Let’s Twist Again: A Successful Craze or a Massive Flop?

Once upon a time, the twist was a dance craze made famous by Chubby Checker.  The 1960 hit inspired the dancer to maneuver the balls of their feet back and forth across the dance floor.  But this past week, the Federal Reserve launched it’s own twist – that is, with the implementing of Operation Twist.

Operation Twist is a jaunty name for some fiscal maneuvering that, if successful, will lower interest rates and encourage people to invest and borrow more.

How, exactly, would that work?  Smart Money had an expert explain it quite succinctly:

Experts Explain: What is ‘Operation Twist?’The Fed announced that it will use a strategy from the ’60s to try to boost the economy.

Embedly Powered

via Wsj

The plan is simple: the Federal Reserve would sell over $400 billion worth of it’s short-term bonds and use the proceeds to buy up longer-term bonds.  At first, anyone who has long-term bonds will see their value rise.  As time passes, the act would drive down the interest rate on the longer-term bonds (When demand for bonds rise, interest rates fall.)

Interest rates on long term treasury bonds are connected to many other interest rates in America, such as mortgage rates.  The hope is that the lowered interest rates from Operation Twist would encourage borrowing and investing.

Robert Smith of NPR has a great step by step explanation of the process here:

Embedly Powered

via NPR

Operation Twist is not a new idea, nor is it even a new title.  The plan for the federal reserve to buy up bonds to “twist” the interest rates for investors was first proposed in 1961 by the Kennedy Administration, and was named for the popular dance craze at the time.  Most people now consider it a failure.

But how about this time around?

Econbrowser, a website that analyzes current economic trends, tried to predict the effect the maturing bonds would have before the operation went into affect September 21st.

The horizontal axis is weeks of maturity, and the vertical is the yield, or comparative worth, of the bond.   Econbrowser determined that after an initial peak, the interest rates would drop dramatically.

So September 21st came and went, and the Federal Reserve implemented Operation Twist.  Did it stimulate the economy?  Did investors run to the market, capitalizing on long-term investing?  In other words, was it a failure or a success?

Both, actually.

The stock market index took the worst dive it had in over a month.  The bond market, however, saw long term investment rates drop immediately.  A question and answer from the Seattle Times elaborates:

ReutersVideo expanded on the boon the bond market experienced:

Look beyond Treasuries for bond values, says TCW’s RivelleSept. 23 – TCW’s Tad Rivelle says Treasuries aren’t attractive but other parts of the bond market are including investment-grade corporate bonds, markets for secured lending to airlines and non-agency mortgages.

Embedly Powered

Though long term investment rates hit a record low, as mentioned in the video above, no one is quite sure who is benefitting yet.  The overwhelming response from investors seem to be luke-warm at best.

As Matt Busigin, an ametuer economist and author of Macro Fugue analytics, tweeted:

Now that I've read that, I certainly understand the rationale behind Operation Twist more. Big effect? No. Good policy? Probably.
@mbusigin
Matt Busigin

Colin Cunningham than tweeted:

Fed announces Operation Twist - nothing worth twisting over. http://t.co/MjgDeORn /via @
@ctcunning
Colin Cunningham

 

In the aftermath, Twitter was full of bad puns and indifference.  Still, it is too early to tell the true effect Operation Twist will have on the U.S. economy.  Though it achieved what it set out to do – lower long-term interest rates – it is still unclear whether the proposed boost of borrowing and investing will pan out.

Like the twist itself, we can only move back and forth on that question for now.

Retailers Target Bargain Shopping During Economic Pressures

…And yet and the free market reigns king

Almost two weeks ago, Target teamed up with Italian luxury designer Missoni for a launch of high quality, high fashion, and highly coveted items at low prices the retail giant is best known for.

It happened to be the best idea since H&M paired up with brands like Sonia Rykiel and Madonna, but resulted in one of the most notorious business fails this year when Target ran out of items all too soon due to the sheer volume of unexpected demand. See below for Target’s statement immediately following the chaos:

But then, the individual consumer decided to outsmart the two retail tycoons, and circumvent the rules of regulated prices thanks to sites like e-Bay, Craigslist, and others. Here’s an example of a Missoni Bike being solde by Target for $399, which is going for, believe it, a whopping $1,380:

This bike isn’t the only example of sold out items consumers have decided to monopolize and put to good use after buying them. An Oklahoma woman decided to sell these boots and use the money she hopes to collect towards her youngest daughter’s college fund.

It isn’t an abnormal reaction to wonder what a college fund and rain boots could possibly have to do with each other, but the sum of $31,000 might help dispel any further questions.

This raises the question of how much security retailers like Target and Missoni actually have, and the same goes for any other company that aims to sell products and keep their base of avid consumers from losing interest. Does the public gain control of products once you, the retailer, stop providing the supply? Or do the scarce amounts simply up the value and give the brand a boost? In this case, it could be argued that Target lost control over its merchandise because it didn’t provide enough of it, leaving consumers to fight amongst themselves for access to the coveted pieces.

The outcry in response to the massive logistical fail was of similar epic proportions. Of the thousands of tweets and other ways that people bemoaned Target’s shortcoming, AndyWangNY’s picture and commentary seemed to reflect a general consensus.

 

Maybe more retailers should consider producing only limited amounts of their products and testing the effects on their business and reputation…