Inflation pressures

If you’ve been a consistent reader of ‘rate update’ or this blog you know that inflation expectations are the primary factor for driving mortgage rates. When expectations of inflation increase it causes rates to rise and vice versa.

There are two articles published this morning which give contradictory forecasts for inflation. It just goes to show that no one knows for sure. Here are links to read for yourself:

Barron’s: Inflationary Risks Increasing

WSJ.com: Fed’s Kohn Sounds Upbeat Note, Says Current Rates Are Appropriate

Interest Rates and Inflation

What causes mortgage rates to go up or down?

How come one day 30-year fixed rates are 6.00% and the next they’re 6.125%?

For many people the vision of a boardroom full of cigar smoking bankers comes to mind when contemplating this question. Or, many believe that the Federal Reserve Bank holds ultimate control with the Federal Funds Rate.

However, the truth of the matter is mortgage rates are entirely determined by the marketplace. Many factors can contribute to the direction of mortgage rates including stock market movements, technical trading patterns of mortgage-backed bonds, geopolitical news but of the most important is inflation.

I have provided a link below to an article that I feel does a good job of explaining the relationship between interest rates and inflation.

The Relationship of Inflation to Interest Rates

As well, here is an excerpt from this article which summarizes the relationship:

When prices increase, your dollar gets to buy less. Over time, prices tend to steadily increase. Hence, your one dollar today is not necessarily equivalent in value to your one dollar tomorrow. A case in point: if you could buy four comic books with your one dollar when you were younger, guess what, Batman? You can’t even buy one these days at that price. That is inflation.

So how is this related to interest rates?

Investors, try to preserve the value of their money by investing in activities that have yields that are either equivalent or higher than the inflation rate (therefore, when their expectation for inflation increases, they will demand a higher interest rate to lend their money). Let’s say that the local interest rate is pegged at 6.5%; the money that you earn, save and invest, should be able to at the very least, match that rate. Why, because at the end of the year, if your money stayed inside the piggy bank, its value would’ve been eroded by that rate. So if you save 100 dollars at the start of the year, at the end of the year its worth would’ve been shaved by $6.50 leaving your $100 worth only $93.5…..

So to wrap up, inflation is one of the factors that affect interest rates. When inflation moves up or down, the tendency is to increase or decrease (mortgage) rate(s) as well.

How The Stock Market Impacts Mortgage Rates

Although inflation expectations are the primary factor that influence the direction of mortgage rates on a day-to-day basis the stock market can also have an impact.

To understand how this relationship works it’s first important to understand how mortgage rates are determined.

Mortgage rates are entirely determined by the price of mortgage-backed bonds (MBS’s). MBS’s are bonds that are issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that are backed by the interest paid by mortgage holders. Like the stock market, there is an exchange where MBS’s are traded.

There is an inverse relationship between the price of MBS’s and mortgage rates. When the price of MBS’s increase mortgage rates drop and vice versa.

So, to understand how the stock market can influence mortgage rates we have to understand how they impact the price of bonds. Stocks and bonds compete for the same investment dollar.

In other words, an investor with money to invest has to make a decision to invest their money in either the stock market or in the bond market (it should be noted that there are other investment options, but these two classes are the primary vehicles for investment capital).

For an investor, stocks are generally thought to provide higher returns over time but also come with greater volatility.

Conversely, bonds tend to have lower returns over time but have less volatility. Because bonds tend to provide low volatility with modest returns, the bond market can often act as a “safe-haven” for investors who sell their stock positions.

Therefore, in general, when the stock market goes down it is a sign that investors are selling stocks and shifting their capital into bonds. This boosts bond prices and drives mortgage rates down.

Conversely, when the stock market rallies it is a sign that investors are selling bond positions in order to shift capital into the stock market. The greater supply of bonds on the market drives prices lower and pushes mortgage rates higher.

It’s important to understand that there are a myriad of factors that impact mortgage rates on a day-to-day basis.

Inflation expectations and technical trading patterns are two of the primary factors that we monitor. However, in the absence of new information on these two topics it’s not uncommon for mortgage rates to be impacted by the stock market in the aforementioned manner.

Fed Cuts don’t necessarily lower mortgage rates

I thought it would be a good idea to post a link to my previous post which explains why Fed Rate cuts DO NOT lower mortgage rates. Here is a link to the article.

