Saudis Believe Oil Will Stabilize Around $60

December 3rd, 2014 11:31 am

Via the WSJ:

Saudi Arabia Now Believes Oil Prices Could Stabilize Around $60 a Barrel

OPEC’s Biggest Oil Producer and Other Gulf States Are Having to Adapt to the Rapid Drop in Oil Prices

LONDON—OPEC’s biggest oil producer Saudi Arabia now believes oil prices could stabilize at around $60 a barrel, a level both it and other Gulf producers believe they could withstand, according to people familiar with the situation.

The shift in Saudi thinking suggests the de facto leader of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries won’t push for supply cuts in the near-term, even if oil prices fall further. Brent crude was trading at just over $70 a barrel on Wednesday.

It also shows how quickly OPEC members are having to adapt to changes in the oil market caused by a surge in supply from the U.S. shale revolution allied to slowing global demand growth. As recently as early November, OPEC officials were talking about $70 a barrel as the level at which there would be “panic” within its ranks.

The Gulf states “don’t have a price target and if prices drop further below $60, it won’t be for a long time,” a Gulf oil official said.

Before last week’s OPEC meeting in Vienna, the Saudis had been considering a Venezuelan proposal to cut the producer group’s oil output sharply. The possible deal finally fell apart when Russia, a major oil producer that is not a member of OPEC, refused to participate in a general supply cut, according to people familiar with the situation.

That gave Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies cover to push an unpopular strategy at OPEC’s main meeting last Thursday of not changing the cartel’s production target, in an attempt to defend market share rather than prices. That view prevailed, leading Brent crude to fall nearly 9% in the past week.

During an early November meeting on the Venezuelan resort island of Margarita, Saudi Arabia’s oil minister Ali al-Naimi had told Venezuela’s foreign minister and OPEC representative Rafael Ramirez he would support a cut only if the Venezuelan minister could convince others both inside and outside of the cartel to participate, according to people familiar with the situation.

It was a “mission impossible,” said one OPEC delegate. Struggling OPEC members like Iran, Libya and Iraq argue they should be exempted from any move to cut output. Historically, persuading non-OPEC members to join the group in reducing supply has met with limited success.

However, just 48 hours before OPEC’s semiannual meeting last Thursday, Mr. Ramirez gathered senior energy officials from Saudi Arabia, Russia and Mexico—another non-OPEC member—in Vienna’s Hyatt hotel.

On the table was a proposal to take 2 million barrels a day of oil supply out of the market, according to people familiar with the situation. The bulk of the cut was to be shouldered by OPEC, but Russia and Mexico were expected to contribute a reduction of 500,000 barrels a day, the people said.

But the meeting ended without any deal to cut supply, Mr. Ramirez told reporters immediately afterward. Within hours, Russia’s state oil company OAO Rosneft said it would not cut its oil output.

Mr. al-Naimi finally decided it would be better to endure short-term pain from low oil prices than risk losing market share in the long run, according to people familiar with the situation.

“The market will stabilize itself eventually,” Mr. al-Naimi said.

He conveyed this message first to his Gulf allies—countries such as Kuwait and the U.A.E.—and then during a four-hour debate among all of OPEC’s ministers last Thursday, according to delegates briefed on the gathering.

Mr. al-Naimi rebuffed calls led by Venezuela for the oil-producing cartel to reduce its output by 5%, arguing it would cost OPEC market share without guaranteeing prices would improve, the people said.

Mr. al-Naimi told the ministers that enduring lower prices would force high-cost oil producers outside of OPEC, like U.S. shale oil companies, to cut back production themselves, tightening the market by the second half of 2015, the people added.

The rest of OPEC gave in to Saudi pressure and the cartel reluctantly agreed to maintain its oil production at 30 million barrels a day. On Tuesday this week, the kingdom’s cabinet said OPEC’s decision reflected the group’s “cohesion and unity”.

MBS

December 3rd, 2014 11:28 am

Thirty year mortgages are 1 tick to 1+ tick tighter. There has been solid origination flow but robust end user buying has trumped the orignator sellers. Fifteen year paper is lagging and is 1+ to 2+ wider to Treasuries. One trader did offer the interesting nugget that 2.30 on 10s is the new 2.50 at which level end users look to wade in and buy.

