Posts
April 12, 2012
This is an important issue right now, especially in this election year. Consensus is mixed, depending on one’s view of the “recovery”, but the market appears to have melted up in anticipation of the Fed injecting more money into the economy. Then, when the minutes of the last Fed meeting were released on March 19th, the consensus of the committee was that the economy was slowly improving but they acknowledged that employment was still a concern. Therefore, additional accommodation (printing money) by the Fed may not be necessary. However, since then, the market has begun to sell off and one reason is its disappointment with the Fed’s position to not inject more money right now. Do you think the Fed really means this? Here are some thoughts from the different sides of this argument.
The Keynesians (mostly Democrats) View
In a recent article in the New York Times, Paul Krugman argued the following:
1. Because the Fed expects low inflation and high unemployment, the Fed should be much more accommodative in order to accelerate the recovery. If we don’t, we will choke off the recovery.
2. The reason we would not be more accommodative is the Republican’s misplaced fear of inflation.
3. But, we can’t worry about inflation; we should be more worried about employment. In fact, inflation of 4-5% would be a good thing. Not a bad thing.
The Keynesian-Lite (mostly Republicans) View
In a recent report written by Brian Wesbury of First Trust, he argued the following:
1. The Fed has finally admitted the economy has improved and took QE3 off the table. There is no need to print additional money.
2. Monetary policy has been accommodative, but monetary policy is not the driving force behind the market, profits are…and profit growth will continue.
3. The Fed will start raising interest rates before its stated date of late 2014. Increasing rates will keep inflation in check.
Capitalists/Austrian Economists View
1. The economy is still in recession as none of our problems have been solved. But, the Fed has already printed too much money and is prolonging the recession with additional injections of money. The only think they have accomplished is unsustainable debt and they are laying a foundation for inflation.
2. We have printed and spent $8.5 trillion dollars in the past four years. This money has raised nominal GDP. That’s because GDP is a mathematical model in which every new dollar created adds (arguably because nominal GDP has risen only $1.4 trillion) a dollar to GDP. But now the money has been spent, we have the debt and real growth has not occurred (8 million jobs lost, 7 million homes in foreclosure, banks under capitalized, interest expenses exceed 10% of income (tax revenues), wages have not kept up with inflation, sovereign, corporate and personal debt, etc.)
3. Now however, the pace of new money creation has slowed for the past two months. Because the money created with credit has been spent, the Fed has to create more money each year than it created in the previous year or the total amount of money supply contracts…. which contracts GDP.
4. Also, Bernanke and the Fed believe we are in a cyclical recession (normal, shallow) versus a systemic recession (major, caused by structural changes.) Therefore, they believe they can fill the spending “gap” with government spending which draws consumers back into the market and ends the recession. This recession is far more serious than a temporary gap in consumer spending.
Conclusion
This recession is far more serious than a temporary gap in consumer spending.
We have below trend growth and stagnant incomes and we have an election year. Do you think the politicians will print more money and kick the can down the road past the election or opt for austerity and a return into recession? I think the answer is they will print more money, but they need “an excuse” to do so (i.e., a bad jobs number or a market sell off or a war or?) because some voters are worried about our ever increasing debt. Therefore, we are now on a path toward more money, more debt or a deeper recession.
Showing posts with label Bernanke. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bernanke. Show all posts
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Friday, March 30, 2012
The markets are at the top of their range, where do we go from here?
March 21, 2012
Simple question but difficult to answer. Here is the long answer.
I still think that we are getting near a tipping point with both the economy and the markets. The “economy continues to improve” groups are basing their argument on headline numbers. For example,
1. Auto sales are up slightly but inventories are even higher;
2. or an average 200,000 jobs have been created over x months but that is not enough and half the jobs are part-time and for lower wages;
3. Or manufacturing and service indexes are over 50 and therefore show “modest growth,” but are higher inventories good for the economy or just GDP index.
4. Corporate profits are high (decades high levels) and going higher (implies margins will continue to expand), but many indications that margins will contract (rising costs, gasoline hurting consumers, increasing housing foreclosures mean people have to move and pay rent rather than spending their mortgage payment on restaurants and cars, etc.)
5. The warm whether is also a factor being ignored by the Fed’s models.
At the same time, the money the Federal Reserve and deficit spending have pumped into the economy is going into the markets as Bernanke wants to get them animal spirits going; and he is being helped by the media: consumer sentiment is improving and the VIX (volatility or risk measure) is now extremely low (what risk can there be?)
“Darth Vader” on the other hand is looking at the fact that the pace of money supply(the key driver of GDP) has started to contract and that means decline for the GDP by June/July unless there is a new stimulus program or QE3+.
I think the Fed is looking for an “excuse” to print more money but it can’t look like a political move so he needs some economic data to point to in order to pull the trigger. This could be some bad economic numbers or a market correction along with a correction in gold and silver. Or it could be done through stimulus as we prepare for to engage in another war.
Net/Net: The economy remains in recession and looks to stay there for some time because we have not addressed any of the issues that brought us into this recession or are keeping us there (spending, debt, central planning, printing money, government interference in the economy and markets, etc. etc.
But, the $8 trillion dollars pumped into the economy has helped GDP’s and increased assets. This is what politicians (including Fed Reserve politicians) do. It seems to be the only thing they know how to do. Therefore, I expect another round of stimulus or money printing in time to help the elections and before the new debate on the debt limit ceiling which will likely be reached by October.
Investments must be flexible (risk on, risk off) because the exact shape and timing of the markets are unknown; and tradable (for protection and opportunities) until the longer trend becomes known.
Net/Net: The short answer is that the market is at the top of its range and can only be held there by more action from the government.
Simple question but difficult to answer. Here is the long answer.
I still think that we are getting near a tipping point with both the economy and the markets. The “economy continues to improve” groups are basing their argument on headline numbers. For example,
1. Auto sales are up slightly but inventories are even higher;
2. or an average 200,000 jobs have been created over x months but that is not enough and half the jobs are part-time and for lower wages;
3. Or manufacturing and service indexes are over 50 and therefore show “modest growth,” but are higher inventories good for the economy or just GDP index.
4. Corporate profits are high (decades high levels) and going higher (implies margins will continue to expand), but many indications that margins will contract (rising costs, gasoline hurting consumers, increasing housing foreclosures mean people have to move and pay rent rather than spending their mortgage payment on restaurants and cars, etc.)
5. The warm whether is also a factor being ignored by the Fed’s models.
At the same time, the money the Federal Reserve and deficit spending have pumped into the economy is going into the markets as Bernanke wants to get them animal spirits going; and he is being helped by the media: consumer sentiment is improving and the VIX (volatility or risk measure) is now extremely low (what risk can there be?)
“Darth Vader” on the other hand is looking at the fact that the pace of money supply(the key driver of GDP) has started to contract and that means decline for the GDP by June/July unless there is a new stimulus program or QE3+.
I think the Fed is looking for an “excuse” to print more money but it can’t look like a political move so he needs some economic data to point to in order to pull the trigger. This could be some bad economic numbers or a market correction along with a correction in gold and silver. Or it could be done through stimulus as we prepare for to engage in another war.
Net/Net: The economy remains in recession and looks to stay there for some time because we have not addressed any of the issues that brought us into this recession or are keeping us there (spending, debt, central planning, printing money, government interference in the economy and markets, etc. etc.
But, the $8 trillion dollars pumped into the economy has helped GDP’s and increased assets. This is what politicians (including Fed Reserve politicians) do. It seems to be the only thing they know how to do. Therefore, I expect another round of stimulus or money printing in time to help the elections and before the new debate on the debt limit ceiling which will likely be reached by October.
Investments must be flexible (risk on, risk off) because the exact shape and timing of the markets are unknown; and tradable (for protection and opportunities) until the longer trend becomes known.