WSJ.com article about global inflation pressures

Inflation, Spanning Globe,
Is Set to Reach Decade High
By ANDREW BATSON
April 10, 2008; Page A1

Inflation is back.

After several years of relative stability, a wave of rising prices is washing over the world economy.

It comes at a most inconvenient time. The Federal Reserve is sharply cutting U.S interest rates — the opposite of the usual response to rising inflation — to prevent the housing bust and credit crisis from causing a deep, prolonged recession. That’s making the global response to inflation more complicated.

Consumer prices in the U.S., Europe and other rich countries are projected to rise 2.6% this year, the highest inflation rate since 1995, the International Monetary Fund said Wednesday. In the U.S., consumer prices in February were 4% above year-ago levels. The 15 countries that share the euro currently see inflation of 3.5%, a decade high and well above the European Central Bank’s preferred range. Even Japan, long plagued by flat or falling prices, is seeing modest inflation.

Rising prices for food, energy and other raw materials account for much of the pickup in inflation rates. High food and energy costs hit developing countries — where consumers spend a larger share of income on those necessities — particularly hard. In recent weeks, protests over rising costs have shook countries from Vietnam, where prices are up 19.4% from last year, to Egypt.

On Wednesday, the World Bank estimated global food prices have risen 83% over the past three years, threatening recent strides in poverty reduction. The IMF forecast consumer prices in emerging and developing countries will rise 7.4% this year, the most inflation since 2001 though still well below the double-digit levels of the recent past.

Some of the factors driving inflation vary from country to country: union-negotiated wage hikes in Germany, pork shortages in China, an electricity squeeze in South Africa, pay rises for civil servants in India.

But the fact that inflation is rising almost everywhere suggests some of its causes are global. As crops are sold for alternative-energy production, food prices have soared: The price of rice, the staple for billions of Asians, is up 147% over the past year. Increasing demand for natural resources among developing economies such as India and China has pushed up prices for raw materials world-wide. Oil-supply constraints have sent crude-oil futures surging above $112 a barrel Wednesday, a new record, resulting in rising fuel and transportation prices.

The weakening U.S. dollar is another source. Not only is it pushing up prices of American imports, it is transmitting inflation to the dozens of economies that link their currencies to the U.S. dollar, from Saudi Arabia to Hong Kong to Mongolia. Because of their currency pegs, these economies are forced to track Fed rate cuts even if they aren’t facing recession. That is putting upward pressure on their prices. Additionally, years of easy credit earlier this decade — the result of a global quest to avoid falling prices, or deflation — are a contributing factor.

An increasingly global economy may also be a culprit. Globalization got some credit for low inflation in recent years: The economic rise of China, India and the former Soviet Union helped expand the global work force and increase manufacturing capacity, holding down the prices of many goods. But the economic boom in emerging markets also means their currencies and prices are steadily rising, boosting the prices rich countries pay for imports from those poorer countries.

“Overall, the effects of globalization have ceased — probably in the long term — to be spontaneously disinflationary,” Christian Noyer, governor of the Bank of France, said last month.

Rising prices cut consumer spending power, especially among the poor. They can also stir bad memories of dislocation caused by previous bouts of inflation. Fears of inflation, in turn, can spur more of it: If households and companies come to think of rising prices as normal, that can create self-fulfilling expectations that keep inflation high. Inflation clouds the price signals that let market economies function and makes it harder for businesses to plan.

“It’s hard to reverse inflation expectations once they’ve risen,” says Kenneth Rogoff, a Harvard University professor and former chief IMF economist.

Food and Energy

For now, rising food and energy prices are inflation’s prime drivers. Core inflation, a measure that excludes volatile food and energy prices, is not rising as quickly as overall inflation. But commodity-price gains are beginning to work their way through the global economy. Even if commodity prices stay where they are, global inflation could continue rising for months to come as companies react to previous price rises.

The world’s largest iron producer, Brazil’s Companhia Vale do Rio Doce, known as Vale, got its customers to agree to a 65% price increase on ore from its main mine this year, far larger than last year’s 9.5% increase. That led steelmakers like Baosteel Group Corp., China’s biggest, to raise product prices by 17% to 20% in recent months.

