Vanguard's long term Treasury fund, started in 1986, set a new all time low price record yesterday: What a coincidence

 VUSTX fell to $7.37 yesterday, October 19, 2023.

Until the bond debacle of 2022, the lowest price ever was set way back in 1987, also on October 19, aka Black Monday, when the S&P 500 crashed 20.47% in its worst single day ever.

2022's new all time low for VUSTX at 8.16 had occurred on October 24, missing the anniversary of the old all time low by just three days. Also a very odd coincidence.

The debacle has only continued in 2023, and VUSTX prices haven't seen $8 since September 22nd.

ZIRP since the Great Recession is ultimately to blame for the current mess in long term Treasury securities. The clamor it created for yield drove bond investors long, culminating in the highest nominal prices ever paid for long term UST in March 2020, and the lowest yields. 30Y UST yield crashed to 0.99% on March 9, 2020, 20Y to 0.87%. Yields across the board in 2023 for 2Y to 30Y have set records for this cycle in October. Yesterday 20Y demanded 5.30%, 30Y 5.11%.

No one wants that 2020 and prior junk now, so wherever it sits it's causing collateral problems, at banks, insurance companies, pension funds, et cetera. And on the Fed's balance sheet: As of October 18th the Fed has $1.503922 trillion of UST maturing in more than 10 years on its balance sheet. It basically has to keep it until it matures, and it pays it very little to return to the Treasury as it does.

Are prices done falling?

Confident pretenders said so a year ago this month, and now here we are with $TLT investors down another 12.22% since then.

Given the obscene overvaluation of stocks, and the demand for higher yields by bond investors, cash still seems the safest place to be. VMRXX, Vanguard Cash Reserves Federal Money Market Fund Admiral Shares, has returned 4.00% ytd. You continue to lose to inflation, however.

Nothing is ever perfect.

 

1987 high and low

2022 high and low to the left, all time high and low to the right

When interest rates effectively went to zero in 2009 and stayed there, no one could figure out where the inflation was going lol

 

CNBC story blames capitalism's law of supply and demand for inflation: 92 million millennials caused it, not Federal Reserve interference with interest rates and mortgages

... too many people with too much money chasing too few goods ... millennials are still making up the largest chunk of the homebuyer market by generation ... 

More.

Meanwhile, this housing bubble dwarfs the last one, and we're supposed to blame millennials for it.

Sounds like a repeat of the excuse for the last one: greedy Baby Boomers.

Just forget about Zero Interest Rate Policy artificially driving down borrowing costs for over a decade, and forget about the crappy low-yielding $2.7 trillion in MBS still on the Fed Balance Sheet nobody wants, because millennials are to blame!

The chutzpah.

Inflation in Europe is at record levels but its central banking fools are talking about paltry quarter and half-point increases to interest rates

 There's ample room to hike because Europe's idiots lowered rates effectively to zero in the first place and kept them there for years, and they are taking their sweet time about raising them just a little bit, same as in the US.

Meanwhile the people get punished mercilessly with the inflation tax.

Federal Reserve banks rob the people a minimum $400 billion annually through ZIRP, so far have paid just $125 billion in fines for financial crisis crimes

Bank of America is a chief offender appearing in the lists. The latest fine against it, among others, is detailed here:

"The Bank of America deal announced Thursday, the government’s largest-ever settlement with a single company, means the nation’s second-biggest bank will shell out $16.65 billion over allegations that it knowingly sold toxic mortgages to investors. ... The sum surpasses Bank of America’s entire profits last year and is significantly higher than the $13 billion it offered during negotiations in July."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The story doesn't mention the nearly $90 billion paid out by the FDIC Deposit Insurance Fund for the failed banks which have numbered over 500 since 2007, the funds for which are supplied by insurance premiums extorted from the honest banks. But it is the depositors who end up paying for that cost of doing business in the end. Nor does it ruminate on the effects of the Federal Reserve's Zero Interest Rate Policy, which allows those first in line for money to get it rock bottom cheap and speculate with it. The financial sector now rivals the household sector in stock ownership. Savers meanwhile get the crumbs which fall from their masters' table. Ten years prior to 2007 the country was finally beginning to recover from a decade long Savings and Loan crisis which witnessed over a thousand institutions fail, costing the taxpayers directly about $130 billion. No sooner was that over in 1995 when the wizards of smart conspired to abolish the Glass-Steagall banking regime in 1999, precipitating the recent panic less than a decade later. And, of course, the Great Depression after 1929 followed closely on the heels of the establishment of the Federal Reserve itself in 1913, signed into law by one Woodrow Wilson, Ph.D., Johns Hopkins University. Over 700 banks failed in 1930, and 9,000 over the ensuing decade. The professionals have a long history of failure. The prudent avoid them.

