It’s been a while since we last corresponded.??I hope you and your family are well.
Quick investment question. Given the sharp run-up in equities and stretched valuations, how are you positioning your portfolio?
This in a market that seemingly doesn’t?go down, where the risk of being cautious is missing out on big gains.
In my portfolio, I’m carrying extra cash and moving fairly aggressively into gold.?Also, on the fixed income side, I’ve been selling HY [DM: High Yield, aka “Junk”] bonds, shortening duration, and buying floating rate bank loans.
Please let me know your thoughts.
Regards
JJJ
Dear JJJ,
Good to hear from you.? It has been a long time.
Asset allocation is always a marriage between time horizon (when is the money needed for spending?) and expected returns, with some adjustment for risk.? I suspect that you are like me, and play for a longer horizon.
I’m at my lowest equity allocation in 17 years.? I am at 65% in equities.? If the market goes up another 4-5%, I am planning on peeling of 25% of that to go into high quality bonds.? Another 20% will go if the market rises 10% from here.? At present, the S&P 500 offers returns of just 3.4%/year for the next ten years unadjusted for inflation.? That’s at the 95th percentile, and reflects valuations of the dot-com bubble, should we rise that far.
The stocks that I do have are heading in three directions: safer, cyclical and foreign.? I’m at my highest level for foreign stocks, and the companies all have strong balance sheets.? A few are cyclicals, and may benefit if commodities rise.
The only thing that gives me pause regarding dropping my stock percentage is that a lot of “friends” are doing it.? That said, a lot of broad market and growth investors are making “new era” arguments.? That gives me more comfort about this.? Even if the FAANG stocks continue to do well, it does not mean that stocks as a whole will do well.? The overall productivity of risk assets is not rising.? People are looking through the rearview mirror, not the windshield, at asset returns.
I can endorse some gold, even though it does nothing.? Nothing would have been a good posture back in the dot-com bubble, or the financial crisis.? Commodities are undervalued at present.? I can also endorse long Treasuries, because I am not certain that inflation will run in this environment.? When economies are heavily indebted they tend not to inflate, except as a last resort.? (The wealthy want to protect their claims against the economy.? The Fed generally helps the wealthy.? Those on the FOMC are all wealthy.)
I also hold more cash than normal.? The three of them, gold, cash and long Treasury bonds form a good hedge together against most bad situations.
The banks are in good shape, so the coming troubles should not be as great as during the financial crisis, as long as nothing bizarre is going on in the repo markets.
That said, I would be careful about bank debt.? Be careful about the covenants on the bank debt; it is not as safe as it once was.? I don’t own any now.
Aside from that, I think you are on the right track.? The most important question is how much you have invested in risk assets.? Prudent investors should be heading lower as the market rises.? It is either not a new era, or, it is always a new era.? Build up your supply of safe assets.? That is the main idea.? Preserve capital for another day when risk assets offer better opportunities.
Thanks for writing.? If you ever make it to Charm City or Babylon, let me know, and we can have lunch together.
I thought this old post from RealMoney.com was lost, never to be found again.? This was the important post made on November 22, 2006 that forecast some of the troubles in the subprime residential mortgage backed securities market.? I favored the idea that there there would be a crash in residential housing prices, and the best way to play it would be to pick up the pieces after the crash, because of the difficulties of being able to be right on the timing of shorting could be problematic.? In that trade, too early would mean wrong if you had to lose out the trade because of margin issues.
With that, here is the article:
====================
I have tried to make the following topic simple, but what I am about to say is complex, because it deals with the derivative markets. It is doubly or triply complex, because this situation has many layers to unravel. I write about this for two reasons. First, since residential housing is a large part of the US economy, understanding what is going on beneath the surface of housing finance can be valuable. Second, anytime financial markets are highly levered, there is a higher probability that there could be a dislocation. When dislocations happen, it is unwise for investors to try to average down or up. Rather, the best strategy is to wait for the trend to overshoot, and take a contrary position.
There are a lot of players trotting out the bear case for residential housing and mortgages. I’m one of them, but I don’t want overstate my case, having commented a few weeks ago on derivatives in the home equity loan asset-backed securities market. This arcane-sounding market is no small potatoes; it actually comprises several billions of dollars’ worth of bets by aggressive hedge funds — the same type of big bettors who blew up so memorably earlier this year, Amaranth and Motherrock.
A shift of just 10% up or down in residential housing prices might touch off just such another cataclysm, so it’s worth understanding just how this “arcane-sounding” market works.
I said I might expand on that post, but the need for comment and explanation of this market just got more pressing: To my surprise, one of my Googlebots dragged in a Reuters article and a blog post on the topic. I’ve seen other writeups on this as well, notably in Grant’s Interest Rate Observer (a fine publication) and The Wall Street Journal.
How a Securitization Works (Basically)
It’s difficult to short residential housing directly, so a market has grown up around the asset-backed securities market, in which bulls and bears can make bets on the performance of home equity loans. How do they do this?
First, mortgage originators originate home equity loans, Alt-A loans and subprime loans. They bring these loans to Wall Street, where the originator sells the loans to an investment bank, which dumps the loans into a trust. The investment bank then sells participation interests (“certificates”) in the trust.
There are different classes of certificates that have varying degrees of credit risk. The riskier classes receive higher interest rates. Typically the originator holds the juniormost class, the equity, and funds an overcollateralization account to give some security to the next most junior class.
