Absurd Headline of the Day: Fed Winds Down Program That Saved the Economy

CNN says “The Fed will start winding down a program that saved the economy“. 

The Federal Reserve announced Wednesday that it will begin winding down a program that purchased tens of billions of dollars of corporate assets to shore up the economy during the pandemic.

In a statement, the central bank said the facility was crucial to businesses during the depth of the recession. But as the economy rapidly recovers, the time to start winding it down has begun.

The program “proved vital in restoring market functioning last year, supporting the availability of credit for large employers, and bolstering employment through the Covid-19 pandemic,” the Fed said.

The Fed currently holds $13.7 billion worth of corporate assets, including more than $5 billion of corporate bonds and another $8.5 billion worth of exchange-traded funds. 

That’s a huge amount of money to unwind, so the Fed said it would sell off those assets over time to keep markets functioning properly and to reduce any resulting shock to the system.

Fed’s Balance Sheet

The Fed’s balance sheet is $7.9 trillion. Somehow we are supposed to believe that a measly $27.2 billion in corporate bond and ETF purchases “saved the economy”.

The Fed said the program was “vital in restoring market functioning” an absurdity in an of itself.

 CNN then translated the Fed’s statement into an even more ridiculous “program that saved the economy.”

Illegal Corporate Bond Purchases

It’s important to note the Fed’s tiptoe waltz into the corporate bond program was illegal. John Hussman explained the illegality in Fundamentally Unsound.

The Fed is using Congressionally-approved crisis funds to buy corporate bonds from investors in order to boost valuations and protect bondholders from losses, with neither sufficient collateral nor evidence of inability to secure bank credit (both of which are legally required). Worse, the Fed is also creating base money to “leverage” these purchases. 

The Fed has announced the intention to “leverage” the funds approved by Congress with additional money creation, in an amount ranging between 3-10 times what Congress actually allocated, in order to buy unsecured corporate bonds from private investors. Aside from the violations of law involved here, and the shift of private risk onto the public balance sheet, it’s important to understand is that the financial effect is to amplify speculation and the issuance of low-grade debt.

What’s Going On?

  • A  $27.2 billion purchase certainly did not save the economy. 
  • The total purchase was so small it may have done nothing at all except this key thing: The Fed just usurped authority it never had then bragged about the success of the program.
  • CNN further hyped what the Fed did as not only a success, but one that allegedly saved the economy.
  • The next time the Fed acts it may not be a small size and it may not even be limited to corporate bond ETFs but virtually anything the Fed wants to do. 

One Toe Too Much

It’s not the size, it’s the idea. The Fed got its foot into another illegal door and was praised for it.

This is similar in nature to The Psychology of QE is Far More Important Than the Amount of It

This time however, the key idea is not the amount but what the Fed may do next time. 

Also note, Fed Sponsored Speculation: Real Interest Rates Are -4.1 Percent, Lowest Since 1980

Finally, A Friend Asks “Is the Fed Trying to Destroy the US Dollar?”

You likely know the answer but there’s more to the setup than a simple yes.

Addendum From Hussman

As a practical matter, it’s possible to scrape enough grey areas out of the legislative wording of the CARES Act to argue that the Fed’s purchases of corporate bonds were allowed by 4003(b)(4)(B), but even that strained argument holds only for purchases financed directly by funds provided by the Treasury, and where those Treasury funds themselves could be interpreted as the 13(3) “collateral.” It’s a major red flag that the Fed counted the unsecured bonds as collateral as well, and that it booked them at cost rather than market value, because that’s like claiming that any unbacked IOU scribbled on a napkin can be treated as its own collateral. 

In any case, the use of additional Fed “leverage” would have been patently illegal, and it seems that the Fed understood this because leverage (i.e. creating base money to buy unbacked corporate bonds beyond the amount of funding approved and provided by Congress) was never used, as far as I can tell. In addition to $8.5 billion in corporate bond ETFs, the Fed’s “secondary market corporate credit facility” holds about $5 billion in individual bonds.

As of 11/24/20, the largest holdings were, in order: AT&T, Volkswagen Group of America Finance, Toyota Motor Credit, Daimler Finance North America, Verizon, Apple, Comcast, and BMW US Capital. Over 74% of the dollar value in the top 4 holdings represented bonds issued by wholly-owned subsidiaries of foreign companies. This is what one gets when one places the Federal Reserve in charge of allocating funds on behalf of the American public. We can do better.

The above snip is from the tail end of Hussman’s December 2020 post Hypervaluation and the Option Value of Cash

Mish

Subscribe to MishTalk Email Alerts.

Subscribers get an email alert of each post as they happen. Read the ones you like and you can unsubscribe at any time.

This post originated on MishTalk.Com

Thanks for Tuning In!

