The JOBS Act and the Future of Commercial Banking

Posted on June 12, 2012

America needs jobs!   That’s a point where there is universal agreement among the political parties.  So much so that Congress overwhelmingly passed the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act; 390 to 23 in the House and 73 to 26 in the Senate.  My suspicion is the most of those voting for the Act had little idea of how far-reaching the effects of the JOBS Act might be.

The JOBS Act may represent the most radical change in how securities can be privately sold and business capital can be raised from private investors since the securities laws were passed in the 1930s.  Under the JOBS Act most of the restrictions with regard to solicitation that have impeded the growth of a vibrant private placement capital market among accredited investors (i.e. those with liquid net worth over $1 million or incomes over $200,000) have now been removed.

The devil is always in the details and SEC regulations promulgated under the Act could potentially curtail some of its impact.  As written, the JOBS Act has the potential to democratize the financing of business growth in a very dramatic and potentially unintended manner.  By removing many, if not most, of the restrictions on accredited investors seeking to invest in small companies, the JOBS Act provides a basis for many innovative new vehicles for small business financing to blossom.

While most of the commentary around the JOBS Act focuses on funding of startups, the real financing need is to support the expansion of the rapidly growing mid-sized companies that, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research, provide the engine for new jobs in America.  These companies typically have progressed past the startup stage.  They may have 20-50 employees and several million dollars of revenue, with the potential to grow to hundreds if not thousands of employees as … read the rest

Are We Measuring the Wrong Money Supply … Again?

Posted on June 12, 2012

Back in 2008 we wrote that the U. S. was facing a serious credit squeeze in part because we had failed to take into account some important structural changes in the credit markets: i.e. the rapid growth and subsequent collapse of the Shadow Banking system. Since then the Fed and the Treasury have spent enormous resources addressing the impact of that collapse through the purchase of assets from financial institutions, the nationalization of Fannie and Freddie and numerous other actions to prop up the housing market in hopes of repairing shrunken balance sheets throughout the economy.

We may be suffering from a different, but equally portentous, issue today arising from another misreading of what the term money really means. In response to our recent article on Fed tightening since the fall of 2011, John Lounsbury, Managing Editor of econintersect.com, made a very astute observation:

You do not mention it in your article but is it possible that the Fed has not been taking a sufficiently global view and has insufficiently reacted to a recessing Europe and a rapidly slowing Asia? India just dropped to a GDP growth rate below anything seen during the Great Financial Crisis. The manufacturing numbers in China have been flirting with contraction for several months. If the Fed reacts to these factors after they have gained a solid foothold, doesn’t that likely increase the magnitude of the yo-yo swings?

The U.S. dollar is without question the world’s reserve currency and the current problems of the Euro have only served to cement that position. Given the global demand for $100 bills, in many parts of the globe the dollar is not only the reserve currency, but the defacto physical currency as well. Yet we continue to look at money as a national, or in the case of the Euro, regional … read the rest

Did Fed Tightening Help Bring About The Current Market Downturn?

Posted on June 6, 2012

Bill Clinton often gets credit for the insight that the economy would drive the 1992 election, leading him to victory over George Bush. Actually it’s his acerbic sidekick James Carville who deserves the credit for that famous one-liner “It’s the economy stupid”.

Without a doubt, the economy played a major role in President Obama’s victory in 2008 as well. Now we’re in another election year and there is universal agreement that the economy is likely to drive the outcome in 2012. While most commentators are focused on whether QE3 is in the cards, we have a different slant on the current downturn. We suspect that the Fed has, possibly inadvertently, played a major role in bringing about this contraction, just as it did in triggering the crash in 2008. We’re also concerned that election year political pressure, driven by the economic slowdown, will force the Fed into a response with serious long term inflationary implications.

I’m an unabashed monetarist. Over long cycles money supply growth or the lack of it drives both economic activity and price levels. I understand that this is a simplistic view, that the collapse of velocity has changed the meaning of money growth, that the increased investor appetite for liquidity has skewed the numbers, etc. Simplistic or not, changes in the rate of growth of the money supply often prove, after appropriate lags, to be a great predictor of the future course of the financial markets and, to a lesser extent, the economy. So what are they saying now with the election less than six months off?

Every week the St. Louis Fed publishes a twenty-four page pamphlet called U. S. Financial Data, which provides a great snapshot view of monetary trends. Preceding the fall 2008 financial crash, in spring 2008 the Fed had pumped significant liquidity in the system … read the rest