Loading...

Top

Loading...

weekly online holiday spending 2012Although holiday shoppers spent $42.3 billion online this holiday season—14% more than they did at the same time in 2011—ComScore says that sales lagged sharply starting in early December. It believes that uncertainty generated by the fiscal cliff—the possibility that taxes would increase, government spending would fall, and Congress would have to debate the debt ceiling all over again—produced a “December swoon,” preventing online spending from reaching the $43.4 billion that was expected.

Says ComScore Chairman Gian Fulgoni:

While November started out at a very healthy 16% growth rate through the promotional period of Thanksgiving, Black Friday and Cyber Monday, consumers almost immediately pulled back on spending, apparently due to concerns over the looming fiscal cliff and what that might mean for their household budgets in 2013. With Congress deadlocked throughout December, growth rates softened even further and never quite made up enough ground to reach our original expectation.

Admittedly, online retailers did see a late surge on the first ever “Free Shipping Day” on Dec. 19, which accounts for the one-week spike you see in the chart above. Otherwise, strong spending in November slumped significantly in early December, from 17% more money spent year-over-year during the week ending Nov. 25 to just 9% more spent the week ending Dec. 9.

And it does make sense that concerns about fiscal policy would impact consumer spending. Even the deal that was reached on Monday, while avoiding tax rate hikes for most Americans, allowed the payroll tax cut to expire, meaning that anyone earning $50,000 in 2013 will have to pay another $1,000 in taxes.

The Fed is starting to get antsy about its ultra-easy monetary policy

The US Federal Reserve has held interest rates incredibly low since late 2008, with the federal funds rate at or below 0.25%. It has taken unprecedented steps (like quantitative easing, or QE) to make money incredibly cheap for businesses, individuals, and banks. Until recently, most members of the Fed’s Open Market Committee (FOMC, which decides these things) have been adamant that, while these policies could do damage under other circumstances, they are necessary now to stimulate the economy.

The most recent minutes from the FOMC suggest the mood is shifting. Although the Fed hasn’t said it will change anything, some members of the committee seemed hesitant about how long it should continue its program of QE, asset purchases meant to push banks out of holding safe securities and into lending. The current round of QE, unlike previous ones, is open-ended. Several committee members  now argue that it should be curtailed well before the end of 2013, “citing concerns about financial stability or the size of the balance sheet.” Others suggested it continue at least until the end of the year.

Most interesting is not what the committee said but why. Numerous statements within the minutes suggest that the Fed is truly growing concerned about the unintended consequences of ultra-loose monetary policy on a long-term basis. For four years, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and his supporters have argued for more monetary easing, not less. Inflation, the dovish Fed argued, is not the problem right now; we need to do more to get the economy on the move. By all accounts, as my colleague Matt Phillips has reported, this policy has been effective so far.

But three-and-a-half rounds of QE later, Bernanke et. al. see an economy “moderately” on the move, as the housing market improves and unemployment falls. Several committee members now cite concerns about creating unseen bubbles and distortions in the markets, overburdening the Fed’s balance sheet, or even causing problems for the US Treasury in borrowing. Some quotes (our emphasis):

With regard to the possible costs and risks of purchases, a number of participants expressed the concern that additional purchases could complicate the Committee’s efforts to eventually withdraw monetary policy accommodation, for example, by potentially causing inflation expectations to rise or by impairing the future implementation of monetary policy. Participants also discussed the implications of continued asset purchases for the size of the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet. Depending on the path for the balance sheet and interest rates, the Federal Reserve’s net income and its remittances to the Treasury could be significantly affected during the period of policy normalization. Participants noted that the Committee would need to continue to assess whether large purchases were having adverse effects on market functioning and financial stability.

This hawkish stance extends to long-term interest rates, which could eventually hurt savers and push investors into unnecessarily risky assets.

A few participants, observing that low interest rates had increased the demand for riskier financial products, pointed to the possibility that holding interest rates low for a prolonged period could lead to financial imbalances and imprudent risk-taking. One participant suggested that there were several historical episodes in the United States and other countries that might be used to build a better understanding of the financial strains that could develop from a long period of very low long-term interest rates.

In other, shorter words, committee members are worried that prolonged easy money might get the economy addicted; that it will put a strain on the Fed’s own finances; and that it will encourage moral hazard. (That mystical reference to “historical episodes” might be a warning about Japan’s “lost decade” in the 1990s, or US stagflation in the 1970s.)  We’ve talked about this before, and tons of economists have been warning about the unintended consequences of QE or low interest rates for years. That the Fed is now discussing it, however, suggests that these concerns may now be more pressing. It also suggests that this could be the beginning of the end for easy monetary policy in the US.

Canada's plastic $100 banknote
Canada’s plastic $100 banknote Bank of Canada

Unconfirmed reports that Canada’s money melts when subjected to high heat have raised eyebrows about the Bank of Canada’s decision to begin printing polymer currency. It first started printing the plastic banknotes in late 2011, beginning with C$100 notes. Since then, a handful of residents have come forward, complaining that the notes shriveled up when placed in a tin can next to a heater or on a toaster, which of course is where all sensible people keep their cash. And so on Dec. 31, the bank released 134 pages of heavily redacted documents related to an investigation it conducted into the supposedly melting money, and said that discussing the matter further would pose a threat to national security.

Canada is not alone in switching to plastic. In October 2011, 3 billion polymer-based notes were being circulated in 22 countries worldwide. A lot of that currency is in circulation in warm places. Nicaragua, which has used polymer notes since 2007, has averaged a temperature of 26.3ºC (79.3ºF) during April and May, its hottest months, from 1900-2009. By contrast, Canada averaged a mere 10.7ºC in its hottest month, July. If polymer notes were really so prone to melting, one would have thought this would be a problem by now.

The Bank of Canada doesn’t think it is. But even if the reports are true, polymer beats paper on pretty much every other score. Since Australia first began using plastic currency in 1988, polymer banknotes have proven more durable than their dollar counterparts; Canada expects its C$100 note to last a full 20 years, twice as long as the old paper bills. Furthermore, the bills won’t break down when they accidentally end up in the washing machine. Not to mention the fact that the plastic is recyclable and the plastic bills are harder to counterfeit than the old paper ones.

Last but not least, the polymers appear to be no more dangerous to the nation’s economy than paper bills. Even if shoddy construction caused bills to melt en masse in, say, a bank vault situated too near an underground lava flow (we’re grasping at straws here), it’s just as easy to imagine a situation where a vault full of paper bills floods or someone sets fire to them.

Which seems to be exactly what the Bank of Canada is saying by censoring its report: “No, we will not show you how we make our money, because we’re more worried you’re going to counterfeit it than about it melting away. But if it does melt, we’ll investigate and give you new bills. That’s it.” Smart move, BoC. Smart move.

Powered by WordPress.com VIP