Rex "The Nut" Nutting commits drive by shooting of American savers, misunderstands excess reserves

The resident communist at MarketWatch weighs in here:

Sure, people need to keep some money handy to pay their bills and some folks might have a few hundred or a few thousand in a rainy-day fund, but no one needs immediate access to the equivalent of 11 months of income. In essence, there’s $10.8 trillion stuffed into mattresses. That $10.8 trillion hoard represents a failure of Fed policy. Since the Fed began quantitative easing in September 2012, U.S. households have socked away $1.17 trillion in their low-yield accounts. That means that 95% of the Fed’s $1.24 trillion QE3 ended up not in bubbly markets but in a safe and boring bank account.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The $1.17 trillion since September 2012 is nicely represented in "excess reserves of depository institutions", which are up $1.21 trillion since that time. So sorry, Rex, the banks are holding on to that cash, not households. The reason? They must, to help comply with increased capital requirements under Basel III rules in the wake of the panic of 2008. That's the reason for QE, but no one wants to call it the continued bank bailout that it is while the rest of us continue to suffer without bailouts of our own. People might actually revolt if they did that, so it's best to call QE and its evil twin ZIRP necessary measures to prop up housing, employment and the like. To call it a bank bailout would just give it away, and we can't have that, now can we?

Savings deposits, meanwhile, are up less than $1 trillion since September 2012, to which, by the way, no one has "immediate access". Savings deposits are not "demand deposits" like checking accounts. It can take up to 30 days to get all your money out of savings, which now totals $7.38 trillion. Demand deposits at commercial banks, on the other hand, are up just $220 billion since September 2012, to $1.18 trillion, and total checkable deposits are up just $320 billion to $1.66 trillion. Not exactly a lot of money in a $17 trillion economy.

These savings, such as they are, aren't a failure of Fed policy. They are actually a repudiation of it by a part of the population which still possesses a cultural memory of the basis of capitalism.

Wake up and join the revolution, Rex.

Banks probably will need ZIRP until March 2015 to be fully recapitalized from the crisis

In March 2013 Warren Sulmasy estimated that banks had lost $1 trillion in the crisis, and had recapitalized as little as $300 billion of that by that time.

Chris Whalen has estimated that ZIRP yields banks profits of $100 billion quarterly at the expense of savers who are not fairly recompensed for their deposits under the Federal Reserve policy known as zero interest rate policy.

So theoretically by March 2014, one year on from Sulmasy's estimate, banks had recouped an additional $400 billion, with $300 billion yet to go, which should take us to the spring of 2015 before we can say that banks should have been made completely whole from the crisis.

ZIRP should most definitely end by then, or things are worse than we imagine.

Business as usual: a government of the banks, by the banks and for the banks.

The keys to corporate profits since the 2008 panic

Layoffs and ZIRP and buybacks, oh my! Layoffs and ZIRP and buybacks, oh my!

John Crudele Of NY Post Still Not Really Sure What The Fed Has Been Trying To Do

Here in "Bernanke's rate ploy robs from middle class" John Crudele of The New York Post still can't seem to put two and two together even after all this time:

1:

Bernanke, who is leaving his job next month, controls something called the Fed Funds Rate. That’s the rate at which banks can lend each other money for a very short term, generally overnight. That rate is set by the Fed and has been stuck at a puny 0.25 percent for the last few years as the Fed tries to — well, I’m not really sure what the Fed has been trying to do. ...

2:

One of the few rates he has been able to keep low is the yields on things like money-market and savings accounts. The banks love him, since the less they pay out to depositors, the more money they earn.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

What do I gotta do, John, spell it out for ya?

