Connect with us

Economics

Larry Summers Slams “Woke” Fed “Losing Control” Of Inflation

Larry Summers Slams "Woke" Fed "Losing Control" Of Inflation

You know it’s bad when you’ve lost Larry Summers…

It appears the so-called ‘progressives’ push to ever more signaling of their virtue and cradle-to-grave dependence on bigger…

Published

on

Larry Summers Slams "Woke" Fed "Losing Control" Of Inflation

You know it's bad when you've lost Larry Summers...

It appears the so-called 'progressives' push to ever more signaling of their virtue and cradle-to-grave dependence on bigger and bigger government (as long as you 'obey' the narrative) is just too much for the former Treasury Secretary who warned that monetary policy makers in the U.S. and elsewhere for paying too much attention to social issues and not enough to the biggest risk to inflation since the 1970s.

Speaking to a virtual conference organized by the Institute of International Finance, Summers rebuffed the newly 'woke' Fed:

“We have a generation of central bankers who are defining themselves by their wokeness,” Summers, who is now a professor at Harvard University, said on Wednesday.

They’re defining themselves by how socially concerned they are.

Read that again and consider the source - Bill Clinton's Treasury Secretary and head of the National Economic Council in the early years of the Obama administration!!

His fear is simple: Fed talking heads are too focused on social justice that they are taking their eye off the ball that is their mandated job of managing inflation and jobs.

“We’re in more danger than we’ve been during my career of losing control of inflation in the U.S.,” the 66-year-old Summers, a paid contributor to Bloomberg, said.

“We’ve gone even further towards losing it in Britain and I think we’re at some risk in Europe.”

Summers also - quite ironically for someone who has supported fiscal expansion as a means of promoting macroeconomic stability - blamed the Fed and other central banks for not preparing investors for the tough steps policy makers will probably have to take to rein in inflation.  

“If those actions come, they’re going to be very shocking and very painful in financial markets,” he said.

This is not the first time Summers has raised a red flag. As James Caton writes at The American Institute for Economic Research, in February, Summers participated in a discussion with Paul Krugman where he outlined his concerns. He notes that:

  1. The stimulus of 2020 was about twice the size of the output gap in the same year. The proposed stimulus for 2021 was, at the time, 4 times the size of the projected output gap.

  2. Unemployment compensation provided to the bottom 30% of earners was more than double their losses from Covid-19.

Elsewhere, Summers explains that the current labor shortage will drive up wages and that we have already seen monthly rents for new tenants increase by 17 percent, on average, above the rents paid by previous tenants. 

Summers believes that the “toxic side effects of QE” are not being recognized by policymakers. In an interview, Larry Summers used a rather peculiar metaphor to describe this situation.:

So, I look at that dwindling hole. Then I look at expenditures that aren’t hard to add into the multiple trillions, and I see substantial risk that the amount of water being poured in vastly exceeds the size of the bathtub.

When I heard Summers use this metaphor, my mind was drawn to a passage I first read over a decade ago from Benjamin Anderson in his reflection on the Great Depression. In referring to monetary policy that preceded the initiation of the Great Crash in October 1929, he wrote:

When a bathtub in the upper part of the house has been overflowing for five minutes, it is not difficult to turn off the water and mop up. But when the bathtub has been overflowing for several years, the walls and the spaces between ceilings and floors have become full of water, and a great deal of work is required to get the house dry. Long after the faucet is turned off, water still comes pouring in from the walls and from the ceilings. It was so in 1928 and 1929. 

Consistent with both statements is the belief that the monetary policy provided more stimulus than was merited by prevailing economic conditions. And consistent with Summers’ belief that excessive monetary support can be toxic, Anderson bemoans the extensive damage that can occur when the water spigot is left on for too long.

Instead of racial 'equity' or climate change, The Fed needs to concentrate on monetary policy. This is a serious job that requires serious focus. Perhaps Summers recognizes that the post-2008 monetary framework has created a fiscal Fed. Or maybe he will. 

Summers’ demands for limits to the aims of monetary policy might be politically feasible under the old Volcker-Greenspan regime. Under that monetary regime, inflationary pressure placed strict limits on the expansion of the balance sheet. The political incentives now faced by both politicians and Fed officials promote precisely the sort of oversized fiscal expansions that we have observed in the last two years, the same expansions that Summers decries. 

