here’s a lot of expectation surrounding the International Monetary Fund and World Bank meeting this weekend in Washington. The currency war sparked by global efforts to recover from the Great Recession and its repercussions should be the main discussion as governments around the globe increasingly try to use exchange rates as a domestic boost to growth.

On Monday a direct warning was sent by Charles Dallara, Institute of International Finance managing director, that the world’s leading economies must come to some sort of agreement on a currency pact or face more counter-productive protectionism. He called for a more sophisticated version of the 1985 Plaza Accord to compliment an exchange rate understanding.

Tuesday, shortly before the Bank of Japan surprised the world (although we shouldn’t have been surprised) with an interest rate cut to a range of 0.00% to 0.10% from 0.10% and threw quantitative easing on the table, the IMF sent a similar message about using exchange rates to solve domestic problems. Dominique Strauss-Kahn, head of the IMF, warned that, “translated into action such an idea would represent a very serious risk to global recovery…Any such approach would have a negative and very damaging longer-run impact.”

The dual warnings encapsulate what should be the topic of foremost concern this weekend as officials from economies around the world convene to discuss measures to be taken to help the climb out of a troubled global economic state.

Yesterday, equity markets displayed their raw sensitivity to data and events leading up to the November 3^rd Fed meeting by cheering at the BoJ’s move and then at a better than expected ISM Non-Manufacturing number (53.2 versus expected 52.0). More than just a bright spot, the ISM number had some fortunate timing and proved a theory about the dollar. Good US data leads to optimism and equity bids, putting pressure on the dollar as it equates to the risk trade, or dollar carry while the obvious bad US data puts pressure on the dollar because it raises expectations of further quantitative easing. The BoJ’s announcement of its “comprehensive monetary easing” policy was intended to put pressure on the Yen but at the same time raised expectations of further US QE and sent the dollar south. This was then compounded by the ISM release.

Expectations were also helped by some Q&A in the WSJ with Chicago Fed President Evans who said, "We need more accommodation. A lot of people respond that their take on monetary policy depends on the data coming in from here on out. For me, the data have spoken very clearly. As I stared at the forecast even before the August FOMC meeting, I had come to the conclusion that things were very different than what I had been expecting in previous meetings. This is a far grimmer forecast than we ought to have. So yes, I'm in favor of more accommodation."

But there’s still a lot of questions surrounding the seemingly imminent policy change here and what a point Philly Fed President Plosser makes in his opposition to QE2. The Fed has faced much criticism for sending the wrong message. In an interview with the Financial Times he said, “I think that before we can engage [in further QE] we need to be very clear about what it is we’re trying to do, how we’re going to go about doing it, how we’re going to measure whether we’re effective at it or not, and how we’re going to communicate that.” I think the latter is the most important. Along with Evans, George Soros happens to disagree. I wonder what trade he’s got on that favors further QE.

Plosser voices concern over further easing By Robin Harding in Washington Published: October 4 2010 06:17 | Last updated: October 4 2010 06:17 http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1087d124-cf5d-11df-9be2-00144feab49a.html

America needs stimulus not virtue By George Soros Published: October 4 2010 21:52 | Last updated: October 4 2010 21:52 http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/61a77634-cfeb-11df-bb9e-00144feab49a.html

This morning’s ADP private sector employment numbers disappointed the tape by clocking -39K versus an expected build of 18K but even though it gave equities a breather it was in line with most expectations for the private payroll forecast within Friday’s Non-Farm report as ADP tends to miss by around 76K. Tomorrow we get the Monster Employment index, Weekly Jobless, and Treasury issuance announcements. Then at 1:30 Hoenig speaks. I’m looking forward to hearing what the lone dissenter has to say. He kind of has Plosser on his side now.