Principal payments get allocated to the seniormost class. Once a class gets its full share of principal paid (or cancelled), it receives no more payments. Interest gets allocated in order of seniority. If, after paying interest to all classes, there is excess interest, that excess gets allocated to the overcollateralization account, until the account is full — that is, has reached a value equal to the value of the second most junior class of trust certificates — and then the excess goes to the equity class. If there’s not enough interest to pay all classes, they get paid in order of seniority.
If there are loan losses from nonpayment of the mortgages or home equity loans, the losses get funded by the overcollateralization account. If the overcollateralization account gets exhausted, losses reduce the principal balances of the juniormost certificates — those usually held by the originator — until they get exhausted, and then the next most junior gets the losses. There’s a little more to it than this (the prospectuses are often a half-inch thick on thin paper), but this is basically how a securitization works.
From Hedging to Speculation
The top class of certificates gets rated AAA, and typically the lowest class before the equity gets rated BBB-, though sometimes junk-rated certificates get issued. Most of the speculation occurs in securities rated BBB+ to BBB-.
The second phase of this trade involves credit default swaps (CDS). A credit default swap is an agreement where one party agrees to make a payment to another party when a default takes place, in exchange for regular compensation until the agreement terminates or a default happens. This began with corporate bonds and loans, but now has expanded to mortgage- and asset-backed securities.
Unlike shorting stocks, where the amount of shorting is generally limited by the float of the common stock, there can be more credit default swaps than bonds and loans. What began as a market to allow for hedging has become a market to encourage speculation.
With CDS on corporate debt, it took eight years for the notional size (amount to pay if everyone defaulted) of the CDS market to become 4 times the size of the corporate bond market. With CDS on home equity asset-backed securities, it took less than 18 months to get to the same point.
The payment received for insuring the risk is loosely related to the credit spread on the debt that is protected. Given that the CDS can serve as a hedge for the debt, one might think that the two should be equal. There are a couple reasons that isn’t so.
First, when a default happens, the bond that is the cheapest to deliver gets delivered. That option helps to make CDS trade cheap relative to credit spreads. But a bigger factor is who wants to do the CDS trading more. Is it those who want to receive payment in a default, or those who want to pay when a default occurs?
How It Impacts Housing
With CDS on asset-backed securities, the party writing protection makes a payment when losses get allocated to the tranche in question. Most protection gets written on tranches rated BBB+ to BBB-.
This is where shorting residential housing comes into the picture. There is more interest in shorting the residential housing market through buying protection on BBB-rated home equity asset-backed securities than there are players wanting to take on that risk at the spreads offered in the asset-backed market at present. So, those who want to short the market through CDS asset-backed securities have to pay more to do the trade than those in the cash asset-backed securities market receive as a lending spread.
One final layer of complexity is that there are standardized indices (ABX) for home equity loan asset-backed securities. CDS exists not only for the individual asset-backed securities deals, but also on the ABX indices as well. Those not wanting to do the credit work on a specific deal can act on a general opinion by buying or selling protection on an ABX index as a whole. The indices go down in quality from AAA to BBB-, and aggregate similar tranches of the individual deals. Those buying protection receive pro-rata payments when losses get allocated to the tranches in their index.
So, who’s playing this game? On the side of falling housing prices and rising default rates are predominantly multi-strategy and mortgage debt hedge funds. They are paying the other side of the trade around 2.5% per year for each dollar of home equity asset-backed securities protection bought. (Deals typically last four years or so.) The market players receiving the 2.5% per year payment are typically hedge and other investment funds running collateralized debt obligations. They keep the equity piece, which further levers up their returns. They are fairly yield-hungry, so from what I’ve heard, they’re none too picky about the risks that they take down.
Who wins and who loses? This is tricky, but if residential real estate prices fall by more than 10%, the buyers of asset-backed securities protection will probably win. If less, the sellers of protection probably win. This may be a bit of a sideshow in our overly leveraged financial markets, but the bets being placed here exceed ten billion dollars of total exposure. Aggressive investors are on both sides of this trade. Only one set of them will end up happy.
But how can you win here? I believe the safest way for retail investors to make money here is to play the reaction, should a panic occur. If housing prices drop severely, and home equity loan defaults occur, and you hear of hedge fund failures resulting, don?t act immediately. Wait. Watch for momentum to bottom out, or at least slow, and then buy the equities of financially strong homebuilders and mortgage lenders, those that will certainly survive the downturn.
If housing prices rise in the short run (unlikely in my opinion), and you hear about the liquidations of bearish hedge funds, then the best way to make money is to wait. Wait and let the homebuilders and mortgage finance companies run up, and then when momentum fails, short a basket of the stocks with weak balance sheets.
Why play the bounce, rather than try to bet on the success of either side? The wait could be quite long before either side loses? Do you have enough wherewithal to stay in the trade? Most players don?t; that?s why I think that waiting for one side or the other to prevail is the right course. Because both sides are levered up, there will be an overshoot. Just be there when the momentum fails, and play the opposite side. Personally, I?ll be ready with a list of homebuilders and mortgage lenders with strong balance sheets. Though prospects are not bright today, the best will prosper once the crisis is past.
Dear Readers, this is another one of my occasional experiments, so please be measured in your comments.? The following was written as a ten-year retrospective article in 2042.
It was indeed an ugly surprise to many when the payments from Social Security in February 2032 did not come.? Indeed, the phones in Congress rang off the hook, and the scroll rate on incoming emails broke all records.? But as with most things in DC in the 21st century, there was no stomach to deal with the problem, as gridlock continued to make Congress a internally hostile but essentially passive institution.