The Fed has been trying to . . . rescue the banks. They don't keep the rate next to zero for this long if they didn't need to.

The middle class has been punished in the process, but lower interest rates presumably have allowed some in the middle class to refinance expensive loans at lower rates while their retirement investments have reflated. That's the rationalization, if not the reality experienced by most.

The banking crisis is over when ZIRP is over.

Best Summary Yet Explains Federal Reserve's Real Objective Behind ZIRP: To Fix The Banks (Not You)

0.25% is the upper limit of the Fed Funds Target Range

And there's still a LONG way to go.

From Warren Sulmasy of Trinus Investment Partners last March:

[E]veryone ... should ask why the Federal Reserve Bank has overnight rates at 0.25%.

The financial calamity of 2008 relieved the global banking system of around one trillion U.S. dollars. Therefore, in order to recapitalize itself, the global banking system needs to make around 1 trillion US dollars.

The Federal Reserve has made a dramatic, concerted effort to help the global banking system recapitalize itself principally by keeping rates at near zero. The current estimates place the recapitalization in the $300 to $400 billion range. While that is a wonderful gain by any measure, $300 to $400 billion is woefully short of the $1 trillion hole, over $500 billion short.

  

The next $500 billion will be much more difficult for the banks to recapitalize due to the new rules and regulations. While the Dodd/Frank and the Volker rule were created with very good intentions, as so many laws and rules and regulations are, the real impact of these new rules and regulations will be on the bank's bottom lines.

Both Dodd/Frank and the Volker Rule severely limit the businesses banks can pursue. This will create a difficult environment for banks to earn profits and thus, will only increase the time it will take for the global banking system to completely recapitalize itself. Therefore, the Federal Reserve will be obligated to continue the current near zero interest rate policy for a longer period of time than people have projected in order to continue assisting the global banking system to get closer to recapitalizing itself.

Read the rest, here.

American Businesses Have Saved $2.8 Trillion In Last Four Years Due To ZIRP

In the form of lower borrowing costs, according to this story from Bloomberg:

America’s companies, from Apple Inc. (AAPL) to Verizon Communications Inc., are saving about $700 billion in interest payments with the Federal Reserve’s unprecedented stimulus. ...

Savings of about $700 billion represents the difference between what companies that have sold bonds since Sept. 17, 2009, are paying annually based on an average maturity of nine years for securities in the Bank of America Merrill Lynch U.S. Corporate & High Yield Index, versus what they might have paid before the crisis.

After rising as high as 11.1 percent on Oct. 28, 2008, it wasn’t until Sept. 17, 2009 that yields fell below the pre-Lehman average of 6.14 percent, the Bank of America Merrill Lynch index shows.

------------------------------------------------------------

Just another reason corporate profits after taxes have skyrocketed to another record seasonally-adjusted annual rate of $1.83 trillion for Q2 2013.

Home Prices Still Too High: Nationally 24% Pay More Than Half Their Income On Housing

Case Shiller Home Price Index @multpl.com

Joel Kotkin reflects on the still expensive housing market here:

Ownership levels continue to drop, most notably for minorities, particularly African Americans. Last year, according to the Harvard study, the number of renters in the U.S. rose by a million, accompanied by a net loss of 161,000 homeowners.

This is bad news not only for middle-income Americans but even more so for the poor and renters. The number of renters now paying upward of 50% of their income for housing has risen by 2.5 million since the recession and 6.7 million over the decade. Roughly one in four renters, notes Harvard, are now in this perilous situation. The number of poor renters is growing, but the supply of new affordable housing has dropped over the past year. ...

According to the Center for Housing Policy and National Housing Conference, 39% of working households in the Los Angeles metropolitan area spend more than half their income on housing, 35% in the San Francisco metro area and 31% in the New York area. All of these figures are much higher than the national rate of 24%, which itself is far from tolerable.

-------------------------------------------------

Kotkin nowhere mentions that currently expensive housing is explicit Federal Reserve policy. ZIRP and QE are specifically designed to reduce long term interest rates to make home mortgages affordable. Instead those policies have re-inflated housing prices to their historical highs before the bubble and reversed the downward trajectory of price resetting those prices were on.

