At issue is the Fed’s continuing policy of bond-buying. While the central bank has stopped expanding its balance sheet with new asset purchases, it is engaged in a plan to sell short-dated Treasury bonds and replace them with a like amount of long-dated government debt. The result? Ten-year Treasury borrowing rates are around historic lows, and with them, mortgage rates.

For Bernanke, this is by design, not accident. He told Toomey a significant aim of the Fed is to gobble up enough risk-free Treasury debt so that investors are forced into riskier investments that will in principle generate better levels of growth.

“We don’t want to go too far,” Bernanke told the committee. He said the Fed was “very attentive” to signs that its stimulus was in the process of generating imbalances, and added the central bank had “greatly expanded” its surveillance of financial markets, in a bid not too be caught off guard.
…
“The effects of Fed policy, independent of all the other factors, on Treasury rates [are] modest,” Bernanke said. The bigger problem is investor confidence in future government borrowing. “Rates will rise eventually, and if investors were to lose confidence in U.S. federal fiscal policy, there is nothing the Fed can do to stop those rates from rising”.

If memory serves, it was Ken Rogoff (of This Time is Different fame) who observed that, throughout history, there is virtually no warning for when the bond market turns on a nation’s sovereign debt (so much for the Fed’s “attentiveness”) and, when combined with Bernanke’s warning above that there’s little they’ll be able to do under those circumstances, this sets the stage for one monster U.S. sovereign credit crisis somewhere down the road.

If you were to extend the chart to the left, you’d see that bank assets rose modestly for decades while the many economic/financial imbalances were being built up as the end of “The Great Moderation” signaled the beginning of “The Great Central Bank Intervention”.

In all, there are a dozen or so more images in this depressingly good collection of charts(.pdf) at Cumberland that will make you wonder anew where this is all headed.

“Unfortunately, I haven’t heard from Mr. Romney yet,” joked Grant when I called on him in his offices down on Wall Street. “I’m sitting by the phone, I’m ready.”

He may have to wait some time. Romney, a conventional Wall Street figure, is unlikely to tap him anytime soon.
…
He is best known these days — to Gingrich and Paul, among others — for his long-standing support for the gold standard. The world has moved in his direction. In 12 years, gold has risen from a derided relic trading at $250 an ounce to a hot investment at $1,750. Everywhere paper currency systems are under challenge. In 2008, the world discovered that you can’t just manufacture endless wealth out of thin air, as the gold bugs had long argued, and it is still struggling with the realization.

Many people will think of the gold standard as a relic of a bygone era, something as old-fashioned as bow-ties and stuffed animals. (My caveat: To me, that’s not an insult.) Grant, when we met, argued the reverse. He says paper currencies and our current monetary system are the ones that are out of date.

“The anachronism is today’s system,” he says. We have a “command and control, top down” system where the Fed imposes an interest rate on society. The Fed, in other words, tells us what the price of money should be. It is, Grant says, at odds with the modern age. “We live in a world of collaborative social networks” of the Internet and Facebook, of Wikipedia instead of the old World Book, and so on. And yet when it comes to the price of money, we wait for a committee that sits in private to tell us what it should be”.

There’s lots more in this story on Grant’s views of the financial system as currently constructed and what he would do if he were to sit in Ben Bernanke’s chair at the Fed. If you ask me, his gold standard price of $2,500 an ounce for the metal seems a bit low.

Money funds are designed to be ultra-safe cash-equivalents, and traditionally they provided a bit more return than bank certificates of deposit or savings accounts.

But for about 18 months now, nearly two-thirds of all money funds have yielded under 0.01%. To see just how horrible that is, consider that if you had $1,000 and split it evenly between a money fund and a piggy bank, at the end of a year the fund would only be ahead by a nickel.

This is not a new problem, but the Fed paints it in a new light. Central bankers made it clear that savers will not see any boost in money-fund returns for the foreseeable future, and can be sure that inflation will take a bite out of their cash. So if you use a money fund for emergency savings, the dollars aren’t growing even as the cost of insurance is rising.

Even when rates rise, money-fund yields aren’t likely to go up. Financial-services firms have been waiving costs, basically operating them at a loss to keep assets in-house; many smaller firms have simply shuttered their money-market funds. When rates finally do go up — and the Fed forecast doesn’t mean it can’t happen, it just suggests that it won’t until 2014 — firms will first take much of any increase for themselves.

By the way, does anyone know how stable value funds are doing these days?  I was tempted to not convert one of our 401ks to a self-directed IRA when we left our cubicle jobs back in 2007 in order to get the 3 or 4 percent these funds paid in the event that the early-decade low rate environment returned which, as it turns out, it did with a vengeance.