Part of that gridlock stemmed from earlier Congressional reforms that looked good at the time, but reduced the power of parties to discipline members who would not go along with the leadership.? Part also stemmed from changes in media, which were developing in the 1980s because the media was increasingly out of sync with the views of average Americans, but came to full fruition after the internet became the dominant channel for news flow, allowing people to tune out voices unpleasant to them.? Gerrymandering certainly did not help, as virtually all House seats were noncompetitive.? Finally, the size of the?debt, and large continuing deficits limited the ability of the government to do anything.? The Fed was already letting inflation run at rates higher than intermediate interest rates, so they were out of play as well.
Despite occasional warnings in the media that began five years earlier after the Chief Actuary of the Social Security Administration suggested in his 2027 year-end report that this was likely to happen in 4-6 years, most media and people tuned it out because it was impossible in their eyes, and face it, actuaries are deadly dull people.? Only a few bloggers kept up a drumbeat on the topic, but they were ignored as Johnny One-Note Disasterniks.
Shortly thereafter, the obligatory hearings began in Congress, and?the new Chief Actuary of the Social Security Administration was first on the list to testify.? First he explained that when the Social Security was developed, this safeguard was added in case the income and assets of the trust were inadequate to make the next payment, that payment would be skipped.? He added that by law, skipped payments would not be made up later.? After all, Social Security is an earned right, but mainly a statutory right and not a constitutional right.? Then he commented that without changes, a payment would likely be skipped in 2033 and 2034, two skips each in 2035 and 2036, and by 2037 three skips would be the “new normal” until demographics normalized, but that would likely take a generation to achieve, as childbearing was out of favor.
There were many other people who testified that day from AARP, its relatively new but strong foe AAWP (w -> Working), and various conservative and liberal think tanks, but no one said anything valuable that the Chief Actuary didn’t already say: without changes to benefits or taxes (contributions, haha), payment skipping would become regular.? It was a darkly amusing sidelight that members of the House of Representatives managed to trot out every “urban myth” about Social Security as true during their hearings, including the bogus idea that everyone has their contributions stored in the own little accounts.
The eventual compromise was not a pretty one:
Cost-of-living adjustments were ended.
Benefits were means-tested.
Late retirement adjustment factors were decreased.
All the games where benefits could be maximized were eliminated.
Immigration restrictions were loosened for well-off immigrants.
The normal retirement age was raised to 72, and
“Contributions” would now be assessed on income of all types, with no upper limit.? That said, the rate did not rise.
That ended the payment skipping, though it is possible that a skip could happen in the future.? As it is, much of the current political climate is marked by intergenerational conflict, with Social Security viewed derisively as an old-age welfare plan.? A visitor to the grave of FDR did not find him doing 2000 RPM, but did note the skunk cabbage that someone helpfully planted there.? As it was, quiet euthanasia, some voluntary, some not, took place among the elderly Baby Boomers, tired of being labelled sponges on society, or picked off by annoyed caretakers.
It should be noted that as benefits were cut in real terms, friends and families of the some elderly and disabled helped out, but many elderly people led lives of poverty.? Perhaps if they had expected this, they would have prepared, but they trusted the malleable promises of the US Government.
The open question at present is whether it was wise for society to promote collective security schemes.? As it is, with seven states in pseudo-bankruptcy, many municipalities in similar straits if not real bankruptcy, and many countries suffering with worse demographic problems than the US, the problems of these arrangements are apparent:
Breaking the link between childbearing and support in old age discouraged childbearing.
Every succeeding generation of participants got a worse deal than those that came before.
Politicians learned to prioritize the present over the future, and use monies that should have been put to some productive future use into the benefit of those who would consume currently.
Complexity encouraged gaming of the system, whether it was maxing benefits, or faking disability.
Retirement ages that were too low made the burden too heavy to the workers supporting retirees.
Future articles in this retrospective series will touch on some of the other problems we have recently faced, as many involuntary collective security measures have hit troubled times, and the unintended effects of too much debt, both governmental and private are still with us.
Information received since the Federal Open Market Committee met in June indicates that the labor market has continued to strengthen and that economic activity has been rising moderately so far this year.
Information received since the Federal Open Market Committee met in July indicates that the labor market has continued to strengthen and that economic activity has been rising moderately so far this year.
No change.? Feels like GDP is slowing, though.
Job gains have been solid, on average, since the beginning of the year, and the unemployment rate has declined.
Job gains have remained solid in recent months, and the unemployment rate has stayed low.
Shades labor conditions down, as improvement has seemingly stopped.
Household spending and business fixed investment have continued to expand.
Household spending has been expanding at a moderate rate, and growth in business fixed investment has picked up in recent quarters.
Shades business fixed investment up.? Does that matter as much in an intangible economy?
On a 12-month basis, overall inflation and the measure excluding food and energy prices have declined and are running below 2 percent.
On a 12-month basis, overall inflation and the measure excluding food and energy prices have declined this year and are running below 2 percent.
Small change of timing.? It?s not much below 2%…
Market-based measures of inflation compensation remain low; survey-based measures of longer-term inflation expectations are little changed, on balance.
Market-based measures of inflation compensation remain low; survey-based measures of longer-term inflation expectations are little changed, on balance.
No change
Consistent with its statutory mandate, the Committee seeks to foster maximum employment and price stability.
