Monthly Archives: July 2013

Capital Flows and Dollar Strength

 

 

Overview and Definitions

The value of the dollar should continue its directionless ways, the U.S. economy should maintain low growth, and the Fed should remain accommodative, according to the latest Wells Fargo analysis.

The U.S. current account, the difference between exports and imports of goods, services and transfers, was strengthened in the 1990s by autonomous capital inflows.  Autonomous capital flows are taken in response to current prices, exchange and interest rates, and other economic factors by independent actors.  These inflows strengthened the dollar.  High levels of autonomous inflows seem unlikely as long as the Fed is accommodative, which it will be as long as economic growth and inflation are low.

The dollar’s depreciation was slowed in the last 10 years by accommodating inflows, which are undertaken by central banks for the purpose of settling balance of payments imbalances (the measure of currency flows out of and into a country, where positive means autonomous flows are positive) arising from autonomous flows.  Accommodating inflows usually take place as U.S. Treasury securities purchases, and the sum of autonomous and accommodating flows equals zero by an accounting identity.

Three Dollar Phases

From 1995 to 2002, the trade-weighted value of the dollar rose 40%.  Trade-weighting adjusts currency values based on the extent of their use in international trade.  Gross capital inflows rose more than gross capital outflows as autonomous purchases of U.S. assets increased.  The dollar strengthened from the demand for its use for the purchase of the assets.  The increase in the financial account surplus was offset by the increase in the current account deficit. 

From 2002 to 2008 the dollar declined and was volatile as the financial crisis set in, strengthening from an international flight to safety.  The current account reached 6% of GDP in 2006 as high U.S. demand brought in foreign imports at same time that Western Europe and Japan decreased their imports of U.S. goods as their economies weakened.  Demand for dollars fell and the currency depreciated.

Capital inflows during this period switched from the autonomous purchases of the previous period to accommodating purchases of U.S Treasury securities by foreign central banks.  China in particular heavily intervened to slow the dollar’s depreciation to maintain U.S. imports of Chinese goods.  Autonomous transactions decreased from 70% of gross capital inflows to 40% in 2004 (it would appear that an increase in autonomous inflows is a symptom of, and not necessarily a direct cause, of the relative attractiveness of U.S. assets and hence is not the primary cause of dollar appreciation, though it does contribute in its role in the self-perpetuating process.)

From 2009 to today the dollar has been largely directionless.  The current account is back down to 2002 levels, but autonomous inflows have not picked up.  Accommodating purchases by central banks are nearly double the amount of autonomous purchases of U.S. assets.  As U.S. interest rates have remained low, foreign deposits in American banks have decreased.  This means that foreign holders of dollars are selling dollars and buying other currencies, which weakens the dollar.

Update 7/23:  Foreign investors are buying U.S. Treasuries at the slowest rate since 2006.  Foreign investors, however, include U.S. hedge funds that are legally in the Caribbean.  This will tend to push interest rates higher barring increased Fed purchases.  This is happening at the same time that foreign central banks are decreasing their holdings and the Fed is talking about the possibility of decreasing the QE program.  China, however, has increased its position by 7.8% this year.  It holds $1.32 trillion.  The Fed increased its holdings by 18% to $1.96 trillion.

Bank Profits, the Fed, and Interest Rates

Ignoring the issue of increased interest on loans and higher interest costs for deposits, we’ll focus on the affect a rise in interest rates will have on a bank’s portfolio.

As rates rise, a bank’s assets will roll over into new, higher interest earning assets at different speeds.  The shorter the terms of its assets, the more quickly it will be able to profit from higher rates.  Higher rates will also affect its portfolio of marketable securities (stocks, bonds), with longer term securities decreasing in value more as rates rise.  A bank with high cash reserves, on the other hand, will benefit as it rolls cash into interest earning assets as rates rise.

Bank liabilities are largely made up of CDs, long term borrowing subordinated to deposits, Fed fund borrowings, and retail deposits.  These liabilities become more attractive as rates rise.

Overall, a bank will benefit from a rate increase if it has borrowed long, with locked-in low interest costs, and lent short, allowing it to roll short term, low interest paying loans into higher interest loans as rates rise, funded by its low interest deposits of longer duration.  But how many bank portfolios are structured this way?  The Fed is worried about this.

But, according to Morgan Stanley and as reported by Bob Murphy, the Fed has its own problems. It could have negative equity if an interest rate rise decreases the value of its bond portfolio.  This makes Fed “tapering” very dangerous to its own portfolio and probably unlikely.  It needs to keep interest rates low and its portfolio strong with continuing asset purchases (QE), but those asset purchases continue to skew markets and capital structures and make inflation more likely.  Dangerous territory.

