|
Why look for complexity when there is simplicity?
In a recent piece by Robert Rodriguez of First Pacific Advisors, LLC, you
will see facts - simple facts about how simple what happened is.
Here are some obvious ones:
"Since 1965, the median dollar volume of single-family homes sales as a percentage
of nominal GDP has averaged 8.4% versus 16.3% at the 2005 peak."
"Between 1998 and 2006, with the major changes occurring in the last two or
three years: ARM % of originations rose from 0.7% to 69.5% Negative Amortization
rose from 0% to 42.2% Interest Only rose from 0.1% to 35.6% Silent Seconds
rose from 0.1% to 38.7% Low Documentation rose from 57% to 79.8%."
AND TO THINK MOODY'S AND S&P WERE USING HISTORICAL DEFAULT MODELS. WHY
USE HISTORICAL MODELS IF YOU ARE EXPERIENCING NON-HISTORICAL LENDING PATTERNS?
OUTRAGEOUS!
What is wrong? Well, everyone wanted the rating agencies to rate everything
highly; otherwise it wouldn't sell! So everyone agreed to look the other way.
It's as if the authorities have been sitting in a casino for years and now
declare that they are shocked that gambling is occuring.
Put simply, there was massive overlending by the banks aided and abetted by
the Fed. Now the major banks are starting to complain, because they run the
risk of losing a huge amount of money, because they overlent in a risky environment.
Thankfully, there are plenty of structures within the system (like Moody's
and S&P) that allow them to lay the blame elsewhere and cry out that systemic
risk is upon us and contagion may happen.
Why look for complexity? Bernanke is starting to doubt his inflation forecasting
models and he is talking about academic concepts (like the "sacrifice ratio")
as a way of preparing for interest rates cuts, even in the face of the continued
threat of inflation and a plummeting dollar.
As The "Great" Mogambu Guru writes:
"For an example of more academic crap, he [Bernanke] said that the Fed uses
the 'sacrifice ratio' in policy deliberations, which is an academic concept
that the Federal Reserve uses to justify never raising interest rates. Essentially,
the sacrifice ratio (according to investopedia.com)
is 'An economic ratio that measures the costs associated with slowing down
economic output to change inflationary trends. The ratio is calculated by taking
the cost of lost production and dividing it by the percentage change in inflation.'
"The rationale is provided when we learn that, 'If inflation is becoming a
problem, central banks will try to cool economic growth in a bid to reduce
inflationary pressures. However, this reduction in output costs the economy
in the short term, and the sacrifice ratio tries to measure that cost.' Hahaha!
Attempting to measure pain, as if it is just a matter of using a few constants
in a few equations! Hahaha!
"The funny part - as in 'I can't believe I am hearing this crap!' - was when
he announced that the Phillip's Curve was dead, and then repeatedly used it
to show how inflation would come down! Hahaha! Too, too much!"
In my opinion, to help Bernanke's friends at the big banks means he has to
overthrow the important inflation lessons we learned in the 70s. To do so,
Bernanke must academically define a new paradigm to justify his irresponsible
actions. Why, he will aruge, fight inflation if it means a painful recession?
Of course, it was the Fed who created the threat of inflation in the first
place, by irresponsibly creating massive money supply growth!
The Fed is a political organization. Bernanke is a politician. If you look
at him through the complex eyes of an economist you will miss the point. The
point is that the power structures are putting political pressure on him to
lower interest rates and he is shifting the academic landscape to accomodate
them.
Simple.
None of this is good for the dollar nor the long-term inflation outlook, but
it is good for bankers and their bonuses. The questions are "have the bankers
learned their lesson? Or will they continue to overlend?"
|