Consistent with its statutory mandate, the Committee seeks to foster maximum employment and price stability.
The Dual Mandate is the perfect shield to hide behind.? The Fed can be wrong, but it can never be blamed.
The Committee continues to expect that, with gradual adjustments in the stance of monetary policy, economic activity will expand at a moderate pace, and labor market conditions will strengthen somewhat further. Inflation on a 12-month basis is expected to remain somewhat below 2 percent in the near term but to stabilize around the Committee’s 2 percent objective over the medium term.
Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria have devastated many communities, inflicting severe hardship. Storm-related disruptions and rebuilding will affect economic activity in the near term, but past experience suggests that the storms are unlikely to materially alter the course of the national economy over the medium term. Consequently, the Committee continues to expect that, with gradual adjustments in the stance of monetary policy, economic activity will expand at a moderate pace, and labor market conditions will strengthen somewhat further. Higher prices for gasoline and some other items in the aftermath of the hurricanes will likely boost inflation temporarily; apart from that effect, inflation on a 12-month basis is expected to remain somewhat below 2 percent in the near term but to stabilize around the Committee’s 2 percent objective over the medium term.
Mentions the transitory effects of hurricanes.? Aside from that, they think they are on track.
Near-term risks to the economic outlook appear roughly balanced, but the Committee is monitoring inflation developments closely.
Near-term risks to the economic outlook appear roughly balanced, but the Committee is monitoring inflation developments closely.
No change.? Note the unbalanced language, though ? they are only monitoring inflation closely.
In view of realized and expected labor market conditions and inflation, the Committee decided to maintain the target range for the federal funds rate at 1 to 1-1/4 percent.
In view of realized and expected labor market conditions and inflation, the Committee decided to maintain the target range for the federal funds rate at 1 to 1-1/4 percent.
No change.
The stance of monetary policy remains accommodative, thereby supporting some further strengthening in labor market conditions and a sustained return to 2 percent inflation.
The stance of monetary policy remains accommodative, thereby supporting some further strengthening in labor market conditions and a sustained return to 2 percent inflation.
No change, but monetary policy is no longer accommodative.? The short end of the forward curve continues to rise, and the curve flattens.
In determining the timing and size of future adjustments to the target range for the federal funds rate, the Committee will assess realized and expected economic conditions relative to its objectives of maximum employment and 2 percent inflation.
In determining the timing and size of future adjustments to the target range for the federal funds rate, the Committee will assess realized and expected economic conditions relative to its objectives of maximum employment and 2 percent inflation.
No change
This assessment will take into account a wide range of information, including measures of labor market conditions, indicators of inflation pressures and inflation expectations, and readings on financial and international developments.
This assessment will take into account a wide range of information, including measures of labor market conditions, indicators of inflation pressures and inflation expectations, and readings on financial and international developments.
No change.? If you don?t know what will drive decision-making, i.e., it could be anything, just say that.
The Committee will carefully monitor actual and expected inflation developments relative to its symmetric inflation goal.
The Committee will carefully monitor actual and expected inflation developments relative to its symmetric inflation goal.
No change. Symmetric: we can?t let inflation get too low, because we don?t regulate banks properly.
The Committee expects that economic conditions will evolve in a manner that will warrant gradual increases in the federal funds rate; the federal funds rate is likely to remain, for some time, below levels that are expected to prevail in the longer run.
The Committee expects that economic conditions will evolve in a manner that will warrant gradual increases in the federal funds rate; the federal funds rate is likely to remain, for some time, below levels that are expected to prevail in the longer run.
No change
However, the actual path of the federal funds rate will depend on the economic outlook as informed by incoming data.
However, the actual path of the federal funds rate will depend on the economic outlook as informed by incoming data.
No change
For the time being, the Committee is maintaining its existing policy of reinvesting principal payments from its holdings of agency debt and agency mortgage-backed securities in agency mortgage-backed securities and of rolling over maturing Treasury securities at auction.
Deleted; QE is over (for now).
The Committee expects to begin implementing its balance sheet normalization program relatively soon, provided that the economy evolves broadly as anticipated; this program is described in the June 2017 Addendum to the Committee’s Policy Normalization Principles and Plans.
In October, the Committee will initiate the balance sheet normalization program described in the June 2017 Addendum to the Committee’s Policy Normalization Principles and Plans.
Promises the very slow end of QE, as they may start to let securities mature.
Voting for the FOMC monetary policy action were: Janet L. Yellen, Chair; William C. Dudley, Vice Chairman; Lael Brainard; Charles L. Evans; Stanley Fischer; Patrick Harker; Robert S. Kaplan; Neel Kashkari; and Jerome H. Powell.
Voting for the FOMC monetary policy action were: Janet L. Yellen, Chair; William C. Dudley, Vice Chairman; Lael Brainard; Charles L. Evans; Stanley Fischer; Patrick Harker; Robert S. Kaplan; Neel Kashkari; and Jerome H. Powell.
No dissents; it?s relatively easy to agree with doing nothing.
Comments
Labor conditions can?t get much better. GDP is meandering.
The yield curve is flattening, with short rates rising more than long rates.
Stocks, bonds and gold fall a little. Though the statement doesn?t say it, many conclude that tightening will continue.
I think the Fed is too optimistic about the economy. I also think that they won?t get far into letting securities mature before they resume reinvestment.
