Last holiday season for paper savings bonds

Making their final appearance in Christmas stockings this season: paper U.S. savings bonds.

A popular and colorful gift for children, the securities will no longer be available at banks and other financial institutions or through mail-in orders after this year. Instead, starting in 2012, the Treasury Department will only offer Series EE or I bonds online through www.treasurydirect.gov.

The move to electronic versions is projected to save $70 million over five years in printing, storage and processing fees, the government said. Last year, about 4.7 million people bought 9.4 million savings bonds over the counter. 

The bond program originated during the Depression in 1935 as a way for the government to tamp down the federal debt. 

Officials have already phased out sales of paper bonds through traditional employee payroll plans. Current holders will still be able to redeem their bonds, and lost ones can be reissued.

RELATED:

U.S. to Sell Series EE Bonds Via the Web

Treasury hacks interest rates on new savings bonds

-- Tiffany Hsu

30-year mortgage rate drops to 4%, Freddie Mac says

Investor worries over the European debt crisis helped drive the average rate for a 30-year fixed home loan down to 4% this week, according to Freddie Mac.

The figure, down from 4.1% last week, was the second lowest in the 40 years Freddie has been conducting a weekly survey of the terms being offered by home lenders. The lowest average rate recorded was 3.94% four weeks ago.

Freddie Mac said lenders were offering 15-year loans, a popular choice for homeowners who are refinancing, at an average rate of 3.31%, down from 3.38% a week earlier. That rate was below 3.3% for three weeks in late September and early October.

To obtain the loans at the rates being offered this week, a borrower would have to pay upfront fees averaging 0.7% of the amount borrowed.

Worried about the possibility of defaults on European debt, investors rushed to buy U.S. Treasury securities early this week, driving down interest rates.

The low mortgage rates have created an opportunity for some homeowners who are current on their loans to trade them in for new mortgages, often lowering their interest costs dramatically.

RELATED:

Greek government on brink of collapse

Banks, regulators start massive review of foreclosures

Construction spending and manufacturing growing — slightly

— E. Scott Reckard

Photo: Foreclosures like this one in Miami clog the market with homes. Credit: Joe Raedle / Getty Image

The European Debt Crisis and the G-20 Summit Meeting

Simon Johnson, the former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, is the co-author of “13 Bankers.”

The April 2009 London summit meeting of the Group of 20 is widely regarded as a great success. The world’s largest economies agreed on an immediate coordinated approach to the global financial crisis then raging and promised to work together on banking reforms that would support growth. President Obama got high marks for his constructive engagement.

Today’s Economist

Perspectives from expert contributors.

The G-20 heads of government have met twice a year since then, and in Cannes this week they meet again. Could this meeting help stabilize the world economy? Can President Obama again play a leading role? The answer to both questions is likely to be no.

Perspectives from expert contributors.

In 2009, the primary problem was slumping economies in the United States and Western Europe. It was in the perceived individual interest of those economies to engage in some fiscal stimulus – and they were happy to present this as a joint approach. China was also willing to stimulate its economy, as its policy makers feared that slowing global trade would reduce Chinese exports. President Obama’s appeal for fiscal stimulus around the world was pushing on an open door.

Now the issue is quite different. We have a sovereign debt crisis within the euro zone, in which countries that have borrowed heavily are facing the prospect of restructuring their debts. The euro zone summit meeting last week established that Greek debt would fall by about half (relative to face value), although this does not clearly put Greece onto a sustainable debt path. Prime Minister Andreas Papandreou announced a plan on Monday for a referendum on the plan, a move with the potential to build political support for the needed reforms, and on Wednesday his cabinet offered its full support. But another outcome — if the government does not fall in the meantime, making the referendum plan moot — could be a Greek exit from the euro and a default on its debts in disorderly fashion, without any kind of international framework or outside financial support.

But the real issue is Italy, as it has been at least since the summer. The Europeans are only beginning to come to grips with the centrality of Italy in the European debt web – glance at Bill Marsh’s recent graphic to get the point. Italy has more than 1.9 trillion euros in debt outstanding; this is the third-largest bond market in the world. In the aftermath of the Greek referendum announcement, the yield on Italian debt rose above 6.1 percent. The standard view is that if this reaches 6.5 percent, Italy will need to seek assistance in the form of a backstop fund to guarantee there will be no default.

But the International Monetary Fund does not have enough resources available and the existing European Financial Stability Facility is also likely to be too small. People in the know talk of the need for more than two trillion euros in a “stabilization fund,” and while a lot of fuzzy math is involved in contemporary international financial rescues, the I.M.F. and the stability facility combined would be hard pressed to provide more than a third of that.

This might seem like a good time for a summit meeting – so the hat can be passed around among world leaders. And some people do hope that China can provide an enormous loan, either directly or working with the I.M.F. China, after all, has more than two trillion euros’ worth of reserves (not all in euros, of course; much of this is in dollars).

But it’s not clear China that wants to take the credit risk of lending directly – the Europeans might not repay, after all. And the United States is not keen to have China funnel such a large amount through the I.M.F.; this would undermine the traditional American predominance there. In today’s budgetary environment, there is no way that the United States can come up with anything like matching funds at a level that would make a difference – would you like to ask the House of Representatives for $100 billion right now to help keep Silvio Berlusconi in power?