I regret that decision a little more each year…

Note that the 2012-2014 period assumes the current 3.0 percent inflation rate and zero percent Fed Funds rate continue for three more years – it might move up a little, but not much. Also, that little red sliver in 1978-1979 represents G. William Miller’s tenure as Fed chief – it hardly seemed worth it to put his name up there.

Bernanke Does Not Understand Savings
Twice in his press conference yesterday, Bernanke showed that he was out of touch with average Americans. He argued that average people could keep up with a 2% increase in the price level by investing in stocks and (presumably short-term) bonds.

(Speaking to The Bernank)

I’m sorry, Ben, but ya gotsta come down from the uneducated ivory tower and wallow in the mud wit da restov us. There are three problems with what you said:

- It’s hard to earn 2% (after-tax) consistently when the Fed funds rate is zero.

- Only the top 20% of the wealthy have enough assets to keep themselves afloat using the asset markets. Most people would like to do something to protect themselves from inflation, but lack the means to do so.

- Average people do not invest, they save at financial intermediaries like banks, S&Ls, and life insurers. Fed policy kills rates for savers. They will not become investors, because they lack the knowledge to do so.

I am again sorry, Ben, because your policies discriminate against the poor, and the lower middle class. Yes, the rich and the upper middle-class clever can escape the penalties stemming from your policies, but the lower-middle class and the poor can’t.

Think of it this way: your policies are making it more palatable for average people to buy gold, because the alternatives in savings are lousy. If there is no income, why not grab safety from inflation?

Author David Merkel then suggests a comparison to Arthur Burns, one of the worst Fed Chairman ever, a subject that will be taken up in the next item that appears here.

Roach says that, along with many other Western central bankers, Fed Chief Ben Bernanke is “betting the ranch on open-ended QE and zero interest rates” that, throughout history, have only been used as emergency measures, not long-term policy.

Basically, his answer to Gregg Robb of Marketwatch about the difficulties being experienced by fixed-income investors makes no sense as he confuses conservative investments with riskier ones in the rather disingenuous answer excerpted below:

In the case of savers, we think about all these issues and we certainly recognize that the low interest rates we’re using to try to stimulate investment and expansion of the economy also pose a cost on savers who have a lower return. And we do hear about that obviously and we do think about that.

I guess the response I would make is that the savers in our economy are dependent on a healthy economy in order to get adequate returns, in particular, people who own stocks, corporate bonds, as well as Treasury securities. And if our economy is in really bad shape, then they’re not going to get good returns on those investments.

So, I think what we need to do is, when the economy goes into a very weak situation, then low interest rates are needed to help restore the economy to something closer to full employment and increase growth and that, in turn, will lead ultimately to higher returns across all assets for savers and investors.

That’s little comfort for all the risk-averse savers out there just looking to get more than one percent on a certificate of deposit when the inflation rate is running at three or four times that amount (by government measure, your results may be much higher).

Turns out, in their policy statement today, the central bank added a full year-and-a-half to their low-rate pledge, more bad news for conservative savers who were hoping for a little better return on their money after three years of punishment, but great news for owners of precious metals that soared today on the news.

It’s not hard to understand why gold and silver prices shot upwards.

Low or negative real (inflation adjusted) interest rates are about the single best predictor of rising metal prices and it’s pretty hard to get a positive inflation adjusted interest rate when you start out with an interest rate of zero.

Pimco’s Bill Gross seems to think that this amounts to “financial repression”, a term that we’ll be hearing lots more between now and 2014. Today’s action was seen as, effectively, QE2.5, with the groundwork now laid for QE3, QE4, etc.

It looks like Richmond Fed President Jeffrey Lacker will be 2012’s lone dissenter as he voted against today’s action, preferring not to state a timeframe for how long rates are expected to be kept freakishly low.

The Fed also lowered their expectations for real U.S. economic growth, from a range of 2.5 to 2.9 percent to just 2.2 to 2.7 percent, and said they expect the jobless rate to end the year at between 8.2 to 8.5 percent, a slight improvement from their prior forecast.

Oh yeah. The central bank now has an inflation target too – 2 percent. Just don’t pay any attention to food prices that are rising by multiples of that amount because the Fed knows what it’s doing here. It’s all good (i.e., if you own precious metals).

Based on what I’ve been reading about an extension of the Fed’s freakishly low interest rate guarantee, we’re probably looking at the situation to right.

This is not going to make savers happy, but, if you like to borrow money, you’re likely to get lower rates for a while longer.

Come to think of it, those low-rate credit card offers could be arriving in our mailboxes for the rest of the decade.

Anyway, I’m hoping that someone asks Bernanke about the 2006 FOMC meeting transcripts and how the nation’s brightest economists could have been guffawing all year long when they maybe should have been looking at the rapidly inflating housing bubble that would burst a year or two later.

See The Fed’s Housing Bubble Laughter from the other day for the particulars about this.