If the Fed Keeps Swimming Against the Tide, it Will End up Drowning

By Keith Fitz-Gerald
Investment Director
Money Morning/The Money Map Report

If there's one lesson you can take away from this financial crisis, it's this: Whenever the U.S. Federal Reserve squares off against the financial markets, it ends up as the loser.

In recent weeks, I've written several articles suggesting that the credit crisis isn't over and detailed the three indicators that led me to this conclusion – despite what the politicians, the pundits and all the other so-called "experts" would have you believe.

Now, there's a fourth.

It should come as no surprise that there's more distressed debt trading right now than at any other point in history – nearly $184 billion worth. And that's just the "official" tally; we know that the actual total is much higher – it just hasn't been fully tallied and reported, yet.

Historically, large levels of distressed debt have preceded record numbers of bankruptcy filings – including some of the biggest corporate bankruptcy filings in history. Default ratios usually peak 12-24 months after the distressed-securities ratios reach their own apex. In other words, both the level of junk debt and the classification of distressed securities can be viewed as leading indicators.

And what they suggest for 2009 isn't good.

In an era of trillion-dollar problems, a mere $184 billion doesn't sound like much, but that total actually is 11.52% higher than the $165 billion in distressed debt reported immediately after the last bankruptcy boom, according to Moody's Investors Service (MCO).

Analyst Christopher Garman, former head of high-yield strategies at Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. (MER) recently told Reuters that the current level of distressed debt suggests nearly $97 billion in defaults could be headed our way next year.

Even now, the problem is so acute that one in every three junk bonds is now trading at "distressed levels" – defined as an interest rate that's 1,000 basis points or more above comparable Treasury securities. That means that 33% of the junk bonds out on the market aren't worth the paper that they're printed on.

At a time when the U.S. economy is struggling with a credit crisis, high energy prices, these distressed-debt issues could end up squeezing profit margins, increasing default rates, and dramatically boosting borrowing costs – any or all of which could feed into a self-repeating cycles.

General Motors Corp. (GM) and Ford Motor Co. (F) lost their investment-grade debt status years ago. But for other companies embroiled in the derivatives markets and the subprime mess, this is an uncomfortably new phenomenon. And that's why their leaders are "shocked" to find that normal financial channels are no longer open to them.

No wonder so may CEOs are sitting behind their finely turned mahogany desks, feeling the waves of panic rising inside themselves as they realize the bond markets are telling them that they won't be around long enough to collect on their gilt-edged retirement plans (Ironically, however, the same signals may be telling those same CEOs that it's increasingly likely they'll be collecting on their "golden parachute").

Obviously, there are two sides to the story here.

On one hand, U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, and now U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry M. "Hank" Paulson Jr., have literally pulled out all the stops to keep this from happening. Clearly, this "Dynamic Duo" believes that by saving individual companies via their "bailouts for (almost) all" strategy, they will save the entire economy. So what they've done is to make it possible for firms that are in such deep trouble that they can't obtain loans anywhere else to be able to borrow from the federal government – and on very favorable terms.

Ostensibly, this is a very good thing – or, at least, the feds would have us believe so.

But a super-close inspection suggests the opposite is true.

Of course, in the process the Fed Bailout Brigade has put every U.S. taxpayer in the recovery business to the tune of $10 trillion (or more) – but that's another story for another time.
 
The scramble to save American International Group Inc. (AIG) has resulted in an $85 billion bailout package with terms so onerous that one analyst likened it to a "controlled bankruptcy."

And where there's smoke there's fire. As the assets of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (LEH) and AIG are both sold into a depressed market, the net effect will be a spread of this contagion to the rest of the financial-services sector – which includes investment banks, thrifts, and hedge funds holding similar assets. That will further pressure already-skittish markets.

Unfortunately, history shows that more often than not when the Fed has squared off against the markets, the Fed ends up as the loser. That's why we've been such vocal critics of the central bank's moves since this crisis began, stating that its unprecedented interventions would do nothing more than delay the inevitable pain.

We wish the opposite were true.

News and Related Story Links:


Tags:

18 Responses

  1. spike | September 18, 2008

    I can't argue the point that these bailouts are very costly to the taxpayer
    however, the collapse of AIG would be just as costly if not more so. At least this way the fed ends up owning 80% of AIG. That should allow them over time to recoup a substantial portion of thier investment. The pitfall here is that the fed maintains their position in AIG just as they have in support of fannie and freddie over the years and that stifles the market leading to worse problems down the road. I therefore urge the taxpayers to force the gov't to privatise AIG "fannie and freddie to" for that matter at the earliest oppertunity. In other words this should be a short term investment in AIG and as such sold when it is profitable.

    Reply
  2. phil Ogden | September 18, 2008

    There's a very plausible alternative to the first sentence of this essay, that the FED 'squares off – and loses – when it goes against the financial markets. The alternative explanation is that the FED is part and parcel OF the financial markets, is privately owned BY financial institutions (not publicly nor governmentally owned nor operated) and therefore will do everything in its power to back its owners (member banks) rather than the US taxpayers. Yes the Treasury and Administration will need to go along but with this Federal Government that is not a problem. So in essence the FED is there to protect, bail out and keep solvent these financial institutions. It's privatization of banking/financial profits and socialization of banking/financial losses.

    Reply
  3. Rick | September 18, 2008

    My comment in regards to Spike. Can you tell me when the Fed has ever done anything profitable, that is, except collect taxes and throwing them down the sewer?
    I am all for free market enterprise and if it can't make it, then go under. Why should my children and grandchildren have to pay for some fat cat CEO's blunders? I have had two businesses and one that failed. I did not go to the feds crying for almost free money from my fellow tax payers. I regrouped on my own and started to look for other opportunities.
    But then, I realize we must save the US dollar from falling so that our foreign investors don't pull the plug. So now our off spring will shoulder another "blunder debt". We need to go back on a gold standard!