“It will have a pretty big effect on our material costs,” Jim Owens, chief executive of Caterpillar Inc., the big U.S. maker of construction equipment and engines, said on a recent visit to Beijing. Caterpillar is preparing price increases of up to 5% on its products to take effect by July.

In St. Louis, Solutia Inc. is raising prices for resins used to make laminated glass by up to 40%, blaming climbing costs for materials, energy and transportation. “We are now at a point where sourcing raw materials at continuously higher prices makes no sense for our business, unless the effects are passed on,” said Solutia Vice President Luc De Temmerman.

Kimberly-Clark Corp., maker of household goods, began raising prices in February between 4% and 7% for some paper products, including Huggies diapers, Cottonelle bath tissue and Viva paper towels. Hershey Foods Corp. raised the selling price of its chocolate bars 13% in February after boosting prices between 4% and 5% in April 2007. Hanesbrands Inc., which owns the Champion and Hanes apparel lines, has warned that sustained high cotton prices could filter through to retail prices.

Pricey Cab Rides

In Temecula, Calif., Gary Byler, owner of Southwest City Coach, has raised the fares for his four-taxi fleet for the first time in the 10 years he has been in business. His base fare has gone from $1 to $2.50 and the per-mile charge from $2.50 to $2.75. “Insurance costs have gone up 40%. Fuel prices have doubled,” he said.

Just as there is variation in the level of inflation — from 1% in Japan to 17% in Latvia — countries’ responses to it vary. Central bankers in the U.S and the United Kingdom are focusing on the risks of recession, so they are cutting rates even at the risk of fueling inflation. Others are attempting to drive inflation down: Central bankers in Australia, Chile, China, Colombia, Hungary, Poland, Russia, South Africa, Sweden and Taiwan all have raised interest rates recently.

The trade-off between maintaining growth and fighting inflation is particularly difficult in Europe, where banks are also under strain and inflation is picking up. The European Central Bank considers inflation a bigger worry than the fallout from the U.S. credit crisis. It fears soaring energy and food prices will spill over into wages and other prices. So despite persistent money-market tensions, the ECB has refused to cut rates. It is expected to hold that line in its meeting Thursday.

Flash Point

Germany’s recent wage gains are a flash point. Last week, some two million German public-sector workers won a nearly 8% pay raise over two years, their biggest settlement in 16 years. In March, some 93,000 German steelworkers won a 5.2% wage hike, while train drivers picked up an 8% pay increase spread over two years.

In Slovenia on Saturday, some 10,000 protesters from across the Continent gathered at a conference of central bankers to agitate for higher wages. They got a cold response. “It would be an enormous mistake to imitate Germany,” ECB president Jean-Claude Trichet told a news conference afterward, noting recent German wage restraint allowed workers there some space to catch up.

In the U.S., Fed officials are concerned that food and energy prices have increased inflation even though the economy is sliding into recession. But they are generally confident that inflation will recede as rising unemployment prevents workers from winning wage increases.

Handling social pressures from inflation is tricky. China has raised minimum wages to moderate inflation’s impact on living standards, but Premier Wen Jiabao has also promised the government will ensure that average inflation this year won’t accelerate past last year’s 4.8%.

That’s intended to reassure people like Monica Li, a 40-year-old travel agent in Beijing. She says her daughter’s kindergarten just raised its fees to cover higher costs for lunches. Now Ms. Li is worried that costs for health care and housing are also headed upward. “It could really be a problem for us if inflation today, which is mainly in food and other necessities, leads to a series of chain reactions,” Ms. Li says.

Countries have long tried to buy stability by fixing their currencies, more or less tightly, to the U.S. dollar. Now those decisions are contributing to inflation in Asia and the Middle East. Central banks in countries with strict dollar pegs must follow the Fed’s rate cuts: If they don’t, investors seeking higher returns would move money to these countries, placing upward pressure on their currencies and imperiling their dollar pegs. Hong Kong has mirrored the Fed’s recent rate cuts, igniting the local property market. Housing prices there were up 31% from a year earlier in January, and rising rents are now feeding inflation.

Countries that both peg their currencies and export commodities are experiencing an inflationary double whammy. As nations from the Middle East to Mongolia earn income from selling resources, rising commodities prices are stimulating the local economy and feeding inflation. Meanwhile, these economies are feeling the effects of rising global prices for food and raw materials. Inflationary pressure is further heightened as their central banks match Fed rate cuts.