The post-2008 framework has incentivized the destabilization of monetary policy. The sooner we recognize this fact, the sooner we can seriously discuss a solution to the problem.

Tyler Durden Thu, 10/14/2021 - 19:40

Read More

Continue Reading

Economics

FT-IGM US Macroeconomists Survey for December

The FT-IGM US Macroeconomists survey is out (it was conducted over the weekend). The results are summarized here, and an FT article here (gated). Here’s some of the results. For GDP, assuming Q4 is as predicted in the November Survey of Professional…

Published

on

The FT-IGM US Macroeconomists survey is out (it was conducted over the weekend). The results are summarized here, and an FT article here (gated). Here’s some of the results.

For GDP, assuming Q4 is as predicted in the November Survey of Professional Forecasters, we have the following picture.

Figure 1: GDP (black), potential GDP (gray), November Survey of Professional Forecasters (red), November SPF subtracting 1.5ppts in Q1, 05ppts in Q2 (blue), FT-IGM December survey (sky blue squares), all on log scale. FT-IGM GDP level assumes 2021Q4 growth rate equals SPF November forecast. NBER defined recession dates peak-to-trough shaded gray. Source: BEA 2021Q3 2nd release, Philadelphia Fed November SPF, FT-IGM December survey, and author’s calculations.

In the figure above, I’ve used the SPF forecast of 4.6% SAAR in 2021Q4; the Atlanta Fed’s nowcast as of yesterday (12/7) was 8.6% SAAR. A new nowcast comes out tomorrow.

Interestingly, q4/q4 median forecasted growth equals that implied by the Survey of Professional Forecasters November survey (which was taken nearly a month before news of the omicron variant came out).

The q4/q4 forecast distribution for 2022 is skewed, with the 90th percentile at 5% growth, the 10th percentile at 2.5%, and median at 3.5%. I show the corresponding implied levels of GDP (once again assuming 2021Q4 growth equals the SPF ).

Figure 2: GDP (black), November Survey of Professional Forecasters (red), FT-IGM December survey (sky blue squares), 90th percentile and 10th percentile implied levels (light blue +), my median forecast (green triangle), all on log scale. FT-IGM GDP level assumes 2021Q4 growth rate equals SPF November forecast. NBER defined recession dates peak-to-trough shaded gray. Source: BEA 2021Q3 2nd release, Philadelphia Fed November SPF, FT-IGM December survey, and author’s calculations.

On unemployment, the median forecast is for a deceleration in recovery,

Figure 3: Unemployment rate (black), November Survey of Professional Forecasters (red), FT-IGM December survey (sky blue square), 90th percentile and 10th percentile implied levels (light blue +), my median forecast (green triangle). NBER defined recession dates peak-to-trough shaded gray. Source: BEA 2021Q3 2nd release, Philadelphia Fed November SPF, FT-IGM December survey, and author’s calculations.

The survey respondents also think that the participation rate will take a long time to return to pre-pandemic levels.

Source: FT-IGM, December 2021 survey.

On inflation, the median is higher than the November SPF mean estimate for 2022 of 2.3% (and Goldman Sachs’ current estimate).

Source: FT-IGM, December 2021 survey.

The entire survey results are here.

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Over 170 companies delisted from major U.S. stock exchanges in 12 months

  Over the years, United States-based exchanges have remained an attractive destination for most companies aiming to go public. With businesses jostling to join the trading platforms, the exchanges have also delisted a significant number of companies….

Published

on

By

 

Over the years, United States-based exchanges have remained an attractive destination for most companies aiming to go public. With businesses jostling to join the trading platforms, the exchanges have also delisted a significant number of companies.

According to data acquired by Finbold, a total of 179 companies have been delisted from the major United States exchanges between 2020 and 2021. In 2021, the number of companies on Nasdaq and the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) stands at 6,000, dropping 2.89% from last year’s figure of 6,179. In 2019, the listed companies stood at 5,454.

NYSE recorded the highest delisting with companies on the platform, dropping 15.28% year-over-year from 2,873 to 2,434. Elsewhere, Nasdaq listed companies grew 7.86% from 3,306 to 3,566. Data on the number of listed companies on NASDAQ and NYSE is provided by The World Federation of Exchanges.