Mish

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

32 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Webej
Webej
2 years ago
Agree. But the announcement that there will be no price discovery in corporate bonds and the promise of infinite buying power to support the market is enough, regardless of the amounts spent. If the FED can credibly invoke its infinite purchasing power in any market, nobody will speculate on the any other outcome.
Casual_Observer2020
Casual_Observer2020
2 years ago
Reply to  Webej
I wrote last year the problems would be worse if the Fed didn’t do anything. I still stand by that. The reason I expect them to prop up nearly any securities market is because the sheer amount of money from pension and other funds that is going to be slowly withdrawn as a large chunk of the population is able to do so. 
Casual_Observer2020
Casual_Observer2020
2 years ago
You can write what you want but the Fed always has the last word. 
KidHorn
KidHorn
2 years ago
CNN is just a mouthpiece for the government. They’ll say whatever the government wants them to say. When I say government, I’m not talking about the elected officials. I’m talking about the employees who run the branches. Who are overwhelmingly democrats. Doesn’t matter which party controls congress or sits in the oval office. The federal government is run by democrats. Has been for decades. Used to be the DOD was republican, but not any more. The democrats have become the war party and the DOD has switched allegiance.
Casual_Observer2020
Casual_Observer2020
2 years ago
Reply to  KidHorn
Wonder why the DoD is no longer Republican. 
RonJ
RonJ
2 years ago
“Check out how CNN beefed up a Fed lie that was unbelievable in and of itself.”
A lie amidst a litany of lies.
When are we ever told the truth? What is the Fed’s true agenda? We only know what their official narrative is.
Hillary once spoke to Goldman Sachs, while running for president. She spoke to them of her having a public policy and a private policy. Goldman Sachs was to be privy to the private policy, which was the actual policy, while the public was to be propagandized by the official narrative public policy.
We don’t know what is going on in secret behind closed doors.
“We have a strong dollar policy,” were the words spoken by the Bush Jr. Treasury Secretary, while the actual policy was a weaker dollar. It was a Snow job, by Secretary Snow.
ed_retired_actuary
ed_retired_actuary
2 years ago
Reply to  RonJ
During the 2016 campaign, I asked a Goldman Sachs attendee about Hillary’s talk.  Essentially platitudes, and nothing that contradicted her public statements.
Doug78
Doug78
2 years ago
Why did they pay her so much money three times for platitudes?
Zardoz
Zardoz
2 years ago
Reply to  Doug78
She must still wield considerable influence, and they are wanting her to wield it on their behalf.
Doug78
Doug78
2 years ago
Reply to  Zardoz
Or perhaps payment for past services?
Zardoz
Zardoz
2 years ago
Reply to  Doug78
Seems like the kind of service you’d want to get cash up front for, but I don’t move in such circles.
ed_retired_actuary
ed_retired_actuary
2 years ago
Reply to  Zardoz
Or the hope of toning down any influence that might be used against them.  Considerable $ to Hillary is pocket change to GS
Maximus_Minimus
Maximus_Minimus
2 years ago
Reply to  RonJ
I will take a jab at FED’s policy: they make it up as they go. The public statements are to put a lipstick on this secret.
RunnrDan
RunnrDan
2 years ago
“I do not believe that any one really knows when the piper must be paid.”
That the younger generation can’t afford a home or see an end to their college debt and are marching in the streets about it (although done under a made-up, false pretext), that is the downpayment owed the piper.  The balance is still due and you probably won’t be around for it. 
RonJ
RonJ
2 years ago
Today Zero Hedge had a headline stating that the Chamber of Commerce said that the lack of employees is creating an economic crisis. Another headline stated that some workers are quitting because they don’t want to go back to the office. The supply chains are still messed up. The chip shortage may go on for two years. The cost of lumber skyrocketed, though it appears to have peaked.
The lockdowns did not protect the people most at risk of dying from Covid, those in nursing homes. HCQ and subsequently a better drug, Ivermectin, would have kept the overall death toll well below what it currently is.
The smearing of those two drugs by national health authorities is a huge scandal.
The FDA opposes the government of Goa giving Ivermectin to all adults, as they know the result will be that cases and deaths there will drop dramatically, as they have elsewhere in India where Ivermectin is being used. The FDA will have some explaining to do as to why they continue to block the use of Ivermectin.
Zardoz
Zardoz
2 years ago
Reply to  RonJ
Ahh, Invermectin… truly a wonder drug!  Cured my covid, baldness AND erectile dysfunction!  Studies show!
RonJ
RonJ
2 years ago
Reply to  Zardoz
“Ahh, Invermectin… truly a wonder drug!  Cured my covid, baldness AND erectile dysfunction!  Studies show!”
You  are being such a clown.
Covid cases and deaths have dropped dramatically where it has been used. The evidence of the efficacy of Ivermectin  continues to pile up.
whirlaway
whirlaway
2 years ago
Reply to  RonJ
Even many doctors in India are not sure about whether the Ivermectin drug works.