In June 2013 dollars, the Case Shiller Home Price Index reached its low point after the bubble at 126.30 for the quarter ended March 31, 2012. That level hadn't been seen since June 1998. But from the long term perspective prices should have reset to 120 on the index or lower as they have in the past. This expectation holds even more considering the excesses of the bubble which needed to be wiped out, but haven't been.

The Fed has done nothing but interfere with the free market in housing, creating the bubble in the first place and preventing its deflation now. To fix the problem, the Fed needs at a minimum to focus solely on price stability by maintaining a strong dollar. Markets will take care of themselves after that.

What's Worse? Frequent Financial Panics Over Quickly, Or A Long Great Depression?

Unfortunately, you won't read about the Federal Reserve's role in the run-up to the Great Depression from Roger Lowenstein's discussion of the creation of the Fed beginning on this date 100 years ago, here in The New York Times:

One of the plan’s most strident critics, Representative Charles A. Lindbergh Sr., the father of the aviator, predicted that the Federal Reserve Act would establish “the most gigantic trust on earth,” and that the Fed would become an economic dictator or, as he put it, an “invisible government by the money power.”

Savers know the dictator. Executive Order 6102 in April 1933 made them hand over their gold at $20.67 for an ounce only to learn in May the price per ounce was "raised" to $35. Savers now experience the same trick in a different form because they earn nothing for a lifetime of trouble due to ZIRP. It is not a coincidence that Lowenstein just leaves out the fact that one of the world's most gigantic busts occurred not 17 years after the creation of the Federal Reserve, just as it is not a coincidence that the current bust occurred not 10 years after Gramm-Leach-Bliley undid the banking reform of Glass-Steagall which had to be passed to fix what was wrong with Federal Reserve banking.

Particularly insidious is Lowenstein's use of the terms Fed "framers" and Fed "originalism" in discussing the Federal Reserve's origins, which had nothing to do with the framers of the constitution or the originalism which seeks to recover their lost ideas, ideas which were already long lost in 1913. Apparently those ideas still need to be killed.

Methinks the liberal doth protest too much of "ghosts".

Big Deal: Debt To GDP Ratio Comes In At 105%

The debt as of 4/24/13 was $16.7943 trillion. GDP in the latest report was $16.0102 trillion. So the one divided by the other yields 1.05, or 105%. To which I say, Big deal.

In other words, the current annualized national income no longer is sufficient to cover what we owe. But there is no situation in which anyone stops consuming and simply works for a year to pay off everything one owes. At this you'd last maybe 40 days if you were Jesus Christ, but trust me, you aren't Jesus Christ. This is not the way to look at it. Instead, we should look at the debt like a mortgage.

Interest payments on this ever-growing debt in fiscal 2012 came to $360 billion, implying an interest rate paid of a little more than 2%. This rate is artificial. It is the result of manipulation afforded to us by the Federal Reserve's deliberate policy we affectionately call ZIRP, zero interest rate policy, which pushes long term interest rates down into the cellar. A more realistic rate would be double that, 4%, about a half point higher than current averages for 30-year mortgages (call it an extra penalty for having less than AAA status if you want). So, if one were to treat the total public debt outstanding like a mortgage amortized over 30 years at 4% fixed, our "mortgage" payment to pay off the debt would be $80.304 billion monthly, or about $964 billion a year. And you'd have to stop deficit spending.

In the current spending environment, $964 billion annually is about 25% of current government outlays of $3.8 trillion. Current government receipts, however, have lagged the outlays by about $1 trillion annually, so the "mortgage" payment would be closer to 35% of income.

Responsible persons all over this country pay off mortgages with that percentage of income devoted to debt service, and they do it all the time. It's high time the federal government started acting like them. In order to do so, however, current spending apart from the "mortgage" payment would have to be cut $1.96 trillion annually, or 48%, to $1.84 trillion annually for all programs. (That squealing you hear is the sound of stuck pigs).

Somebody get on this right away.     

Government Uses ZIRP To Help Itself, And Screw You

Government interference with interest rates is punishing savers like never before, but allows the Feds to pay record low rates on the US Public Debt it racks up in obscene fashion. The zero interest rate policy effectively nullifies returns from savings which older investors rely on for income in retirement.