Ten years ago, things were mostly quiet. ?The crisis was staring us in the face, with a little more than a year before the effects of growing leverage and sloppy credit underwriting would hit in full. ?But when there is a boom, almost no one wants to spoil the party. ?Yes a few bears and financial writers may do so, but they get ignored by the broader media, the politicians, the regulators, the bulls, etc.
It’s not as if there weren’t some hints before this. ?There were losses from subprime mortgages at HSBC. ?New Century was bankrupt. ?Two hedge funds at Bear Stearns, filled with some of the worst exposures to CDOs and subprime lending were wiped out.
And, for those watching the subprime lending markets the losses had been rising since late 2006. ?I was following it for a firm that was considering doing the “big short” but could not figure out an effective way to do it in a way consistent with the culture and personnel of the firm. ?We had discussions with a number of investment banks, and it seemed obvious that those on the short side of the trade would eventually win. ?I even wrote an article on it at RealMoney in November 2006, but it is lost in the bowels of theStreet.com’s file system.
Some of the building blocks of the crisis were evident then:
European banks in search of any AAA-rated structured product bonds that had spreads over LIBOR. ?They were even engaged in a variety of leverage schemes including leveraged AAA CMBS, and CPDOs. ?When you don’t have to put up any capital against AAA assets, it is astounding the lengths that market players will go through to create and swallow such assets. ?The European bank yield hogs were a main facilitator of the crisis that was to come, followed by the investment banks, and bullish mortgage hedge funds. ?As Gary Gorton would later point out, real disasters happen when safe assets fail.
Regulators were unwilling to clamp down on bad underwriting, and they had the power to do so, but were unwilling, as banks could choose their regulators, and the Fed didn’t care, and may have actively inhibited scrutiny.
Not only were subprime loans low in credit quality, but they had a second embedded risk in them, as they had a reset date where the interest rate would rise dramatically, that made the loans far shorter than the houses that they financed, meaning that the loans would disproportionately default near their reset dates.
The illiquidity of the securitized Subprime Residential Mortgage ABS highlighted the slowness of pricing signals, as matrix pricing was slow to pick up the decay in value, given the sparseness of trades.
By August 2007, it was obvious that residential real estate prices were falling across the US. ?(I flagged the peak at RealMoney in October 2005, but this also is lost…)
Amid all of this, the “big short” was not a sure thing as those that entered into it had to feed the trade before it succeeded. ?For many, if the crisis had delayed one more year, many taking on the “big short” would have lost.
A variety of levered market-neutral equity hedge funds were running into trouble in August 2007 as they all pursued similar Value plus Momentum strategies, and as some fund liquidated, a self reinforcing panic ensued.
Fannie and Freddie were too levered, and could not survive a continued fall in housing prices. ?Same for AIG, and most investment banks.
Jumbo lending, Alt-A lending and traditional mortgage lending had the same problems as subprime, just in a smaller way — but there was so much more of them.
Oh, and don’t forget hidden leverage at the banks through ABCP conduits that were off balance sheet.
Dare we mention the Fed inverting the yield curve?
So by the time that BNP Paribas announced that three of their funds that bought?Subprime Residential Mortgage ABS had pricing issues, and briefly closed off redemptions, and Countrywide announced that it had to “shore up its funding,” there were many things in play that would eventually lead to the crisis that happened.
Some of us saw it in part, and hoped that things would be better. ?Fewer of us saw a lot of it, and took modest actions for protection. ?I was in that bucket; I never thought it would be as large as it turned out. ?Almost no one saw the whole thing coming, and those that did could not dream of the response of the central banks that would take much of the losses out of the pockets of savers, leaving bad lending institutions intact.
All in all, the crisis had a lot of red lights flashing in advance of its occurrence. ?Though many things have been repaired, there are a lot of people whose lives were practically ruined by their own greed, and the greed of others. ?It’s a sad story, but one that will hopefully make us more careful in the future when private leverage rises, creating an asset bubble.
But if I know mankind, the lesson will not be learned.
PS — this is what I wrote one decade ago. ?You can see what I knew at the time — a lot of the above, but could not see how bad it would be.
Information received since the Federal Open Market Committee met in May indicates that the labor market has continued to strengthen and that economic activity has been rising moderately so far this year.
Information received since the Federal Open Market Committee met in June indicates that the labor market has continued to strengthen and that economic activity has been rising moderately so far this year.
No change.? Feels like GDP is slowing, though.
Job gains have moderated but have been solid, on average, since the beginning of the year, and the unemployment rate has declined.
Job gains have been solid, on average, since the beginning of the year, and the unemployment rate has declined.
Shades labor conditions up
Household spending has picked up in recent months, and business fixed investment has continued to expand.
Household spending and business fixed investment have continued to expand.
No real change
On a 12-month basis, inflation has declined recently and, like the measure excluding food and energy prices, is running somewhat below 2 percent.
On a 12-month basis, overall inflation and the measure excluding food and energy prices have declined and are running below 2 percent.
Changes, but to little effect.
Market-based measures of inflation compensation remain low; survey-based measures of longer-term inflation expectations are little changed, on balance.
Market-based measures of inflation compensation remain low; survey-based measures of longer-term inflation expectations are little changed, on balance.
No change
Consistent with its statutory mandate, the Committee seeks to foster maximum employment and price stability.
Consistent with its statutory mandate, the Committee seeks to foster maximum employment and price stability.
No change; somebody tell them that things that can?t change don?t belong here.