Problems in Mongolia

This complicates life even on Mongolia’s steppes, where many people are nomadic herders and food prices tend to fluctuate by season and weather. The country’s currency, the togrog, is unofficially pegged to the U.S. dollar, boosting prices. As the country’s income from copper exports surged, inflation reached 15.1% at the end of 2007.

Similarly, inflation is stoking instability amid the Middle East’s energy-fed boom. In Qatar, a rich emirate jutting into the Persian Gulf, surging revenue from natural-gas sales have led to more government spending. This year’s budget is 46% higher than last year’s, and more than four times the spending of just six years ago. Much of that is going to build highways, airports, infrastructure and schools. Says Yousef Hussain Kamal, Qatar’s finance minister: “The surplus is huge.”

So is inflation, at 13.7% on the year in the last quarter of 2007. In part that’s because Qatar followed its currency peg and moved in step with the Fed’s rate cuts. The region’s low-paid expatriate work force was hit hard. While local inflation means higher food and housing costs, the value of workers’ savings — which they often send home to families — is sinking with the dollar. That has triggered strikes and riots in the United Arab Emirates by construction workers.

Commodity exporters with more flexible currencies have been better at containing rising prices. Inflation in Canada, a big oil producer, has been lower than expected, at just 1.8% in February year-on-year. The central bank attributes that in part to the surge in the Canadian dollar, up 17% against the U.S. dollar in 2007. Australia, a major exporter of coal and iron ore, has also seen its currency rise, and its central bank has been steadily raising rates to cool the economy. Inflation was 3% in December.

“Australia has done all right because the currency has been quite strong, and interest rates are high,” says Ben Simpfendorfer, an economist for Royal Bank of Scotland. “The Gulf might have looked more like Australia if it weren’t for the pegs.”

Absorbing the Pain

Central banks, especially the Fed, are hoping that slowing growth in the U.S. and Europe will ease inflationary pressures globally, especially when fast-growing emerging economies begin to feel the slowdown’s pain. Some economists argue that current commodity prices are higher than underlying demand can justify, and predict they could fall sharply if speculators retreat and global growth eases. And, at some point, the Fed will stop cutting U.S. rates, helping arrest the decline in the dollar and the inflationary side-effects.

“Inflation almost always falls during economic downturns. The Fed has history on its side,” says Julian Jessop, an economist with Capital Economics in London. He expects inflation to be much lower globally a year from now, and the new IMF forecast does, too. Nonetheless, he says, “The outlook for inflation is much more uncertain than it has been for a while.”

–Chip Cummins in Dubai, Kelly Evans in New York, Sue Feng in Beijing and Joellen Perry in Frankfurt contributed to this article.

Q & A with Merrill Economist

In this weekend’s Barron’s there was an article that featured a Q & A with Merrill Lynch Chief Economist David Rosenburg. He is credited with calling the current economic slowdown far before anyone else and makes interesting predictions about American Households’ spending patterns in the future:

Here is a excerpt from the article:

Q: Will we notice profound changes in the nature of the U.S. economy when the business cycle rebounds?

A: Profound, profound, profound. Frugality is going to be a source of pride. It’s no different than how in 1972 you saw a lot of Lincolns and Cadillac Sevilles in the dealer lots. Three years later you were in the crusher. We’re going to be as a consuming nation, trading down, getting smaller, focusing on savings, repairing our balance sheets. Take a look at the median age of the boomer, they’re only within 10, 12 years of retiring. I think that’s going to have a big impact on savings, and the choices of savings in that process, a focus on less risk, and more on income and safe dividends.

Q: Will I be able to get the access to credit I need to buy the gadgets I want?

A: It will all come down to your creditworthiness. I think that lots of things are going to be changing. Our attitude toward debt is already in the process of shifting. For lack of a more exciting term, we’re going to learn to live within our means a lot more than we did in the past 20 years. I think we will ultimately come out of this a lot stronger. We bloated up on debt in years of over-consumption. And we’ve suffered from a coronary, and we’re going through the bypass surgery now. Inevitably we will be healthier. But we will have to follow the doctor’s orders and have a healthier diet.

Spreads between treasuries & MBSs

This may be a little technical for most folks but this article explains that the curretn spreads between US treasury bonds & mortgage-backed bonds (MBSs) are extremely high. If we get some confidence back in the credit markets we should see this spread narrow which would send mortgage rates lower.