And the heart of the problem is really European, not global. Specifically, the euro zone needs to address its underlying fiscal structure, which has become severely dysfunctional. It needs a proper fiscal union, with the right to tax and to issue debt – backed ultimately by the European Central Bank. And the ability of member governments to issue debt must be severely curtailed.

The United States faced a similar problem, long ago. The original Articles of Confederation proved inadequate, largely because there was no centralized fiscal authority. The Constitutional Convention convened in 1787 in large part because the United States had defaulted on its debts, incurred during the War of Independence – and there was no way forward without a new agreement among the original 13 states and greater fiscal powers (and more) for the federal government.

Europe needs the equivalent of a constitutional convention. But today’s financial markets move so much faster than 200 years ago, and the delay in Europe has already been excessive. The Europeans need to move fast. Will the Cannes summit meeting speed them up?

Growing Economies, Stagnant Wages

CATHERINE RAMPELL

Dollars to doughnuts.

In the midst of the Occupy protests, the income gains going to the top 1 percent have gotten a lot of attention. Another way to understand the economic frustrations of the Occupiers is to look at how much middle-class living standards have changed, and how much the overall economy has grown.

Dollars to doughnuts.

A new report from the Resolution Foundation, a British research organization that focuses on workers with low income, has done just that. The report covers 10 rich countries, and looks at the growth rate of median pay versus economic growth per capita from 2000 to the start of the Great Recession.

Here’s the key chart showing that ratio:

A higher ratio means that the pace of growth for median pay was close to the pace of growth for output per capita. A low ratio means that median pay grew much more slowly than did the economy as a whole.

Of the 10 countries analyzed, Finland showed the closest relationship between the living standards of the typical worker and improvements in the overall economy. The United States was on the lower end. From 2000 to 2007, median pay increased at a quarter of the pace of output per capita. In other words, the typical American worker did not share much in the country’s growing wealth even when the economy was good.

Still, the United States was not the worst of the bunch. In Canada, median pay didn’t grow at all between 2000 and 2007.

The moral of the story is that the United States isn’t the only country experiencing growing inequality. Most of the rest of the developed world is, too.

How Unemployment Benefits Became Twice as Generous

12:48 p.m. | Updated to revise reference to standard benefit period.

Casey B. Mulligan is an economics professor at the University of Chicago.

Government spending on unemployment insurance has soared, and it’s hard to imagine the program ever shrinking back to its prerecession size.

Today’s Economist

Perspectives from expert contributors.

Unemployment insurance is jointly administered and financed by the federal and state governments, offering money to people who have lost their jobs and have as yet been unable to find and start a new job. On average they receive about $300 a week until they start working again, they stop looking for work or their benefits are exhausted.

Perspectives from expert contributors.

Between 2006 and 2010, inflation-adjusted spending on unemployment compensation by federal, state and local governments more than tripled.

The program has been around for decades, but the most recent recession and continued economic weakness has created an especially large group of laid-off workers who, despite an extensive search, cannot find another job. More unemployed people equals more spending for the unemployment insurance program, so we expect the program to be spending a lot during a recession.

However, the unemployment program has also become more generous in recent years. Before the recession, an unemployed person in a state without high unemployment would often exhaust benefits after 26 weeks; that is, the program would stop paying after the 26th weekly benefit, even if the beneficiary was still without work.

The federal law in place before the recession included some local labor market “extended benefit” triggers that, based on the statewide unemployment rate, would automatically lengthen the maximum benefit period. These automatic triggers began to extend benefits around the nation in the middle of 2008.

About the same time, new “emergency unemployment compensation” legislation extended maximum benefit periods for the entire nation. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of February 2009 further extended these “emergency” periods to up to 99 weeks, and legislation later in 2009 and in 2010 permitted the 99-week maximum to continue. (Among other unemployment insurance expansions, the act also increased monthly benefit amounts and excluded from federal personal income taxation the first $2,400 of benefits received in 2009.)

The chart below shows the size of the “emergency” and extended-benefit expansions, by quarter, measured as a fraction of the entire unemployment insurance program. Essentially, no “emergency” and extended-benefit benefits were paid in 2007 or in the first half of 2008. “Emergency” and extended-benefit benefits immediately became about a quarter of all unemployment insurance benefits and beneficiaries and were a majority of all unemployment insurance benefits by the end of 2009 (the two measures are slightly different because they come from different data sources).

Because “emergency” and extended-benefit benefits are paid to people only when they have exhausted the normal benefits, the fraction shown in the chart is a measure of how much unemployment benefits are paid pursuant to unemployment insurance rule changes, as opposed to payments that occur merely because more people were losing their jobs.

If we assume, merely for simplicity, that the expansions had no effect on the number of people unemployed or on the length of time they were employed, then setting “emergency” and extended-benefit payments to zero as they were in 2007 would have cut total unemployment insurance benefit payments by the fraction shown in the chart. In this case, it appears that the unemployment insurance program is at least twice as generous as it was in 2007, thanks to the federal changes in benefit rules.

