side, fueled by the money of the rich)

    btw: the US has already chosen for the cholera in 2002, there was, back then, already a problem with oversupply, (this was already a problem in the late 90ties), that's why the fed lowered interest rates to below the level where they should have been according to taylor's rule

    this way, a credit boom was fueled, and the problem of oversupply was made even worse:

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/b6b56bd6-278b-11de-9b77-00144feabdc0.html

    The crisis that began in 2007 and worsened in 2008 was caused, Taylor says, because the Fed abandoned the rule earlier in the decade. Between 2002 and 2004 interest rates were cut even though the rule required them to be raised. In 2004 and 2005 the gap between the actual and the recommended interest rate was between two and three percentage points. Taylor describes a model simulation in which interest rates followed the Taylor-rule path during this period instead of diverging from it so markedly. The housing boom would have ended in 2003 instead of 2006, he says; house prices and levels of mortgage debt would not have risen so high. In short, monetary policy was the primary cause of the boom and subsequent bust.
  3. Frank 

    On 30 Apr, 2009

    The people that did'nt see this coming are now claiming it's all over. Wow, I really fee relieved now! As Jim Cramer would say: "buy, buy, buy; buy like there is no tomorow"
  4. Erna Van den Bulcke 

    On 30 Apr, 2009

    @Theo, I like the BS-factor very much !

    You can have a positive quarter which feeds a further rally, but typically this sort of recession has multiple dips.
  5. Theo 

    On 30 Apr, 2009

    @ Erna

    Yep, that's how we get "green shoots" by Spring Break.
    We'll need to wait for Summer to see if this new crop can grow... despite the heavy GM (genetic manipulation) factor.
  6. frederic 

    On 30 Apr, 2009

    How do we mesure tho bottom ?

    I do talk to lots of people, many friends I have are working in very diffirent branches, building, shipment, fuels, energy, carpenters, jobs, ... .

    Building sector had a small boost a month ago, shipment requests are starting to rise again. Acoording to my friend jan en febr where very bad, march is better, april is better then march.
    Fuels sales are rising again (my own branch), energy consumption is rising since march (family), small enterpreneurs like carpenters are getting more work (friend of mine), interiem jobs stopped declining since march (girlfriend).

    Also whenever I talk to one of our vendors, I always aks them how the business is going, in most of the cases you see the same trend, march and april are better then jan en febr.

    This is just ground information, no statistics.
  7. Jean Pierre van Rossem 

    On 30 Apr, 2009

    To stop the actual economic crisis in the USA two things need to be achieved: (1) the overproduction must be reduced to normal proportions (less than the 1929-2008 average of 2.14 %) and (2) the scale elasticity of the American economy must exceed 1.
    Actually overproduction in the States is still 6.59 % at the first quater (against 7.15 % at 2008Q4). The scale elasticity is 0.971 (2009Q1) against 0.980 (2008Q4).
    If this is an improvement, it's a very small one. Moreover the growth of the gross domestic product is -6.12 %. If this means "green leafs" one fobs the American people off. Obama's "yes we can" was up to now merely more than wishful thinking.

    JPVR
  8. incognito 

    On 30 Apr, 2009

    That light might be the end of the tunnel, or a freight train:

    Current Crisis Shows Uncanny Parallels to Great Depression

    Perhaps the efforts to combat the current crisis are merely laying the foundations for the next crisis, which will be bigger still.

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,621979-7,00.html
  9. incognito 

    On 30 Apr, 2009

    Can't post this on the previous thread:

    I may be mistaken but I don't think that a theoretical fed funds rate of minus 5% is nonsense (goldman sachs calculated that it should be minus 6%). On the contrary: it makes perfect sense. At least from an American and short term point of view.

    Geert seems to use sustainable growth and potential growth as synonyms, but they aren't. Sustainable growth focuses, if I understood it correctly, on demand: it's growth, fuelled by demand that's not dependent on an unsustainable credit boom. While potential growth focuses on supply: it's non-inflationary growth.

    The problem in the US is that potential growth is much higher than sustainable growth. If the US economy doesn't reach its potential growth, inflation will turn negative. But that potential growth is not sustainable.