At this point it doesn’t seem like Friday’s employment data, or any sort of agreement discussed at the IMF meeting are going to influence whether or not we will see more QE but I’m curious to see if expectations change. The question is as much how much and when as it is what message is sent. Now with the currency war acknowledged, while we have been demonizing everyone else for intentionally devaluing their currencies, we have to make sure we don’t come across as hypocritical, lest our message with more QE look like a tired effort to say “In your face, Yen and Renminbi!” Then we can surely expect China to pull the trigger and start diluting our treasury prices with their holdings, pushing yields the Fed has worked so hard to push down back up. Sure enough, there are headlines just out about Wen warning that forced revaluation of the renminbi could be disaster for the world. Get ready for more of them fightin’ words.

A cold windblew in China’s direction from the US House of Representatives last night. TheHouse voted yesterday on a bill put forth by the Ways and Means Committee whichdubbed China a “currency manipulator.” The name-calling is not new but the gutsto say it out loud is. The watered down version, called the Ryan Murphy bill,that passed the House vote is legislation that would allow the US to imposetariffs on imports based on estimates of currency undervaluation. Its intentionis to punish China for not allowing its currency to rise in accordance withnatural market forces, although the language is broad enough to apply to otherAsian countries.

So, in thecurrency markets we have a brewing an international war, as pointed out byBrazilian PM, Guido Mantega. It’s a race to devalue, which not everyone can winat once because currencies, unlike any other asset, are valued solely based oneach other, making it impossible for them all to fall. They affect other assetprices for sure but as a market they stand alone.

The problemscaused for the US export and manufacturing businesses by China’s currencymanipulation are not new but they are exacerbated by movements to do the sameby Taiwan, Brazil, South Korea, and most importantly, Japan, who recentlydumped Yen to buy $20B. The chatter surrounding the Murphy bill today is allabout how we went about this in the wrong way and this will cause tradetensions and ultimately hurt ourselves by making Chinese goods more expensive.The other side of the coin, however, is that we kind of don’t really have achoice. If other central banks are now coming to the table to fight we have totake aim at the perp who does the most harm.

The bill muststill pass through the Senate, which is not likely to happen before mid-termsand the market is not pricing in trade tensions but if it does pass and thepenalties come to fruition, there is the possibility we can at least expectsome form of retaliation by China. This usually entails some kind of threat to changethe balance sheet levels of dollar-denominated assets.

The US,Japan, and GB are likely to orchestrate more direct currency intervention or wewill see the value of our currencies depressed as a result of furtherquantitative easing. If other central banks take either of these tacts itincreases the likelihood of the latter happening in the US at the next meeting.

The brewing concernabout currency manipulation is likely to me the main topic at the IMF/WorldBank Fall meeting next weekend. The G7/G20 finance ministers and centralbankers will have an opportunity to meet there. This comes after the Bank ofJapan meets on Monday and Tuesday, the Bank of England meets on Wednesday andThursday, and the ECB makes post-meeting comments on Thursday as well.  

The G-20Summit is in Korea November 11-12. We’ll see if they come to some sort ofcompromise.

We have a bigweek for data coming up. Non-Farm Payrolls, for which we got the last batch ofSeptember data this morning (Initial unemployment claims dropped 16K to 453K, alarger than expected drop), are the most watched but leading up to Friday’snumber we have other employment-related data, ISM Non-Manufacturing Index,Factory Orders, and Wholesale Inventories, post-employment. Sorry no chartstoday. Stay tuned.

Wait, now Rahm Emanuel is resigning too? I was still thinking about how much I was going to miss Larry Summers...