Net/Net: The short answer is that the market is at the top of its range and can only be held there by more action from the government.
Friday, February 3, 2012
Headlines Can Be Deceiving
Today, the January Jobs Report indicated that the economy created 243,000 jobs in January and the unemployment rate dropped to 8.3%. That sounds good and most of the “experts” were screaming that this more proof that the economy has turned around and job growth will continue. What they didn’t do is look beyond the headline.
First, I was startled when I heard the headline numbers. Here is the context behind the numbers. Last week, Chairman Bernanke said the economy was soft and lowered his GDP growth estimate, extended the zero interest rate program through 2014 and implied that he was ready to intervene with more money creation if necessary. That doesn’t sound like the environment for “surging” new job growth.
So here is some information behind the headline.
1.A record 1.2 million people fall out of the labor force (these are people who are no longer looking for a job.)
2.This means that the percent of the population that would like to work dropped to 63.7%. The long-term, historic percent is 65.8%. This is important because this is the number they use to determine the unemployment rate. This is 5 million people less looking for work than is normal; and with 5 million less people you get a much lower unemployment rate. And baby boomers are not retiring like many assume, In fact, their participation rate in increasing.
3.Part-time workers increased by 699,000 and full time jobs increased by 80,000 jobs. So about 10 percent of jobs were full time.
I am not saying there is a conspiracy to improve the numbers. It is the way the math model works. But it does demonstrate that you must look beyond the headlines to get the real story.
First, I was startled when I heard the headline numbers. Here is the context behind the numbers. Last week, Chairman Bernanke said the economy was soft and lowered his GDP growth estimate, extended the zero interest rate program through 2014 and implied that he was ready to intervene with more money creation if necessary. That doesn’t sound like the environment for “surging” new job growth.
So here is some information behind the headline.
1.A record 1.2 million people fall out of the labor force (these are people who are no longer looking for a job.)
2.This means that the percent of the population that would like to work dropped to 63.7%. The long-term, historic percent is 65.8%. This is important because this is the number they use to determine the unemployment rate. This is 5 million people less looking for work than is normal; and with 5 million less people you get a much lower unemployment rate. And baby boomers are not retiring like many assume, In fact, their participation rate in increasing.
3.Part-time workers increased by 699,000 and full time jobs increased by 80,000 jobs. So about 10 percent of jobs were full time.
I am not saying there is a conspiracy to improve the numbers. It is the way the math model works. But it does demonstrate that you must look beyond the headlines to get the real story.
Friday, December 9, 2011
New European Agreement Needs Reality Check
Here is the headline from an Associated Press story earlier this morning:
“US stocks rise after new European budgetary pact
U.S. stock indexes rose in early trading Friday after 26 European nations agreed to consider tying their economies together more closely in hopes of preventing another debt crisis.”
Here is a reality check:
1. This agreement has to be ratified by each country before they have anything.
2. A closer fiscal union (with sanctions) means each country will have to give up its sovereignty to whom (Germany, The Central Bank, or?)
3. Based on their current financial situation, who will lend them the money at an interest rate they could afford with the Euro zone sliding into recession.
4. They need $3 trillion or more not the less than one trillion they hope to raise over the next three years.
5. Their Sovereign Credit ratings are likely to be downgraded soon by S&P resulting in even higher interest rates.
6. Their banks have not been recapitalized (unlike U.S. banks) and consequently have leverage ratios three times higher than U.S. banks.
Net: This new credit line on top of their old credit lines doesn’t make sense. But, using hopium might get them a few yards down the road to an even bigger crisis. And no, the IMF (International Monetary Fund) will not bail them out either. They do not have the money and to get it, they would have to get an appropriations bill through our congress as we would be liable for about 27% of the total funds raised.
Wait. I wonder, could Bernanke just give them the money with a couple of keystrokes with out telling us?
“US stocks rise after new European budgetary pact
U.S. stock indexes rose in early trading Friday after 26 European nations agreed to consider tying their economies together more closely in hopes of preventing another debt crisis.”
Here is a reality check:
1. This agreement has to be ratified by each country before they have anything.
2. A closer fiscal union (with sanctions) means each country will have to give up its sovereignty to whom (Germany, The Central Bank, or?)
3. Based on their current financial situation, who will lend them the money at an interest rate they could afford with the Euro zone sliding into recession.
4. They need $3 trillion or more not the less than one trillion they hope to raise over the next three years.
5. Their Sovereign Credit ratings are likely to be downgraded soon by S&P resulting in even higher interest rates.
6. Their banks have not been recapitalized (unlike U.S. banks) and consequently have leverage ratios three times higher than U.S. banks.
Net: This new credit line on top of their old credit lines doesn’t make sense. But, using hopium might get them a few yards down the road to an even bigger crisis. And no, the IMF (International Monetary Fund) will not bail them out either. They do not have the money and to get it, they would have to get an appropriations bill through our congress as we would be liable for about 27% of the total funds raised.
Wait. I wonder, could Bernanke just give them the money with a couple of keystrokes with out telling us?
Friday, September 23, 2011
“Print ‘Till You Drop” Update
In Scenario One: “Print ‘Till You Drop” I estimated the market would continue to drop until monetary policy (the Federal Reserve printing money) or fiscal policy (Government spending and borrowing money) began to re-inflate the economy and consequently the markets. The timing of the turnaround would be dependent on the “pain” felt by investors and politicians. My estimate was +/- Labor Day because it takes time to implement these programs and the election cycle begins to heat up.
Also, my assumption was a new stimulus program would be initiated (and one was introduced by President Obama as a “Jobs Program” for $445 billion) and a new Quantitative Easing (QE3) program from the Federal Reserve. The political mood is against more stimuli at the moment, but the Republicans can’t resist tax cuts so I assumed about $300 or $350 billion would get through the Congress. Net/Net: we basically have two options: Re-inflate the economy and markets (print ‘till you drop) or revert to a capitalist system (small government and a privately run economy.)
Since there is little chance we will go back to a capitalist system, my assumption was that the government would be “accommodative.” This assumption appeared to be correct when the debt ceiling was raised with almost no cut in spending until 2013. Then, a month ago, Fed Chairman Bernanke extended the zero interest rate policy (ZIRP) through at least mid-2013 and a statement that the Fed would remain “accommodative.” He re-iterated that statement when he was in Minneapolis a few weeks ago.
In the meantime, it was leaked that the Fed would, at minimum, initiate a “Twist” program. This program would sell about $400 billion of short-term treasuries and buy $400 billion of long-term treasuries in order to drive down long-term interest rates and help the housing industry refinance. This program would not increase the money supply (sell 400, buy 400) so it would not help re-inflate GDP or the markets. In fact, Since QE2 ended, money supply would actually contract because he did not replace the $600 billion in new money he printed for QE2. As you know, contraction takes away from GDP and thus the markets.
By the way, by itself, “Twist” will not help the housing situation either. It will also cause the yield curve to flatten (not much difference in interest rates between two year bonds and 30 year bonds) which takes the profits out of lending.
Many thought, me included, that the Fed would “surprise” the markets with additional easing or money printing. For example, stop paying banks interest for excess reserves held at the Fed which would force the banks back into the lending business. Also, to push additional money into the financial system to cause inflation (help GDP, help the markets, reduce value of the dollar to help with exports.)
On Wednesday, the surprise was that the Fed did not agree to create more money. Evidently, we have not reached their pain threshold yet. However, within hours of the Fed announcement, European markets began to fall apart again. World GDP growth rates were reduced, including the U.S. So, the question becomes: is this enough pain or do we have to wait until the next Fed meeting in November? Or is the political will to spend more money just not there?