 

Treason and the Fourth of July

If the men of the Revolution designed to incorporate in the Constitution the absurd ideas of allegiance and treason, which they had once repudiated, against which they had fought, and by which the world had been enslaved, they thereby established for themselves an indisputable claim to the disgust and detestation of all mankind (Lysander Spooner, No Treason, No. 1).

How can a person, by geographic accident of birth, be subjected to the coercion of a group to whom he has given no consent, whether that group is called a gang, a government, or any other name? How can a government, which came into existence through the denial of the historical ties to another government, in turn force its rule on people who have not given their consent? And how is the crime of treason against a government possible where no consent was ever given to that government? These are some of the questions posed by Lysander Spooner in No Treason, written in 1867, a work which is useful in analyzing a current issue, the plight of the government whistleblower.

Lysander Spooner was a lawyer, a radical pro-Constitution abolitionist (his pro-Constitution arguments persuaded Frederick Douglass to drop his disunionist ideas), and a proponent of natural law theory. Spooner argued for jury nullification in fugitive slave cases, and against the idea that slavery was permissible under the Constitution. Spooner believed that government without consent was a form of slavery which differed only in degree with the legal enslavement of blacks as practiced in the country at the time. Because of this, he opposed the Civil War as a violent denial of the right to self government of the Southern states while concurrently arguing for a revolt of slaves against their oppressors.

Natural Law

Natural law, as the foundation of Spooner’s arguments, must be briefly explained and contrasted with its alternatives, broadly speaking. Natural law ascribes to people inviolable rights with which they are born and cannot be rescinded. These are often, and in Spooner’s case are, defined as the ability to live one’s life as one sees fit, without coercion from or obligations to other people, as long as one does not coerce another person. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are natural law ideas, as is the ability to give or withdraw consent to the rules of any group.

How does a person know that he is born with natural rights under natural law? The very act of defending one’s rights acknowledges their existence. No legal or political sophistry can negate the obviousness of the rights not earned, but defended, by the American colonists against their would-be British oppressors. And no legal or historical theories are necessary to see that the American people today, as most people have done throughout history, through ignorance and laziness, are giving away their natural born rights to a government more oppressive than the British government from which their political forefathers broke.

The Role of the Populace

Governments rarely abstain from expanding their power. Therefore, it is imperative that a people stand for themselves and the maintenance of their own rights against those who wish to take them, who are present in every nation in every time in history. The American people, content with their level of material success, implicitly agree with the government that it is the granter of rights and not the protector. Spooner’s words are true today:

The [government] has thus virtually said to the world: It was all very well to prate of consent, so long as the objects to be accomplished were to liberate ourselves from our connection with England, and also to coax a scattered and jealous people into a great national union; but now that those purposes have been accomplished, and the power of the [government] has become consolidated, it is sufficient for us – as for all governments – simply to say: Our power is our right (No Treason, No. 1).

No constitution, regardless of the legal theories and principles on which it was founded, or the fervor with which it was defended, can withstand the complacency and servility which overtakes a population.

Competing Legal Theories

Utilitarianism, the idea that a law’s worth is measured by the outcome of its implementation, will be, somewhat simplistically, portrayed here as the counter-view to natural law. A common measurement of outcomes is an increase in the aggregate happiness or welfare of a population. A law is said to have positive utility if it increases the welfare of most people, or the total welfare gained is greater than the total welfare lost.

With this brief description it is easy to see that this legal framework is perfectly suited to a government which wishes to increase its power while appearing to act in the people’s interest. In fact, it may actually believe that it is acting for their benefit. The outcome will be the same, since the road to hell is paved with good intentions. So long as people accept the power of a government to legislate their welfare, they are open to having it taken from them, to be dispersed by the government to its favored recipients. The government assumes their consent is given, and uses force to prevent them from withdrawing it. In the government’s view, they were born with their consent handed over.

The Whistleblower and Natural Law

As government power increases, so does the number of people who are willing to expose its actions. Today we have the phenomenon of the whistleblower, the person with inside knowledge of the government’s actions who takes that information and makes it available to the world. In an age of global empire, it is of interest to the people of the world to know what the self-appointed hegemon is doing.

The whistleblower is often accused of breaking the law, and he usually is guilty. He might be guilty of breaking a legitimate contract he has made with his employer, and a penalty could be just. He might also be guilty of committing the act of treason, as defined by the government which has assumed his consent for itself. But that crime does not exist under natural law, which says that consent may be freely given and freely withdrawn. The only real treason is against the truth, and in bowing down to illegitimate authority. Treason is giving consent not to one’s own enslavement, but to the enslavement of his neighbor. There is no treason but that which is against the natural rights of others. The whistleblower may awake these feelings and ignite a re-assertion of natural law.

“Our attachment to no nation upon earth should supplant our attachment to liberty.”
-Thomas Jefferson