WSJ: Blaming China Won’t Help the Economy

ByANATOLE KALETSKY

Published: September 26, 2010

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/27/opinion/27kaletsky.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=blaming%20china&st=cse

FT: Currency wars

By James Mackintosh

Published: September 28 2010 22:43 | Last updated: September 282010 22:43

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7610475e-cb45-11df-95c0-00144feab49a.html

FT: Intervention: The genie hasescaped from the bottle

By Peter Garnham

Published: September 27 2010 17:38 | Last updated: September 272010 17:38

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/50ea3302-c9c6-11df-b3d6-00144feab49a.html

We have to accept the bad that goes along with the good concerning recovery. Earlier this week the National Bureau of Economic Research declared the end of the recession we are recovering from now to be June of 2009, totaling 18 months, the longest postwar recession to date. But just because the recession was “over” doesn’t mean the struggling was over. I recently heard the recovery since called the “Great Disappointment” because the economists who said recovery would be slow and painful were proven right by, among other things, recovery of output levels, or GDP. Output took only three quarters to exceed its most recent peak after both 16-month postwar recessions, 73-75 and 81-82, while after four quarters of recovery this time around output is still 1.3% below 2007 levels.

That leads me to the next point. Recovery is not happening at the rate Fed members would like, at least that’s the interpretation we are supposed to get from yesterday’s FOMC statement. I say “supposed to” because the Fed knows what reaction it will signal with its carefully worded statements. We haven’t forgotten that Bernanke and Co. admittedly sent the wrong message in the last statement with the announcement of reinvestment of maturing MBS, and then reversed the message with his Jackson Hole speech. Regardless, the widely held interpretation of the statement is that the Fed is transitioning toward a new round of QE and we can all but expect the Fed to add to its balance sheet, barring any significant signs of strength out of upcoming data. This also means the markets will be exceptionally sensitive to data leading up to the November 3^rd meeting. Specifically, the language that signaled this is the change from “employ its policy tools as necessary,” to “prepared to provide additional accommodation” regarding support of economic recovery.

The Fed also changed its mention of levels of inflation in a way that anticipates easing by noting that already low inflation measures “are currently at levels somewhat below those the Committee judges most consistent” with its mandate and that “inflation is likely to remain subdued for some time.” In this regard some believe the Fed has already done too much, as illustrated by skyrocketing gold, not to mention record highs in other commodities. Cotton is at a 15 year high and Corn at a 2 year high, to name a few that feed into food-related inflation numbers. Without direct mention of inflation, the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development alludes to action already taken as being a hindrance to the recovery lost in the recession with this statement; “It is likely that the financial crisis and response have raised the cost of capital for the foreseeable future and thus lowered potential output.” Even if inflation levels are not in a desirable range right now, doesn’t adding to the balance sheet and printing more money add to the imminent inflation problem we are seeing signs of already? Correct me if I’m wrong. A little inflation is good but the intention is to ignite the economy with inflation as a bi-product. Not the inverse. More easing seems a more than a little redundant.

A while back I heard some chatter about the how the Fed might not act at the November 3^rd meeting because it’s the day after elections and that would be too much of a shock to the markets. They don’t seem to be concerning themselves with this timing factor but it might prove to be the explanation if nothing is done at the next meeting. I have my suspicions that the administration pressures this easing bias because not enough jobs have been created (has anyone pointed that out yet or is it too far out there?) but I’m drooling to see how the markets react to the elections. Having a Fed meeting the next day might put a damper on that, however. Concerning the effect of further quantitative easing on the Fed’s balance sheet and consequently its ability to act versus restrained growth, it’s a question of what’s worse. And to that I don’t have the answer.

I’ll leave you with charts of the Fed’s balance sheet and of Non-Farm payrolls versus NBER Recession Dating courtesy of SM Research.

US takes stock of the ‘Great Recession’

By Robin Harding in Washington

Published: September 20 2010 20:50 | Last updated: September 20 2010 20:50

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e1fea3ce-c4ed-11df-9134-00144feab49a.html

Destroying King Dollar Is Not the Solution

Published: Wednesday, 22 Sep 2010 | 4:40 PM ET By: Larry Kudlow

http://www.cnbc.com/id/39313137

In what is historically the worst month for stocks, equity indexes are putting on a good show. So far for the month of September, the Dow is up 5% and the S&P, 6%. But there’s some noise beneath the surface. Of the many factors at work here, technical and fundamental, two could inflict the most influence, or at least put us on shaky ground: Fed action and mid-term elections. Yesterday’s price action means markets are starting to realize this, having been positive for most of the session and then ending up right back where they started. Uncertainty is back.