Also, my assumption was a new stimulus program would be initiated (and one was introduced by President Obama as a “Jobs Program” for $445 billion) and a new Quantitative Easing (QE3) program from the Federal Reserve. The political mood is against more stimuli at the moment, but the Republicans can’t resist tax cuts so I assumed about $300 or $350 billion would get through the Congress. Net/Net: we basically have two options: Re-inflate the economy and markets (print ‘till you drop) or revert to a capitalist system (small government and a privately run economy.)
Since there is little chance we will go back to a capitalist system, my assumption was that the government would be “accommodative.” This assumption appeared to be correct when the debt ceiling was raised with almost no cut in spending until 2013. Then, a month ago, Fed Chairman Bernanke extended the zero interest rate policy (ZIRP) through at least mid-2013 and a statement that the Fed would remain “accommodative.” He re-iterated that statement when he was in Minneapolis a few weeks ago.
In the meantime, it was leaked that the Fed would, at minimum, initiate a “Twist” program. This program would sell about $400 billion of short-term treasuries and buy $400 billion of long-term treasuries in order to drive down long-term interest rates and help the housing industry refinance. This program would not increase the money supply (sell 400, buy 400) so it would not help re-inflate GDP or the markets. In fact, Since QE2 ended, money supply would actually contract because he did not replace the $600 billion in new money he printed for QE2. As you know, contraction takes away from GDP and thus the markets.
By the way, by itself, “Twist” will not help the housing situation either. It will also cause the yield curve to flatten (not much difference in interest rates between two year bonds and 30 year bonds) which takes the profits out of lending.
Many thought, me included, that the Fed would “surprise” the markets with additional easing or money printing. For example, stop paying banks interest for excess reserves held at the Fed which would force the banks back into the lending business. Also, to push additional money into the financial system to cause inflation (help GDP, help the markets, reduce value of the dollar to help with exports.)
On Wednesday, the surprise was that the Fed did not agree to create more money. Evidently, we have not reached their pain threshold yet. However, within hours of the Fed announcement, European markets began to fall apart again. World GDP growth rates were reduced, including the U.S. So, the question becomes: is this enough pain or do we have to wait until the next Fed meeting in November? Or is the political will to spend more money just not there?
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
More Hopium On The Way
Our down trending economy and markets may have begun to levitate again with Chairman Bernanke’s Jackson Hole speech last week when he announced the Fed would keep interest rates at zero for two more years (that would be 4.5 years total.) I believe this is just the beginning of “QE3” (generally defined as more money printing.)
Because there is some opposition to more stimulus and money printing (including three of the Federal Reserve’s Presidents and members of Congress,) the Government and the Federal Reserve have to “justify” more spending. In other words, there has to be enough “pain” to justify more spending and interfering with the economy. I believe we will get more fiscal stimulus and more money printing because we have, over the years, turned our economy (and education, health insurance, parenting, retirement, etc. etc. over to the government) and stimulus and money printing are the only way they know how to fix things. Besides, there is an election coming soon and fixing will take time.
There are two data points coming this week that may give the government the “justification” they need. One is the ISM-Manufacturing Report on Thursday. I suspect it will be more negative than expected. The second is the jobs report on Friday. I think the consensus is for about 75,000 to 100,000 jobs. However, the data over the past month is so negative that we may see a much smaller number and even a negative number for August or September. A negative number will defiantly get attention.
These events will be followed up by President Obama’s speech on September 5th when he will tell us what his “plan” is for restoring the economy and creating jobs. I believe it will be a bigger, more expensive program than we have had to date. It will have to get through Congress, but did I mention an election is coming soon.
Also, on September 21st Chairman Bernanke will announce the decisions made by the Federal Reserve Board. If the data is bad enough, we should get QE3 almost immediately. If the data is not bad enough, we may have to wait. But we should not have to wait very long as the economy is sliding further into recession.
In summary, we may get some bad news with the ISM-Manufacturing Report and the August Jobs Report which would negatively impact the market. But, that would be immediately followed up by the President’s new stimulus plan and the Federal Reserves’ money printing plan. This hopium will levitate the market, if big enough, until +/- next Labor Day. Another short-term “fix” and a worsening long-term problem.
Because there is some opposition to more stimulus and money printing (including three of the Federal Reserve’s Presidents and members of Congress,) the Government and the Federal Reserve have to “justify” more spending. In other words, there has to be enough “pain” to justify more spending and interfering with the economy. I believe we will get more fiscal stimulus and more money printing because we have, over the years, turned our economy (and education, health insurance, parenting, retirement, etc. etc. over to the government) and stimulus and money printing are the only way they know how to fix things. Besides, there is an election coming soon and fixing will take time.
There are two data points coming this week that may give the government the “justification” they need. One is the ISM-Manufacturing Report on Thursday. I suspect it will be more negative than expected. The second is the jobs report on Friday. I think the consensus is for about 75,000 to 100,000 jobs. However, the data over the past month is so negative that we may see a much smaller number and even a negative number for August or September. A negative number will defiantly get attention.
These events will be followed up by President Obama’s speech on September 5th when he will tell us what his “plan” is for restoring the economy and creating jobs. I believe it will be a bigger, more expensive program than we have had to date. It will have to get through Congress, but did I mention an election is coming soon.
Also, on September 21st Chairman Bernanke will announce the decisions made by the Federal Reserve Board. If the data is bad enough, we should get QE3 almost immediately. If the data is not bad enough, we may have to wait. But we should not have to wait very long as the economy is sliding further into recession.
In summary, we may get some bad news with the ISM-Manufacturing Report and the August Jobs Report which would negatively impact the market. But, that would be immediately followed up by the President’s new stimulus plan and the Federal Reserves’ money printing plan. This hopium will levitate the market, if big enough, until +/- next Labor Day. Another short-term “fix” and a worsening long-term problem.
Friday, August 12, 2011
Are You Ready For Labor Day?
A lot has happened over the past week or so. I just want to cover the Federal Reserve meeting today. Fed Chairman Bernanke stated after the meeting that we are basically in a recession (my interpretation) that will last for some time; and that he will hold interest rates down until at least mid-2013. This is the normal Keynesian and Keynesian-Lite reaction to a “consumer spending gap” (a reduction in consumer spending.). Fiscal and monetary policy has been doing this (low rates and printing money) for several years now and it is not working very well.
We know that increasing the money supply increases the GDP, but maybe low interest rates and printing money are not our problem and in fact, may be prolonging our problem. However, I think the Fed believes we are still stuck in a “liquidity trap” (over simplified: I (individual, bank, company) have some money and I could borrow more, but I don’t want to spend it or buy on time or invest it because I don’t know what the future holds and if I will be able to pay it back in this uncertain economy.)
The Fed believes, to get out of this liquidity trap, they need to continue to keep rates low and flood the economy with new money which will encourage people to spend and invest. Many think this might be difficult to do now considering the recent debt debate. But this is all the Fed and the government know how to do. They can’t create jobs or fix the housing foreclosure problem or expand free trade agreements, etc. Besides, that’s what a lot of people (like Paul Krugman, et. al.) are demanding. They want the government to do something”.
Now we have a second quarter revision to GDP on August 26th. I think GDP will be revised down from 1.3% to under 1% and maybe down to as little as 0.5%. Since we are obsessed with GDP that is a problem. Two quarters under 1% growth when we need 3% growth to effect jobs growth and unemployment.
Then we have another Fed meeting on August 29th. I expect Chairman Bernanke to announce that additional help (accommodation) will be coming soon. Then throw in the fact t that Congress gets back to “work” after Labor Day and the Presidential Election season is underway.
Therefore, my assumption of Scenario One (Print Until You Drop) is that the economy may not turn up but GDP (the arithmetic model we call the economy) will turn up on new fiscal and monetary initiatives. This will then “lead” the market higher.
