????債務議案已塵埃落定。盡管兩黨及眾多的電視評論員大肆制造恐慌言論,，但證券市場,，包括國債孳息率和信用違約掉期，一致認為美國發(fā)生債務違約的可能性微乎其微,。這種恐慌衍生的結果是,，提升債務上限議案強行獲得通過，但它并未針對赤字問題提出實質性的解決辦法,，因此降級的威脅依然存在,。
????凱恩斯經濟學家諾貝爾獎得主保爾?克魯格曼對《紐約時報》（New York Times）表達了自己憂慮，他強調,，“美國將進行大幅度的預算削減”,。我們不確定克魯格曼博士在他的紐約上西部公寓中或者常青藤聯盟學校辦公室中是否配備了計算器，因為他的斷言與實際情況差了十萬八千里,。
????在短期內,，根據國會預算辦公室（Congressional Budget Office）最新的估算，根據該議案,，2012年的預算削減僅有210億美元,，2013年僅為420億美元。上周我們曾戲稱國會此舉無異于拆東墻補西墻,。也就是說,，雖然赤字削減額和債務提升上限額度大致相當，但各自的執(zhí)行期卻大不一樣,。所以說,，在短期內，該議案根本無法緩解赤字問題,。如果評級機構還有點職業(yè)道德的話,，那么該議案對于美國債務的保級應該沒有什么實質性的意義。
????除此之外,，還有一點需要理解的是,，預算削減方案是按照國會預算辦公室的基準數制定的。按照目前國會預算辦公室的這個基準數,，也就是《2012財年總統(tǒng)預算案的分析報告》（An Analysis of the President's Budget Proposal For Fiscal Year 2012）中所提到的基數,，國家背負的總債務將由2011年的約10.4萬億美元升至2021年的約20.8萬億美元。因此,，即便是完成了預計的預算削減,，這一基準預測仍將在未來的10年中使美國資產負債表增加超過8萬億美元的債務。這也是為什么參議員蘭德?保爾在一封公開信中聲明不支持該議案的原因：
????“即使所有的目標都能達成而且超級委員會也能恪盡職守,，在最為樂觀的情況下,，該議案也將在未來10年帶來超過7萬億美元的債務,。著實恐怖?！?/p>
????從中期來看,，影響赤字問題最關鍵的因素是美國經濟的復蘇。投資機構Hedgeye今年一直都不看好美國的GDP增長,，然而眼下很多對下半年經濟增長率預測幾乎是Hedgeye預測數值的兩倍,。然而實際報告數據與我們看空經濟增長的預測是一致的，2011年前兩個季度同期增長率僅為0.4%和1.3%（GDP預估可能要比今后修正后的數字要高出80%）,。增速緩慢會帶來一系列問題,，但眼下人們卻忽視了其中最關鍵的一點，即增速放緩對聯邦政府赤字的重要影響,。
????縱觀整體格局,，作為制定預算削減數的基本依據，國會預算辦公室所提供的赤字預估本身也存在很大的問題,，因為當下經濟形勢尤其是GDP的增長預期不容樂觀,。國會預算辦公室2011年1月所發(fā)布的《預算及經濟展望：2011財年-2021財年》（The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2011 to 2021）寫道：
????“總的來說，如果實際年均GDP增長率比國會預算辦公司的基準預期低0.1個百分點,，那么年度赤字額將繼續(xù)擴大,，到2021年，赤字額將攀升至680億美元,。而2011-2021赤字累計增額將高達3,，100億美元?！?/p>
????在經濟形勢預測中,，國會預算辦公室預計2011-2021年的年均GDP增速為2.9%。 有意思的是,，與過去的10年年均增速1.7%相比，這一增速明顯偏大,。如果未來10年的增長速率與前10年相當（當然對于一個負債超過GDP總量90%的經濟實體來說也是有可能的）那么按國會預算辦公室的基準數計算,，此間將新增赤字3.7萬億，再加上蘭德?保爾的7萬億,，那么到2021年,，美國資產負債表將累計新增共計10.7萬億的赤字。
????朋友們,，這可是個天文數字,。 |
|
|
????The debt deal is done and, despite the best fear mongering by both parties and many of the talking heads on TV, the credit markets -- both Treasury yields and credit defaults swaps -- have been consistently signaling that a U.S. debt default was highly unlikely. The derivative impact of the fear mongering is that a deal is being pushed through, but it will not truly address deficit issues and continues to leave the door wide open for a potential ratings downgrade.
????Keynesian economist and Nobel laureate Paul Krugman voiced his concern about this bill in the New York Times with his emphasis that "there will be big spending cuts." We are not sure whether Dr. Krugman has a calculator in either his Upper West Side apartment or hallowed Ivy League office, but nothing could be further from the truth.
????In the short term, according to the most recent scoring by the Congressional Budget Office, the impact of this bill is minimal with a mere $21 billion in cuts in fiscal 2012 and $42 billion in cuts in 2013. Last week we called this a Congressional comb-over. That is, while the amount of cuts to the deficit and the amount that the debt ceiling will be extended are roughly equal, they are on two very different time frames. As noted, in the short term, the bill literally does nothing to alleviate the deficit and if the ratings agencies are being intellectually honest, this bill should not meaningfully change the creditworthiness of U.S. government debt.
????Moreover, it is important to understand that the proposed spending cuts come off of the Congressional Budget Office baseline. Based on the current CBO baseline, as represented in "An Analysis of the President's Budget Proposal For Fiscal Year 2012," total debt held by the public will increase from ~ $10.4 trillion in 2011 to ~ $20.8 trillion in 2021. Therefore, the baseline projections will still add over $8 trillion in debt to the U.S. balance sheet over the next decade AFTER the proposed cuts. As Senator Rand Paul wrote in an open letter stating why he wouldn't vote for this deal:
????"This deal, even if all targets are met and the Super Committee wields its mandate - results in a BEST case scenario of still adding more than $7 trillion more in debt over the next 10 years. That is sickening."
????In the intermediate term, the more critical issue impacting the U.S. deficit is the domestic outlook for economic growth. Hedgeye has been on the low end of U.S. GDP estimates for the majority of the year, and consensus growth forecasts for the second half are still nearly twice that of ours. The actual reported numbers have supported our contrarian stance, coming in at 0.4% on a quarter-over-quarter basis in Q1 2011 and 1.3% in Q2 2011 (advance estimate – which may also wind up being ~80% too high after future revisions!). There are many issues with slow growth, but the key one that is not currently being contemplated is its impact on the federal deficit.
????From a bigger picture perspective, the deficit projections provided by the CBO, which are the basis on which the spending cuts are predicated, are highly questionable based on a number of the embedded economic assumptions, in particular GDP growth. According to the CBO's January 2011 publication, "The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2011 to 2021":
????"All told, if growth of real GDP each year was 0.1 percentage point lower than is assumed in CBO's baseline, annual deficits would be larger by amounts that would climb to $68 billion in 2021. The cumulative deficit for 2011 through 2021 would rise by $310 billion."
????In its economic projections, the CBO assumes 2.9% real annualized GDP growth from 2011 to 2021. Interestingly, that is a noted acceleration from the last ten years, which produced an average annual rate of 1.7% real GDP growth. If the next ten years produce comparable growth to the prior ten years, which is reasonable for an economy that is at 90%+ debt-to-GDP, the incremental deficit in that period over the CBO baseline would be $3.7 trillion, upping Rand Paul's $7 trillion figure to a whopping $10.7 trillion in additional deficits added to the U.S. balance sheet through 2021.
????And that, my friends, is a lot of billions. |