In the period between the last Fed meeting on August 10^th, until Bernanke’s Jackson Hole speech on August 27^th, stocks fell by 6.5%. This was a direct result of digestion of the announcement to reinvest maturing mortgage-backed securities to mean that the economy was in worse shape than we thought and needed more help. It was an invitation to speculate on how much more and what kind of further quantitative easing might come from the Fed.  Admittedly, the move sent the wrong message, which Fed members had feared might happen. The Jackson Hole speech did damage control as did the release of minutes from the meeting and since then stocks have rallied by over 5% and bond yields have stabilized somewhat.  Based on that, and further positive economic releases, I didn’t think further QE was on the table, at least not unless “the outlook were to deteriorate significantly,” but there have been several analyst calls for renewed proactive QE and lower rates. A Bloomberg article released Monday has Goldman and Pimco forecasting that the Fed will resume easing by the end of the year. Some think the possibility is already baked in, in Eisenhower era low yields. I strongly disagree that this is a possibility and I heard someone call this the “nuclear option.” It will not help the job market, nor will it help the housing market, the thorns in the side of recovery. What it will do is inject fear into the markets and diminish Fed effectiveness, as illustrated by the result of the last meeting. That being said, the options on the table if they were to take further action are worth noting because of each one’s effect on the markets.  They are purchasing additional longer-term securities, altering the Committee language in regard to the extended period, and lowering the interest paid on excess reserves. The meeting is on September 21^st. More to come leading up to the meeting.

My other favorite market churner is mid-term election. All over the news today is the number of upsets within party lines. People want change on the local level and on the federal level that will be reflected exponentially.  The push is towards more business-friendly and market-friendly policies including the extension of tax-cuts and increased incentives for business spending. As a result we saw more winners come out of so-called “extremist” ideals. I will go deeper into this issue and its effect on the markets in days to come. However, allow me to point out another good point made by James Mackintosh. “Since 1946, equity returns during gridlock have been lower than when the president’s party controls Congress. During gridlock, the S&P 500 has averaged 14.8 per cent in the two years after the new Congress or president takes office, against 19.9 per cent without gridlock. Conversely, bonds have produced much better returns…” However… “The average return when a Democratic president faced gridlock was almost 17 per cent, against less than half that when a Republican faced gridlock. Stopping Dems pushing for big government seems to be good for markets. In fact, though, what matters is not gridlock but whether elections are presidential or midterms. Average returns in the final two years of a president’s term are far higher, at 17.1 per cent, than the 4.8 per cent in the first two. Adjust for this, and there is only a small gap between the parties.”

I dare say if recent election results foreshadow the regime change markets hope for, we aren’t going to need any further quantitative easing. Precocious in this judgment I may be, it’s history that I am basing this on. Timing is everything.

Please respond with your thoughts and questions and stay tuned.

Should markets hope for US gridlock?

By James Mackintosh - Published: September 10 2010 01:51 | Last updated: September 10 2010 01:51

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/07cef4f0-bc6a-11df-a42b-00144feab49a.html

Yields Fall to Eisenhower Low in Pimco View of the Fed

By Liz Capo McCormick - Sep 13, 2010 1:41 PM ET

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-12/treasury-yields-decline-to-eisenhower-low-in-pimco-bofa-view-of-fed-easing.html

I don’t believe in coincidence, but let me point out the corny irony of a positive jobs report heading into this year’s Labor Day weekend. James Mackintosh put it perfectly in yesterday’s FT Short View where he points out that “as the armies of unemployed watched those with jobs take a break, at least they could see market confidence in job creation rising and fear of a double-dip recession receding.”