There are a lot of implications to this scenario on the upside and the downside for both equities and income securities. Start now to position yourself for what is coming.
We know that increasing the money supply increases the GDP, but maybe low interest rates and printing money are not our problem and in fact, may be prolonging our problem. However, I think the Fed believes we are still stuck in a “liquidity trap” (over simplified: I (individual, bank, company) have some money and I could borrow more, but I don’t want to spend it or buy on time or invest it because I don’t know what the future holds and if I will be able to pay it back in this uncertain economy.)
The Fed believes, to get out of this liquidity trap, they need to continue to keep rates low and flood the economy with new money which will encourage people to spend and invest. Many think this might be difficult to do now considering the recent debt debate. But this is all the Fed and the government know how to do. They can’t create jobs or fix the housing foreclosure problem or expand free trade agreements, etc. Besides, that’s what a lot of people (like Paul Krugman, et. al.) are demanding. They want the government to do something”.
Now we have a second quarter revision to GDP on August 26th. I think GDP will be revised down from 1.3% to under 1% and maybe down to as little as 0.5%. Since we are obsessed with GDP that is a problem. Two quarters under 1% growth when we need 3% growth to effect jobs growth and unemployment.
Then we have another Fed meeting on August 29th. I expect Chairman Bernanke to announce that additional help (accommodation) will be coming soon. Then throw in the fact t that Congress gets back to “work” after Labor Day and the Presidential Election season is underway.
Therefore, my assumption of Scenario One (Print Until You Drop) is that the economy may not turn up but GDP (the arithmetic model we call the economy) will turn up on new fiscal and monetary initiatives. This will then “lead” the market higher.
There are a lot of implications to this scenario on the upside and the downside for both equities and income securities. Start now to position yourself for what is coming.
Monday, July 18, 2011
Moody's Has It Absolutely Wrong
July 18, 2011
There will be a market reaction to passing or not passing the debt limit. But it is time to start thinking about this problem as adults rather than as political party advocates. Moody’s comments the past few days are a prime example.
Moody’s, the credit agency has stated they are likely to downgrade America’s AAA credit rating if the debt limit is not raised.
Today, Moody’s stated that America should get rid of the debt limit ceiling altogether because it gives them a reason to downgrade our credit rating. This is not only illogical; it’s symptomatic of the way politicians, economists and pundits think. They almost always attack the symptom rather than the cause.
What Moody’s should be saying is that the Congress needs to pass a law that forces politicians to reduce the debit ceiling by some percent every year until our budget is balanced. Our problem is not the current debt ceiling. Our problem is that our budget is not balanced and on an unsustainable path upward.
There are two major reasons we spend too much.
One, the party out of office attacks the party in office for spending too much and the party in power defends the spending. When election results change, so do the positions of the parties. Congress has raised the debt ceiling 140 times since it was enacted in 1917.
By the way, the debt ceiling was created by President Wilson in order to pacify the opposition that he would not spend too much on WWI.
Two, we refuse to debate the cause of our problems. We only debate the amount of money we will spend on the symptom. For example:
1.Why does America with 5% of the world’s population spend about as much as the rest of the world does on defense? Is America responsible for most of the world? If it’s to protect democracy, why doesn’t Switzerland spend more?
2.Why hasn’t poverty been eliminated after trillions have been spent on the poor? Is poverty simply a percent of the population? Are the government and the population an enabler? Is our education system failing us? Etc. etc.
3.Why do we worry about the consumer price index (CPI)? It is only a symptom. Inflation is not a manipulated, mathematical index; it’s the increase in money supply. Should we be increasing the money supply?
I could give you a thousand examples but I think you got the idea. We need to change the way we think. Once we identify the real cause of the problem, we should be able to get consensus on how much to spend solving the problem.
By the way, America has defaulted on our debt five times starting in 1776. Also, the Federal Reserve can buy bonds to fund the government forever and never have to default on the “Public” debt (public debt is what we are talking about.)
There will be a market reaction to passing or not passing the debt limit. But it is time to start thinking about this problem as adults rather than as political party advocates. Moody’s comments the past few days are a prime example.
Moody’s, the credit agency has stated they are likely to downgrade America’s AAA credit rating if the debt limit is not raised.
Today, Moody’s stated that America should get rid of the debt limit ceiling altogether because it gives them a reason to downgrade our credit rating. This is not only illogical; it’s symptomatic of the way politicians, economists and pundits think. They almost always attack the symptom rather than the cause.
What Moody’s should be saying is that the Congress needs to pass a law that forces politicians to reduce the debit ceiling by some percent every year until our budget is balanced. Our problem is not the current debt ceiling. Our problem is that our budget is not balanced and on an unsustainable path upward.
There are two major reasons we spend too much.
One, the party out of office attacks the party in office for spending too much and the party in power defends the spending. When election results change, so do the positions of the parties. Congress has raised the debt ceiling 140 times since it was enacted in 1917.
By the way, the debt ceiling was created by President Wilson in order to pacify the opposition that he would not spend too much on WWI.
Two, we refuse to debate the cause of our problems. We only debate the amount of money we will spend on the symptom. For example:
1.Why does America with 5% of the world’s population spend about as much as the rest of the world does on defense? Is America responsible for most of the world? If it’s to protect democracy, why doesn’t Switzerland spend more?
2.Why hasn’t poverty been eliminated after trillions have been spent on the poor? Is poverty simply a percent of the population? Are the government and the population an enabler? Is our education system failing us? Etc. etc.
3.Why do we worry about the consumer price index (CPI)? It is only a symptom. Inflation is not a manipulated, mathematical index; it’s the increase in money supply. Should we be increasing the money supply?
I could give you a thousand examples but I think you got the idea. We need to change the way we think. Once we identify the real cause of the problem, we should be able to get consensus on how much to spend solving the problem.
By the way, America has defaulted on our debt five times starting in 1776. Also, the Federal Reserve can buy bonds to fund the government forever and never have to default on the “Public” debt (public debt is what we are talking about.)
Update on Scenario One
July 8, 2011
Scenario One still remains the most probable of my four scenarios. However, if the government or the Central Bank deviates from the “expected” course (from a capitalist point of view) other scenarios might become more probable.
Also, here are some assumptions to consider:
1. The following chart uses the S&P500 index to illustrate this scenario because it is easy to visualize.
2. My assumption is that money supply drives the economy or GDP (and there is a lag time involved here.) Increasing GDP drives business revenues and profits which then drive stock prices.
3. Money supply will slow up beginning in June but will expand when re-election fears really kick in and new “government help” adds stimulus (money creation weather it’s spending or tax reductions unless paid for) to drive up GDP in time to help with re-elections.
4. Serious spending cuts will be postponed until after the election.
Following is a brief description of each point on the chart.
Point 1. Housing bubble bursts and banks become insolvent. The government decides to save the banks by using taxpayer money to “keep them solvent” rather than demanding that the banks try to convert their bonds into equity. Recession is underway.
Point 2. March 2010. The massive increase in money supply which artificially and temporarily increases GDP begins, but results in malinvestments or bubbles. For example:
a. Interest rates reduced to zero and held there
b. Stimulus Programs begin (over $800 billion in stimulus spending and unpaid for tax cuts) plus $1.5 trillion in deficit spending,
c. Mark-to –Market accounting rules revised (allowing banks to increase the ”value” of their mortgage bonds to boost their equity and reserve requirements,
d. Central Bank buys “toxic bonds” from the banks (QE1) increasing ”excess reserves” at banks to $1.1 trillion from $4 billion,
e. November 2010, QE2 begins ($600 billion more pumped into banks but most of it ends up in foreign banks)
f. Money supply increases at double digit rates for 28 of last 29 months (see assumption 2 above.)
