by David Stockman via Contra Corner blog,
You can smell this one coming a mile away:
The European Central Bank and Bank of England on Friday outlined options to reinvigorate the market for bundled bank loans, which was “tarnished” by the global financial crisis, saying a better-functioning market for asset-backed securities can help boost lending to the private sector, particularly small businesses.
Yes, the ECB is now energetically trying to revive the a market for asset-backed commercial paper (ABCP) – the very kind of “toxic-waste” that allegedly nearly took down the financial system during the panic of September 2008. The ECB would have you believe that getting more “liquidity” into the bank loan market for such things as credit card advances, auto paper and small business loans will somehow cause Europe’s debt-besotted businesses and consumers to start borrowing again thereby reversing the mild (and constructive) trend toward debt reduction that has caused euro area bank loans to decline by about 3% over the past year.
What they are really up to, however, is money-printing and snookering the German sound money camp. That is, the ECB is getting set to launch QE in financial drag by purchasing or discounting ABCP while loudly proclaiming that it’s not “monetizing” any stinking sovereign debt!
And that gets to the heart of monetary central planning. It doesn’t matter what the central bank buys with the digital credits it transfers to sellers. Purchasing government debt, Fannie Mae securities, IBM bonds or corporate equities, as has been done by the BOJ and Bank Of Israel under the new Fed Vice-Chairman, has a common effect. That is, it raises the price of the purchased “assets” relative to what would obtain in the unfettered market, and injects fiat liquidity into the financial system in a manner that promotes speculation and excessive risk-taking.
Thus, if some clever Wall Street operators could figure out how to bundle sea shells and securitize them, central bank purchase of the resulting ABCP would be no different than purchase of treasury notes or Fannie Mae paper.
Unfortunately, the German keepers of the flame of financial orthodoxy have been too narrow in their focus on central bank “monetization” of government debt. To be sure, they are correct in maintaining that central bank purchase of sovereign debt inexorably promotes fiscal profligacy among the politicians. The fact that the debt of nearly ever DM government has soared to 100% of GDP and beyond since the era of monetary central planning got going in the 1990s is undeniable evidence.
But the true economic sin lies in the fiat credit generated by central banks monetization, not the particular type of “asset” purchase by which it is accomplished. Stated differently, debt which is priced at honest market rates and is funded by new savings from businesses or households is economically healthy; it involves a deferral of current consumption in order to finance a longer-lived project or productive asset that promises a return in excess of the funding cost.