Welcome Back to 1994!

Image Credit: Aleph Blog with help from FRED || Believe it or not, I used FRED before it was a web resource — it was a standalone “bulletin board” that I woul dial into on my computer modem

I’ve talked about this here:

And recently I have tweeted about it.

Then from the piece Classic: Avoid the Dangers of Data-Mining, Part 2

In 1992-1993, there were a number of bright investors who had “picked the lock” of the residential mortgage-backed securities market. Many of them had estimated complex multifactor relationships that allowed them to estimate the likely amount of mortgage prepayment within mortgage pools.

Armed with that knowledge, they bought some of the riskiest securities backed by portions of the cash flows from the pools. They probably estimated the past relationships properly, but the models failed when no-cost prepayment became common, and failed again when the Federal Reserve raised rates aggressively in 1994. The failures were astounding: David Askin’s hedge funds, Orange County, the funds at Piper Jaffray that Worth Bruntjen managed, some small life insurers, etc. If that wasn’t enough, there were many major financial institutions that dropped billions on this trade without failing.

What’s the lesson? Models that worked well in the past might not work so well in the future, particularly at high degrees of leverage. Small deviations from what made the relationship work in the past can be amplified by leverage into huge disasters.

Finally from the piece What Brings Maturity to a Market:

Negative Convexity: Through late 1993, structurers of residential mortgage securities were very creative, making tranches in mortgage securitizations that bore a disproportionate amount of risk, particularly compared to the yield received. In 1994 to early 1995, that illusion was destroyed as the bond market was dragged to higher yields by the Fed plus mortgage bond managers who tried to limit their interest rate risks individually, leading to a more general crisis. That created the worst bond market since 1926.

==================================================

I am not saying it is certain, but I think it is likely that we are experiencing a panic in the mortgage bond market now. Like 1994, we have had a complacent Fed that left policy rates too low for too long. Both were foolish times, where policy should have been tighter. This led to massive refinancing of mortgages, and many new mortgages at low rates.

But when that happens with most mortgages being low rate, if the Fed hints at or starts raising rates, prepayments will fall and Mortgage-Backed Securities [MBS] will lengthen duration while falling in price. Bond managers, most of whom are indexed and want a fixed duration, will start selling long bonds and MBS, leading long rates to rise, and the cycle temporarily becomes self-perpetuating.

This is likely the situation that we are in now, and it very well may make the Fed overreact as they did in 1994. All good economists know the monetary policy acts with long and variable lags. But the FOMC for PR reasons acts as if their actions are immediate. Thus they become macho, and raise their rates too far, leading to a crash. (Can we eliminate the Fed? Gold was better, if we regulated the banks properly. Or, limit the slope of the yield curve.)

I’m planning on making money on the opposite side of this trade if I am right. I will buy long Treasuries after the peak. I am watching this regularly, and will act when it is clear to me, but not the market as a whole, which in late 1994 to early 1995 did not know which end was up.

Anyway, that’s all. The only good part of this environment is that my bond portfolios are losing less than the general market.

7 thoughts on “Welcome Back to 1994!

    1. Not much. If you look at their reports, they’ve hedged out their duration risks to a high degree, though not their spread duration risks, which is close to impossible to hedge. The NAV is down 3%+ since the start of the year. The price is down over 10%, and is at a 7% discount to NAV. If the distributions total 22 cents for the year, it is a 4.3% yield, which isn’t bad with low duration risk. You do have to live with the modeling risk regarding the structured securities that they hold, many of which are unrated, and others mis-rated — the rating agencies rarely rerate the thin junior slices of CMBS, RMBS, and ABS as deals pay down, and credit quality improves — no one is willing to pay them for that.

  1. Much appreciated David, much more insight than I expected. I’ll sit tight and let it compound. Always enjoy reading your stuff; indeed, that is how I found out about TSI.

    Grace and Peace

  2. The interesting thing is that inflation breakevens keep ratcheting up which implies that monetary policy is not getting restrictive enough to bring inflation down quickly. Real interest rates are still negative – the 5 yr tip yield got to 1% during the last hiking cycle. That is 2.2% higher than current rates..

  3. Won’t the duration of the MBS component of the index increase? If so, why would fund managers need to sell MBS, unless they were heavily overweight MBS to start with?

    Also, Jim Bullard was just on an interview with Bloomberg a few days ago saying that 1994 was a successful Fed soft landing and he wants to do that again…seems like you disagree.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Theme: Overlay by Kaira