The Committee continues to expect that, with gradual adjustments in the stance of monetary policy, economic activity will expand at a moderate pace, and labor market conditions will strengthen somewhat further. Inflation on a 12-month basis is expected to remain somewhat below 2 percent in the near term but to stabilize around the Committee’s 2 percent objective over the medium term.
The Committee continues to expect that, with gradual adjustments in the stance of monetary policy, economic activity will expand at a moderate pace, and labor market conditions will strengthen somewhat further. Inflation on a 12-month basis is expected to remain somewhat below 2 percent in the near term but to stabilize around the Committee’s 2 percent objective over the medium term.
No change; monetary policy solves all.
Near term risks to the economic outlook appear roughly balanced, but the Committee is monitoring inflation developments closely.
Near-term risks to the economic outlook appear roughly balanced, but the Committee is monitoring inflation developments closely.
No change.
In view of realized and expected labor market conditions and inflation, the Committee decided to raise the target range for the federal funds rate to 1 to 1-1/4 percent.
In view of realized and expected labor market conditions and inflation, the Committee decided to maintain the target range for the federal funds rate at 1 to 1-1/4 percent.
No change.
The stance of monetary policy remains accommodative, thereby supporting some further strengthening in labor market conditions and a sustained return to 2 percent inflation.
The stance of monetary policy remains accommodative, thereby supporting some further strengthening in labor market conditions and a sustained return to 2 percent inflation.
No change, but monetary policy is no longer accommodative.? The short end of the forward curve continues to rise, and the curve flattens.
In determining the timing and size of future adjustments to the target range for the federal funds rate, the Committee will assess realized and expected economic conditions relative to its objectives of maximum employment and 2 percent inflation.
In determining the timing and size of future adjustments to the target range for the federal funds rate, the Committee will assess realized and expected economic conditions relative to its objectives of maximum employment and 2 percent inflation.
No change
This assessment will take into account a wide range of information, including measures of labor market conditions, indicators of inflation pressures and inflation expectations, and readings on financial and international developments.
This assessment will take into account a wide range of information, including measures of labor market conditions, indicators of inflation pressures and inflation expectations, and readings on financial and international developments.
No change.? If you don?t know what will drive decision-making, i.e., it could be anything, just say that.
The Committee will carefully monitor actual and expected inflation developments relative to its symmetric inflation goal.
The Committee will carefully monitor actual and expected inflation developments relative to its symmetric inflation goal.
No change. Symmetric: we can?t let inflation get too low, because we don?t regulate banks properly.
The Committee expects that economic conditions will evolve in a manner that will warrant gradual increases in the federal funds rate; the federal funds rate is likely to remain, for some time, below levels that are expected to prevail in the longer run.
The Committee expects that economic conditions will evolve in a manner that will warrant gradual increases in the federal funds rate; the federal funds rate is likely to remain, for some time, below levels that are expected to prevail in the longer run.
No change
However, the actual path of the federal funds rate will depend on the economic outlook as informed by incoming data.
However, the actual path of the federal funds rate will depend on the economic outlook as informed by incoming data.
No change
The Committee is maintaining its existing policy of reinvesting principal payments from its holdings of agency debt and agency mortgage-backed securities in agency mortgage-backed securities and of rolling over maturing Treasury securities at auction.
For the time being, the Committee is maintaining its existing policy of reinvesting principal payments from its holdings of agency debt and agency mortgage-backed securities in agency mortgage-backed securities and of rolling over maturing Treasury securities at auction.
No change
The Committee currently expects to begin implementing a balance sheet normalization program this year, provided that the economy evolves broadly as anticipated.
The Committee expects to begin implementing its balance sheet normalization program relatively soon, provided that the economy evolves broadly as anticipated;
Accelerates the timing of change.
This program, which would gradually reduce the Federal Reserve’s securities holdings by decreasing reinvestment of principal payments from those securities, is described in the accompanying addendum to the Committee’s Policy Normalization Principles and Plans.
this program is described in the June 2017 Addendum to the Committee’s Policy Normalization Principles and Plans.
Promises the slow end of QE, as they may start to let securities mature.
Voting for the FOMC monetary policy action were: Janet L. Yellen, Chair; William C. Dudley, Vice Chairman; Lael Brainard; Charles L. Evans; Stanley Fischer; Patrick Harker; Robert S. Kaplan; and Jerome H. Powell.
Voting for the FOMC monetary policy action were: Janet L. Yellen, Chair; William C. Dudley, Vice Chairman; Lael Brainard; Charles L. Evans; Stanley Fischer; Patrick Harker; Robert S. Kaplan; Neel Kashkari; and Jerome H. Powell.
No dissents; it?s relatively easy to agree with doing nothing.
Voting against the action was Neel Kashkari, who preferred at this meeting to maintain the existing target range for the federal funds rate.
No dissents.
Comments
Labor conditions are reasonably good. GDP is meandering.
The yield curve is flattening, with long rates falling.
Stocks, bonds and gold rise a little.
I think the Fed is too optimistic about the economy. I also think that they won?t get far into letting securities mature before they resume?reinvestment of maturing bonds. [miswrote that last time]
Information received since the Federal Open Market Committee met in March indicates that the labor market has continued to strengthen even as growth in economic activity slowed.
Information received since the Federal Open Market Committee met in May indicates that the labor market has continued to strengthen and that economic activity has been rising moderately so far this year.
Shades GDP up
Job gains were solid, on average, in recent months, and the unemployment rate declined.
Job gains have moderated but have been solid, on average, since the beginning of the year, and the unemployment rate has declined.
