by Calculated Risk on 6/13/2008 07:46:00 PM

Northern Trust chief economist Paul Kasriel discusses active MEW:

Economists refer to something called the “wealth” effect. It is hypothesized that households tend to spend relatively more of their income when their wealth is increasing and vice versa. Mind you, households do not have any more cash in hand to spend when the value of their stock portfolios or houses go up. They are just wealthier “on paper.”

In this past cycle, it had become very easy for households to turn their increased “paper” housing wealth into actual cash by borrowing against their increased home equity. This borrowing is called mortgage equity withdrawal, or MEW. Active MEW can be defined as mortgage equity withdrawal consisting of refinancing and home equity borrowing. In contrast, inactive MEW consists of turnover. At an annualized rate, active MEW peaked at $576 billion in the second quarter of 2006. Active Mew has slowed to only $114 billion in the first quarter of this year – the smallest amount since the fourth quarter of 1999 (see Chart 3 [at link]). There is no doubt in my mind that active MEW, which actually puts additional cash into the hands of households, played an important role in boosting consumer spending in this past expansion. And there is no doubt in my mind that the recent and likely continued decline in active MEW will play an important role in retarding consumer spending in this recession. Because it has been easier to borrow against the increased wealth in one’s house than in one’s stock portfolio, dollar-for-dollar, falling house prices will have a more important negative effect on household spending that will falling stock prices.

Note: my graphs have focused on MEW including turnover. Active MEW is a subset of the data I've presented and consists of cash out refis and HELOCs.

And on Fed tightening:

It is conceivable the Fed could engage in a one-off 25 basis point hike in the funds rate, which could not make a material difference on business activity because the Fed has taken radical preemptive action as an insurance against the possibility of a severe economic downturn and/or continued financial market disruptions. ... But, there is a distinctly stronger probability attached to the likelihood of an unchanged federal funds rate well into 2009 ... In other words, in our estimation, the Fed may not need to translate rhetoric into action given the fragile economic environment and the likelihood that inflation will be moderating in the second half of the year.

Goldman Sachs has the same view (no link): Could They? Yes. Will They? We Don't Think So.

[W]e still believe that tightening is both inappropriate and unlikely anytime soon. It is inappropriate because: (1) the economy is fundamentally weak, with tax rebates driving the surge in retail sales; (2) financial markets remain fragile; and (3) worries about inflation are overdone ...