Fed is angry; fasten your seat belts
The Federal Reserve is angry that the market is not following its instructions and it is no longer calling the shots. The Fed has enjoyed manipulating the market, but its success now appears transitory
Any parent knows that it is easier to give children a treat than to take it away. Giving a candy creates smiles and squeals of joy. The parent basks in the adoration of a grateful child. How can such a wonderful feeling be bad? But when the time comes to disciple the offspring, things change. The child often goes into a screaming tantrum. The parent feels like a louse. How could any parent cause a child so much pain?
For almost five years central banks around the world have made markets very happy. They have given them massive amounts of money. When they ran out they just created more. Every coo by dovish central bankers was greeted by another percentage point rise in the equity markets. Global markets assumed that it would go on forever, but it never does. 
Recently Ben Bernanke and the US Federal Reserve have stated that the extraordinary stimulus known as QE (quantitative easing) will be ending. One of the members of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), Richard Fischer, warned that markets should not think the Fed would end up propping up the economy indefinitely. He said “We’ve had a 30-year bond market rally. These things do not go on forever.”     
It is not only the Federal Reserve, the People’s Bank of China (PBOC) is also slowing its stimulus. New credit creation in China as a percentage of GDP has grown 84% in the past five years, twice the rate of credit creation in the US five years prior to the crash in 2008. Worse the amount of debt issued by so-called shadow banks has almost increased 80% in the last two years alone. To gain control of the financial system the PBOC stopped infusing liquidity into it which temporarily drove interest rates up 28%.
The markets have not looked favourably on either of these moves. The US S&P index has dropped almost 5% since May while the Shanghai index is off 12%. But are these temporary tantrums or a portent of things to come?
The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) is sure to make itself unpopular. It advised that central banks should head for the exit and stop trying to spur a global economic recovery. The BIS’s argument was that the stimulus had bought time, but it was now slowing the recovery instead of helping it. It said “Alas, central banks cannot do more without compounding the risks they have already created.”
The squeals of pain were predictable. The Financial Times editorial disagreed. It cried that “In the absence of inflation danger, tighter money now would do real harm”. But who is right? Is inflation the only risk or are there deeper problems? The gyrations of the market should indicate something and it isn’t good.
The real question is risk. What sort of risk has this entire stimulus created and is it simply a question of inflation? I doubt it. First, programs like quantitative easing are experimental. They are barely used. All experimental programs have one thing in common, their long-term outcome is uncertain. QE seems to be beneficial, but the best that can be said is that the benefits are short-term.
This is especially true in the present global environment. Both China and the US may be focusing on their local economies, but the stimulus does not stay local. The effect of the stimulus in the US may have been tepid, but it certainly spurred emerging markets. America might be bubble-free, but the search for yield caused by the Fed’s policies certainly put some air in emerging market bonds. A reversal has sent them plunging. China’s stimulus resulted in double digit growth in China in 2010, three years ago, but its voracious demand did wonders for its trading partners. As it slows, the effects will be felt far from its shores, from the copper mines of Peru, to the palm oil plantations of Indonesia. 
A third risk from the stimulus is the unintended consequences. The Federal Reserve can pour money into the economy. The Chinese government can force banks to lend, but neither government can make the money go to the most efficient firms. In China the money often goes to local governments or state-owned firms. They both have little chance of paying the money back. In the US the consolidation of the banking system has made it difficult for smaller firms, the ones which create the most jobs, and home buyers to borrow money. But it is easy for hedge funds to get their hands on billions to use in speculative, leveraged investments. 
The fourth risk is the size of these stimulus packages. Since 2008, the balance sheets of the big central banks have exploded from $5 trillion-6 trillion to $18 trillion. Their assets in several developed countries have reached 20%-30% of GDP.  The concept seems to be that if a little medicine is good, a whole lot more would be better. These numbers are unprecedented, so their effect is basically unknown. Worse the policies are uncoordinated. Exits from policies this size cannot be accomplished quickly or easily, so the winding down will not be as much fun as the ramping up. At some point too much medicine can be poisonous for someone.
These policies, like all policies, are based on assumptions and information. But economic information is often the result of approximations and many governments, specifically China, are notorious for providing the wrong information. Anyone who has followed the month to month gyrations of economic data would despair about the probability of predicting a specific trajectory or the success of any policy without a consistent, extensive track record.
In the collapse of 2008, financial innovation was implicated as one of the main culprits. Financial innovation has continued even with the slower economy. The number, size and variety of Exchange Trade Funds (ETFs) have grown exponentially. Some of these ETFs especially the ones that represent bonds can be very illiquid. The recent wave of selling caused many ETFs to tumble below the value of their underlying assets as a bond market sell-off caused stress in the $2 trillion ETF industry. An ETF sell-off only exacerbates the problems.
The BIS also mentioned that the central bank stimulus was always meant to be temporary. The programs were meant to buy time for politicians to make necessary reforms, labour reforms in Europe, Brazil, India, financial reforms in China, regulatory reforms in the US. Sadly, without the pressure of crises, politicians have done exactly nothing. So the delay has just made things worse.
Perhaps these risks were considered, but the only one that seems to have been important was inflation. But now that it (Fed) has announced the potential end of the program, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve is forced to face reality. Interest rates in the US have increased by a percentage point in less than a month. Mortgage rates have moved in the same direction threatening the nascent housing recovery. 
The rapid rise is rather predictable, but it has led to a stream of condemnations from the Fed members. President Fisher’s now famous comment sees a conspiracy of “feral hogs” driving interest rates up. Federal Reserve Governor Jerome Powell complained that the spike in bond yields over the past month is ‘larger’ than would be justified by any “reasonable reassessment” of the path of Federal Reserve policy. 
In short, the Federal Reserve is angry that the market is not following its instructions and the Fed is no longer calling the shots. The Fed has enjoyed manipulating the market, but its success now appears transitory.
Perhaps the best indication of the problems associated with the Fed’s policies and a prophecy of things to come was the vote from other central banks. Rather than work with the Fed to tame the markets they jumped right in. They sold a record $32.4 billion US Treasuries eclipsing the prior mark of $24 billion in August 2007. It was the third week out of the past four where there have been sell offs. After all supporting your friends is one thing. Losing a lot of money is quite another.
(William Gamble is president of Emerging Market Strategies. An international lawyer and economist, he developed his theories beginning with his first hand experience and business dealings in the Russia starting in 1993. Mr Gamble holds two graduate law degrees. He was educated at Institute D'Etudes Politique, Trinity College, University of Miami School of Law, and University of Virginia Darden Graduate School of Business Administration. He was a member of the bar in three states, over four different federal courts and has spoken four languages.)