From WSJ.com:

Bond, Loan Markets Remain Wary
Despite Fed’s Efforts,
Interest-Rate ‘Spreads’
Reflect Big Fear of Risk
By LIZ RAPPAPORT
March 27, 2008

The Federal Reserve’s efforts to heal broken credit markets have diminished worries about a big financial failure, but wariness about lending remains in bond and loan markets.

This wariness shows up in the movements of many interest rates and in a commonly watched measure of risk known as a spread. A bond’s spread is the difference between its interest rate and the interest rate on a relatively risk-free investment, like a Treasury bond or a Federal Reserve loan. When spreads get bigger, as they have in recent months, it shows that investors are reluctant to own anything but the safest investments.

In many markets, spreads have improved since the Fed’s actions of last week, but they remain elevated compared with a few months ago. Other measures of risk in credit markets, such as the cost of insuring bonds against default, have improved, particularly for bonds issued by financial institutions, but they aren’t out of the woods yet.

“There are still a lot of challenges looming,” says Kevin Flanagan, fixed-income strategist at Morgan Stanley.

Last week, the Fed helped to orchestrate the sale of Bear Stearns Cos. to J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. The Fed has also reduced its benchmark lending rate by three percentage points since September and created several borrowing facilities to address Wall Street’s short-term financing needs. But the root causes of the credit crisis — worries about mounting mortgage defaults and a desire among many investors and financial institutions to reduce their debt loads — still hang over the market.

As worries reached a crescendo nearly two weeks ago, spreads on everything from mortgage debt to short-term money-market loans between banks shot higher.

Consider interest rates on mortgage securities backed by government sponsored entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These bonds’ spreads relative to comparable Treasury bonds have narrowed after reaching 20-year highs March 6, a day after Carlyle Capital Corp., an investment fund, said it couldn’t meet cash demand from some bankers.

Since March 6, the average spread on a 30-year mortgage bond has fallen by 0.76 percentage point to 2.17% over Treasury bonds. Still, that spread was 1.14% over comparable Treasury bonds last June.

“It’s a start,” says Michael Schultz, portfolio manager at Summit investment Partners, which invests in mortgage- and asset-backed securities. “Until we have hit bottom in the housing market, you’re not going to get a major uptick.”

Mortgage-market spreads have moved nearly in tandem with other measures of risk, says Hans Mikkelsen, credit strategist at Banc of America Securities: “At the root of all that happening is the housing market and banks’ and brokers’ exposure to the housing market.”

In the derivatives market, where investors buy and sell protection against bond defaults, the cost of insuring against default by firms like Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers has dropped since the Fed’s actions.

Investors can buy protection against a Lehman default on $10 million of bonds for almost half of last week’s price, at $231,543 annually from $447,515. The cost of such protection last year was just $29,261.

But this hasn’t dramatically changed the reluctance of banks to lend to each other. In short-term funding markets, spreads show that firms are still reluctant to part with their cash.

The spread between three-month Libor, or the London interbank offered rate, and the expected federal-funds rate over the next three months remains elevated. This spread shows the difference between what firms charge each other for short-term cash and what they expected to pay in the relatively risk-free overnight fed-funds market. The spread widens when banks are worried about short-term risks.

The spread rose to 0.65 percentage point Tuesday from 0.59 point Monday. It peaked in December at more than one full point. In normal times, it rarely surpasses 0.10 point.

The trouble has spread to corporations. Spreads on junk bonds have gone from record lows last summer, about 2.4 percentage points over comparable Treasury bonds, to about eight percentage points over, even though the rate of default remains near historic lows, according to Standard & Poor’s. While S&P believes defaults will rise to only 4.6% in 2008, others say the wide spreads in the junk-bond market reflect expectations for a deeper economic downturn.

Economist has done an excellent job covering the credit crisis

The Economist has done an excellent job covering the credit crisis. In this weeks issue they have a 10-page briefing on various issues surrounding the credit markets, currency exchange, & central bank intervention. All of these issues stand to effect the direction of mortgage rates as well as credit tightening in our industry.