    So, the US has to choose between the pest (sustainable growth and deflation) and the cholera (potential growth via unconventional measures).

    It has chosen for the cholera, and it will continue to do so, until the bitter end (hyperinflation?).

    I believe that it was Kondratieff who once said that a capitalistic economy can't continue to steer a way between the scylla of deflation and the charybdis of hyperinflation.

    How did the US economy get into this catch 22 situation?

    Once you've created a credit boom, you will be confronted with too much supply (high potential growth), once the credit bubble bursts. Also, in an economy with a big gap between the rich and the poor, there can develop a gap between sustainable growth (demand side is too dependend on cheap credit) and potential growth (supply side, fueled by investments of the rich). This may be one of the most fundamental causes of the crisis.

    Btw: the US has already chosen for the cholera in 2002, there was, back then, already a problem with oversupply, (this was already a problem in the late 90ties, as the economist wrote at the time), that's why the fed lowered interest rates to below the level where they should have been according to taylor's rule. This way, a credit boom was fueled, and the problem of oversupply was made even worse:

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/b6b56bd6-278b-11de-9b77-00144feabdc0.html

    The crisis that began in 2007 and worsened in 2008 was caused, Taylor says, because the Fed abandoned the rule earlier in the decade. Between 2002 and 2004 interest rates were cut even though the rule required them to be raised. In 2004 and 2005 the gap between the actual and the recommended interest rate was between two and three percentage points. Taylor describes a model simulation in which interest rates followed the Taylor-rule path during this period instead of diverging from it so markedly. The housing boom would have ended in 2003 instead of 2006, he says; house prices and levels of mortgage debt would not have risen so high. In short, monetary policy was the primary cause of the boom and subsequent bust.
  10. FV 

    On 30 Apr, 2009

    Buiter ziet het alvast niet (meer) zitten

    http://blogs.ft.com/maverecon/2009/04/green-shoots-grounds-for-cautious-pessimism/

    Let op laatste zin van zijn betoog ;-)
  11. FV 

    On 30 Apr, 2009

    http://blogs.ft.com/maverecon/2009/04/green-shoots-grounds-for-cautious-pessimism/

    Buiter is alvast niet enthousiast - vooral zijn laatste zinnetje spreekt boekdelen.
  12. incognito 

    On 30 Apr, 2009

    Several studies have put all this together to estimate the overall impact of a pandemic on economic growth. In 2006 Warwick McKibbin and Alexandra Sidorenko found in a study for the Lowy Institute for International Policy in Sydney that even a mild pandemic could shave 0.8% off world GDP. For the worst possibility they considered, the drop would be a staggering 12.6%. They reckon a pandemic similar to the one that began in 1918 would reduce growth in the American economy by 3 percentage points and in Japan by 8.3 points. Roughly comparable numbers emerge from a study by economists at America’s Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which found that a Spanish-flu-like pandemic would lower real GDP growth in America by about 5 points. Even a milder episode would lead to a 1.5-point drop.

    http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13576491
  13. FV 

    On 30 Apr, 2009

    http://blogs.ft.com/maverecon/2009/04/green-shoots-grounds-for-cautious-pessimism/
  14. FV 

    On 1 May, 2009

    http://blogs.ft.com/maverecon/2009/04/green-shoots-grounds-for-cautious-pessimism/ Buiter is weinig opbeurend; wel 'geestige' pointe ;-)
  15. FV 

    On 1 May, 2009

    http://blogs.ft.com/maverecon/2009/04/green-shoots-grounds-for-cautious-pessimism/

    Even not taking into account a pandemic swine flu, Willem Buiter is all but cheering up. And mark his last words ;-)
  16. Ann Moons 

    On 2 May, 2009

    Brad de Long schiet op de Oostenrijkse school: http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/05/one-last-time-the-austrian-theory-of-the-recession-just-does-not-work.html

    Voelt iemand zich geroepen om op Brad de Long te reageren en de Oostenrijkse school verdedigen tegen deze aanval ?

Post a comment

max. length of 1500 characters