nikhil chopra

3 years ago

politicians will only do what suits them....and not the public in general....for india 2014 is an election year....god save us....

Dayananda Kamath k

3 years ago

all the central banks and govts have treated the symptoms rather than the decease pumping in more money they have supported the cause which resulted in the crisis. not to be unpopular for taking right but painful steps to correct the situation they have supported the crisis and postponed it. it will come back with more severity and we may not be able to control it.

Hemlata Mohan

3 years ago

Yes, it is high time these surgeries which only give a temporary relief are stopped.
Politicians and governments must find the deep rooted causes and address them instead of relying on band aid methodologies.

Is the mutual evaluation report of the Financial Action Task Force extremely narrow?
The FATF approach of mutual evaluation is largely based on the legislative measures initiated by a country to ensure compliance with its recommendations. The FATF, however, does not check the effectiveness of these legislations
The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) conducts peer reviews of each member on an ongoing basis to assess levels of implementation of the FATF recommendations. This review provides an in-depth description and analysis of each country’s systems for preventing criminal abuse of the financial system. Based on the satisfactory progress made by a country, the FATF decides whether a country should remain part of regular review by it or not. The decision by the FATF to remove a country from the regular follow-up process is based on updated procedures agreed in October 2009.
Many member countries over a period of time have been removed from the list of countries requiring regular review. The latest in the list is India. At the June 2013 plenary meeting, the FATF decided that India had reached a satisfactory level of compliance with all of the core and key recommendations and could be removed from the regular follow-up process. This decision of the FATF has come as a major boost for a country like India, which has generally been classified as a medium risk country as far as measures related to prevention of money laundering and combating of terrorism finance are concerned. 
Why was India removed by the FATF from its regular follow-up list?
As per the document issued by the FATF, India has been removed from regular follow up process because of following reasons:
• India rectified nearly all of the technical deficiencies identified with respect to criminalisation of money laundering (ML) and terrorist financing (TF) and the implementation of effective confiscation and provisional measures
• India has substantially addressed over a period of time the technical deficiencies identified in relation to customer due diligence and other preventive measures.
• India has further enhanced its outreach programme to provide guidance to the financial sector on the suspicious transaction reporting obligations and has engaged in extensive compliance monitoring, and
• India has brought several of the Designated Non-Financial Businesses and Professions (DNFBPs) within the scope of its preventive anti-money laundering (AML)/combating the financing of terrorism (CFT) measures.
What did India do for compliance with FATF recommendations?
The FATF’s 44 pages mutual evaluation report on India lauds India’s performance on implementation of anti money laundering and terrorism financing guidelines. India now falls in the same league which has UK and China as the countries which have been removed from regular review process by FATF. So what did India do to deserve this status? Though India has initiated several compliance measures to overcome partial and non-compliance with respect to the FATF recommendations, let us look at one aspect where India was partially complied till recently and that was one of the reasons that India required continuous review as a country. As per the FATF, India was partially complied in implementing the FATF recommendations on Politically Exposed Persons (PEPs). The FATF report highlights the measures initiated by India with respect to PEPs which are listed below:
Source: FATF
India was considered as a country which was partly-complied as far as implementation of the FATF recommendations on guidelines with respect to PEPs are considered. The rating PC in the report above shows that. But the FATF believes that India is now largely complied and the FATF document goes on to state, “India has addressed nearly all of the technical deficiencies with regard to Recommendation 6 and its current level of compliance is therefore essentially equivalent to LC ( Largely Compliant).”