If you are so inclined I would highly recommend a peak- http://www.economist.com/finance/

Good summary of credit crises in the Economist

If at first you don’t succeed
Mar 13th 2008
From The Economist print edition

THIRD time lucky? The credit markets almost seized up in August, December and again this month and on each occasion the Federal Reserve has led a rescue attempt. Its latest effort led to a bout of euphoria on Wall Street, with the S&P 500 index managing its biggest one-day increase in over five years on March 11th. But every time the Fed has unblocked the drains somewhere in the credit markets, they have bunged up elsewhere. Sure enough, on March 13th panicky investors sent the dollar tumbling below ¥100 and pushed gold above $1,000 an ounce.

The fear is that the financial markets have entered a negative spiral, the obverse of the kind of euphoria that drove dotcom stocks to absurd valuations in 1999 and early 2000. Back then, investors scrambled to buy shares regardless of their price. This time round, they are being forced to sell bonds and loans, whether or not they believe the borrowers will eventually repay. The problems are exacerbated by the demise of the securitisation market, and fears about counterparty risk. Both those factors are making banks less willing to lend—even to worthy borrowers. They will become ever more cautious the deeper America’s economy tips into recession.

Debt, such an exalted financing tool a little more than a year ago, is now a four-letter word. In the boom, banks were able to lend money via bonds and loans and then unload the debts in the form of structured products. Even when yield spreads narrowed, investors simply spiced up their portfolios with more debt to produce higher returns. But once the problems in the subprime market became clear, the appetite for structured products collapsed, and the process went into reverse.

Oddly enough, the problem is particularly intense in an area of the market that, in theory, should have been the safest; paper given AAA-like ratings by the agencies. There are no longer end buyers for this paper. The yields on such assets are too low to make them of interest except to geared investors. And there is scant lending available, even if investors wanted to gear up their portfolios in these volatile times.

Also, the investment banks that deal with hedge funds are tightening lending standards. This may involve higher margin payments or a bigger “haircut” shaved off the value of assets pledged as collateral. According to one banker, even government bonds pledged as collateral are facing haircuts for the first time in 15 years.

That may make sense for each individual bank, but at the systemic level it makes matters worse for everyone. Hedge funds are being forced to sell their best assets to meet their debts, adding to the air of crisis. A dramatic case is Carlyle Capital, a bond fund run by the Carlyle Group, a private-equity firm (see article). On March 12th it said it had defaulted on $16.6 billion of debt and expected to default on the rest, after failing to reach an agreement with its creditors. The fund used gearing of 32 times to buy AAA-rated paper and has had to sell assets to meet margin calls. Some of that debt was issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two quasi-governmental agencies that guarantee mortgage debt. As Carlyle sold, the prices of their debt fell, increasing concern about their finances. In early March the spread between yields on Fannie Mae debt and Treasury bonds was higher than at any time since 1986.

This helps explain why the new Fed facility allows primary dealers to pledge AAA-rated mortgage securities as collateral for borrowings. If confidence can be restored in that part of the market, perhaps the negative spiral can be broken.

Analysts were by no means convinced, however. Rob Carnell of ING described the measures as a “palliative to market fragility, rather than a cure.” Nor was the initial reaction in parts of the credit markets particularly encouraging. The cost of insuring against corporate-bond defaults did not fall sharply. Meanwhile, the interbank rate needed to borrow euros for three months hit 4.6%, the highest level since January and more than half a percentage point above official euro-zone rates. That indicated banks still preferred to hold cash rather than lend it.

The hoarding is a natural consequence of the breakdown of the securitisation market. Banks know that it will be more difficult to offload any new loans. They are also saddled with old loans, either because they have been unable to sell them, or because they have taken structured investment vehicles onto their balance sheets to protect their reputations.

When banks get more nervous about lending, that tends to have wider consequences. Companies will find it more difficult to borrow; weaker ones will accordingly get into trouble. According to Matt King, a credit strategist at Citigroup, the single biggest factor influencing corporate default rates is banks’ willingness to extend credit—as measured by the lending surveys of the Fed and the European Central Bank. Nor is it likely that the full impact of tighter lending standards on consumer demand has been felt.

David Bowers of Absolute Strategy Research, a consultancy, reckons that the credit crisis has also undermined the willingness of foreigners to finance America’s current-account deficit. Data show that overseas investors own some $1.5 trillion of asset-backed debt, investments that have gone badly wrong. They will not be willing to lend in the same way again.