As if to confirm that hesitation is the name of the game equity markets retreated and the curve re-flattened back to pre-NFP levels. The fundamental explanation was renewed European banking system concerns after a Wall Street Journal analysis suggested Europe’s banks stress tests understated some lenders’ holdings of potentially risky government debt. During the European session equities sold off sharply, there was an increased widening in European sovereign debt spreads, and notable increases in default swaps in the European banking sector. The safe-haven bid overseas caused a flattening in the treasury curve that was mimicked during our session.

This alone, however, doesn’t give me the sense that markets have lost their positive undertone. We knew a lot of analysts have been preparing to poke holes in the European stress tests. Jean Claude Trichet said yesterday in an interview with Maria Bartiromo, “Basel III is a work in progress,” giving the impression that the news is a mere temporary setback. It doesn’t make me want to put on a Euro-steepener yet but it does make me want to explore one here. Last week we saw steepening as the transfer into stocks took life out of the rally in the long end. The addition of a better than expected 67K private sector jobs topped off the optimism that had gained steam last week, or at least, squashed a lot of the pessimism. Although yesterday’s retreat may have created opportunity, to put one on this week would be a bit premature as treasury price pressure should get an assist from supply. But as equities embrace underlying positives, bear steepening is inevitable. The Beige book’s release today will help set the tone for this month and the next Fed meeting, as well as July trade balance tomorrow and wholesale inventories Friday.

If not for the European situation markets may have paid more attention to new proposals from the Obama administration. The first is a $50B infrastructure spending program, which will likely fail to win Congressional approval and the second is tax write-offs for corporate investment. Could that be correct? Tax write-offs? Although there was more spending proposed in the same breath, this is the first of late of this type of inspiration to business growth we have seen from the current administration. As Larry Kudlow points out, it’s not that businesses are not profitable that jobs are not being created. It’s that they’re as hesitant as you and I amidst all the uncertainty regarding regulation and taxes, which is hindering projection and thus innovation and progressive growth.  http://www.kudlowsmoneypolitics.blogspot.com/   http://www.cnbc.com/id/39039492

As we approach this year’s elections we may well see more of this type of pro-business proposal. The democratic majority knows it needs to get a grip if it wants to have any chance for life on the other side of elections. Although minutes and data make clear that recovery has slowed there are still an abundance of bright spots littered throughout the economic atmosphere including key elements of demand, consumer spending and now maybe, just maybe, business investment. I’ve been saying for a while that we’re right where we are supposed to be, growing, but not like we’ve just broken through a start gate. That in and of itself would inspire fear. All we need now is for our government to recognize that stability will arise from the freedom to know they are not going to get slammed with regulation and taxation. Then we can expect a little progress. 

For James Mackintosh and the Financial Times “Short View:”

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b2d50cce-ba33-11df-8804-00144feabdc0.html

Kevin Williamson: Another Stimulus, Another Bailout:

http://www.nationalreview.com/exchequer/245745/another-stimulus-another-bailout

A bit silly, but interestingview:

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/michael-pento-says-fed-will-buy-stocks-and-real-estate-its-next-attempt-create-inflation

As diligent traders, investors, or even spectators, we are taught not to take too seriously the price action and market movement that takes place in the quieter late summer months. Still, even with this in mind, what the bond market is trying to tell us cannot be ignored. As I drown myself in research regarding the subject, all the publications I read religiously seem to be trumpeting the same thing: the outlook for recovery is gloomier than we thought.

But how much can we ask for here? If deflation is the ultimate fear, as illustrated by, among other things, the flood of investors into treasuries which pushes TIPS into negative real yields, then why did equities not get the memo? Yesterday equities rallied on positive earnings reports from Home Depot, Walmart, Urban Outfitters, and Abercrombie, among others, coupled with potential M&A activity and better than expected data. Wholesale inflation pressures rose in July for the first time in four months with annual core prices jumping to 10 month highs of 1.5%, industrial production rose more than forecast by 1%, and even ABC consumer confidence rose to -45 from -50. We all know one day does not a recovery make and I tend to listen to bonds which see the macro forest for the trees and are telling us their bull trend is still intact.

