Monetization: Treasury Adds $400 Billion in Bailouts for Fannie and Freddie

What's another $400 Billion in monetization so that Fannie and Freddie can keep buying up mortgage debt?

Timmy and Ben can resolve to distribute dollars even as they approach a virtual insolvency because they can create them, seemingly out of nothing. The payment obligation for their dollar debt is their own creation -- dollars. But they cannot hand out endless amounts of nature's wealth, things like oil, gold, grains, and silver except as they may possess them by industry, force, or fraud.

And that is what frustrates the statists and monetarists, why the western central bankers hate and fear the precious metals as monetary equivalents and alternative stores of wealth, and deploy their worldly power in proximity to sources of energy. Natural wealth defies their control, is a mirror to their excesses, and a stumbling block for the financial engineering that is the basis of their fractional reserve central banking and a desire for world government and ever-increasing power. Ponzi schemes must inherently continue to expand.

They say fiat, let it be done, according to our will. But natural wealth does not always respond as they wish, and its silence is a profound repudiation.

The full extent of their power to command and control the liquidity flow of the world will be tested in 2010.

".....Back to the math... And here is the kicker. Accounting for securities purchased by the Fed, which effectively made the market in the Treasury, the agency and MBS arenas, but also served to "drain duration" from the broader US$ fixed income market, the stunning result is that net issuance in 2009 was only $200 billion. Take a second to digest that.

And while you are lamenting the death of private debt markets, here is precisely what the Fed, the Treasury, and all bank CEOs are doing all their best to keep hidden until they are safely on their private jets heading toward warmer climes: in 2010, the total estimated net issuance across all US$ denominated fixed income classes is expected to increase by 27%, from $1.75 trillion to $2.22 trillion. The culprit: Treasury issuance to keep funding an impossible budget. And, yes, we use the term impossible in its most technical sense. As everyone who has taken First Grade math knows, there is no way that the ludicrous deficit spending the US has embarked on makes any sense at all... none. But the administration can sure pretend it does, until everything falls apart and blaming everyone else for its fiscal imprudence is no longer an option.

Out of the $2.22 trillion in expected 2010 issuance, $200 billion will be absorbed by the Fed while QE continues through March. Then the US is on its own: $2.06 trillion will have to find non-Fed originating demand. To sum up: $200 billion in 2009; $2.1 trillion in 2010. Good luck."

Demand For US Fixed Income Has To Increase Elevenfold... Or Else - ZeroHedge

And this, meine Damen und Herren. Mesdames et Messieurs, may result in higher interest rates and a taxing drag on the productive economy. Which economies specifically and to what extent depends on how well the Fed and the Treasury can shift the pain of their excesses to the rest of the world. But it is not what one might call deflationary, and an impulse for the US dollar as a stable store of wealth, unless by force or fraud.

AP
Treasury removes cap for Fannie and Freddie aid
By J.W. Elphinstone, AP Real Estate Writer
December 25, 2009

NEW YORK – The government has handed its ATM card to beleaguered mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. ("Its" ATM card? Don't you mean the holders of US dollars? - Jesse)

The Treasury Department said Thursday it removed the $400 billion financial cap on the money it will provide to keep the companies afloat. Already, taxpayers have shelled out $111 billion to the pair, and a senior Treasury official said losses are not expected to exceed the government's estimate this summer of $170 billion over 10 years.

Treasury Department officials said it will now use a flexible formula to ensure the two agencies can stand behind the billions of dollars in mortgage-backed securities they sell to investors. Under the formula, financial support would increase according to how much each firm loses in a quarter. The cap in place at the end of 2012 would apply thereafter.

By making the change before year-end, Treasury sidestepped the need for an OK from a bailout-weary Congress.

While most analysts say the companies are unlikely to use the full $400 billion, Treasury officials said they decided to lift the caps to eliminate any uncertainty among investors about the government's commitments. But the timing of the announcement on a traditionally slow news day raised eyebrows.