And the effects of the crisis are showing up in some unexpected places. One of the latest casualties is the sewer system of Jefferson county, Alabama. The county, which includes the city of Birmingham, had agreed to interest-rate swaps worth a remarkable $5.4 billion in an attempt to limit its financing costs. But the rationale for the deal was undermined by the credit problems of the “monolines”, which insured the sewer system’s bonds. The result was a sharp rise in financing costs. A group of banks led by JPMorgan Chase is asking it to put up a further $184m in collateral; the county is refusing.

As the dispute rumbles on, the sewer system’s debt has been downgraded all the way to CCC by Standard & Poor’s, a rating agency. One thing is certain. If the credit crunch continues, the residents of Jefferson County won’t be the only ones holding their noses at the stink.

Fed cuts .75%-WSJ.com article:

Fed Cuts by Three-Quarter Point
By BRIAN BLACKSTONE and HENRY J. PULIZZI
March 18, 2008 2:19 p.m.

WASHINGTON — The Federal Reserve on Tuesday slashed its key interest rate to a three-year low and signaled more reductions are likely, unloading heavy artillery in its effort to keep the credit crunch from triggering a prolonged recession.

The three-quarter-percentage-point rate cut, though extremely aggressive by any historical measure, will disappoint many on Wall Street who thought a full percentage point was needed — a sign of the severity of the crisis that already claimed Bear Stearns and forced Fed officials to use Depression-era tools to create new lending facilities for brokers.

The Federal Open Market Committee voted 8-2 to cut the fed funds rate at which banks lend to each other from 3% to 2.25%, its lowest level since December 2004. The Fed also eased by that amount in a rare intermeeting move two months ago, which was the largest reduction since officials started targeting fed funds in the early 1980s.

Philadelphia Fed President Charles Plosser and Dallas Fed President Richard Fisher dissented, preferring “less aggressive action.”

The Fed also on Tuesday lowered the discount rate it charges banks and brokers that borrow directly from the Fed by 0.75 percentage point to 2.5%, leaving the spread over fed funds at a quarter percentage point.

“Recent information indicates that the outlook for economic activity has weakened further,” the Fed said in a statement, citing weakness in consumer spending and labor markets. “Financial markets remain under considerable stress,” the Fed added, and the “deepening” housing slump should weigh on the economy.

The Fed said growth risks remain and that it will act in a “timely” manner as needed, suggesting more rate cuts are probable barring an economic recovery.

As recently as a few days ago, economists had called for only a half-percentage-point reduction in the fed funds rate. Even that would have been an aggressive move coming just weeks after officials cut the funds rate by 1.25 percentage points over an eight-day period in January.

But as the financial market crisis worsened last week and economic data disappointed, investors steadily upped their rate-cut forecasts to as high as 0.75 percentage point by the end of last week.

And after the Fed on Sunday lowered the discount rate by one-quarter point, extended $30 billion in financing to J.P. Morgan to complete its takeover of Bear Stearns and announced new liquidity measures on top of others that could pump hundreds of billions of dollars into credit markets, many economists concluded that anything less than a full percentage point would disappoint markets and threaten a renewed downward spiral.

Many private-sector economists think the economy is already in a recession, albeit a mild one for the moment as consumer spending has yet to fall and exports remain supportive of overall growth.

But the signs are ominous for what Fed officials call an adverse “feedback loop” in which economic and market difficulties become self-feeding. Housing remains mired in a severe slump, as evidenced by a 16-year low reading Tuesday on homebuilding permits. Back-to-back declines in employment, weak retail sales and a surprisingly large drop in factory output suggest that housing weakness is spreading to other sectors.

Further freeing the Fed’s hand was a surprisingly tame consumer price report last week that showed no change in prices both overall and when food and energy prices were excluded. Inflation will surely rebound this month on the back of record-high oil and gasoline prices. But with the economy slowing, Fed officials expect price pressures to moderate.

“Still, uncertainty about the inflation outlook has increased,” the Fed said, and they will monitor it “carefully.”

The smaller-than-expected rate cut may also signal that officials are growing uneasy about the U.S. dollar’s decline against other major currencies, which has pushed up prices of commodities like oil that are priced in dollars.

A 0.75-percentage-point cut signals “that the Fed does not harbor benign neglect toward the dollar, as has been the impression of late,” said Miller Tabak strategist Tony Crescenzi in a research note before the Fed announcement.