Point 3. May 2011. There is a “short-term” stock market top and correction due to anticipated contraction of the pace of money supply and other headwinds including slowing global growth and debt problems. For example:
a. Stimulus ending in June
b. QE2 ending in June (a and b both will contract money supply which will reduce GDP)
c. Debt ceiling “argument” (raise limit by $2-3 trillion and get more fiscal stimulus or austerity) deadline by August 2
d. Reductions in U.S. GDP (Central Bank reduces growth rate in June) and Global GDP rates
e. Increasing inflation rates (headline and core)
f. Housing still a big problem
g. Unemployment slowly getting worse
h. Earnings (Qr 2) in July should be at or near expectations but analysts are already cutting earnings for second half of 2011. It will be a negative for the markets if companies do not confirm current growth rates for second half.
Economy and markets will become more volatile and trend lower until the government “solves” the problems with more money creation, which is what I expect. Or some kind of austerity program including reduced spending is put in place, which I do not expect. However, if austerity happens, my Scenario Two (continued decrease in economy and markets) would come into play.
Point 4. Labor Day or possibly sooner (for example by the August debt ceiling limit) depending on our central planners (government and the Central Bank) the money supply will again increase raising GDP (with a lag) and then revenues, profits and markets. This up turn will last longer (with corrections along the way.)
a. My guess, debt limit increased with promise to cut spending starting in 2013 (after next elections)
b. As economy drifts lower, the pressure will be on government to “do something.” Therefore, I expect a new stimulus program (significant tax cuts because Republicans will have to vote for them and Democrats will get their stimulus because we will borrow the money displaced by the tax cuts)
c. New QE3 program (large) so central bank can continue to buy bonds and keep interest rates low (for housing, employment, etc.) This may be called something else so it can be framed differently for public consumption.
d. Timing of new stimulus for 2012 elections will become important to allow for lag time and momentum prior to elections.
Point 5. Top of Bubble (Sept-Dec 2012 +/-) caused by the huge increase in money supply added over the years and the malinvestments that have occurred as a result of this increased money supply. This bust will cause a very deep recession illustrated by the S&P500 going back down to 600-650 area.
Point 6.January 2015. Long period of stagflation with low, real GDP growth rates of 1-2% and high interest rates due to inflation.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Update On Scenario One
This remains the most probable scenario at this time (of my four total scenarios.) However, other scenarios are possible depending on what the government and central banks do (more money creation or money contraction) and what banks do (possible trillions in credit to consumers which is money creation) and how individuals react (credit defaults, savings, leverage, etc.)
1. March 2010 (massive increases in money supply which artificially and temporarily increases GDP but results in malinvestments or bubbles)
a. Interest rate reduction
b. Stimulus Programs
c. Mark-to –Market rules revised (allowing banks to increase value of mortgage bonds)
d. Central Bank buys “toxic bonds” from banks (QE1) increasing ”excess reserves” at banks to $1.1 trillion from $4 billion.
e. November 2010, QE2 begins ($600 billion more pumped into banks but most of it goes into European banks)
f. Money supply increases at double digit rates for 28 of last 29 months
2. May 2011
a. Stimulus ending in June
b. QE2 ending in June (both a and b will contract money supply which will reduce GDP)
c. Debt ceiling “argument” (raise limit by $2-3 trillion or austerity) deadline by August 2
3. Labor Day (+/-) or possibly sooner depending on our central planners (government and the Central Bank
a. My guess, debt limit increased with promise to cut spending starting in 2013 (after next elections) Raising the debt limit is priced into the markets now.
b. As economy drifts lower, pressure for government to “do something.” Therefore, I expect a new stimulus program (significant tax cuts because Republicans will have to vote for them and Democrats will get their stimulus because we will borrow the money displaced by the tax cuts)
c.New QE3 program (large) so central bank can continue to buy bonds and keep interest rates low (for housing, employment, etc.) This may be called something else so it can be framed differently for public consumption.
d.Timing of new stimulus for 2012 elections will become important to allow for lag time and momentum prior to elections.
4. Top of Bubble (then significant recession)
5. S&P500 down to about 650-600
Thursday, March 31, 2011
We’ll Keep Printing, Will They Keep Buying?
I have been concerned about all the money being pumped into the economy and the inevitable inflation that will result. However, the symptoms of inflation (Consumer Price Indexes or CPI) have been mild (by model definition) or perhaps even disappointing to Fed Chairman Bernanke. He wants to re-inflation the economy to help turn around housing and employment/wages. Why he wants to prolong this recession by preventing prices to reach equilibrium is an open question.
We do know is that all of this money is holding up or levitating GDP. And we know that to keep GDP going, we need to keep printing money. We can do it because we are a sovereign country and can print as much money as we want (not without consequences however.) We are currently borrowing 43 cents out of every deficit dollar we spend. The problem is that the Federal Reserve is buying about 40 percent of these dollars followed by China and Japan. Will these buyers continue to buy our Treasuries?
I am not sure. One reason is that the Federal Reserve’s Quantitative Easing (QE2) policy of buying $600 billion in bonds will end in June. Who is going to pick up that 40 percent in July? I have been saying that the Fed will probably initiate QE3 because they have to keep it going. The next election is not that far off.
What does appear more certain is that we will keep spending and printing. The rumor yesterday was that Congress has reached a compromise to cut $33 billion (less than 1%) of the budget. If they (both parties) can’t cut even 1%, how are they ever going to extricate themselves from micro-managing our mixed (or Statist) economy.
We do know is that all of this money is holding up or levitating GDP. And we know that to keep GDP going, we need to keep printing money. We can do it because we are a sovereign country and can print as much money as we want (not without consequences however.) We are currently borrowing 43 cents out of every deficit dollar we spend. The problem is that the Federal Reserve is buying about 40 percent of these dollars followed by China and Japan. Will these buyers continue to buy our Treasuries?
I am not sure. One reason is that the Federal Reserve’s Quantitative Easing (QE2) policy of buying $600 billion in bonds will end in June. Who is going to pick up that 40 percent in July? I have been saying that the Fed will probably initiate QE3 because they have to keep it going. The next election is not that far off.
What does appear more certain is that we will keep spending and printing. The rumor yesterday was that Congress has reached a compromise to cut $33 billion (less than 1%) of the budget. If they (both parties) can’t cut even 1%, how are they ever going to extricate themselves from micro-managing our mixed (or Statist) economy.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Will The Government Continue To Pump Money Into The Economy?
I spent most of last week in Auburn, Alabama at the Austrian Scholars Conference where I listened to 40 presentations on various aspects of the economy from Austrian (or Capitalist) economists. It was excellent. I thought I would share one of my "take home" ideas on government spending (fiscal and monetary).
I think the government will continue to pump money into the economy (financial system) to keep it afloat. Most of the "growth" in GDP growth is from the government and the amount of GDP growth per dollar spent is declining. I am assuming that if the economy were really turning around based on private investment and spending, the government would stop injecting borrowed money into the system.
There is a lot of talk about the election of "Tea Party" legislators and their willingness to reduce spending and begin to get government budget under control. I don't think that will happen. The Republicans are proposing a $60 billion reduction in spending (1.6%) and the Democrats have countered with $6 billion in cuts.
Neither amount is significant and the focus is on cutting a few dollars out of the budget. However, the focus should be on the cause of overspending not just the symptoms of it. Why are we overspending? Why are we willing to borrow 43 cents of every dollar we spend? For what purpose? For whose benefit?
For example: Why are we spending $800 billion a year on "defense" which is 50% of what the world spends on defense? Why have we politicized science: one administration spends billions on programs to get us to Mars (Bush) and the next administration (Obama) shuts down those programs (wasting that money, education, etc.) and then redirects billions on satellites to monitor global warming instead? Why do we have a government (both administrations) that spends hundreds of billions to bail out banks with taxpayer money when these banks could have saved themselves? These are the kinds of questions we need answered before we are going to get serious about priorities and cost reductions.