"The companies are nowhere close to using the $400 billion they had before, so why do this now?" said Bert Ely, a banking consultant in Alexandria, Va. "It's possible we may see some horrendous numbers for the fourth quarter and, thus 2009, and Treasury wants to calm the markets."

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac provide vital liquidity to the mortgage industry by purchasing home loans from lenders and selling them to investors. Together, they own or guarantee almost 31 million home loans worth about $5.5 trillion, or about half of all mortgages. Without government aid, the firms would have gone broke, leaving millions of people unable to get a mortgage.

The biggest headwind facing the housing recovery has been the rise in foreclosures as unemployment remains high. The two companies, facing mounting losses from mortgage defaults, were taken over by the government in September 2008 under the authority of a law Congress passed in the summer of 2008.

So far the government has provided $60 billion to Fannie Mae and $51 billion to Freddie Mac. The assistance is being provided in exchange for preferred stock paying a 10 percent dividend. The Bush administration first pledged up to $100 billion in support for each company, an amount that was doubled to $200 billion for each by the Obama administration in February.

Treasury officials will provide an updated estimate for Fannie and Freddie losses in February when President Barack Obama sends his 2011 budget to Congress. Though the administration has yet to disclose its long-term plans for the two companies, they are unlikely to return to their former power and influence.

The news followed an announcement Thursday that the CEOs of Fannie and Freddie could get paid as much as $6 million for 2009, despite the companies' dismal performances this year.

Fannie's CEO, Michael Williams, and Freddie CEO Charles "Ed" Haldeman Jr. each will receive $900,000 in salary, $3.1 million in deferred payments next year and another $2 million if they meet certain performance goals, according to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The pay packages were approved by the Treasury Department and the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which regulates Fannie and Freddie....

Reading for the Market Holiday - plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

"At length corruption, like a general flood,
Did deluge all, and avarice creeping on,
Spread, like a low-born mist, and hid the sun.
Statesmen and patriots plied alike the stocks,
Peeress and butler shared alike the box;
And judges jobbed, and bishops bit the town,
And mighty dukes packed cards for half-a-crown:
Britain was sunk in lucre's sordid charms."

—Pope

THE SOUTH-SEA COMPANY was originated by the celebrated Harley, Earl of Oxford, in the year 1711, with the view of restoring public credit, which had suffered by the dismissal of the Whig ministry, and of providing for the discharge of the army and navy debentures, and other parts of the floating debt, amounting to nearly ten millions sterling. A company of merchants, at that time without a name, took this debt upon themselves, and the government agreed to secure them, for a certain period, the interest of six per cent. To provide for this interest, amounting to 600,000l. per annum, the duties upon wines, vinegar, India goods, wrought silks, tobacco, whale-fins, and some other articles, were rendered permanent. The monopoly of the trade to the South Seas was granted, and the company, being incorporated by Act of Parliament, assumed the title by which it has ever since been known. The minister took great credit to himself for his share in this transaction, and the scheme was always called by his flatterers "the Earl of Oxford's masterpiece...."

The South Sea Bubble, Charles Mackay, Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, Chapter 2

The Financial Times Man of the Year - Lloyd Blankfein

How fitting, to mark the high tide of the will to power of the Anglo-American banking cartel. No better symbol of hubris, of the overreach driven by obdurate insensitivity and sociopathic greed, of the cult of ego and the darker impulses of the human heart, that creates nothing.

Honoring the man as the epitome of 2009, a man whose bank helped to precipitate one of the greatest financial crises, if not crimes, of the century, and used it as a means of profit for their own ends. No matter what damage was caused in the process, what corruption was required to undermine the nation's well-being, thereby sowing the seeds of their own eventual destruction.

And no better day for it, than on the eve of the commemoration of the renewal of life, of genuine value, of the perennial yearning of the human spirit from within the images and the shadows, a turning away from the stench of corruption and decay, and into the light.

"For what shall it profit a man, if he gains the whole world, but loses himself?

Not even the whole world, but bragging rights, a false bravado, and a bonus.