Productivity and Unit labor Costs

December 3rd, 2014 10:00 am

Via Stephen Stanley of Amherst Pierpont Securities:

Non-farm business productivity was revised upward by less than anticipated in Q3.  Despite a 0.6 percentage point upward adjustment to the relevant output gauge, the productivity figure was only nudged up by one tick, to 2.3% annualized.  This marks a second straight decent quarter after a disastrous Q1, tracking the swings in GDP.  Since the beginning of 2011, productivity gains have averaged 0.7%.  That’s nearly 4 years’ worth of data, which is more than enough to establish a trend.  At the same time, growth in the working-age population is low (less than 1%) and shrinking, as the Baby Boomers retire.  The sum of these two growth rates makes a decent proxy for potential real GDP growth.  The Fed and most economists still think that the trend is between 2% and 2½%, but the data suggest otherwise.  A potential figure of below 2% would help to explain how real GDP advances have averaged just over 2% since the beginning of the recovery and yet the unemployment rate has screamed lower, always faster than expected.  This apparent puzzle is resolved if/when people begin to take the low productivity numbers seriously.  And just to complete the narrative, it is in my view no coincidence that productivity growth stalled in 2011, after Congress and the Administration put the regulatory screws to the business sector (ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank to name two, but the regulatory environment has been far from limited to those two).  It is no surprise to me that the recently-released Business Roundtable survey of CEOs found that the two most commonly cited factors holding back business investment were tax policy (cited by 63%) and regulatory issues (46%), and 39% of CEOs cited regulatory costs as the “greatest area of cost pressure facing your company” (easily the higher response).  Sadly, the sluggish growth environment is largely of our own (or our policymakers’) doing – it is not some act of God that we have no control over (a la Reinhart-Rogoff).  The good news is that we could probably do noticeably better with an intelligent tax reform package and/or a different regulatory approach.  The bad news is that it does not appear that either will happen soon.

While I have been discussing the growing anecdotal incidence of wage hikes quite a bit recently, the aggregate data continue to be extremely benign.  Hourly compensation was revised downward sharply in Q2, reflecting the benchmark employment and wage data released last week.  Hourly compensation in Q2 actually fell in Q2 (after a 6.6% spike in Q1), vs. a preliminary print of +2.3%.  The Q3 figure was also adjusted lower, from a preliminary rise of 2.3% to a revised advance of 1.3%.  On a year-over-year basis, hourly compensation is running at 2.2%, largely consistent with other aggregate wage data.  Putting the two (productivity and compensation) together, unit labor costs were also revised downward for both Q2 and Q3.  In fact, unit labor costs fell in both quarters (though, to be fair, this follows an 11.6% annualized spike in Q1).  On a year-over-year basis, unit labor costs rose by 1.2% in Q3, broadly in line with overall inflation, suggesting that labor costs are not pushing inflation much in either direction right now.  I continue to look for wage pressures to gradually build from here, but it will take some time and a significant acceleration before wages could be viewed as a problem.

Merrill Lynch Research on Black Friday

December 3rd, 2014 7:52 am

Bank America swallowed Merrill Lynch at the depths of the crisis in 2008. I think they took over that old line equity house as Lehman Brothers was careening into bankruptcy. One of the benefits of that coupling is that Bank America with its reach into every corner of America is able to track spending patterns of the myriad folks who hold Bank America credit cards and debit cards. That is interesting and valuable information and on occasion the research group shares that info. This is one of those days.

Via BankAmerica Merrill Lynch Research:

Not busting down the doors
Summary
  • BAC data showed a weak start to the holiday season with sales down over Thanksgiving and Black Friday relative to last year.
  • Consumers are shopping earlier with fewer sales concentrated on Black Friday, making the data a less reliable indicator.
  • While we tempered our optimism, we still look for holiday sales to increase this year given the improving economic backdrop.

It’s a long season 

The BAC internal data showed a sluggish start to the holiday shopping season. Spending on BAC credit and debit cards over Thanksgiving and Black Friday declined 1.6% yoy. In order to restrict the sample to holiday-related spending, we are measuring “core control” sales, which nets out food services, gasoline, building materials and autos, making it a comparable sample to the Census Bureau’s data. While not as dismal as the 11% yoy decline reported by the National Retail Federation (NRF), our data supports the weak anecdotes.  

Although this is clearly a negative signal, it does not mean the overall holiday shopping season will be a bust, in our view. As Chart 1 shows, the NRF data has no correlation (actually an inverse relationship) with overall holiday sales from the Census Bureau. The BAC data historically have a better fit, since it measures actual sales unlike the surveys, but it still has fairly low forecasting power. There are a few reasons to advise caution when interpreting Black Friday sales. For one, measuring sales over a two-day period is naturally noisy, but particularly since retailers adjust the promotion schedule over the years. As we show in Chart 2, the promotions start earlier each year making the “door buster” deals of Black Friday less appealing. Moreover, the shift toward online shopping provides greater access to sales and incentives, also taking the focus away from Black Friday. The bottom line is that while we tempered our optimism, we still look for holiday sales to increase this year given the improving economic backdrop. 

Chart 1: The holiday shopping season kicked off to a weak start this year, but this does not necessarily mean that the holiday season will prove to be a bust 

3dddbf0ac7954a25aca1b1f6eb71fc2f.png 

Source: BAC internal data, National Retail Federation, Census Bureau  

Note: Census Bureau holiday sales is core control (retail ex-autos, building materials, gasoline and food services) for November + December, % yoy 

BAC sales are defined as Thanksgiving + Black Friday, core control, % yoy.  

Chart 2: Hourly distribution of debit card transactions at department and electronics stores on Thanksgiving through Black Friday (% of transactions during the two-day period

2371510bf002491cb8f524fac6bbd189.png 

Source: BAC internal data 

Note: based on pin-based debit card transactions; number of transactions, not dollars spent 

  • Shoppers are no longer waiting for the Thanksgiving dinner to end before beginning to shop. Sales over the two-day period of Thanksgiving and Black Friday are starting earlier over the years.
  • In 2011, 50% of transactions (as measured

What to Watch For Today

December 3rd, 2014 7:42 am

Via the good folks at Bloomberg:

WHAT TO WATCH:
* (All times New York)
Economic Data
* 7:00am: MBA Mortgage Applications, Nov. 28 (prior -4.3%)
* 8:15am: ADP Employment Change, Nov., est. 222k (prior 230k)
* 8:30am: Nonfarm Productivity, 3Q final, est. 2.4% (prior 2%)
* Unit Labor Costs, 3Q final, est. -0.2% (prior 0.3%)
* Unit Labor Costs, 3Q final, est. -0.2% (prior 0.3%)</li></ul>
* 9:45am: Markit US Services PMI, Nov. final est. 56.5 (prior
56.3)
* Markit US Composite PMI, Nov. final (prior 56.1)
* Markit US Composite PMI, Nov. final (prior 56.1)</li></ul>
* 10:00am: ISM Non-Manf. Composite, Nov., est. 57.5 (prior
57.1)
Central Banks
* 10:00am: Bank of Canada seen maintaining 1% overnight
lending rate
* 12:30pm: Fed’s Plosser speaks in Charlotte, N.C.
* 2:00pm: Federal Reserve releases Beige Book
* 2:00pm: Fed’s Brainard speaks in Washington
* 7:30pm: Fed’s Fisher speaks in Dallas

Secondary market Corporate Bond Trading Yesterday

December 3rd, 2014 6:51 am

Via Bloomberg:

IG CREDIT: Spreads Remain at ’14 Wides; ICBCAS, CHILE to Price
2014-12-03 11:06:00.527 GMT

By Robert Elson
Dec. 3 (Bloomberg) — The final Trace count for secondary
trading was $18.1b vs $14.4b Monday and $18.4b the previous
Tuesday. $19.5b, seen Jan. 15, was the highest volume day of the
year.
* 144a trading added another $2.1b of IG volume
* DTV 4.45% 2024 topped the most active list with 2-way client
flows accounting for 90% of volume
* MDT 4% 2043 was next; client buying 3x selling, together
accounting for 91% of volume
* GS 2.55% 2019 was 3rd; client flows take 55% of volume
* BABA 3.60% 2024 was most active 144a IG issue with client
sales twice purchases
* BofAML IG Master Index unchanged at +136, a new wide for
2014; +106, the low for 2014 and the tightest spread since
July 2007 was seen June 24
* Standard & Poor’s Global Fixed Income Research IG Index
unchanged at +170, the new wide for 2014, vs +169; +140, a
2014 low and new post-crisis low was seen July 30
* Markit CDX.IG.22 5Y Index closed at 62.1 vs 62.8; 55 was
seen July 3, the low for 2014 and the lowest level since Oct
2007; 2014 high of 74.5 was seen Feb 3
* $6b AMZN 5-part deal led $12.45b of issuance Tuesday vs
$21.35b Monday
* Week’s IG issuance $33.8b; November’s IG issuance ended at
$139.2b
* YTD IG issuance at $1.369t
* ICBCAS, CHILE expected to price today; possible BDX M&A-
related deal tops the pipeline

FX

December 3rd, 2014 6:48 am

Via Marc Chandler at Brown Brothers Harriman:

Euro at New Lows on Weak Data

–        Both eurozone final service and composite PMIs were on the weaker side, but the PMI’s out of Italy and the UK surprised on the upside
–        Chancellor of the Exchequer Osborne delivers the Autumn Statement today
–        The Bank of Canada meets today and seems steadfastly on hold
–        Brazil central bank meets and is expected to hike rates 50 bp to 11.75%, while the Polish central bank should leave rates on hold at 2.00%

Price action:  The dollar is mixed on the day against the majors.  The euro fell to a new cycle low near $1.2325, in part following weaker PMI numbers.  Sterling is holding up well after it released better than expected PMI data, now at $1.5660.  The Australian and New Zealand dollars are marginally weaker, while the loonie is the best performer today in the majors.  The dollar is testing the ¥119.50 against the yen.  EM currencies are mostly softer, and we note that USD/MXN is trading with a 14 handle for the first time since mid-2012 and COP continues to weaken, trading at levels not seen since 2009.  RUB is outperforming, up nearly 1.5% given the modest bounce in oil prices.  MSCI Asia Pacific was down 0.2%, as gains in China and Japan were offset by losses in Hong Kong, Malaysia, and Singapore. Euro Stoxx 600 is up 0.4% near midday, while S&P futures are pointing to a lower open.

  • Both eurozone final service and composite PMIs were on the weaker side.  The composite figure came in at 51.1 vs. 51.4 consensus.  Looking at the country breakdown, German composite came in at 51.7 vs. 52.1 consensus, French composite came in at 47.8 vs. 48.4 consensus, and the Italian composite surprised on the upside at 51.2 vs. 49.6 consensus.  The UK also went against the trend to deliver an upside surprise with the composite figure at 57.6 compared with 56.2 expected.  Eurozone retail sales were also weaker than expected. The October reading rose 1.4% y/y compared with 1.6% expected.
  • The Bank of England’s meeting tomorrow should be a non-event, but there could be some important development on the fiscal side today.  Chancellor of the Exchequer Osborne delivers the Autumn Statement at 12:30 GMT.  With the drop in oil prices, which means lower North Sea oil tax revenue, there is little scope for pre-election fiscal gifts.  Indeed, despite the talk of austerity, the UK budget deficit for fiscal year that ended in April was 6.6% of GDP.  The appropriate comparison is the US, where the deficit has fallen from over 10% of GDP to less than 3% in the last fiscal year.  The UK structural deficit has hardly been addressed, and the Prime Minister’s push to deny immigrants from the EU welfare benefits (employed or not) for the first four years that they are in the UK is not a real economic answer – though it may be seen as a political answer by some part of the Tory party.
  • The Bank of Canada meets today and seems steadfastly on hold.  Although price pressures have ticked up, Governor Poloz has argued that it should look past what he sees as transitory in nature.  Canada reports November jobs at the end of the week.  After strong growth in September and October, a softer report is expected.  On the other hand, at the same time as its employment report, and despite the drop in oil prices, Canada will likely report a further rise in its trade surplus from the C$700 mln reported in September.
  • During the North American session, ADP reports November private sector job estimates with consensus at 222k.  Later, ISM non-manufacturing PMI will be reported.  Key event for the US is this Friday’s jobs report, with consensus currently at 230k vs. 214k in October.  Fed officials continue to signal the first rate hike around mid-2015, and most data in the US would seem to support this.  With the markets poised for more action by the ECB, the expected policy divergences continue to support our call for a stronger dollar ahead.
  • Polish central bank meets and is expected to keep rates steady at 2.0%.  However, a small handful is looking for a rate cut to follow up on the surprise October 50 bp cut.  We were surprised that the bank kept rates steady in November, given the dovish signals the previous month.  Deflationary risks persist, and so we think there is a chance of a dovish surprise this week from the central bank.  For EUR/PLN, support seen near 4.16 and then 4.14, resistance seen near 4.18 and then 4.20.
  • Brazil central bank meets and is expected to hike rates 50 bp to 11.75%.   However, the market is split.  Of the 54 analysts polled by Bloomberg, 29 are looking for a 50 bp hike and 25 are looking for a 25 bp hike.  We see a small risk of a 75 bp hike.  Interest payments are already approaching 6% of GDP, and are likely to head higher as local rates move up.  As such, it’s hard to see how the nominal deficit can move lower in any significant manner, which is needed for debt/GDP to stabilize.  November IPCA inflation will be reported Friday, expected to remain steady at 6.59% y/y.  For USD/BRL, support seen near 2.55 and then 2.50, resistance seen near 2.60 and then 2.65.

From the Quis custodiet ipso custodes Department

December 2nd, 2014 11:31 pm

There is some concern about the post crisis surge in usage of clearing houses to house derivative risk. What happens if one of the clearinghouses went belly up and who would pony up the cash on that one?

Via the FT:

‘Too big to fail’ worries reach clearing houses

Clearing houses, which sit between two sides of financial trades, have become risk managers for global markets in the post 2007-crisis era. But they are having to defend their role in a growing debate over what would happen if one of them failed.

Operators such as LCH.Clearnet, Deutsche Börse’s Eurex and CME Group are increasingly at odds with their users – including the world’s big banks – as global regulators continue their reforms of bilateral, or “over-the-counter”, derivatives markets.

The question is who would take the losses in the event of a failure: the clearing houses themselves; their member banks; investors, such as pension funds; or governments.

In their efforts to make the financial system safer, policy makers have pushed for more OTC derivatives to be processed through clearing houses, known in market jargon as “central counterparties”, or CCPs. CCPs guarantee deals if one side defaults before they are completed.

However, the shift has left responsibility for ensuring the safety of the huge OTC market – which has a notional $691tn in outstanding contracts – centred on just a handful of institutions.

Now central banks in Europe and the US are turning their attention to developing frameworks that ensure the system can keep functioning when a clearing house runs into trouble – and without governments picking up the bill.

“We need to have a broader debate on what happens when we’ve burnt through the cover,” says Patrick Pearson, head of market structure in the European Commission markets directorate. “It can go in a few hours. Is there something there before we go to the taxpayer? It’s at the top of the regulatory radar screen.”

The EU’s executive arm will set out its policy proposals next year. Policy makers are adamant that taxpayers should not bail out failing clearing houses, and recent rule changes such as the Dodd-Frank legislation in the US and Europe’s market infrastructure legislation have set out tougher default procedures, creating a “waterfall” of financial resources that can be drawn on when crises hit.

But crucially, clearers have to agree recovery plans with their members – the financial institutions that use their services. That has resulted in a fractious debate between clearing houses and some of their most biggest users, notably JPMorgan, Pimco and BlackRock.

One of the most contentious issues is the size of contributions that CCPs should make to default funds. Market practitioners argue that more “skin in the game” from clearing houses would incentivise them to manage their risks.

CCPs should offer more transparency and make “significant” direct contributions to their own standard default funds, according to the International Swaps and Derivatives Association. “Special attention . . . needs to be given to ensuring CCPs are as safe as possible. The incentives have to be right for all participants,” says Scott O’Malia, Isda’s chief executive.

But clearing houses complain of unfair differences in regulatory requirements. European rules, for example, require clearing houses to have skin in the game equivalent to 25 per cent of their minimal capital resource. US rules are not as prescriptive. Moreover, Thomas Book, chief executive of Eurex Clearing, warns of moral hazard risks. “If a CCP increases its ‘skin in the game’, the bank reduces its own skin in the game. You need to keep members highly incentivised,” he says.

Other proposals are also proving controversial. In October the Bank for International Settlements and the International Organisation of Securities Commissions (Iosco), an umbrella group of regulators, produced policy guidelines on steps failing clearing houses should be allowed to take when crises erupt.

They included tearing up derivatives contracts, applying a “haircut” to margins (or collateral posted as security), allocating any uncovered losses to members and replenishing any funds that were used up during a “stress event”.

But the proposals have led to fears that they give too much leeway to CCPs, and leave the rest of the market with unquantifiable exposures. Some warn that applying haircuts to margin is tantamount to expropriating assets that belong to asset managers and pension funds. The US and Europe also have differing rules over how clearing houses segregate the margin of their customers.

Derivatives market

“No one can say how big the shortfall at a troubled CCP will be, because you would of course be dealing with a systemically unstable situation,” says Angus Canvin, senior adviser, regulatory affairs at the Investment Management Association.

Policy makers have also begun to examine whether clearing houses should have a standard amount of “total loss absorbing capacity” (TLAC) similar to requirements imposed on banks.

Derivatives deals

TLAC standards set the minimum amount of capital and liabilities that can be written off when a major bank gets into serious trouble, avoiding the need for taxpayers to pay out – as they did in the 2007-09 financial crisis.

But Damian Carolan, a partner at Allen & Overy, the law firm, says some of the proposed changes have not been properly thought through. “There are certain issues that would not be resolved by more TLAC,” he says. “Users want certainty over what will happen and don’t want potential unlimited liabilities put on them. It’s a direct tension with wanting every tool in the box for clearing houses.”

Inflation Expectations

December 2nd, 2014 10:27 pm

Via FT:

Oil price fall reflected in lower inflation outlook

Tumbling oil prices have pushed even lower the long term inflation rates being priced into financial markets on both sides of the Atlantic.

The latest falls in inflation rates implied by bond and swaps markets strengthen the case for central banks maintaining ultra loose monetary policies – and increase pressure on the European Central Bank to embark on full-blown “quantitative easing” to stimulate the eurozone economy.

A measure of US inflation expectations followed by the Federal Reserve has dropped to its lowest level since the depths of the financial crisis. Expectations of five-year inflation starting in five years’ time have dropped to just 2.08 per cent – down from a peak of 2.53 per cent in late July.

When the so-called US “5yr/5yr break-even” rate fell below 2 per cent in late 2008, it raised the spectre of deflation and triggered the first round of quantitative easing from the US central bank.

The Fed has played down recent declines in such measures, preferring to focus on survey based measures. However, a recent University of Michigan consumer survey showed a drop in long-term US inflation expectations from 2.8 per cent to 2.6 per cent, the lowest level since 2009.

Eurozone inflation expectations have also dropped since last week’s decision by Opec, the oil cartel, not to cut production – although they rose slightly again on Tuesday. Euro swaps prices implied a eurozone inflation rate of 1.79 per cent over five years starting in five years’ time, according to Barclays data based on swaps prices.

The latest readings suggested the ECB was in danger of significantly undershooting its target of an annual inflation rate “below but close” to 2 per cent – especially as market gauges of expected inflation have historically been much higher than that level.

As well as falling oil prices, lower inflation expectations also reflect gloom about global economic demand, said Khrishnamoorthy Sooben, a Barclays analyst. “It’s been oil prices most recently but over the past few months it’s also been the global growth slowdown which has impacted break-even inflation expectations everywhere.”

The ECB is not expected to announce significant additional policy measures at its meeting on Thursday, but expectations are growing that it will start buying government bonds on a large scale early in 2015. The fall in inflation expectations is also leading market strategists to argue interest rate increases in the US and UK will be pushed further into the future.

While the next policy step by the Fed is expected to be a rates hike, “it is going to be impossible for them to remain immune to what is going on in the rest of the world,” said Lyn Graham-Taylor, rates strategist at Rabobank. “They will want to tick all the boxes before they raise interest rates. If inflation expectations are still falling, it is a box that will be un-ticked.”

No Wink Next Time?

December 2nd, 2014 9:51 pm

What follows is a research piece from Merrill Lynch on New York Fed President Dudley’s speech on the upcoming rate hike cycle. Dudley does not want the next one to be similar to the 2004 cycle. (As an aside can you imagine what it will be like when they begin to serially hike rates? That cycle began in 2004 and the institutional memory of that episode has faded into oblivion. There are market participants in trading rooms today who were in junior high back then.) In that one The Maestro, Alan Greenspan, gave the Street an off camera wink and promised to never hike rates by more than 25 basis points. He delivered 17 of those hikes and between the conundrum of foreign central bank purchases of Treasuries which  depressed long rates and the lack of vol induced by his unwritten pledge the cycle was quite benign and orderly. That orderliness did contribute to the crisis as the flotsam and jetsam created at that time looked pretty with a smooth funding trajectory. If the funding trajectory had been more opaque with participants fearing that the FOMC might lob a couple of 50 basis point hikes there way then some structures would not have looked as appealing.

So Dudley raises an interesting point out about the next cycle when (and if) it begins.

Via Merrill Lynch research:

The Fed’s dual goals: wider spreads, higher vol
Summary
  • New York Fed President Dudley’s remarks wants the 2015 hiking cycle to be more problematic for financial markets.
  • This is because the link between the Fed funds rate and financial market conditions has weakened over time.
  • Thus Dudley appears to want volatility, such as wider credit spreads, lower stocks and higher long term interest rates.
  • The Fed’s dual goals: wider spreads, higher vol. For financial markets, New York Fed President Dudley’s remarks yesterday at Baruch College offered perhaps the clearest reminder that the Fed wants 2015 to be a more problematic year for financial markets. First, Dudley clearly has not changed his view that mid-2015 – in particular June – is the most likely timing for the Fed’s first rate hike. This despite global weakness, low oil prices, and a strong dollar. Second, in Dudley’s view, when the Fed hikes rates they will aim specifically to tighten financial market conditions. This might sound obvious, but the reason this is key to financial markets is that, as he argues, the link between the Fed funds rate and financial market conditions has weakened over time (due to a “less bank-centric” and more global financial system).
  • Thus to measure the effectiveness of monetary policy tightening, in Dudley’s view, the Fed will now have to look more closely at financial markets. He mentions specifically the 2004 rate hiking cycle as an example where the Fed hiked interest rates but financial market conditions actually loosened, as long term interest rates did not change much while stocks continued to go up and credit spreads tightened (*see section below). Dudley then concludes that: “With the benefit of hindsight, it seems that either monetary policy should have been tightened more aggressively or macroprudential measures should have been implemented in order to tighten credit conditions in the overheated housing sector”.
  • The biggest pushback we get against our outlook for wider credit spreads and higher volatility in 2015 (see: Credit Market Strategist: 2015 US High Grade Outlook: Un-reaching from yield 24 November 2014) is that a transparent Fed will be able to engineer a completely orderly rate hiking cycle like in 2004. However, again, according to Dudley the Fed specifically does not want a repeat of that scenario. Instead, for the coming rate hiking cycle the Fed appears to want volatility, and to see other evidence that financial market conditions have tightened – such a wider credit spreads, lower stocks and higher long term interest rates. Otherwise they need to tighten more aggressively. This point was made explicit in the following quote: “if the reaction were relatively small or even in the wrong direction, with financial market conditions easing-think of the response of long-term bond yields and the equity market as the asset purchase program was gradually phased out over the past year-then this would imply a more aggressive approach”.
  • Obviously, as Mr. Dudley points out as well, the Fed is not interested in going to the extreme and creating a large sell-off in financial markets. Specifically he mentions the taper tantrum last year as a scenario that would warrant a “slower and more cautious” approach. We think that the risk for credit investors in that direction is if the economy really takes off, in which case any slower and more cautious approach taken by the Fed may not be expected to last very long. Hence the Fed may not be very successful in restoring order to financial markets. Dudley’s speech can be found here: http://www.newyorkfed.org/newsevents/speeches/2014/dud141201.html. – Hans Mikkelsen (Page 5)