The official policy of our civilization is to abort the young before they ever see the light of day, and to impoverish the prudent out of existence. 

Government has now suppressed interest rates to such an extent that the $16.2 trillion US Public Debt in fiscal 2012 effectively costs the Feds a paltry 2.2 percent to carry.

Meanwhile they continue to pile on ever larger sums owed, and never pay off even so much as one thin dime of it.

Mitt Romney is right to call this immoral:

“In my view, it’s not just bad economics; it is immoral for us to pass these burdens on to coming generations.”

A Lovely Question: Why Is Interest Income, Perhaps 10 Percent of GDP in the Past, Trivial to Savers but Ever So Important to Banks?

Jeffrey Snider wants to know, here:

I think everyone understands that credit is vital to businesses, but they also intuitively understand that customers are probably more vital (and the largest problem for businesses of all sizes since 2008). I don't think Chairman Bernanke can claim that interest income is trivial and therefore not really a consideration, both in an empirical sense (the numbers don't bear that out, especially at the margins) or, perhaps more importantly, in the perceptions of the voting public. If he does, then why is such a trivial amount to savers so important to banks? It cannot be the money multiplier effect since bank net income (the pivot in this trade-off) plays no role in that presumed multiplier - ZIRP is a technique of expanding bank balance sheet capacity. It is the method of circulation that is at issue here, and the Fed and its global central bank cousins are placing all their chips on circulating money indirectly through credit creation. If that is a superior option, then they should be able to demonstrate it.

Make No Mistake About It: The Federal Reserve Is The Enemy Of The People

From another insightful meditation by Jeffrey Snider, this time on the consequences of trying to make the artificial financial economy and the real economy one:

The Federal Reserve has gone far beyond TARP into ZIRP (zero interest rate policy). ZIRP is a direct tax on savers, figuratively taking money out of the pockets of those who have acted responsibly in the real economy, transferring it to the banking system (especially the largest investment banks, the very banks responsible for most of the credit creation and monetary imbalance of the past asset bubbles) that was negligent, reckless and complicit in this disaster. Monetary policymakers, the gatekeepers to the realm of the monetary or financial economy, now intentionally and directly penalize real economy actors in favor of financial economy actors. They do so with this narrative that as the financial economy goes, the real economy will follow. Very few people seem to challenge this as backwards, certainly not anyone in a policymaking role.

The Federal Reserve is Deliberately Robbing Widows, Orphans and Retired People

So says Robert Higgs, here:

Given that the Fed’s official policy is to drive all interest rates to near zero, one may conclude that the Fed seeks to impoverish the widows, orphans, retired people, and all other financially untutored people who rely on interest earnings to support themselves in their old age or adversity. Can a crueller official policy be imagined, short of grinding up these unfortunate souls to make pet food or fertilizer?

The politicians constantly bark about their solicitude for those who are helpless and in difficulty through no fault of their own. Yet, the scores of millions of people who saved money to support themselves in old age now find themselves progressively robbed by the very officials who purport to be their protectors.

So What if We Become Japan!

"What matters is whether investors really believe that they will be stiffed. In Japan they did not, and still do not."

-- Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, here

The thing is, ZIRP has been stiffing us for quite some time now. And the dollar is down nearly 25 times since 1971 alone.

The phrase "Federal Reserve policy" has been a synonym for screwing the American taxpayer . . . since 1913.

The Federal Reserve's ZIRP is Another Form of Age Discrimination

Baby boomers, like Ben Shalom Bernanke, are such a self-loathing brood. First they put us all out of work, and then they pay us nothing on our savings:

[I]t is reasonable to call Bernanke the enemy of savers, because he is the enemy of savers. When one can’t earn anything over one year without risk, something is wrong. ...

Saving deserves a return. Let the Fed raise the Fed funds rate by 1%, and they will see that there is no harm to the banks, and little harm to the economy. Once you have 1% slope between twos and tens you have more than enough oomph to make the economy move. What, does the AARP have to bring a age discrimination lawsuit against the Federal Reserve to make this happen? The Fed is discriminating against the elderly.

David Merkel has more to say here.