Therefore, I expect to see one or more of the following: Quantitative Easing III (the Fed printing more money) and or the Fed keeping interest rates low for a much longer time (well into 2012) and/or more "stimulus" programs (we haven't solved our problems yet.) This of course has implications for both business and investment planning.
I think the government will continue to pump money into the economy (financial system) to keep it afloat. Most of the "growth" in GDP growth is from the government and the amount of GDP growth per dollar spent is declining. I am assuming that if the economy were really turning around based on private investment and spending, the government would stop injecting borrowed money into the system.
There is a lot of talk about the election of "Tea Party" legislators and their willingness to reduce spending and begin to get government budget under control. I don't think that will happen. The Republicans are proposing a $60 billion reduction in spending (1.6%) and the Democrats have countered with $6 billion in cuts.
Neither amount is significant and the focus is on cutting a few dollars out of the budget. However, the focus should be on the cause of overspending not just the symptoms of it. Why are we overspending? Why are we willing to borrow 43 cents of every dollar we spend? For what purpose? For whose benefit?
For example: Why are we spending $800 billion a year on "defense" which is 50% of what the world spends on defense? Why have we politicized science: one administration spends billions on programs to get us to Mars (Bush) and the next administration (Obama) shuts down those programs (wasting that money, education, etc.) and then redirects billions on satellites to monitor global warming instead? Why do we have a government (both administrations) that spends hundreds of billions to bail out banks with taxpayer money when these banks could have saved themselves? These are the kinds of questions we need answered before we are going to get serious about priorities and cost reductions.
Therefore, I expect to see one or more of the following: Quantitative Easing III (the Fed printing more money) and or the Fed keeping interest rates low for a much longer time (well into 2012) and/or more "stimulus" programs (we haven't solved our problems yet.) This of course has implications for both business and investment planning.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
What's Next For The Market?
Technically, the market is at an inflection point. According to the Dow Theorists, if the Dow breaks 11,823.7 if would signal a correction and even put the market into another bear market. While technical analysis can be correct sometimes, it can also be incorrect sometimes. If it always worked, you could buy the right algorithm, kick back and relax. But, on the other hand, many traders follow the Dow Theory and that alone could move the market for a while.
We do know that the markets are levitated due to government spending and require additional government spending to keep going. So far, talking about cutting government spending is just talk; nothing significant has actually happened. I suspect cuts, if any, will be minor (less than the $1.5 trillion needed to get us a balanced budget.) Therefore, for the moment, I assume overspending and quantitative easing will continue, maybe for years.
also, Fed Chairman Bernanke has the stock market targeted as one of him main objectives. He wants the market to go higher so “animal spirits or greed” will kick in and take over so “real” consumer spending can take place. Therefore, If the market should sell off to 10,000 +/- (about a 15% drop), I think the government will intervene with both stimulus and more quantitative easing (printing money.) After all, it’s only 19 months to the next election…and voter pain will not be tolerated.
We do know that the markets are levitated due to government spending and require additional government spending to keep going. So far, talking about cutting government spending is just talk; nothing significant has actually happened. I suspect cuts, if any, will be minor (less than the $1.5 trillion needed to get us a balanced budget.) Therefore, for the moment, I assume overspending and quantitative easing will continue, maybe for years.
also, Fed Chairman Bernanke has the stock market targeted as one of him main objectives. He wants the market to go higher so “animal spirits or greed” will kick in and take over so “real” consumer spending can take place. Therefore, If the market should sell off to 10,000 +/- (about a 15% drop), I think the government will intervene with both stimulus and more quantitative easing (printing money.) After all, it’s only 19 months to the next election…and voter pain will not be tolerated.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Of Course There Is Inflation. Why Haven’t We Seen It?
Every month we get an inflation report. We know gas prices have almost doubled in the past two years and food prices have risen significantly, but according to Fed Chairman Bernanke, we are not seeing any significant inflation. What gives? Why is the government reporting such low inflation numbers?
One reason is the way inflation numbers are reported and the way information is played out in the media. For example, inflation for January was +0.4% and +1.6% year-over-year. First of all, it was just “slightly” higher than expected. OK, it doesn’t sound that bad I guess. But what if it would be reported that + 0.4% annualized is +4.8%. Or that over the past year, inflation has risen steadily from a year ago. Or that inflation has risen 26.5 % since 2000 or 164.1% since 1980. In other words, there is not much context to the report and therefore, it is minimized.
Another reason is that the media is obsessed with speed rather than content so rather than a discussion about inflation or its content, they will simply move on to new information tomorrow. Besides, they think everyone is bored any way once they have heard the number.
Another reason is the way inflation moves through the economy. In the early stages of inflation, it generally rises slowly because the numbers are small in the beginning and people do not think that inflation is here to stay so why worry. If it persists, people begin to change their minds. Once they think inflation is here and growing, people begin to react and it begins to rise more rapidly. Since it’s a compounded percent, the longer it goes, the faster it rises.
We have an unusual situation also, The money supply has been increased dramatically (the cause of inflation) but many people including many economists and the Federal Reserve have been or are worried about deflation (definition is money supply contracting) because of lower sales, lower prices in some cases and consumers not spending as they did in 2007. Never mind that consumers haven’t de-leveraged themselves yet from historic levels in 2007.)
Also, the huge increase in money supply has gone to the banks for the most part. They do not need borrowers to make money. They have been putting the money into assets (bonds, stocks, etc.) and investing overseas. We do not count a rising stock market or heavy buying of bonds (which drives interest rates down) as inflation. Yet that is what is happening. So it appears that we are creating an asset bubble at this time, just different than the tech bubble or housing bubble.
We are also exporting much of our inflation to the Chinese: exchanging our higher cost of production for their low cost imports.
One last reason is the huge Federal debt. Imagine what “investments” could be made by the private sector if we didn’t have to pay hundreds of billions of dollars in interest to foreign countries.
That’s some of the reasons we are not “seeing” inflation. We are not looking for it. But it is here and it will be rising throughout the year.
One reason is the way inflation numbers are reported and the way information is played out in the media. For example, inflation for January was +0.4% and +1.6% year-over-year. First of all, it was just “slightly” higher than expected. OK, it doesn’t sound that bad I guess. But what if it would be reported that + 0.4% annualized is +4.8%. Or that over the past year, inflation has risen steadily from a year ago. Or that inflation has risen 26.5 % since 2000 or 164.1% since 1980. In other words, there is not much context to the report and therefore, it is minimized.
Another reason is that the media is obsessed with speed rather than content so rather than a discussion about inflation or its content, they will simply move on to new information tomorrow. Besides, they think everyone is bored any way once they have heard the number.
Another reason is the way inflation moves through the economy. In the early stages of inflation, it generally rises slowly because the numbers are small in the beginning and people do not think that inflation is here to stay so why worry. If it persists, people begin to change their minds. Once they think inflation is here and growing, people begin to react and it begins to rise more rapidly. Since it’s a compounded percent, the longer it goes, the faster it rises.
We have an unusual situation also, The money supply has been increased dramatically (the cause of inflation) but many people including many economists and the Federal Reserve have been or are worried about deflation (definition is money supply contracting) because of lower sales, lower prices in some cases and consumers not spending as they did in 2007. Never mind that consumers haven’t de-leveraged themselves yet from historic levels in 2007.)
Also, the huge increase in money supply has gone to the banks for the most part. They do not need borrowers to make money. They have been putting the money into assets (bonds, stocks, etc.) and investing overseas. We do not count a rising stock market or heavy buying of bonds (which drives interest rates down) as inflation. Yet that is what is happening. So it appears that we are creating an asset bubble at this time, just different than the tech bubble or housing bubble.