If you look at the action taken by India to ensure compliance with FATF guidelines on PEPs front, regulators in India i.e. RBI, SEBI and IRDA have issued circulars for implementation of meaures related to identification and enhanced due diligence for PEPs. Additionally, commodity futures brokers are also now subject to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA Act) which means they also have to monitor PEPs now.
Is the scope of the Mutual Evaluation Report too narrow?
The FATF removing a country like India from its mutual evaluation report raises some questions on the scope of the mutual evaluation report currently used by the FATF to assess a country. There is no doubt that the FATF process of mutual evaluation is a lengthy one. It undergoes five steps which are as follows:
• Steps before on-site visit
• On-site visit
• Process post on-site visit
• Plenary week
• Post plenary week
While the checks and controls built in the mutual evaluation process are comprehensive, the issue is with the coverage of mutual evaluation. The FATF approach of mutual evaluation is largely based on the legislative measures initiated by a country to ensure compliance with the FATF recommendations. The FATF does not check the effectiveness of these legislations. Also, whether banks and financial institutions are following compliance measures in a country is not verified by the FATF. Since this is not part of the scope of mutual evaluation as of now, the FATF cannot be blamed for this. However, the fact remains that lack of comprehensiveness in the mutual evaluation process makes the FATF mutual evaluation report weak. For instance, in the case of India, though relevant legislations have been put in place to ensure compliance with respect to compliance of PEPs, banks and financial institutions are ill-equipped to handle money laundering threats posed by PEPs—both in term of technology and process. While the mutual evaluation report of the FATF says India is largely compliant as far as the FATF recommendations are concerned, this compliance is largely on paper and still requires lots to be done as far as practical implementation is concerned.
(Vivek Sharma has worked for 17 years in the stock market, debt market and banking. He is a post graduate in Economics and MBA in Finance. He writes on personal finance and economics and is invited as an expert on personal finance shows.)


To cope with sequester, justice department staffs unpaid attorneys

Department of Justice has defended hiring of unpaid special assistant US attorneys, who do much of the same work as their paid counterparts

The Department of Justice has an opening for what could be a dream job for many newly minted lawyers: serving as a special attorney in the Office of Enforcement Operations. Among other responsibilities, the new hire could be helping the Electronic Surveillance Unit review applications for wiretaps in major federal criminal investigations.

But they’ll have to forego a salary for experience: the one-year position is completely unpaid.

We’ve reported on the mounting trend of unpaid internships among college students and recent graduates. But an increasing number of trained attorneys in the Department of Justice are also working for free, with 13 uncompensated positions for “experienced attorneys” (many of them full-time) currently listed on the agency’s web site.

The program “provides a valuable support to the Justice Department as we continue to address the staffing challenges imposed by sequestration and still fulfill our commitment to protect the American people,” said a Justice Department spokesperson, in an emailed statement. The Department of Justice began posting uncompensated special assistant U.S. attorney positions in January 2011, after Attorney General Eric Holder announced a department-wide hiring freeze (individual U.S. attorney offices had hired unpaid lawyers before then, the spokesperson said).

There are currently 96 unpaid special assistant U.S. attorneys working for the department, according to a spokesperson, who said paid assistant U.S attorneys have starting salaries ranging from $44,581 to $117,994.

Many of the special assistant U.S. attorneys are doing much of the same work as their paid counterparts. According to one job posting from the U.S. attorney’s office in Puerto Rico, they “have the opportunity to represent the interests of the United States of America...and to exercise responsibility that is unparalleled in any other job that a litigator might undertake. [They] immediately undertake numerous cases, many high profile, in any of several units within each division.” The position requires three years of legal experience.