While the whole balance between deflation, disinflation, and inflation is generally elusive as to what is best for economic recovery and what we should trade on, I agree with both Hoenig and Kocherlakota that rates at zero to 25 basis points for too long could actually feed into a deflationary scenario. In spite of the most recent Senior Loan Officer’s Survey, we know it doesn’t inspire banks to lend to eachother. Right now bonds say deflation, equities don’t seem to care either way, and everyone and their dog wants to read into the FOMC action last week to reinvest maturing mortgage bonds into Treasuries. Was it enough? Is there more to come? If so, in how long? Are bonds rallying in response to this or is the real driver of the rally a further deterioration in growth expectations vs. deflation risks? One thing we can be sure of, as Larry Kudlow points out in his latest blog post, “Economic Lessons of the Summer Swoon (http://www.cnbc.com/id/38739767),” fiscal policy should NOT be the main driver of market action.

It is summer after all. Stay tuned.

FT Lex Column:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0c3ccb62-a9db-11df-8eb1-00144feabdc0,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http://www.ft.com/cms/s/3/0c3ccb62-a9db-11df-8eb1-00144feabdc0.html&_i_referer=http://www.ft.com/intl/lex

WSJ: The Great American Bond Bubble:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704407804575425384002846058.html

FT Short View:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9c304356-aa45-11df-9367-00144feabdc0.html

Larry Kudlow's Blog:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/38739767)

Yesterday was a big day for history books. President Obama signed the most elaborate set of financial regulations since the Great Depression into power. Yesterday was also Ben Bernanke’s semi-annual Humphrey Hawkins Testimony. Both came at a time when the markets, investors, and the American public are looking for direction. Recovery strength is uncertain, markets remain hesitant, and elections loom around the corner. Some believe Bernanke stuck to the script by not lending a direction. Some believe he should have given more of a glimpse into the Fed’s actual plan, if there is one. There are those too who believe the Fed is more confused than they let on. In spite of this, my general sentiment about the economy is that we are in a good place-the middle. Strength of growth has waned but likelihood of a double-dip in our economy has also diminished. Economic data do not continue to meet expectations, yet they still reflect strength of the system. The markets have slowed their delusional press upward yet hold solidly the growth reflected in consumers and investors.

Listening to Bernanke’s testimony yesterday illustrates three major issues which largely overlap. The first is, should we fear deflation or inflation? The second is, should the Fed use additional stimulus or is it hindering growth by doing so? The third is, will the increased regulation hinder business or simply add to the deficit and negatively affect long-term fiscal sustainability?

I have long claimed that market confidence is the core of all change, actual or false. Talk of a double dip began when the markets and data began to show signs of pull-back or slowing. We feared losing the momentum gained in the first half of the year as a result of stimulus. But, on the contrary, we should fear rapid growth. Severe upswings are as dangerous, if not more, than severe down-turns. Just as we like when the economy begins to slow and rates are high, the Fed has room to move, we should like the idea that there is potential for growth, rather than imminent inflation due to the economy heating up too fast. In my opinion, the Fed has done a good job here of inflicting the perfect attitude onto the markets. We are still growing, just not so fast. I like this article: Guest Contribution: Double Dip? Seven Reasons Why Not* http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/07/19/guest-contribution-double-dip-seven-reasons-why-not/

Now, I can hear you saying, “But what about unemployment?” As Bernanke stated today, we are seeing a “gradual decline” in unemployment. As the economy grows at a moderate pace the unemployment rate will equally abate. It would take an inflationary scenario to stimulate so much growth as too immediately reduce the American jobless rate. If the GDP data show 2.6%, as estimated, at the end of the month, that will put this year’s growth at the fastest recovery rate in thirty years. The risks of inflationary or deflationary outcomes seem to be contradictory. There is the element of cheap money causing hesitation in banks to lend which makes the Fed an agent of deflation. However, we can all agree, a deflation situation such as Japans is highly unlikely given the unconventional tools the Fed has used and has left to use if the situation warrants. The weaker economic data that came out over the past month prompted speculation of increased monetary stimulus. To this Bernanke answered, “We will continue to carefully assess ongoing financial and economic developments, and we remain prepared to take further policy actions as needed to foster a return to full utilization of our nation’s productive potential in a context of price stability.” He also said, however, that the Fed remains prepared to eventually raise interest rates and shrink their record balance sheet. By doing so the Fed has projected into the markets the confidence that it still has the ability to act. Confidence is all it takes.