We are also exporting much of our inflation to the Chinese: exchanging our higher cost of production for their low cost imports.
One last reason is the huge Federal debt. Imagine what “investments” could be made by the private sector if we didn’t have to pay hundreds of billions of dollars in interest to foreign countries.
That’s some of the reasons we are not “seeing” inflation. We are not looking for it. But it is here and it will be rising throughout the year.
Friday, February 4, 2011
Why Would the Market Shrug Off a Bad Jobs Report?
One reason could be statistics. There was an alarming plunge in the number of people in the labor market. People drop out for many reasons including going back to school, retired, have given up looking for a job, etc. So, in spite of only creating a net of 35,000 jobs last month, the unemployment rate dropped from 9.4 percent to 9.0 percent. That number sure sounds better.
Another reason might be conflicting surveys. The 35,000 jobs created is from the Payroll Survey which is a survey sent to businesses. This survey is where the government gets the number of jobs created which is reported each month. By the way, the margin of error here is 100,000 jobs. The other survey is the household survey which is a telephone survey. This survey is used to determine the percent of people employed/unemployed. This survey showed a jump in employment of 598,000 jobs which measured against a reduced labor force number resulted in a reduction in unemployment to 9.0 percent.
There are a lot of other statistics that could be analyzed, but the most compelling for me is the amount of new money being pumped into the economy by the Federal Reserve: over $100 billion per month and yet GDP is only rising (or “growing”) by about $40 billion per month. Where this money is going will be the subject of another post. But, this money is levitating the economy and Mr. Bernanke said in testimony last week that until the jobs situation turns around (not sure of his definition but it’s not 35,000 jobs per month) the Fed is going to continue to pump money into the economy. If so, GDP rises which filters into the capital markets. So, what’s a bad number or two?
Another reason might be conflicting surveys. The 35,000 jobs created is from the Payroll Survey which is a survey sent to businesses. This survey is where the government gets the number of jobs created which is reported each month. By the way, the margin of error here is 100,000 jobs. The other survey is the household survey which is a telephone survey. This survey is used to determine the percent of people employed/unemployed. This survey showed a jump in employment of 598,000 jobs which measured against a reduced labor force number resulted in a reduction in unemployment to 9.0 percent.
There are a lot of other statistics that could be analyzed, but the most compelling for me is the amount of new money being pumped into the economy by the Federal Reserve: over $100 billion per month and yet GDP is only rising (or “growing”) by about $40 billion per month. Where this money is going will be the subject of another post. But, this money is levitating the economy and Mr. Bernanke said in testimony last week that until the jobs situation turns around (not sure of his definition but it’s not 35,000 jobs per month) the Fed is going to continue to pump money into the economy. If so, GDP rises which filters into the capital markets. So, what’s a bad number or two?
Monday, August 30, 2010
Bernanke Said What?
Since the housing market peaked and the financial crisis began, the government has spent:
$3.6 trillion (net after some repayments) on various stimulus programs,
$16.3 trillion in government guarantees to various financial institutions; plus
$7.2 trillion in federal government spending (the budget) trying to hold up the economy.
That’s a lot of money for a $14 trillion dollar economy. Yet the net result so far is an economy barely growing at 1.6 %, unemployment at 9.5% (or 17% depending on how you count unemployment,) a very troubled housing problem (inventories last month were at 12.5 months supply) and a financial system that can’t afford to lend (for fear of future defaults and/or the risk-free money they are getting because of Fed policy.) And this is only a few of our problems.
Now, last Thursday at the Jackson Hole Conference (isn’t that more expensive than Las Vegas,) we were told by Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke that he has changed his mind and the economy may be showing down even more than he thought. Also, that the economy can not even handle the Fed keeping the interest and early payoff money the Fed is receiving from the bonds it purchased. That he is going to spend that money as fast has he receives it rather than shrink the Fed’s balance sheet. What a confidence builder. Plus, and this a big one, that the Fed is ready to print more money, in addition to what they have already done, to keep the economy going.
We have been debating how the Fed is gong to reduce its balance sheet. Now we learn that even the simplest reduction seems impossible. So get ready for Quantitative Easing, round 2.
As you know, critical thinkers have to look at all sides of the argument. Here is a summary of their analysis and proposals.
The Keynesians, economists like Paul Krugmanand and James Galbraith, want the government to significantly spend more money because we didn’t spend enough to begin with. They say the economy is not recovering at all. Federal Reserve policy has been “grossly inadequate”. The Fed should increase its balance sheet from $2 trillion to $4 or $6 trillion (would this cause a printing company bubble?) Most economists are Keynesians and they are putting a lot of pressure on Congress and the Federal Reserve to stimulate more and print more money. They, as always, are concerned only about the short-term.
The Keynesian-lite or Supply-side economists like Brian Wesbury or Larry Kudlow want additional tax cuts and more incentives for businesses to expand and hire employees. They say the economy is recovering, but very slowly. I am not sure they still believe in the V shaped recovery. They also claim that uncertainty, especially in tax policy, healthcare policy and undefined new financial regulations are some of the reasons the economy is not growing faster. They also believe tax cuts and incentives will result in more production which will keep inflation low. But, since a tax cut without an offsetting spending reduction is a stimulus, it would mean more borrowing, more quantitative easing. They too are only concerned about the short-term.
The Capitalists like Peter Schiff, Mark Faber and other Austrian economists want the government to get out of the way and let the economy heal itself. Sooner or later, we have to get to price equilibrium (in housing, wages, interest rates, etc.) They say the government has already spent far too much money. They believe that the free market, if left alone, will self-correct. That is how we get to the bottom. That is a recovery, getting rid of the excesses. All this government intervention is doing is delaying the recovery and laying a base for the next boom or bubble. The mal-investments caused by artificially low interest rates and the excessive expansion of money not only delays recovery but cause the next boom. For example, what is going to happen to wind power when the stimulus goes away? Or what’s going to happen to bond prices when inflation (caused by inflating the money supply) begins to rise rapidly?
We all see the economy through different lenses, but I am sure you will agree that most Americans think spending and then printing the money are out of control. Short-term and long-term. We may not be able to go from over indulgence to austerity in one step, but we sure need a plan and we sure need to get started.
$3.6 trillion (net after some repayments) on various stimulus programs,
$16.3 trillion in government guarantees to various financial institutions; plus
$7.2 trillion in federal government spending (the budget) trying to hold up the economy.
That’s a lot of money for a $14 trillion dollar economy. Yet the net result so far is an economy barely growing at 1.6 %, unemployment at 9.5% (or 17% depending on how you count unemployment,) a very troubled housing problem (inventories last month were at 12.5 months supply) and a financial system that can’t afford to lend (for fear of future defaults and/or the risk-free money they are getting because of Fed policy.) And this is only a few of our problems.
Now, last Thursday at the Jackson Hole Conference (isn’t that more expensive than Las Vegas,) we were told by Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke that he has changed his mind and the economy may be showing down even more than he thought. Also, that the economy can not even handle the Fed keeping the interest and early payoff money the Fed is receiving from the bonds it purchased. That he is going to spend that money as fast has he receives it rather than shrink the Fed’s balance sheet. What a confidence builder. Plus, and this a big one, that the Fed is ready to print more money, in addition to what they have already done, to keep the economy going.
We have been debating how the Fed is gong to reduce its balance sheet. Now we learn that even the simplest reduction seems impossible. So get ready for Quantitative Easing, round 2.
As you know, critical thinkers have to look at all sides of the argument. Here is a summary of their analysis and proposals.