The man of the year indeed. King of the ash heap, almost universally held in contempt. And in the end, alone. Not even rising to the level of high tragedy, but merely furtive, grasping, manipulative, pathetic. A monument to banality, and the hollowness of Western materialism.


NY Times
Financial Times Names Blankfein Person of the Year
December 24, 2009, 2:37

The Financial Times has chosen Lloyd C. Blankfein as its person of the year. The Goldman Sachs chief has become the public face of Wall Street during its most testing period since the 1930s, the newspaper said, and Mr. Blankfein’s position and his personality were the basis of his selection.

Goldman Sachs, said the newspaper, “navigated the 2008 global financial crisis better than others,” and is about to make record profits while paying up to $23 billion in bonuses to its 31,700 staff.

The newspaper called Mr. Blankfein “a tough, bright, funny financier who reoriented Goldman. Under his leadership, trading and risk-taking have pushed to the fore, reducing the influence of its investment banking advisers.”

Facing public anger in 2009 — as taxpayers raged at having to bail out the big Wall Street banks — Goldman’s profitability, and suspicions that its ties to governments around the world give it unfair advantages, made it a symbol of greed and excess.

But Mr. Blankfein has rebutted the criticism effectively, the newspaper wrote, “shifting from insisting that it would probably have survived the crisis without help from the U.S. Treasury, to apologizing for its conduct,” and finally, the newspaper noted, in an interview with the Sunday Times of London, asserting that Goldman was “doing God’s work”.

Who Is Buying All These US Treasuries (And Can They Keep It Up in 2010)?

Earlier this evening I was reading the latest issue of TheContraryInvestor "Quite The Personal Bond," and was puzzled by his account of the Treasury market.

As shown in this chart, the foreign sector has begun to reduce their exposure to US sovereign debt, just as they were sellers of Agency debt in 2008.



So who is buying Treasuries according to the latest government data?

"US households purchased $529 billion of US Treasuries in the first nine months of 2009, accounting for 45% of total new Treasury issuance. And you have been wondering just how Treasury yields have stayed so low for so long? Wonder no more. US households have done the heavy lifting unlike any other buyer this year. And as we have stated in the past, this decision by households has been driven by two very strong human emotions- fear and greed. Fear of losing money in what is a once in a generation credit bust environment. And greed from the standpoint that the Fed has made money funds completely unpalatable in terms of nominal yield prospects. Of course Treasury yields are not much higher by any means."

So far this year the Fed has purchased $293.3 Billion of Treasury Debt, and is by far the largest purchaser of Agency Debt at $803.8 Billion.

Foreign entities bought $373.3 billion of Treasury debt, and were net sellers again of $110.3 billion of Agency debt and $73.1 of US corporate debt.

"US households purchased $529 billion of US Treasuries in the first nine months of 2009, accounting for 45% of total new Treasury issuance. And you have been wondering just how Treasury yields have stayed so low for so long? Wonder no more. US households have done the heavy lifting unlike any other buyer this year. And as we have stated in the past, this decision by households has been driven by two very strong human emotions- fear and greed. Fear of losing money in what is a once in a generation credit bust environment. And greed from the standpoint that the Fed has made money funds completely unpalatable in terms of nominal yield prospects. Of course Treasury yields are not much higher by any means."

So, according to the government, US households are absolutely piling into US sovereign and corporate debt at record levels, and at record low interest rates.

And almost no one but the Fed is buying Agency Debt.

Bill Gross of Pimco has the largest mutual fund ever, compliments of the bond stampede. The prior record was in 2007 with a growth fund that was decimated by the market crash of that year. And this is why I think we might see quite a bloodbath in the bonds in 2010, as mom and pop get skinned by the Street for weighing in so heavily on this one sided trade in US sovereign debt. The US household sector is a slow moving convoy, presenting a traditional and tempting target for the Wall Street wolf packs.

Here is another viewpoint on essentially the same data that I was just reading this evening at Trader's Narrative titled, Is It All Just a Ponzi Scheme? His take on this is a little less sanguine than the ContraryInvestor.