One former special assistant U.S. attorney, who asked not to be named, said she was given her own caseload, the way other paid assistant attorneys were. She said the program gave her hands-on trial experience she wouldn’t have had otherwise.

Some say the program is a practical solution to growing budget pressures. “I see [it] as a stopgap measure,” said lawyer David Lat, managing editor of the legal news site Above the Law and a former assistant U.S. attorney.“This is an attempt to manage their caseloads and their budgets.”

The sequester slashed $1.6 billion from the Justice Department’s budget. A November report from the Inspector General’s Office said the department should “redouble its efforts” to cut costs.

But critics say the department can’t “volunteer” its way out of a budget crisis. “The government can’t run itself that way,” said Carrie Cordero, director of national security studies at Georgetown University Law Center and a former special assistant U.S.
attorney. “The entire government is under a budget strain. Every department can’t just start hiring free labor.”

Some assistant U.S. attorneys claim the positions violate a federal law, known as the Antideficiency Act, which says the government can’t be staffed with unpaid volunteers.

In November, the National Association of Assistant U.S. Attorneys wrote to the to Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys to “urge the Department of Justice to discontinue the practice of hiring uncompensated [special assistant U.S attorneys].”

“The Department of Justice's continued actions to secure the unpaid services of individuals performing the same work that paid Assistant U.S. Attorneys perform is inconsistent with the Antideficiency Act,” said Bruce Moyer, counsel to the National Association of Assistant U.S. Attorneys.

The Executive Office for U.S Attorneys responded to the association’s letter six months later, defending the unpaid positions.

“We continue to believe the department’s long-standing use of uncompensated [special assistant U.S. attorneys] is legally permissible,” wrote H. Marshall Jarrett, director of the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys. While special assistant U.S. attorneys have a legal maximum salary, he said, there’s no minimum. Which means the Justice Department considers itself free to set their salary “at a gratuitous rate of pay (i.e. $0).”

The law on government volunteers is far from cut and dry. The Antideficiency Act’s original intent, according to the Government Accountability Office, was to keep agencies within budget by preventing them from using “volunteer” workers who would later expect to be compensated. The GAO and the Attorney General’s office have since said some unpaid government gigs are allowed, as long as it’s clear from the outset that they’re not (and never will be) paid positions. Agencies still can’t waive wages for employees whose salaries are fixed by statute.

The association sent a follow-up letter to Holder on June 4, calling the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys interpretation “overbroad and inconsistent” with the law. Holder has not yet replied.

Their complaint also raised concerns about what it means to have unpaid, short-term lawyers representing the U.S. in federal court.

Cordero penned an op-ed in the National Law Journal after a number of law students she advises inquired about the unpaid positions. Many lawyers were surprised, she said, to learn the Justice Department was hiring uncompensated attorneys. “These are positions of public trust,” she said. “If you want top talent you pay them competitive salaries.”

Though “uncompensated” is listed on the postings in big capital letters, U.S. attorney offices say they haven’t had a shortage of qualified applicants. Lawyer Steven J. Harper, author of “The Lawyer Bubble: A Profession in Crisis,” said that’s likely due to the grim job market facing lawyers today.

“Last year we graduated a record number of new lawyers, [and] next year we’ll graduate even more,” he said. Of law school students that graduated in 2012, only 56 percent were able to get a full-time job requiring a law degree.

Meanwhile, “law school tuition has grown at a rate that is far greater than medical school or anything else,” Harper said. Law school grads now face over $100,000 of debt on average. “Who can afford to do something unpaid after you’re out of law school [with] this overhang of student loan debt?”

Unpaid lawyers in U.S. attorney offices could qualify for student loan deferment. But as a former unpaid assistant U.S. attorney pointed out, they aren’t eligible for the Attorney Student Loan Repayment Program, which helps pay off student loans in return for a three-year position with the Department of Justice. Most unpaid positions are capped at a year.

Many hope the use of unpaid attorneys is just a temporary fix. But as Cordero sees it, the practice “devalues a law degree.”

“I see them do so many externships,” Cordero said of her students. “If that’s extending to post graduation, when does it end? At what point can they start getting paid?”

See the rest of our reporting on the unpaid intern economy, and share your intern story with our reporters.



We are listening!

Solve the equation and enter in the Captcha field.

To continue

Sign Up or Sign In


To continue

Sign Up or Sign In



The Scam
24 Year Of The Scam: The Perennial Bestseller, reads like a Thriller!
Moneylife Magazine
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance
Stockletters in 3 Flavours
Outstanding research that beats mutual funds year after year
MAS: Complete Online Financial Advisory
(Includes Moneylife Magazine and Lion Stockletter)