    Reply
  4. Kerry | September 18, 2008

    When we look at these bail-outs, the question of "here is the money coming from?" comes to mind. The answer is that it comes out of thin air. It is created by more government (we the people) debt to the Federal Reserve, and more money being printed.
    One definition of inflation is increase in money supply. These bailouts will create more inflation, higher prices, depreciated savings, etc. We can not inflate our way out of this problem, especially when every dollar created caries a "tax" to be paid to the Federal Reserve.
    The Federal Reserve created these problems through loose money policy. How can they be expected to fix the problem?

    Reply
  5. Jack | September 18, 2008

    For an interesting explanation of our current financial crisis read the "The Revolution: A Manifesto" by Ron Paul. This guy has been trying to get folks to listen to reason since Nixon took us off the gold standard. Now it's all coming true.

    Reply
  6. Craig Bradley | September 18, 2008

    Obviously, your servers are malfunctioning or limiting the total words allowed per comment. How about clarification Keith? (state the word count limit next time, PLEASE)

    Reply
  7. admin | September 18, 2008

    I don't think we are having any server issues but i will look into it. I would advise to keep the word count under 300 as I haven't seen any that exceed that.

    Reply
  8. Craig Bradley | September 19, 2008

    #####The voting American is unusually tolerant this year of an increase in political lying. Take the Barack Obama campaign as one glaring example. Their campaign message is repeated like a mantra: Tax increases would only affect those making $200,000-$250,000/year. Yet further clarification by Bill O'Reilly (@ fox news) indicates anyone earning more than $42,000 per annum would face a Federal income tax increase under a Obama presidency.

    Obamas campaign managers should say: "I'm Going to Take YO Nikes". Middle class assets are the nikes here. Obama's tax proposals also include doubling the capital gains tax and dividend tax, as well. So, Keith's reference to "inevitable pain" has a political component in addition to a financial component.

    This might be a good time for mobile and liquid individuals to consider where else they might want to establish a permanent residency before more extreme measures are taken, such as strict currency exchange controls.

    Reply
  9. H.Craig Bradley | September 19, 2008

    ^^^^^^The voting American is unusually tolerant this year of an increase in political lying. Take the Barack Obama campaign as one glaring example. Their campaign message is repeated like a mantra: Tax increases would only affect those making $200,000-$250,000/year. Yet further clarification by Bill O'Reilly (@ fox news) indicates anyone earning more than $42,000 per annum would face a Federal income tax increase under a Obama presidency.

    ^^^^^Obamas campaign managers should say: "I'm Going to Take YO Nikes". Middle class assets are the nikes here. Obama's tax proposals also include doubling the capital gains tax and dividend tax, as well. So, Keith's reference to "inevitable pain" has a political component in addition to a financial component.

    This might be a good time for mobile and liquid individuals to consider where else they might want to establish a permanent residency before more extreme measures are taken, such as strict currency exchange controls.

    Reply
  10. H.Craig Bradley | September 19, 2008

    The voting American is unusually tolerant this year of an increase in political lying. Take the Barack Obama campaign as one glaring example. Their campaign message is repeated like a mantra: Tax increases would only affect those making $200,000-$250,000/year. Yet further clarification by Bill O'Reilly (@ fox news) indicates anyone earning more than $42,000 per annum would face a Federal income tax increase under a Obama presidency.

    Reply
  11. H.Craig Bradley | September 19, 2008

    Obamas campaign managers should say: "I'm Going to Take YO Nikes". Middle class assets are the nikes here. Obama's tax proposals also include doubling the capital gains tax and dividend tax, as well. So, Keith's reference to "inevitable pain" has a political component in addition to a financial component.

    This might be a good time for mobile and liquid individuals to consider where else they might want to establish a permanent residency before more extreme measures are taken, such as strict currency exchange controls.

    Reply
  12. H.Craig Bradley | September 19, 2008

    Obamas campaign managers should say: "I'm Going to Take YO Nikes". Middle class assets are the nikes here. Obama's tax proposals also include doubling the capital gains tax and dividend tax, as well. So, Keith's reference to "inevitable pain" has a political component in addition to a financial component.

    Reply
  13. H.Craig Bradley | September 19, 2008

    This might be a good time for mobile and liquid individuals to consider where else they might want to establish a permanent residency before more extreme measures are taken, such as strict currency exchange controls.

    Reply
  14. H.Craig Bradley | September 19, 2008

    Possible Obama Campaign Slogan (truthfull): Im gonna take yo nikes.

    Reply
  15. H.Craig Bradley | September 19, 2008

    Keith's "inevitable pain" most likely refers to both political (tax) and financial components. The end result, as always, is the middle class gets the squeeze. Another aspect here is site administrators who have a rectal/cranial insertion. Notice I had to break up my comments into "word bytes" for them to stick. (Nice try, your limit here is way below 300 words).

    Reply
  16. H.Craig Bradley | September 19, 2008

    Keith's "inevitable pain" most likely refers to both political (tax) and financial components. The end result, as always, is the middle class gets the squeeze. ).

    Reply
  17. A Howard | September 24, 2008

    The problem is with. WE THE PEOPLE. Stop looking for change. Get out and make it. When your sleeping in the streets. You will only have the goverment to blame! Thats YOU.

    Reply
  18. $184bn of Distressed Debt Signals Record Bankrupties Coming | October 3, 2008

    [...] If the Fed Keeps Swimming Against the Tide, It Will End up Drowning addthis_url = [...]

    Reply


Some HTML is OK