Shades labor conditions down
Household spending rose only modestly, but the fundamentals underpinning the continued growth of consumption remained solid.? Business fixed investment firmed.
Household spending has picked up in recent months, and business fixed investment has continued to expand.
Shades up household spending and business fixed investment
Inflation measured on a 12-month basis recently has been running close to the Committee’s 2 percent longer-run objective. Excluding energy and food, consumer prices declined in March and inflation continued to run somewhat below 2 percent.
On a 12-month basis, inflation has declined recently and, like the measure excluding food and energy prices, is running somewhat below 2 percent.
Shades inflation down.
Market-based measures of inflation compensation remain low; survey-based measures of longer-term inflation expectations are little changed, on balance.
Market-based measures of inflation compensation remain low; survey-based measures of longer-term inflation expectations are little changed, on balance.
No Change
Consistent with its statutory mandate, the Committee seeks to foster maximum employment and price stability.
Consistent with its statutory mandate, the Committee seeks to foster maximum employment and price stability.
No Change
The Committee views the slowing in growth during the first quarter as likely to be transitory and continues to expect that, with gradual adjustments in the stance of monetary policy, economic activity will expand at a moderate pace, labor market conditions will strengthen somewhat further, and inflation will stabilize around 2 percent over the medium term.
The Committee continues to expect that, with gradual adjustments in the stance of monetary policy, economic activity will expand at a moderate pace, and labor market conditions will strengthen somewhat further. Inflation on a 12-month basis is expected to remain somewhat below 2 percent in the near term but to stabilize around the Committee’s 2 percent objective over the medium term.
Inflation down, growth up
Near-term risks to the economic outlook appear roughly balanced. The Committee continues to closely monitor inflation indicators and global economic and financial developments.
Near term risks to the economic outlook appear roughly balanced, but the Committee is monitoring inflation developments closely.
Watches inflation closely, no longer looking at the rest of the world.
In view of realized and expected labor market conditions and inflation, the Committee decided to maintain the target range for the federal funds rate at 3/4 to 1 percent.
In view of realized and expected labor market conditions and inflation, the Committee decided to raise the target range for the federal funds rate to 1 to 1-1/4 percent.
Raises the Fed funds target range 1/4 percent.
The stance of monetary policy remains accommodative, thereby supporting some further strengthening in labor market conditions and a sustained return to 2 percent inflation.
The stance of monetary policy remains accommodative, thereby supporting some further strengthening in labor market conditions and a sustained return to 2 percent inflation.
No Change
In determining the timing and size of future adjustments to the target range for the federal funds rate, the Committee will assess realized and expected economic conditions relative to its objectives of maximum employment and 2 percent inflation.
In determining the timing and size of future adjustments to the target range for the federal funds rate, the Committee will assess realized and expected economic conditions relative to its objectives of maximum employment and 2 percent inflation.
No Change
This assessment will take into account a wide range of information, including measures of labor market conditions, indicators of inflation pressures and inflation expectations, and readings on financial and international developments.
This assessment will take into account a wide range of information, including measures of labor market conditions, indicators of inflation pressures and inflation expectations, and readings on financial and international developments.
No Change
The Committee will carefully monitor actual and expected inflation developments relative to its symmetric inflation goal.
The Committee will carefully monitor actual and expected inflation developments relative to its symmetric inflation goal.
No Change
The Committee expects that economic conditions will evolve in a manner that will warrant gradual increases in the federal funds rate; the federal funds rate is likely to remain, for some time, below levels that are expected to prevail in the longer run.
The Committee expects that economic conditions will evolve in a manner that will warrant gradual increases in the federal funds rate; the federal funds rate is likely to remain, for some time, below levels that are expected to prevail in the longer run.
No Change
However, the actual path of the federal funds rate will depend on the economic outlook as informed by incoming data.
However, the actual path of the federal funds rate will depend on the economic outlook as informed by incoming data.
No Change
The Committee is maintaining its existing policy of reinvesting principal payments from its holdings of agency debt and agency mortgage-backed securities in agency mortgage-backed securities and of rolling over maturing Treasury securities at auction,
The Committee is maintaining its existing policy of reinvesting principal payments from its holdings of agency debt and agency mortgage-backed securities in agency mortgage-backed securities and of rolling over maturing Treasury securities at auction.
No Change
and it anticipates doing so until normalization of the level of the federal funds rate is well under way.
The Committee currently expects to begin implementing a balance sheet normalization program this year, provided that the economy evolves broadly as anticipated.
I guess the low 1% region is what is considered the low end of a normal federal funds rate.
This policy, by keeping the Committee’s holdings of longer-term securities at sizable levels, should help maintain accommodative financial conditions.
This program, which would gradually reduce the Federal Reserve’s securities holdings by decreasing reinvestment of principal payments from those securities, is described in the accompanying addendum to the Committee’s Policy Normalization Principles and Plans.
Promises the slow end of QE, as they may start to let securities mature.
Voting for the FOMC monetary policy action were: Janet L. Yellen, Chair; William C. Dudley, Vice Chairman; Lael Brainard; Charles L. Evans; Stanley Fischer; Patrick Harker; Robert S. Kaplan; Neel Kashkari; and Jerome H. Powell.
Voting for the FOMC monetary policy action were: Janet L. Yellen, Chair; William C. Dudley, Vice Chairman; Lael Brainard; Charles L. Evans; Stanley Fischer; Patrick Harker; Robert S. Kaplan; and Jerome H. Powell.
