I bet you don’t know what Convexcatious Economics are, do you?
Done feel bad, Tonto: I just made it up. Has do with with an odd state of simultaneous convexity and concavity of formerly partial-workable mathematical hieroglyphics (mined from thin air) used by quants. Some of which should be starting to seize-up now.
And therein lies this morning’s grief counseling session as the Dow futures point down 135. (Don’t call it the LONG GRINDER DOWN yet, but we are moving that way a bit.)
One of the big discussion points on the net today is the little matter of Janet’s talk tomorrow with the House banking folks, which will be followed with her talk with the Senate banking types on Thursday. Re-runs are a pernicious effect of capitalism.
Tomorrow’s Peoplenomics report will be especially interesting. Not only should we have a look at the pre-game speech around 8:30 tomorrow, 7:30 Central, but if conditions warrant, we may go through and do some analysis.
Like the days when the Housing data from Case/S&P and whoever hits, it’s possible we will have a two-parter for subscribers. Though I avoid actual work like the plague.
But that’s not the biggie.
The biggie is this problem Elaine and I have been struggling with – and I know we are not alone on this – a subscriber asked for a discussion and simple model.
I won’t get into too much detail here but the problem is simply stated this way:
If you believed that we were going into the summer of 1929 – and remember the market hit its high in September of that year – would you sell everything and go to cash stored in government bonds, and wait out the two to four years for a good bottom to be in, and then move into that dream home which would be for sale at about 17-cents on today’s dollars?
Our problem, out here on the ranch in East Texas, is “Where would we go?”
We were cruising through a bunch of homes on www.Trulia.com yesterday asking the same question as before: If the world is going to get really, really ugly, do we want to be on 30 paid-off acres with low taxes (road issues aside), or do we want to be in an urban area where there will be gobs of people, some of whom many not be inclined to “play nicely with others” if you follow.
Anyway, it’s a hell of a topic…and we’ll get into the models and thinking on that tomorrow on the www.peoplenomics.com side of things. Subscription details above and we have an extremely high satisfaction rate because people can ask common sense questions (like this one) and we kick things around and sometimes come up with cool ideas.
I mean besides being in cash or short with out Aggregate Index models and such since December or early January, depending on how you use the model.
Which circles us back to the problem this morning: I mean other than going back to bed and just waiting for the Fed boss to chat up Congress tomorrow.
It will be the end of the week before the titans of Asia are back on their usual schedule because of the fire-monkey Lunar New Years (I know, you’re thinking “Aren’t fire-monkeys something that come flying out of the butt after extreme spicy food? “ No…this is a Chinese calendar deal…). But volatility is in the bag for the rest of the week, seems to me.
The futures are looking to open down a bit. (-135 is now a bit.) About the only real news items driving today seem to be that the National Federation of Independent Business report is out:
After Modest Gain Last Month, Small Business Optimism Takes a Stumble
NFIB Survey shows small business owners wary of future economic conditions.
A couple of highlights from the report, if I may?
About a quarter of the survey respondents (which are small businesses) were planning to make capital expenditures. But on the flip side, the percentage that actually expect the economy to improve was down 21%.
But there were 29% more with job openings. Offsetting this, though the earning trend was down 18%.
You see how this goes, right? Here is something bad, but over here is something good, but wait! Here is something good but there is something bad. Goes back and forth and that’s when sometimes a headline as a thought summary actually does work, unless you happen to be an NFIB member and can compare your company with others… In the meantime though, details are over here if you need them for a school report or for something to “wow” the peeps in the conference room when you talk about “Gee, how are we going to increase sales when the economy sucks wind?”
See where we are?? Yes, we have finally arrived at the first legit point of this morning’s ramble: Does the Fed really have the legal power to take rates negative?
There’s a marvelous Bloomberg piece over here which is wondering much the same thing. What they have some to is “Fed May Lack Legal Authority for Negative Rates: 2010 Memo.”
Sorting through the Fed mess right now is almost hopelessly complex unless you know what the hell an IOER is (the Bloomberg story didn’t cover this in detail): It’s the rate the Fed pays as Interest On Excess Reserves.
What will the Fed do? I mean come on! they have had almost six years to study the 11-page memo over here…and someone besides me may be wondering “How do you raise rates on the one hand – the touted Fed hike – while going to negative rates out the back door without everyone seeing what the Fed is doing as a HUGE PONZI deal?”
Granted, you won’t have six years to figure it out, but the 11 pager is over here. About the time you grok to what’s hap’nin, the Fed will have danced past the Fools on the Hill with Janet leading and you’ll be late to the party once again.
That’s OK; we’re going to help.
The guts of the 2010 Fed memo is on Page 7 which says (in part, but this is what matters):
“Legal and Practical Obstacles for Setting the IOER Rate Below Zero There are several potentially substantial legal and practical constraints to implementing a negative IOER rate regime, some of which would be binding at any IOER rate below zero, even a rate just slightly below zero. Most notably, it is not at all clear that the Federal Reserve Act permits negative IOER rates, and more staff analysis would be needed to establish the Federal Reserve’s authority in this area. In addition, the Federal Reserve computer systems used to calculate and manage interest on reserves do not currently allow for the possibility of a negative IOER rate, although these systems could be modified over time if needed.18 Moreover, if negative IOER rates were to pull Treasury bill yields into negative territory, the Treasury would encounter difficulties because it cannot accept negative rates at its auctions, although presumably it could modify its systems as well. Finally, as discussed further below, at sufficiently negative IOER rates, DIs might opt to shift a significant quantity of their reserve balances into currency.