The delisting of the companies is potentially guided by basic factors such as violating listing regulations and failing to meet minimum financial standards like the inability to maintain a minimum share price, financial ratios, and sales levels. Additionally, some companies might opt for voluntary delisting motivated by the desire to trade on other exchanges.

Furthermore, the delisting on U.S. major exchanges might be due to the emergence of new alternative markets, especially in Asia. China and Hong Kong markets have become more appealing, with regulators making local listings more attractive. Over the years, exchanges in the region have strived to emerge as key players amid dominance by U.S. equity markets. As per a previous report, the U.S. controls 56% of the global stock market value.

A significant portion of the delisted companies also stems from the regulatory perspective pitting U.S. agencies and their Chinese counterparts. For instance, China Mobile Ltd, China Unicom, and China Telecom Corp announced their delisting from NYSE, citing investment restrictions dating from 2020.

Worth noting is that the delisting of firms was initiated due to strict measures put in place by the Trump administration. The current administration has left the regulations in place while proposing additional regulations. For instance, a recent regulation update by the Securities Exchange Commission requiring US-listed Chinese companies to disclose their ownership structure has led to the exit of cab-hailing company Didi from the NYSE.

Impact of pandemic on the listing of companies

The delisting also comes in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic that resulted in economic turmoil. With the shutdown of the economy, most companies entered into bankruptcies as the stock market crashed to historical lows.

Lower stock prices translate to less wealth for businesses, pension funds, and individual investors, and listed companies could not get the much-needed funding for their normal operations.

At the same time, the focus on more companies going public over the last year can be highlighted by firms on the Nasdaq exchange. Worth noting is that in 2020, there was tremendous growth in special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs), mainly driven by the impact of the coronavirus pandemic. With the uncertainty of raising money through the traditional means, SPACs found a perfect role to inject more funds into capital-starving companies to go public.

From the data, foreign companies listing in the United States have grown steadily, with the business aiming to leverage the benefits of operating in the country. Notably, listing on U.S. exchanges guarantees companies liquidity and high potential to raise capital. Furthermore, listing on either NYSE or Nasdaq comes with the needed credibility to attract more investors. The companies are generally viewed as a home for established, respected, and successful global companies.

In general, over the past year, factors like the pandemic have altered the face of stock exchanges to some point threatening the continued dominance of major U.S. exchanges. Tensions between the US and China are contributing to the crisis which will eventually impact the number of listed companies.

 

Courtesy of Finbold.

Read More

Continue Reading

Economics

Stock futures open flat as Omicron concerns ease

Dow futures edged up 0.02%, while contracts on the Nasdaq Composite inched up 0.10%…
The post Stock futures open flat as Omicron concerns ease first appeared on Trading and Investment News.

Published

on

Dow futures edged up 0.02%, while contracts on the Nasdaq Composite inched up 0.10%

Stock futures opened relatively flat on Wednesday evening, though sustaining gains posted by a three-day recovery rally that was led by cooled investor concerns around the Omicron variant of the coronavirus.

Dow futures edged up 0.02%, while contracts on the tech-focused Nasdaq Composite inched up 0.10%. All major indexes closed up, with the S&P 500 adding 14.46 points to end the session at 4,701.21, just 0.5% short of the trading session on Nov. 24, a day before the latest COVID-19 variant was announced by the World Health Organization (WHO).

The moves were supported by eased virus fears after Pfizer Inc. and BioNTech reported that early lab studies show a third dose of their coronavirus vaccine mitigates the Omicron variant.

The vaccine makers had indicated the initial two doses may not be enough to protect against infection from Omicron. Shares of Pfizer (PFE) traded 0.62% lower on Wednesday, closing at $51.40.

With virus concerns diminishing, investors are pivoting their attention back to economic data, awaiting Consumer Price Index (CPI) figures on Friday to assess the extent inflationary pressures will persist.

If the Omicron variant was to lead to a resurgence in goods spending at the expense of services or to further complicate supply disruptions, there could be a clear inflationary impact, too, HSBC economist James Pomeroy wrote earlier this week in a research note to clients.

He stated: The inflation news in the past few weeks has been decidedly mixed — with upside surprises in both the U.S. and eurozone being offset by the possibility of some of the supply chain issues starting to alleviate, while energy prices have fallen sharply in recent days.

The post Stock futures open flat as Omicron concerns ease first appeared on Trading and Investment News.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending