Is the Bernanke Put Kaput?

As Barry suggests, have we just seen the end of the Bernanke put? Based on the way markets are trading today it would appear Ken Rogoff was right that Bernanke doesn't have the stock market's back.

However, in all likelihood Soros is right about how policymaking powers-that-be will be forced to bailout Too Big To Fail banks should the financial system begin to teeter again. In which case the only real question is for how long can the current central bank shell-game be sustained in a low-to-no growth economic environment?

No one -- not Ben Bernanke, not Alan Greenspan, not Milton Friedman if he were alive, nobody -- knows for sure just how much more room the Fed's balance sheet has before non-negligible inflation kicks in. However, former Fed Chair Paul Volcker for one is starting to get nervous.

Federal Reserve Total Assets ($s Trillions)

(click to enlarge)

Continue reading the full article at SeekingAlpha here.

Gold Price: Full Steam Ahead to $2,000/oz.

Over a year ago, on May 6, 2010, this blog launched with a first post on the attractiveness of gold as an investment. On that day the price of gold was just under $1200/oz, and as it became clear that the Federal Reserve was about to embark on another large round of money printing, which later came to be known as QE2, I felt compelled to grab the keyboard and start typing (see articles tagged 'Gold' both here and on SeekingAlpha for further reference).

During this time it has been amusing to watch the professional punditry drone on about a  "gold bubble" and observe various blogger bets about how gold's run couldn't last. The biggest amusement of all, however, has been the disparaging remarks from those such as Berkshire Hathaway's Charlie Munger, who belongs to a group I've taken to calling the 'gold haters'.

Suggestions from credible policymakers, such as the World Bank's Robert Zoellick advocating a return to the gold standard, have lit a fire under the barbarous relic's price this past year. Today, with gold pressing above $1700, or nearly 50% higher in just over a year, I can't help but comment on how we've heard nary a peep of late from the anti-gold crowd.

Where to from here? As long as three key fundamental forces persist then the rise in the price of gold will continue unabated. Those forces are:

1. Low interest rates, a hallmark of the current program of financial repression, which is only just getting started and should extend for many years to come.
2. Continued central bank purchases of gold by countries such as South Korea, Thailand, Russia, etc.
3. More money printing, which we've seen in spades of late with Italian and Spanish bond buying, Bank of Japan and Swiss National Bank currency intervention, and the Fed's rumored QE3.

Continue reading the full article at SeekingAlpha here.

What's the Difference Between 'Financial Repression' and 'Macroprudential Regulation'?

Axel Weber and German Chancellor Angela Merkel

The most striking remarks made by former Bundesbank Chief and ECB frontrunner Axel Weber in a recent WSJ interview were his comments on the possibility of using financial repression to solve the Greek and wider European debt crisis:

“Ultimately, there will be a debate about financial repression. Take what we had in Germany — the Zwangsanleihe [compulsory loans introduced after World War I to help make reparation payments]. If voluntary contributions don’t add up, then the one tool that is still on the shelf is financial repression.”

To my knowledge, this is the first time a major senior policymaker (albeit one who recently stepped down) has publicly used the term 'financial repression'. As economist Carmen Reinhart and others have noted, the policies associated with financial repression are typically couched under the more benign, positive sounding 'macroprudential regulation'.

Update: News today emerged that Weber will become Chairman of Swiss megabank UBS, which perhaps explains the reasoning behind his choice of words.

Economic Newspeak

The term 'financial repression' was first coined in 1973 by two Stanford economists, and the word choice was intended to disparage developing economies which enacted what were deemed to be anti-competitive (and hence anti-growth) policies. In other words, the term 'financial repression' was invented with negative connotations in mind.

Can the contrast between 'financial repression' and 'macroprudential regulation' be viewed along the same lines as the difference between 'quantitative easing' and 'printing money'? The two monetary terms can mean approximately the same thing, although those who oppose Fed policies, like QE2, tend to embrace the use of the latter, which is arguably both more provocative and transparent to a broader audience.

This blog has in the past been highly critical of other examples of opaque, economic 'newspeak', such as Yale Professor Robert Shiller's argument that terms like 'bailout' should be replaced with ‘orderly resolution’ so that the voting public 'gets it'.

Video: Jim Grant - 'We Traded the Gold Standard for the PhD Standard'

Interview with Jim Grant on Bernanke's press conference today, the coming of QE3, and why the Federal Reserve should "be run by someone with a degree in unintended consequences" after the break.

Video: Niall Ferguson on Why Larry Summers is Wrong, the Germany-ECB Spat, and Fixing the U.S.

Video here.

Will Central Bankers Have the Same Courage On the Way Out?

Exit interview here with outgoing Fed Governor Kevin Warsh, who openly discusses his skepticism of QE2, how inflation is the cruelest tax of all, and other topics.

On the Fed's long talked about but still distant plan to 'exit', or unwind, its unprecedented monetary stimulus, he states "Central bankers must have the same courage on the way out that they had going in".

But just how likely is that? Given the current unemployment situation, and the Fed's dual mandate of stable prices and low unemployment, the Fed seems destined to remain in neutral or biased towards putting it's foot back on the money printing pedal.

The Fed has now surpassed China as the largest holder of government debt and has made it abundantly clear that its weak U.S. dollar policy, hashed in the interest of kickstarting exports, is not really open to negotiation.

Bottom line: don't expect the Fed to have the same courage when (or if) it belatedly decides to exit its massive monetary stimulus.

Video: Bill Gross on U.S. Financial Repression

U.S.-China Currency War: Should America Fight Back by Defaulting?

A little less handshaking, a little more action?

China-U.S. relations have dominated this week's headlines with Hu Jintao's official state visit to America. And there is much to talk about with respect to what is arguably the world's most important bilateral relationship.

'Bleeding-hearts' types will no doubt want to focus on human rights issues, such as China's not so secret effort to wipeout Tibetan civilization and the ongoing imprisonment of China's recent Nobel Peace Prize winner, Liu Xiaobo.

As the NY Times opinion page put it, "how can one Nobel Peace Prize laureate be silent when meeting the man who imprisons the next?"

And those concerned with the military balance of power can point to concerns about Chinese espionage, secret development of sophisticated weaponry like a Chinese stealth fighter, and China's navy contesting free navigation in the South Sea.

The Renminbi Runaround

There is also the matter of U.S.-China economic relations. As far as the U.S. is concerned, the big one is the exchange rate of China's currency, the renminbi (yuan). It is widely agreed that China's currency is undervalued by as much as 20-40%, providing China with an unfair trade advantage. Much has been written about this issue previously here.

Former Secretary of State and and National Security Advisor, Henry Kissinger, appeared on Charlie Rose this week to discuss relations with China. Not surprisingly, Kissinger argued for a diplomatic solution to the renminbi. While acknowledging that he is not economist, Kissinger believes there should be some way to bring the Chinese around on revaluing the renminbi by offering something in return. My question is hasn't the U.S. already tried that ad nauseam?

Throughout modern history the world's trade and currency order has always followed a set of explicit and implicit 'rules of the game', so to speak. Over the last two decades China has benefitted significantly from first having access to the world's markets and later gaining entrance into the World Trade Organization. While WTO rules do not cover exchange rate manipulation, one of the hallmarks of our current semi-free trade system is floating exchange rates. China exercises heavy control over its exchange rates in a manner completely unlike other major trading powers, such as the U.S.

The key question, put simply, can be expressed as follows: why is there one set of currency rules for China, and another set for everyone else?

Continue reading the full article published on SeekingAlpha here.

Quote of the Day: Jim Rogers On Why He's Long Cotton

From legendary investor Jim Rogers:

“Paper money is made of cotton, and I’m long cotton, by the way,” Rogers said. “One reason I’m long cotton is because Dr. Bernanke is out there running the printing presses as fast as he can.”

More from Rogers, including his thoughts on gold, can be found here.

Video: The Daily Show on Printing Money

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Big Bank Theory
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog</a> The Daily Show on Facebook

Video: Ben Bernanke Interview on 60 Minutes (sans ironic Chase ad)

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke conducted a post-QE 2 interview on CBS's 60 Minutes program last night (his June 2009 60 Minutes interview can be viewed here).

One similarity and one difference between the two 60 Minutes interviews:

1. Similarity: he still gets nervous when speaking on television (and in front of Congress for that matter).
2. Difference: Bernanke is no longer willing to acknowledge that he's "printing money". In fact, Bernanke now denies it:

"One myth that’s out there is that what we’re doing is printing money. We’re not printing money. The amount of currency in circulation is not changing. The money supply is not changing in any significant way."

The below chart, however, suggests otherwise.

Chart courtesy of Felix Salmon.

So why is Bernanke denying that he's printing money when the Fed has clearly expanded the money supply? Semantics. And why would Bernanke start playing word games now? Because Bernanke has chosen to get political, and in politics semantics matter.

Later on in the interview Bernanke, for the first time, dips his toe into the government fiscal debate currently underway in Congress over tax cuts, the deficit, entitlements, etc. Whether you agree if this is or is not appropriate for a Fed Chairman (or with Bernanke's politics) is not necessarily the most important element here. The change in what Bernanke is openly speaking out about compared to what he's previously remained mum on is perhaps the key observation.

Every single word uttered by a Federal Reserve Chairman is carefully considered and reviewed before being communicated publicly. The reason: the Fed Chairman's words can have a powerful effect on investor psychology and global financial markets. Is it this pressure to stay on script which is making Bernanke so nervous when he knows he's on TV? I haven't spent time with Bernanke in private so unfortunately I can't compare how he communicates in a more informal setting with how he is on television.

Appropriately, the CBS online video version of the interview features an ad for a new Chase Bank card called "Slate", which gives the interview a "Ben Bernanke, brought to you tonight by Chase CEO Jamie Dimon" quality. Appropriate perhaps, and also hard to believe Too 'Bigger' to Fail Dimon wanted his advertising budget used for such rich irony.

I hope you won't mind my sparing you from being subjected to Chase marketing, which is excluded in the below YouTube version of Bernanke's interview.

Federal Reserve Public Relations in the YouTube Age

The Federal Reserve and its policy of quantitative easing (aka printing money) both have serious image problems. Significant controversy and disagreement has been generated recently by the Fed's QE2 program, resulting in an ongoing communications battle between the Fed's advocates and critics.

This amusing cartoon video, which 'explains' quantitative easing and the current economic situation in a rather simplified (and in some instances erroneous) fashion, has already generated nearly 3 millions views on YouTube. The video's appeal is undeniable: we were all children once upon a time and are practically hardwired to trust cute, entertaining cartoon characters.

Meanwhile the Federal Reserve is hardly sitting idly by. Its New York branch has taken a slightly more high-brow approach with this comic book, a medium typically reserved for pre-teens and up. Like the cartoon, the comic book attempts to explain how the Federal Reserve system and monetary policy work to someone unfamiliar with macroeconomics.

The comic book builds on Ben Bernanke's 60 Minutes television interview and Washington Post QE2 op-ed in that both reflect the Fed's understanding that it needs to engage in more public outreach. The historically secretive Fed correctly recognizes that business as usual won't work anymore.

The comic book also demonstrates the Fed's understanding that to get its message across it will need to employ a media strategy that goes beyond its usual menu of press releases, speeches, and well-timed leaks to news reporters like the WSJ's John Hilsenranth.

But how effective are the Fed's new openness and media strategy?And at what point does the Fed's communication cross the propaganda line?

Some, including influential Yale Professor Robert Schiller, argue that government policies should be purposely shrouded in what is effectively 'Newspeak'. For example, Schiller makes the case that "bailouts" should now be called "orderly resolutions". This framing, Schiller states, can help to ensure that the public 'gets it' when the economic going gets tough.

Perhaps more so than at any other point in its history, the Federal Reserve is under the public spotlight. Discussion of putting an end to the Fed's dual mandate of price stability and full employment is openly being considered.

Whether or not the Fed's mandate should or will change is an open question. However, it appears unlikely that Fed secrecy, as it has been historically been practiced, will survive.

Has Federal Reserve Secrecy Become Untenable?

The most interesting aspect of the Fed's new 'quantitative easing' announcement (aka QE2 ) was not its $600,000,000,000 price tag.

Nor Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke's op-ed in the Washington Post which stated that a key benefit of QE2 is higher stock prices.

I believe the most interesting, and perhaps significant, questions relate to the impact on the Fed's ability to maintain secrecy in wake of the unprecedented media coverage of QE2.

A Well Telegraphed Event

Regular Fed watchers of course know that an oft used Fed strategy is to communicate upcoming policy shifts through speeches and leaks to the press well in advance of the actual vote and formal policy change announcement. The Fed's thinking here is that this strategy provides time for market participants to acclimate to an upcoming policy change, thereby avoiding a sudden (and perhaps unwelcome) monetary surprise.

Anyone following the general financial press was probably aware no later than September that QE2 was going to be announced at the November Fed meeting. Media coverage of QE2, including my first writeup, began appearing as early as June.

Bill Gross: Run Turkey, Run

Bill Gross, PIMCO

A must read from the 'Bond King' which covers:

• Next Wed's Quantitative Easing II (QE2), which instead of labeling as 'printing money' Gross refers to as 'writing checks'
• The U.S.'s broken political system and his recommendation on what to do about it
• What investors can expect going forward

Bank of Japan Intervention: What Happened Last Time? What's Next?

On Tuesday the yen traded at ¥82.88 yen per dollar, its highest level since May 1995. As predicted the Japanese government decided it had seen enough and instructed the Bank of Japan (BOJ) to 'intervene in the currency market' (aka print money). This caused the yen to quickly fall back to ¥85 per U.S. dollar level.

The BOJ also confirmed that its intervention -- reported to be in the ¥300-¥500 billion range ($3.61-$6.02 billion) -- will go unsterilized, which means that the BOJ will not seek to withdraw the new yen it has 'printed'.

Currency Traders Now Have an ¥82 Yen Bullseye

Via Bloomberg, Japan’s Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshito Sengoku communicated two very important pieces of information:

1. ¥82 yen per dollar is "the line of defense to prevent currency strength from harming the economy"
2. "The government is seeking to gain the understanding of the U.S. and Europe for the intervention"

We now know the Japanese government's pain point (¥82 yen per dollar). Providing the market with an exact target -- not unprecedented for Japan (see below) -- could prove to be a mistake.

We can also infer from the "seeking to gain the understanding" comment that the BOJ's intervention was not only uncoordinated, but also without the consent of other central banks. It would be surprising if the Fed and ECB signed off on the BOJ's intervention. Europe, the U.S. and other nations are mired in a slow recovery and seeking export led growth. Japan's currency intervention makes U.S. and European goods more expensive in Japan.

What Happened Last Time the BOJ Intervened?

It was six years ago when the Bank of Japan last intervened in the currency market. In 15 months through March 2004, the BOJ sold ¥35 trillion yen ($421.7 billion) for dollars. What was the BOJ trying to accomplish? As noted back then Economy Trade and Industry Minister Takeo Hiranuma said "a dollar at ¥115.00 is the ultimate life-and-death line for Japanese exporters".

Two comments:

Goldman Sachs Says Fed's Next Money Printing Move is Imminent: "No Point in Doing Anything Less Than $1 Trillion"

Goldman Sachs chief U.S. economist Jan Hatzius yesterday said that the Fed is going to have to eventually print more money to tune of $1 trillion+.

In other words, the Fed's recently announced 'QE Lite' simply won't cut it. Hatzius figures are in line with estimates for QE 2.0 (the term that has become attached to the next massive round of Fed money printing) that I've been pointing towards for awhile.

In terms of the timing of QE 2.0, Goldman Sachs Chief Global Economist Jim O’Neill said "September might be a little bit soon, but by October I would say for sure if the data carries on being as disappointing as it’s been."

Given that market confidence is clearly deteriorating, why won't the Fed act sooner? I've recently wrote about my ideas on timing here. Ken Rogoff, the Harvard economist and author of the only economic history bestseller This Time is Different, recently appeared on Charlie Rose. He suggests that the Fed is hesitating because they're "nervous about overshooting". Aiming for 3% inflation, the Fed may miss their target badly and wind up with 30% hyperinflation. However, Rogoff states the "Fed will have to take that chance".

The U.S. dollar has held its ground so far, but concerns are rising about ongoing record budget deficits and what the government will do about the massive mortgage market problem that is Fannie and Freddie. The terrible housing figures are coming in spite of record low mortgage rates, housing prices 33% off their peak, and federal government subsidized mortgages for even Manhattan condos that require only 3.5% down payment. Perhaps most importantly, the now all but certain QE 2.0 makes the future value of the dollar anything but certain.

From an investment perspective, any move by the Fed to print more money is bullish for gold.

Why QE2 Won't Be Announced at Tuesday's Fed Meeting

Amid rampant discussion of further 'quantitative easing' the market's eyes will be fixed on the Federal Reserve when it meets on Tuesday this week.

In understanding why it is unlikely for 'QE2', as it is being dubbed, to be announced at this week's meeting it is helpful to briefly review the Fed's history and the political environment in which it operates.

Argument for Fed Independence

One of the key justifications for the creation of the Federal Reserve was to "keep politics out of monetary policy". In the Federal Reserve Act passed on December 23, 1913 Congress delegated its Constitutional authority over the nation's money supply ("to coin money, regulate the value thereof") to the newly created Federal Reserve System.

The Fed is free to make independent monetary policy decisions -- such as shrinking or expanding the money supply -- without the prior approval of Congress or the President. The logic behind thus empowering the Fed is that the nation is better off with its monetary policy entrusted to an institution that -- unlike Congress and the President -- is not directly accountable to the voting public. (Not exactly a strong vote of confidence in democracy!)

The theoretical problem with allowing elected politicians to directly control monetary policy can be illustrated through the following hypothetical example of a politician seeking reelection:

A politician might deem it advantageous to his reelection chances if there were a well-timed increase in the money supply. The reason? An increase in the money supply can (and often does) boost asset values (i.e., stocks, housing prices). A stock market rally -- prior to an election -- can in turn boost voter confidence. And more confident voters are less inclined to throw an incumbent politician out of office. While economic conditions may in fact make an increase in the money supply imprudent due to the post-election side effects (e.g., housing price crash), a politician's motivation to get reelected may trump economic logic. 

U.S. President Andrew Jackson vs. the Bankers

The above example can also be turned around to show how it can be politically advantageous to decrease the money supply. For example, in 1833 a reduction in the money supply was orchestrated in an attempt to cause President Andrew Jackson to lose reelection.

In theory, the Fed -- by virtue of its inoculation from public elections -- can base its monetary decisions (e.g., whether to shrink or increase the money supply) on the true economic conditions, and not the election calendar.

However, the Fed is not immune from politics. In fact, Fed Board members have their own mini-election gauntlet to run. To be elected to the Fed Board a person must be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. And that final step, as recent events bear witness, is proving problematic.

Senate Stonewalling Fed Appointments?

In April of this year President Obama announced nominations for the three Fed Board openings and so far none have been approved by the Senate. In fact, the last time the Federal Reserve Board had all seven positions filled was back on April 28, 2006.

On Friday came news that Senator Richard Shelby (Republican, Alabama) had rejected President Obama's nomination of Peter Diamond for the Federal Reserve Board stating "it is not clear...that his background is ideally suited for monetary policy, especially given the current challenges facing the Fed".

Of note, Diamond is considered an inflation 'dove' and close Ben Bernanke monetary policy ally. Interestingly, Diamond was also one of MIT professors a then 25-year-old Bernanke thanked for supporting his doctoral dissertation. One perhaps not so outlandish interpretation of Shelby's move is that Republicans are trying to keep the Fed paralyzed.

Diamond's appointment would help Bernanke with what has proven to be a publicly divided Fed. In the face of significant Fed Board dissent, Bernanke's consensus orientation will make him reluctant to activate QE2.

Republicans Want QE2 Postponed Until After November Elections

I've written previously about Chairman Bernanke's well documented plan for dealing with the present challenge of deflation. Put simply, his plan is to print a lot of money.

The announcement of QE2 would likely trigger a rise in stock prices. An autumn stock market rally -- in addition to signaling that the 'Bernanke Put' is every bit as solid as the 'Greenspan Put' -- could be a reelection boon for a Democratic incumbent majority that is in deep trouble.

Shelby's rejection of Diamond delays his appointment at least until Congress returns from recess in mid-September (Obama's other two Fed nominees are on ice until then as well). Don't be surprised to see the Republicans stall further until after November elections. As such, investors timing an imminent announcement of QE2 are likely to be disappointed.

The Yen: A Little Less Conversation, A Little More Action?

The value of the yen just hit its highest level against the U.S. dollar since Nov. 27 at 85.32, which is close to its 15-year high of 84.82.

While recent news from Japanese exporters has been relatively positive, a higher value yen could threaten Japan's fragile economic recovery. A strong yen makes the price of Japanese exports less attractive in key foreign markets, such as the U.S.

In the past simple jawboning by Japanese officials has proven effective at 'talking down' the yen. On cue Yoshihiko Noda -- Japan's eighth Finance Minister in the past three years -- said that he is “closely watching” the currency market and that the yen’s current movement “is a little one-sided”. And as I write the yen is trading off a bit to 86.24.

However, given the serious discussion of QE 2.0 or QE Lite in the U.S., will talk alone be enough to keep the yen from rising this time?

Some Japanese exporters already appear to be looking for 'a little less conversation, a little more action' from the Bank of Japan. Yesterday Nissan Motor Co. Chief Operating Officer Toshiyuki Shiga said "with the current rate there would be an impact on our orders for export. I hope each country will cooperate to minimize the impact of the yen’s strength, and I hope the government (Japanese) will make such efforts.”

The last time the Bank of Japan intervened in a significant way was in 2004. I recently interviewed Axel Merk, portfolio manager of the $500 million Merk Currency mutual funds. Merk contrasted the Bank of Japan's currency prowess with the recent ineffectual efforts of the Swiss National Bank (SNB), which failed miserably in its attempts to halt the rise in the Swiss Franc against the Euro. Unlike the SNB, the Bank of Japan can "do real damage" to the value of the yen. Earlier this year Merk removed the yen from his list of "hard currencies" when it appeared the government might finally get organized enough to put pressure on the Bank of Japan to devalue the yen.

I wouldn't expect Bank of Japan intervention unless the yen breaches the 84.83 level for a sustained period. For investors, there are several yen ETFs to choose from.

In the meantime, here's Elvis:

The Fed's Balance Sheet: More Room to Grow?

There is a lot of speculation and debate about what will happen to the Fed's balance sheet going forward. Recently St. Louis Fed President and FOMC voting member Jim Bullard has called to expand it further. Tonight the WSJ reports that the Fed is contemplating using the "cash the Fed receives when its mortgage-bond holdings mature to buy new mortgage or Treasury bonds, instead of allowing its portfolio to shrink gradually". This idea has been dubbed 'QE lite', as opposed to full 'QE2'.

Sometimes a good graphic really helps to put things in perspective. Courtesy of the WSJ's Real Time Economics blog is this interactive Federal Reserve assets chart.

The chart headline refers to the Fed's "balance sheet". But in small print you read that it is actually charting just the Fed's assets. The full Fed balance sheet would also include liabilities, which are not shown. (If you're curious about what the Fed's liabilities are comprised of take a look at the green paper in your wallet or purse, and you can learn more here and here.)

Why are the Federal Reserve's assets important? Simply put, the Fed's assets equal the money printed by the Fed. In other words, for an asset like a U.S. Treasury bill to wind up on the Fed's balance sheet it must be purchased by the Fed. And the money to purchase that Treasury bill is created (printed) by the Fed. Welcome to the only place in America where in fact money grows on trees!

Looking at the chart two things jump out:

1. The parabolic 'hockey stick' curve. Fed assets shot upwards from roughly $800 billion pre-financial crisis in 2007 to today's $2.3 trillion.
2. The increase in the different types of assets held on the balance sheet

Prior to the crisis the Fed's balance sheet was pretty simple: basically $800 billion in U.S. treasury securities. Now it contains everything from former AIG and Bear Stearns junk assets, to loans to other government's central banks, to who knows what until the one-time Fed audit is completed (see below video).

Looking at the value of the U.S. Dollar and U.S. government debt, so far the market's reaction to the the tripling in size of the Fed's balance sheet has been relatively benign. But can present values be sustained through another round of Fed "quantitative easing"?

Federal Reserve Continues March Down the Primrose Path

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and his army of monetary economists have now had four months to observe the lay-of-the-economic land since winding down their massive $1.2 trillion in mortgage bond purchases.

How do things look? Based on the Chairman's recent comments, not good.

Peer Pressure, Washington Style

When the economic going gets tough and then stays tough for a protracted period there is one institution politicians can be counted on to turn towards for help, and that institution is the nation's central bank.

In the U.S. this political pressure typically involves congressman, and presidents, banging on about how the Fed needs to 'do something'. These politicians, often facing an upcoming election, are making noise so that if monetary surgery fails to deliver a cure (economic growth) it will at lease provide the scapegoat (the central bank).

With the U.S. Congress currently facing historic low popularity and re-election right around the corner, mild-mannered Ben Bernanke is feeling the heat of D.C.'s boiler room. Case in point, Senator Jim Bunning pressed the Chairman during recent testimony on whether he was "out of bullets?", to which Bernanke replied "well, I don't think so." 

What 'bullets' are Jim and Ben referring to?

The Mother of All Bullets

To answer the above question we have the luxury of being able to refer back to the verbatim text of a speech Ben Bernanke delivered in 2002 titled Deflation: Making Sure "It" Doesn't Happen Here (which I've written about previously). 

The economic problem du jour just so happens to be deflation. In the speech, Bernanke outlines detailed steps the Fed could take to combat deflation, which is basically a widespread decline in prices. The last time the U.S. experienced this was during the Great Depression, an area of economic history which Dr. Bernanke is considered to be one of the pre-eminent experts. 

Bernanke's most oft-quoted line from his 2002 speech: "the U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost."

Put simply, Dr. Bernanke's deflation prescription is to print a 'ton-o-money'. 

How much money? Given that the nearly $2 trillion printed since the inception of the 2008 financial crisis hasn't created significant inflation concerns, estimates as high as an additional $5 trillion may not be beyond consideration.

QE2: No Longer a Question of If, But When

On Thursday St. Louis Fed President and FOMC voting member Jim Bullard wrote that the U.S. is at risk of Japanese-style deflation and that it should be actively combated by engaging in "quantitative easing" (aka printing money) through Fed purchases of U.S. Treasuries. Bullard had beenconsidered until now one of the Fed's principal 'inflation hawks'.

One interpretation of Bullard's comments is that the Fed is laying the groundwork for 'QE2', the shorthand label which has attached itself to the Fed's latest scheme.

Market Timing QE2

With QE2 fully baked when precisely will it begin?

November congressional midterm elections are a bit of an x-factor for the Fed. Like his predecessor, Bernanke is a Republican. And, again like Greenspan, he was reappointed by a Democratic President. I suspect that, barring another major crisis in the interim, Bernanke & Co. would prefer for QE2 be perceived as apolitical. Consequently, the Fed will likely wait to crank up the printing press until after midterms.

In terms of QE2's implementation, expect an iterative print, evaluate, and then decide to print some more type process. The Fed would probably prefer to trickle QE2 out over an extended period, ala the Bank of England's approach. But, as Bullard suggests, a sudden and rapid deterioration in confidence may force the Fed to go the 'shock and awe' route.

Meanwhile, In Government Debt La-La Land...

In contemplating a new $5 trillion money printing program a reasonable person might be inclined to ask the following question: "if the Fed keeps printing money to buy government bonds, doesn't that potentially create a problem for maintaining the value of the U.S. dollar?"

Uh, yeah.

The prospect of QE2 may be currently driving U.S. Treasuries to rally even further into nose bleed territory as the market contemplates the supply of government debt being squeezed by the Fed even further. And if the Fed doesn't activate QE2 then deflation (or disinflation) could continue to make U.S. Treasuries attractive to investors. So on the surface U.S. Treasuries may at present appear like a win-win trade.

Having said that, printing money at these levels represents a massive and unprecedented financial experiment. Our policy leadership has now guided us into uncharted economic territory and there really is no telling for sure just what will happen.

Nassim Taleb, for one, is calling government debt "the next black swan." In a recent interview he even went so far as to call government debt "a pure Ponzi scheme".

There are several ETF options available for those looking to hedge or play U.S. Treasuries. And if the prospect of massive money printing has you concerned about the future of paper money, then you may want to consider precious metals like gold.