Dr.Mishkin or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bubble

Former Fed governor Fred Mishkin distinguishes between bad bubbles, that hurt banks, and good bubbles like the tech bubble, that just hurt investors and distort the economy.

Is the Fed creating a bubble in equities now? Probably.

Do they care, are they concerned? No, not according to ex Fed governor Fred Mishkin.

We find that there is an odd framing of the question, which seems rather binary. Either there is a bubble, or no recovery, because the Fed must tighten and risk a new recession.

There are other things the Fed and the Treasury might do to ecourage banks to lend, rather than to engage in market speculation in imitation of Goldman Sachs, the trading bank with no depositors or borrowers.

Here is why Fred Mishkin has learned to stop worrying and love irrational exuberance fueled by reckless monetary expansion and financial engineering.

There is also the little detail, by the way, of the kinship between the credit bubble, created by the Fed, in response to the collapse of the tech bubble, which was also created by the Fed. Fred seems to think the credit bubble had a virgin birth.

So, preserve your precious bodily fluids while you read this, and be on the lookout for economic preverts and their quantitative preversions.

Financial Times
Not all bubbles present a risk to the economy
By Frederic Mishkin
November 9 2009 20:08

There is increasing concern that we may be experiencing another round of asset-price bubbles that could pose great danger to the economy. Does this danger provide a case for the US Federal Reserve to exit from its zero-interest-rate policy sooner rather than later, as many commentators have suggested? The answer is no.

Are potential asset-price bubbles always dangerous? Asset-price bubbles can be separated into two categories. The first and dangerous category is one I call “a credit boom bubble”, in which exuberant expectations about economic prospects or structural changes in financial markets lead to a credit boom. The resulting increased demand for some assets raises their price and, in turn, encourages further lending against these assets, increasing demand, and hence their prices, even more, creating a positive feedback loop. This feedback loop involves increasing leverage, further easing of credit standards, then even higher leverage, and the cycle continues.

Eventually, the bubble bursts and asset prices collapse, leading to a reversal of the feedback loop. Loans go sour, the deleveraging begins, demand for the assets declines further and prices drop even more. The resulting loan losses and declines in asset prices erode the balance sheets at financial institutions, further diminishing credit and investment across a broad range of assets. The resulting deleveraging depresses business and household spending, which weakens economic activity and increases macroeconomic risk in credit markets. Indeed, this is what the recent crisis has been all about.

The second category of bubble, what I call the “pure irrational exuberance bubble”, is far less dangerous because it does not involve the cycle of leveraging against higher asset values. Without a credit boom, the bursting of the bubble does not cause the financial system to seize up and so does much less damage. For example, the bubble in technology stocks in the late 1990s was not fuelled by a feedback loop between bank lending and rising equity values; indeed, the bursting of the tech-stock bubble was not accompanied by a marked deterioration in bank balance sheets. This is one of the key reasons that the bursting of the bubble was followed by a relatively mild recession. Similarly, the bubble that burst in the stock market in 1987 did not put the financial system under great stress and the economy fared well in its aftermath.

Because the second category of bubble does not present the same dangers to the economy as a credit boom bubble, the case for tightening monetary policy to restrain a pure irrational exuberance bubble is much weaker. Asset-price bubbles of this type are hard to identify: after the fact is easy, but beforehand is not. (If policymakers were that smart, why aren’t they rich?) Tightening monetary policy to restrain a bubble that does not materialise will lead to much weaker economic growth than is warranted. Monetary policymakers, just like doctors, need to take a Hippocratic Oath to “do no harm”.

Nonetheless, if a bubble poses a sufficient danger to the economy as credit boom bubbles do, there might be a case for monetary policy to step in. However, there are also strong arguments against doing so, which is why there are active debates in academia and central banks about whether monetary policy should be used to restrain asset-price bubbles.

But if bubbles are a possibility now, does it look like they are of the dangerous, credit boom variety? At least in the US and Europe, the answer is clearly no. Our problem is not a credit boom, but that the deleveraging process has not fully ended. Credit markets are still tight and are presenting a serious drag on the economy.

Tightening monetary policy in the US or Europe to restrain a possible bubble makes no sense at the current juncture. The Fed decision to retain the language that the funds rate will be kept “exceptionally low” for an “extended period” makes sense given the tentativeness of the recovery, the enormous slack in the economy, current low inflation rates and stable inflation expectations. At this critical juncture, the Fed must not take its eye off the ball by focusing on possible asset-price bubbles that are not of the dangerous, credit boom variety.

Peak Oil: WhistleBlower at IEA Claims Oil Production Statistics Are Manipulated

Here's one for the peak oil crowd, and those who suspect that the US and others have been manipulating certain market information for their own purposes, to promote a hidden agenda, to manage public perception.

Skeptical as always for now, but let's see what happens with this story.

Guardian UK
Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure, says whistleblower
Terry Macalister
9 November 2009 21.30 GMT

Exclusive: Watchdog's estimates of reserves inflated says top official

The world is much closer to running out of oil than official estimates admit, according to a whistleblower at the International Energy Agency who claims it has been deliberately underplaying a looming shortage for fear of triggering panic buying.

The senior official claims the US has played an influential role in encouraging the watchdog to underplay the rate of decline from existing oil fields while overplaying the chances of finding new reserves.

The allegations raise serious questions about the accuracy of the organisation's latest World Energy Outlook on oil demand and supply to be published tomorrow – which is used by the British and many other governments to help guide their wider energy and climate change policies.