The Keynesians, economists like Paul Krugmanand and James Galbraith, want the government to significantly spend more money because we didn’t spend enough to begin with. They say the economy is not recovering at all. Federal Reserve policy has been “grossly inadequate”. The Fed should increase its balance sheet from $2 trillion to $4 or $6 trillion (would this cause a printing company bubble?) Most economists are Keynesians and they are putting a lot of pressure on Congress and the Federal Reserve to stimulate more and print more money. They, as always, are concerned only about the short-term.
The Keynesian-lite or Supply-side economists like Brian Wesbury or Larry Kudlow want additional tax cuts and more incentives for businesses to expand and hire employees. They say the economy is recovering, but very slowly. I am not sure they still believe in the V shaped recovery. They also claim that uncertainty, especially in tax policy, healthcare policy and undefined new financial regulations are some of the reasons the economy is not growing faster. They also believe tax cuts and incentives will result in more production which will keep inflation low. But, since a tax cut without an offsetting spending reduction is a stimulus, it would mean more borrowing, more quantitative easing. They too are only concerned about the short-term.
The Capitalists like Peter Schiff, Mark Faber and other Austrian economists want the government to get out of the way and let the economy heal itself. Sooner or later, we have to get to price equilibrium (in housing, wages, interest rates, etc.) They say the government has already spent far too much money. They believe that the free market, if left alone, will self-correct. That is how we get to the bottom. That is a recovery, getting rid of the excesses. All this government intervention is doing is delaying the recovery and laying a base for the next boom or bubble. The mal-investments caused by artificially low interest rates and the excessive expansion of money not only delays recovery but cause the next boom. For example, what is going to happen to wind power when the stimulus goes away? Or what’s going to happen to bond prices when inflation (caused by inflating the money supply) begins to rise rapidly?
We all see the economy through different lenses, but I am sure you will agree that most Americans think spending and then printing the money are out of control. Short-term and long-term. We may not be able to go from over indulgence to austerity in one step, but we sure need a plan and we sure need to get started.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
If Bernanke continues to punish savers, should you change your strategy?
If Fed Chairman Bernanke continues to punish savers by holding (“for an extended period”) interest rates at extremely low levels, should you increase your risk and buy higher yielding bonds and preferred stocks? His actions seem to indicate that is what he wants you to do.
Before doing this simply by increasing risk (lower rated bonds) or extending maturities (going from short-term to long-term bonds), you should consider approaching the income portion of your portfolio with a strategy hedge funds use to reduce some of this risk. Think about both principal risk (return of principal) and market risk (volatility of your principal.)
You know that selecting strong companies or government bonds (with taxing authority) that have the financial ability to pay the principal (at maturity) plus every interest/dividend payment should reduce your principal risk.
But there are ways you can also reduce your market risk. Start by asking, “What could cause my principal value to decline during my holding period?” One big reason is inflation or an increase in interest rates.
Therefore, to hedge or minimize market risk (principal volatility), you would want to purchase a security that moves in the opposite direction of the security you purchased for income. When one security goes up in value, the other goes down. This should leave your principal “flat” while you collect the higher interest rate.
Stocks too, may require a different strategy
A protracted slow growth period for the economy will have its effect on stocks as well. It may be very difficult to increase revenues, maintain margins and earnings, etc.; so you may want to consider stocks that are not dependent on the economy for growth.
Look at companies that have a product or service whose success depends on the growth and acceptance of their product rather than on the success (general growth) of the economy. It helps if they are not limited to the U.S. economy only, but are able to sell worldwide. Also, in this environment, it might help if they do not need to raise money for the next few years.
Before doing this simply by increasing risk (lower rated bonds) or extending maturities (going from short-term to long-term bonds), you should consider approaching the income portion of your portfolio with a strategy hedge funds use to reduce some of this risk. Think about both principal risk (return of principal) and market risk (volatility of your principal.)
You know that selecting strong companies or government bonds (with taxing authority) that have the financial ability to pay the principal (at maturity) plus every interest/dividend payment should reduce your principal risk.
But there are ways you can also reduce your market risk. Start by asking, “What could cause my principal value to decline during my holding period?” One big reason is inflation or an increase in interest rates.
Therefore, to hedge or minimize market risk (principal volatility), you would want to purchase a security that moves in the opposite direction of the security you purchased for income. When one security goes up in value, the other goes down. This should leave your principal “flat” while you collect the higher interest rate.
Stocks too, may require a different strategy
A protracted slow growth period for the economy will have its effect on stocks as well. It may be very difficult to increase revenues, maintain margins and earnings, etc.; so you may want to consider stocks that are not dependent on the economy for growth.
Look at companies that have a product or service whose success depends on the growth and acceptance of their product rather than on the success (general growth) of the economy. It helps if they are not limited to the U.S. economy only, but are able to sell worldwide. Also, in this environment, it might help if they do not need to raise money for the next few years.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Chairman Bernanke Effectively Downgrades the Economy
Media coverage of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting on Wednesday basically stated that little had changed from the April 28th meeting: interest rates remain at basically zero percent and will remain so for some time, the economy was in recovery, etc. However, there were some serious changes made to Mr. Bernanke’s statement that implied things were deteriorating rather getting better.
Most media coverage focused on what did not change in Bernanke’s statement: they left rates at zero, for an extended period, subdued inflation trends and expectations, continued low rate of plant utilization, unemployment continues to be a concern, etc.
But, here are some significant changes in attitude and content that, I think, effectively downgrades the growth rate for the U.S. economy. For example:
1.Attitude. Less talk about short-term tightening and the timing and plans to do so,
2.Economy. In the previous statement (April), Bernanke stated, “Economic activity has continued to strengthen.” In this June statement, he stated, “The economy continues to recover.” (this is far different from continues to strengthen and I think a downgrade on growth rates)
3.Employment. In April, “Labor markets beginning to improve.” In June, “Jobs are being created, gradually.” (Again, I think a less robust outlook.)
4.Financial System. In April, “Financial market conditions remain supportive of economic growth.” In June, “Financial conditions have become less supportive of economic growth...”
5.Housing. In April, “Housing starts have edged up but remain at d depressed level.” In June, he left out “have edged up” and simply said, “: Housing remains at a depressed level.”
I think this is significant because Bernanke and the Federal Reserve Bank have been trying, very hard, to present the economy as beginning to improve. After all, as good Keynesians, they have already spent a ton of our money and they need those “animal spirits” (I guess that means our greed) to make the handoff from government spending to private spending (or their theory doesn’t work.) Is this a signal that we will get even more government spending?
Most media coverage focused on what did not change in Bernanke’s statement: they left rates at zero, for an extended period, subdued inflation trends and expectations, continued low rate of plant utilization, unemployment continues to be a concern, etc.
But, here are some significant changes in attitude and content that, I think, effectively downgrades the growth rate for the U.S. economy. For example:
1.Attitude. Less talk about short-term tightening and the timing and plans to do so,
2.Economy. In the previous statement (April), Bernanke stated, “Economic activity has continued to strengthen.” In this June statement, he stated, “The economy continues to recover.” (this is far different from continues to strengthen and I think a downgrade on growth rates)
3.Employment. In April, “Labor markets beginning to improve.” In June, “Jobs are being created, gradually.” (Again, I think a less robust outlook.)
4.Financial System. In April, “Financial market conditions remain supportive of economic growth.” In June, “Financial conditions have become less supportive of economic growth...”
5.Housing. In April, “Housing starts have edged up but remain at d depressed level.” In June, he left out “have edged up” and simply said, “: Housing remains at a depressed level.”
I think this is significant because Bernanke and the Federal Reserve Bank have been trying, very hard, to present the economy as beginning to improve. After all, as good Keynesians, they have already spent a ton of our money and they need those “animal spirits” (I guess that means our greed) to make the handoff from government spending to private spending (or their theory doesn’t work.) Is this a signal that we will get even more government spending?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)