The Real Debate

October 16, 2012
After watching the debate last night, I had a bunch of questions I thought were important but that were never asked. Here are three of them:

1. Why has the economy (GDP) been trending down for the past two years and the stock market moving up?
The answer of course in that the government has been pumping money into the banks (TARP, QE1, QE2, Twist Program and now QE3 with no limit as to the amount of money they will print.) This money goes to the banks and then the banks use this money to invest in the market (stocks, bonds, foreign investments, etc.). This 65% increase in “green paper” or money has driven the stock market up about 71% from the bottom in February 2009. This is illusionary wealth also called a bubble and like all bubbles, it will pop.

And just to make sure this money will go into assets that raise the value of the market (or what government economist’s call the “wealth effect”) which is suppose to make us run out and spend money; the Federal Reserve has instituted a Zero Interest Rate Policy (ZIRP) to make sure no one saves and is forced to go into the market to earn any interest.

2. How can the government continue to keep spending and driving up debt when mandatory spending (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Other Mandatory spending -like VA benefits, welfare, etc. – and the interest on the debt equal the entire revenue?

In 2012, the government spent $2.5 trillion on mandatory items and interest and received $2.5 trillion in revenues (taxes, tariffs etc.).

That leaves Zero money left for all other discretionary spending ($628t) and defense ($680t). This is more than a trillion dollars a year which means we will likely not even have enough revenues to pay for mandatory spending next year unless the economy picks up.

Follow up question:

So to get to a balanced budget, are you going to cut discretionary spending (education, homeland security, perks for your constituents, etc.) or Defense Spending (even though defense industries are scattered in every State to ensure Congressional votes)?

You know the answer. No and No.

3. Economic data has been very weak and deteriorating; yet this past month, two unbelievable things have happened to make me confused:

A. The Federal Reserve Chairman has been saying for some time that the economy has been slowly improving; and that based on the data, the Federal Reserve stands ready to assist (meaning QE3) if the data shows the economy is slowing further. Yet, two weeks after saying this for the umpteenth time, the Fed surprises the market with potentially the biggest injection of money ever! What about the data? I thought we were improving?

B. The data. This month the data, in contradiction to the Fed action, has been unbelievable: unemployment has dropped, retail sales have jumped significantly higher, housing starts have jumped significantly higher, etc.

We know you have “economic models” to predict the numbers, but the data does not fit the description of the economy provided by the Federal Reserve Chairman prior to injecting money into the banks (QE3). Does this mean the economy is getting worse and the models will reflect the real economy in a month or two or have the models just gone wacky?

Well, I know I’m over the time limit and it’s my opponents turn to talk so I’ll stop.

“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?

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

Inflation Is Here And Should Increase Significantly This Year

The Federal Reserve and Chairman Bernanke keep telling us that inflation is not a problem at this time. The “small amount” of inflation that is out there (Consumer Price Index or CPI of 1.5% in December 2010) is nothing to worry about and is manageable. In fact their goal is to get inflation up to 1-2%. Therefore, they need to keep pumping money into the financial system in order to get the economy on solid ground and create jobs.

However, inflation is here now and will most likely get much higher this year. Frank Shostak, an “Austrian School” economist, has written an article showing that there is about a 36 month lag time from an increase in money supply until inflation (as measured by the government) will begin to show up as inflation. Based on that 36 month lag time, he has estimated that inflation (CPI) will rise to 2.4% by September (versus 1.1% last September) and up to 4.4% by December.

Mr. Bernanke prefers the “Core-CPI” (The CPI minus food and energy) because it is less volatile. That inflation index in on the rise also. The estimate is for 1.5% in September and 2.7% by December vs. 0.8% in December of 2010.

Inflation is here and should increase significantly this year. Start to prepare now for a significant erosion in purchasing power and higher interest rates, whether Mr. Bernanke likes it or not.

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.