The unemployment insurance program is a good example of how federal government spending has grown and how tough it will be to bring it back to pre-recession levels. People are now used to having well more than one year’s unemployment benefits available to them, and politicians will have a lot of trouble asking them to make do with just 26 weeks.

This post has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: November 2, 2011

An earlier version of this post misstated the typical benefit period. Before the recession, 26 weeks, not 13, had become the typical maximum for states to pay unemployment benefits.

Will Bernanke Take Aim at G.D.P.?

It’s a safe bet that the hottest topic in monetary policy is going to be raised when the Federal Reserve chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, takes questions from reporters Wednesday afternoon.

That would be nominal G.D.P. targeting, a concept lately endorsed elsewhere on this very Web site by the liberal economists Christina Romer and Paul Krugman (separately, and with very different degrees of enthusiasm) and long embraced by a diverse group of other economic thinkers.

It’s actually a pretty simple idea. The Fed has developed a policy of seeking to maintain inflation — the growth of prices and wages — at an annual rate of roughly 2 percent as the best way to meet its legal objectives of maintaining stable prices and maximizing employment. Proponents of G.D.P. targeting argue that the central bank instead should seek to maintain a steady rate of increase in the dollar value of the nation’s economic output, the nominal gross domestic product, an alternative measure that combines the rate of inflation and the rate of economic growth.

The Fed’s current policy, they argue, has failed to stimulate growth sufficiently, leaving more than 25 million Americans unable to find full-time work. A G.D.P. target, by contrast, would require the Fed to take more aggressive steps, like another round of asset purchases.

“It would work like this,” wrote Ms. Romer, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, who was chairwoman of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers. “The Fed would start from some normal year — like 2007 — and say that nominal G.D.P. should have grown at 4 1/2 percent annually since then, and should keep growing at that pace. Because of the recession and the unusually low inflation in 2009 and 2010, nominal G.D.P. today is about 10 percent below that path. Adopting nominal G.D.P. targeting commits the Fed to eliminating this gap.”

As I wrote in Monday’s paper, this idea has garnered little apparent support inside the Fed.

One fundamental reason is that Mr. Bernanke and other Fed officials believe that the current system is working pretty well. Not well enough to heal the economy, of course, but in their view that is beyond the Fed’s power.

“My guess is that the current framework for monetary policy — with innovations, no doubt, to further improve the ability of central banks to communicate with the public — will remain the standard approach, as its benefits in terms of macroeconomic stabilization have been demonstrated,” Mr. Bernanke told a Boston audience in October.

The focus of that policy, which Mr. Bernanke described as “flexible inflation targeting,” is the Fed’s commitment to maintain inflation at about 2 percent a year. The Fed views the public belief that it will do so as perhaps its most valuable asset because it creates a stable environment for sustainable economic growth.

A switch to G.D.P. targeting would amount to a declaration of comfort with higher levels of inflation.

Many proponents regard this as the basic point of the proposal, arguing that the Fed has become overly fixated on the rate of inflation when it should be focused on the health of the economy, and that allowing — indeed, encouraging — a higher rate of inflation in the short term would help to stimulate growth.

Calling for a G.D.P. target rather than simply proposing an increase in the Fed’s inflation target, as some other economists have done, amounts in this sense to a marketing device, a piece of packaging.

“As far as I can see, the underlying economics is about expected inflation,” Mr. Krugman wrote in a mid-October blog post, “but stating the goal in terms of nominal G.D.P. may nonetheless be a good idea, largely as a selling point, since it (a) is easier to make the case that we’ve fallen far below where we should be and (b) doesn’t sound so scary and antisocial.”

So far, that sales pitch has failed to budge the Fed.

Average student-loan debt tops $25,000 for first time

You don't have to be a math major to understand this statistic: The average student-loan debt of last year's college graduates tops $25,000 -- the first time it's ever exceeded that ignominious mark.

Seniors who graduated in 2010 had an average student-loan burden of $25,250, up 5.2% from the $24,000 owed by the class of 2009, according to a report by the Project on Student Debt at the Institute for College Access & Success in Oakland.

Some experts had expected a bigger increase in debt given the gloomy economy, but increased financial aid at some schools partially offset the hit for low-income students and those at pricier colleges.

Still, the increased debt load is another negative for college graduates who already were facing a punishing job market. The unemployment rate for college graduates ages 20 to 24 rose to 9.1% last year, up from 8.7% in 2009 and the highest annual rate on record, according to the nonprofit research organization.

The report is based on data reported voluntarily by more than 1,000 public and private nonprofit four-year colleges. It did not include so-called for-profit colleges.

In California, the average debt load last year was $18,113, with 48% of graduating seniors owing money, according to the study.

Students and their families (who, after all, will be footing many of the college bills) can get data on average student-loan rates for many schools on the group's website in the link above.

RELATED:

California's 529 college-saving plan to gain options under TIAA-CREF

California's 529 college savings plan to be revamped

Contributions to college-savings 529 plans are rising sharply after falling during recession

-- Walter Hamilton

Photo credit: University of Chicago