"At first it seems that the common US household is stepping up and lending Uncle Sam the almost $2 billion. We’ve discussed at length the stampede of retail investors into bond funds this year. But as Sprott [Asset Management] details below, according to the Fed’s own disclosures, this is not what is happening. No wonder then that the US dollar has cratered and gold is the best performing asset this decade..."

Sprott Asset Management says:

"Our concern now is that this is all starting to resemble one giant Ponzi scheme. We all know that the Fed has been active in the market for T-bills. As you can see from Table A, under the auspices of Quantitative Easing, they bought almost 50% of the new Treasury issues in Q2 and almost 30% in Q3. It serves to remember that the whole point of selling new US Treasury bonds is to attract outside capital to finance deficits or to pay off existing debts that are maturing. We are now in a situation, however, where the Fed is printing dollars to buy Treasuries as a means of faking the Treasury’s ability to attract outside capital. If our research proves anything, it’s that the regular buyers of US debt are no longer buying, and it amazes us that the US can successfully issue a record number Treasuries in this environment without the slightest hiccup in the market."

So what does all this mean?

The bottom line is that the data seems to indicate that the foreign sector traditional buyers (at least for the past 20 years or so) of US sovereign debt are walking away from the market as they had said they would do, and are moving their reserves into other instruments.

This may not be such a great problem if the US trade balance continues to narrow, but it certainly is not healthy to see the Fed and the US household sector as the major markets for US sovereign debt.

If 2010 is not a year of recovery for the average American, the ability of the Treasury and Fannie/Freddie to keep expanding their debt offerings is going to become quickly constrained. How can Joe Sixpack keep saving and buying Treasuries, and at the same time consume at a rate sufficient to grow GDP? All on a stagnant median wage and a contracting housing market? Think the rest of the world is suddenly going to grow a taste for US exports? Will the US retreat into isolationism and trade barriers? That might not be Price Index friendly.

The US is marshaling its ratings agencies and multinationals to cast doubt on the European union, their currency, and their solvency, and threaten to take them down first to maintain an equilibrium of failures.

But in fact, the US is much closer to the point of a serious debt crisis than one might imagine from what is being put out by most US based financial analysts. There is a nasty convergence of constraints bearing down on the Fed and the Treasury that look to push the ability to market dollar debt to the breaking point. If a couple big States go under next year, the dominoes may start falling very quickly.

I see the problem, but I have to confess that I do not yet see how the Bernanke Fed intends to dodge this collision. And I know that they must see this as well, and have a game plan. Could counting on an exogenous event that would provoke an artificial demand and neo-isolationism (something like a regional war, or at least a trade war) be called a plan? Can they possibly be in denial, and just looting the capital before the Empire falls? It is hard to see how the resolution of this will unfold just yet, but I am pretty sure that many of the simple scenarios that people are laying out so nicely with such fine rhetoric are more fantasy than probable outcomes. This is going to knock our socks off default-wise.

If you think that this crisis will be deflationary, then you might be a bit surprised to see what happens if and when a US sovereign debt offering fails in the market. It will not be pretty. And it will not be dollar friendly in the longer term. But who can say what will happen, when there are so many possibilities.

The market may likely reveal to us what is coming, if we are observant, and lucky, and have the willingness to listen to what we may not wish to hear.

There are some definite gaps and assumptions in the case that Sprott makes, raising more questions than providing answers. It is possible that Americans have shifted an enormous amount of capital out of consumption and stocks into Treasuries. It is also possible that this is just masking something else, as Sprott suggests. But this does not affect the argument we make, that something has got to give, as the US consumer is tapped, and cannot sustain this type of sovereign debt purchasing given the offerings that the Treasury must make in 2010. And if it is something else, then that will be revealed 'when the tide goes out' next year. The Fed and its enablers are the buyers of last resort, increasingly so. And that means increasing monetization, and a stretching of the value basis of the bonds and the dollars.

Read the full analysis from Sprott Asset Management here.