In particular they question the prediction in the last World Economic Outlook, believed to be repeated again this year, that oil production can be raised from its current level of 83m barrels a day to 105m barrels. External critics have frequently argued that this cannot be substantiated by firm evidence and say the world has already passed its peak in oil production.

Now the "peak oil" theory is gaining support at the heart of the global energy establishment. "The IEA in 2005 was predicting oil supplies could rise as high as 120m barrels a day by 2030 although it was forced to reduce this gradually to 116m and then 105m last year," said the IEA source, who was unwilling to be identified for fear of reprisals inside the industry. "The 120m figure always was nonsense but even today's number is much higher than can be justified and the IEA knows this.

"Many inside the organisation believe that maintaining oil supplies at even 90m to 95m barrels a day would be impossible but there are fears that panic could spread on the financial markets if the figures were brought down further. And the Americans fear the end of oil supremacy because it would threaten their power over access to oil resources," he added.

A second senior IEA source, who has now left but was also unwilling to give his name, said a key rule at the organisation was that it was "imperative not to anger the Americans" but the fact was that there was not as much oil in the world as had been admitted. "We have [already] entered the 'peak oil' zone. I think that the situation is really bad," he added.

The IEA acknowledges the importance of its own figures, boasting on its website: "The IEA governments and industry from all across the globe have come to rely on the World Energy Outlook to provide a consistent basis on which they can formulate policies and design business plans."

The British government, among others, always uses the IEA statistics rather than any of its own to argue that there is little threat to long-term oil supplies...

SP Futures Daily Chart and the Triumph of the Swill

It looks like the bulls want to take this squeeze up to the 1105 trendline, with six bull days under their belt since the tag on the lower trend line last week.

This rally is being accomplished on thin volumes, thick liquidity, and weak regulations dominated by trading programs, with obviously fabricated and highly overstated fundamental underpinnings.

As Lloyd Blankfein would characterize it, the Wall Street banks are just "doing God's work," or at least the work of some power and principality with a favorable inclination to greed, pride, and deception, if these masters of the universe were to acknowledge any power greater than themselves.

No doubt there are some good intentions in the government behind a desire to manage the markets higher. After all, a rising stock market is a sign of wealth and prosperity to the superficial elite based on their own personal portfolios. Especially if one ignores all the jobless, homeless, and suffering people being victimized in their highly exclusive empire of the ego.

But who can stop a people determined to be rich without productive labor, with a self-obsession capable of subordinating even heaven to their personal greed and vanity? This will end in an ocean of tears.

The banks must be restrained, and the financial system reformed, and balance restored to the economy, before there can be any sustained recovery.

Outlook for US Natural Gas Supplies and Demand

For now natural gas supplies in the US are above average, and the Energy Information Administration is forecasting a slightly warmer winter than last year in the US Midwest, and slightly colder in the West. The Midwest is the primary consuming region for natural gas and propane, with heating oil in the northeast.

There is some speculation this week that Hurricane Ida may enter the Gulf of Mexico, the first to do so for this remarkably light storm season, and speculators have been given some cheer in the oil and nat gas markets because of this.

Oil may be justified, but barring a selectively devastating storm, natural gas looks to be well supplied. This is the time of year in which we will typically look to place bull positions in the natural gas markets. So far that does not seem to be justified, but perhaps later, just on seasonal variance.

The energy bulls should hope for an abnormally cold winter in the US midwest. Their government does not think that they will get it.

"EIA projects average household expenditures for space-heating fuels to be $960 this winter (October 1 to March 31), a decrease of $84, or 8 percent, from last winter. This forecast principally reflects lower fuel prices, although expected slightly milder weather than last winter will also contribute to lower fuel use in many areas. The largest expenditure decreases are in households using natural gas and propane, projected at 12 and 14 percent, respectively. Projected electricity and heating oil expenditures decline by 2 percent (see EIA Short Term and Winter Fuels Outlook slideshow).

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) most recent projection of heating degree-days, the Lower-48 States are forecast to be 1 percent warmer this winter compared with last winter and 1 percent milder than the 30-year average (1971-2000). However, heating degree-day projections vary widely between regions. For example, the Midwest, a major market for propane and natural gas, is projected to be about 4 percent warmer than last winter, while the West is projected to be about 4 percent colder.

EIA expects the price of West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil to average about $70 per barrel this winter (October-March), a $19 increase over last winter. The forecast for average WTI prices rises gradually to about $75 per barrel by December 2010 as U.S. and world economic conditions improve. EIA’s forecast assumes U.S. GDP grows by 1.8 percent in 2010 and world oil-consumption-weighted GDP grows by 2.6 percent.

Energy prices remain volatile, reflecting uncertainty, or risk, in the market. To measure this uncertainty, EIA is tracking futures prices and the market’s assessment of the range in which those futures prices might trade (see STEO Supplement: Energy Price Volatility and Forecast Uncertainty). The Outlook will now report confidence intervals around the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) crude oil and natural gas futures prices using a measure of risk derived from the NYMEX options markets known as “implied volatility.”

Natural gas inventories are expected to set a new record high at the end of this year’s injection season (October 31), reaching more than 3.8 trillion cubic feet (Tcf). The projected Henry Hub annual average spot price increases from $3.85 per thousand cubic feet (Mcf) in 2009 to $5.02 in 2010."

Source: US Energy Information Administration

This chart shows the divergence between the Natural Gas ETF and the Crude Oil ETF in the US. The reason for this is founded in the fundamentals.



This is merely a linear version of the first chart shown above, the annual build and depletion of natural gas inventories over time. This tends to illustrate the big swings that are possible, and over a longer timeframe.