EXCERPT:   Dr Ravindra says that he recommended the drug initially as well. “But we stopped the usage entirely as its effects could not be relied upon. The current usage by the medical community is experiential and based on the responses of patients, which cannot hold as a blanket solution. It could be a placebo effect. There is no evidence that the particular drug has helped improve the patient’s health, as multiple drugs are administered during the treatment,” he says.
Even doctors who think it might work, are cautious:
EXCERPT: “Studies cannot happen during an ongoing pandemic. It would be up to the researchers to test patients treated with and without the Ivermectin to find concrete proof for its results in future,” Dr Sheela says.
Maximus_Minimus
Maximus_Minimus
2 years ago
In the old days, the kings had clowns. Today, even the clowns have lesser (CNN) clowns.
Maximus_Minimus
Maximus_Minimus
2 years ago
To be honest, the current predicament is not the sole doings of this cast of characters.
This has been sown long ago, remember the days of glory with maestro Greenspan. 
Today’s clowns found themselves in a straight jacket, and are not too smart or imaginative in getting out of it.
thimk
thimk
2 years ago
Feds testing the waters. What we are witnessing is epic MMT on steroids and/or Zombie Corporation rescue program . As P Schiff  once remarked “live by QE die by QE ” .    the feds are enabling nonproductive  firms to continue as a going  concerns. Banks are indemnified/back stopped against any bad debt issued.  A win for the banks a win for government . just a few fragmented thoughts.      
Eddie_T
Eddie_T
2 years ago
The spin doctors continue to spin. Same sh*t, different day.
I’m really on the fence on the inflation issue now. It’s clear labor is going up in this local market. And not just a little. I doubt that will be transitory. It never is, AFAIK.
kiers
kiers
2 years ago
The Fed set precedent, with its corporate buying, to independently create more base money than fiscal deficits allow given congressional gridlock.  “Inflation or bust” to lift the economy. 
ed_retired_actuary
ed_retired_actuary
2 years ago
Although the Fed’s corp. bond buying program was insignificant other than psychologically, it appears clear that the much larger QE and zero interest rate (aka financial repression) policies, combined with huge fiscal deficits, have provided a very significant boost to the US and global economies, corporate profits, US current account deficits, and asset prices, at least in the short to intermediate term.  Close to 15 years of success with such policies (30 years in Japan) with acceptably low infation rates has habituated policy makers and most economists to act as if the inevitable inflationary consequences and related distortions (see Ray Dalio’s e-book on the subject) can be either postponed inevitably or readily dealt with.  I do not believe that any one really knows when the piper must be paid.
ThaomasH
ThaomasH
2 years ago
It is true that the Fed’s purchase of x billion in corporate bonds had little effect per se on achieving its 2% inflation target, but it might have been important in signaling that it would and could “do what it takes” to achieve the target.  [f it was illegal then the Fed should have bought something else.]   Overenthusiastic praise for a policy doe not make the policy bad.
RunnrDan
RunnrDan
2 years ago
Reply to  ThaomasH
“Overenthusiastic praise for a policy doe not make the policy bad.”
Correct.  An inherently bad policy (i.e., stifling the free market) makes a policy bad.
Eddie_T
Eddie_T
2 years ago
My next entry in gold might be today. This is the correction I was looking for…..we just need to see how far down it’s likely to go. This always happens when I’m busy working, dang it. I’d expect the correction to be over by tomorrow at latest. 
Eddie_T
Eddie_T
2 years ago
Reply to  Eddie_T
1st stop at 1875 already taken out. 2nd stop around 1854 in play. I doubt it falls.
Eddie_T
Eddie_T
2 years ago
Reply to  Eddie_T
Bought half.  Waiting to see if we have another down leg, maybe tomorrow.
Eddie_T
Eddie_T
2 years ago
Reply to  Eddie_T
If it matters, the dollar has cleared the hurdle and we can most definitely call this a new daily cycle, as of last Wednesday. I don’t expect the up leg to last very long though. I’m guessing it’s going to be a weak, left translated cycle that has a great chance of taking out the January low on the next bottom.
There certainly could be more downside in gold, but I doubt it falls a lot more in this market.
I bought the other half of my trade. It might be early, but GDX corrected 3% and I think that’s a reasonable correction to risk my entry. Now long SLV and GDX and intending to stay long for the next several weeks, most likely. 
Eddie_T
Eddie_T
2 years ago
Reply to  Eddie_T
The gold reversal today did not break the trend line to the downside. If it does make a further correction, which is likely, I will add to my positions.
Zardoz
Zardoz
2 years ago
Reality is too harsh… lies are warm and fuzzy.

Stay Informed

Subscribe to MishTalk

You will receive all messages from this feed and they will be delivered by email.