 The Dodd-Frank Bill, named after two Democrats, Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, has three main facets. First, it gives the government new authority to unwind failing financial firms that may threaten the entire system. Secondly, it imposes new rules on derivatives markets. Lastly, it creates a consumer-protection agency at the Federal Reserve to monitor everything from home loans to credit cards. The argument has been whether the bill will hinder or protect and promote long-term economic growth. Only time will tell the answer to that as multiple newly formed federal agencies must now begin writing the regulations that will give the framework for enforcing the law.

Bernanke used the words “unusual uncertainty” to describe the state of the markets and the economy yesterday but also said the Dodd-Frank Bill made “significant progress” toward reducing the likelihood of a crisis such as the one have just lived through. What I’ve come away with after watching the Humphrey Hawkins Testimony and the passage of FinReg is that we are right where we are supposed to be. We don’t need to be racing upward in order to prevent falling back.

Interest rate futures markets are increasingly baking in higher rates. A guru pointed out on Tuesday that Eurodollar contracts four years out have 3M Libor back around 4.75%. Then we have our classic 2/10yr yield curve at unprecedented record highs, today around 275, with the 10 yr adding 11 basis points since this morning’s jobless claims. As Bernanke said in his Testimony before the House Budget Committee yesterday, the rise in yields partly reflects deficit concerns, i.e. inflation, as well as signs that the pace of economic contraction may be slowing. There are also less obvious reasons, as in China dumping the dollar as its main reserve and treasury selling to hedge mortgage buying as the housing market show signs of bottoming. Is the rapid rise in yields premature or is it a hint that we are in for a ride?

The argument for rate action being premature is the point that foreign selling of longer dated maturity treasuries and mortgage-related selling are temporary phenomena and the market will digest these and stabilize. This may be, but just as some wanted to dismiss the inversion of our yield curve 2 years or so ago as “different this time” and not a signal of recession, I think it would be just as unreasonable to dismiss the steepening.

The other side of the coin has inflation being the cause of the recent spike in yields. There is the question if officials have gone too far to curb threats to financial instability. We heard the Kansas City Fed President Hoenig say the rapid rise in yields signals early market concern over inflation and the Fed must be alert to the market’s message. Although I lean more to this side, I don’t feel the need to adopt an extreme view. The expectation that the Fed will someday have to release all these treasuries on the balance sheet into the market may fuel the yield rise in part but it’s a little ignorant of anyone to think that this could happen in one fell swoop. Just as the buying is a measure of quantitative easing to help drive down mortgage and traditional lending rates it can be used as fire for quantitative hiking.

As Bernanke put it yesterday, “even after recovery gets under way, the rate of growth of real economic activity is likely to remain below its longer-run potential for a while, implying that the current slack in resource utilization will increase further.” That’s not to say that Bernanke himself is not worried about imminent inflation but does address the uncertainty with which policy will be applied going forward to maintain fiscal stability.

On a shorter-term note, we have May jobs data tomorrow. The majority seems to see it falling around -500K, but more significantly, the unemployment rate around 9.2%. If this is the case, it will be an employment scenario not seen since 1983. Bernanke warned in yesterday’s testimony that we can expect to see higher unemployment in the coming months. If these number s are better than expected, expect those in the camp that believe our steepening yield curve to be a sign of certain economic recovery to be saying “I told you so.” If not, use it as a chance to get in on the flight.