All but one follow through on the idea that tightening is needed.
Voting against the action was Neel Kashkari, who preferred at this meeting to maintain the existing target range for the federal funds rate.
Kashkari is a quirky guy.? Who knows?? Maybe he notes the flattening yield curve.
Comments
Labor conditions are reasonably good. GDP might be improving.
The yield curve is flattening, with long rates falling.
Stocks and gold fall. Bonds rose this morning and remain up.
I think the Fed is too optimistic about the economy. I also think that they won?t get far into letting securities mature before they stop reinvestment.
Interesting that they dropped the statement about following global financial conditions.
I will admit, when I first read about the Permanent Portfolio in the late-80s, I was somewhat skeptical, but not totally dismissive.? Here is the classic Permanent Portfolio, equal proportions of:
S&P 500 stocks
The longest Treasury Bonds
Spot Gold
Money market funds
Think about Inflation, how do these assets do?
S&P 500 stocks ? mediocre to pretty good
The longest Treasury Bonds ? craters
Spot Gold ? soars
Money market funds ? keeps value, earns income
Think about Deflation, how do these assets do?
S&P 500 stocks ? pretty poor to pretty good
The longest Treasury Bonds ? soars
Spot Gold ? craters
Money market funds ? makes a modest amount, loses nothing
Long bonds and gold are volatile, but they are definitely negatively correlated in the long run.? The Permanent Portfolio concept attempts to balance the effects of inflation and deflation, and capture returns from the overshooting that these four asset classes do.
What did I do?
I got the returns data from 12/31/69 to 9/30/2011 on gold, T-bonds, T-bills, and stocks.? I created a hypothetical portfolio that started with 25% in each, rebalancing to 25% in each whenever an asset got to be more than 27.5% or less than 22.5% of the portfolio.? This was the only rebalancing strategy that I tested.? I did not do multiple tests and pick the best one, because that would induce more hindsight bias, where I torture the data to make it confess what I want.
I used a 10% band around 25% ( 22.5%-27.5%) figuring that it would rebalance the portfolio with moderate frequency.? Over the 566 months of the study, it rebalanced 102?times. ?At the top of this article is a graphical summary of the results.
The smooth-ish gold line in the middle is the Permanent Portfolio.? Frankly, I was surprised at how well it did.? It did so well, that I decided to ask, what if we drop out the T-bills in order to leverage the idea.? It improves the returns by 1%, but kicks up the 12-month drawdown by 7%.? Probably not a good tradeoff, but pretty amazing that it beats stocks with lower than bond drawdowns. ?That’s the light brown line.
Results
S&P TR
Bond TR
T-bill TR
Gold TR
PP TR
PP TR levered
Annualized Return
10.40%
8.38%
4.77%
7.82%
8.80%
9.93%
Max 12-mo drawdown
-43.32%
-22.66%
0.02%
-35.07%
-7.65%
-14.75%
Now the above calculations assume no fees.? If you decide to implement it using SPY, TLT, SHY and GLD, (or something similar) there will be some modest level of fees, and commission costs.
?What Could Go Wrong
Now, what could go wrong with an analysis like this?? The first point is that the history could be unusual, and not be indicative of the future.? What was unusual about the period 1970-2017?
Went off the gold standard; individual holding of gold legalized.
High level of gold appreciation was historically abnormal.
Deregulation of money markets allowed greater volatility in short-term rates.
ZIRP crushed money market rates.
Federal Reserve micro-management of short-term rates led to undue certainty in the markets over the efficacy of monetary policy ? ?The Great Moderation.?
Volcker era interest rates were abnormal, but necessary to squeeze out inflation.
Low long Treasury rates today are abnormal, partially due to fear, and abnormal Fed policy.
Thus it would be unusual to see a lot more performance out of long Treasuries. The stellar returns of the past can?t be repeated.
Three hard falls in the stock market 1973-4, 2000-2, 2007-9, each with a comeback.
By the end of the period, profit margins for stocks were abnormally high, and overvaluations are significant.
But maybe the way to view the abnormalities of the period as being ?tests? of the strategy.? If it can survive this many tests, perhaps it can survive the unknown tests of the future.
Other risks, however unlikely, include:
Holding gold could be made illegal again.
The T-bills and T-bonds have only one creditor, the US Government. Are there scenarios where they might default for political reasons?? I think in most scenarios bondholders get paid, but who can tell?
Stock markets can close for protracted periods of time; in principle, public corporations could be made illegal, as they are statutory creations.
The US as a society could become less creative & productive, leading to malaise in its markets. Think of how promising Argentina was 100 years ago.
But if risks this severe happen, almost no investment strategy will be any good.? If the US isn?t a desirable place to live, what other area of the world would be?? And how difficult would it be to transfer assets there?
Summary
The Permanent Portfolio strategy is about as promising as any that I have seen for preserving the value of assets through a wide number of macroeconomic scenarios.? The volatility is low enough that almost anyone could maintain it.? Finally, it?s pretty simple.? Makes me want to consider what sort of product could be made out of this.
I delayed on posting this for a while — the original work was done five years ago. ?In that time, there has been a decent amount of digital ink spilled on the Permanent Portfolio idea of Harry Browne’s. ?I have two pieces written:?Permanent Asset Allocation, and?Can the ?Permanent Portfolio? Work Today?
Part of the recent doubt on the concept has come from three sources:
Zero Interest rate policy [ZIRP] since late 2008, (6.8%/yr PP return)
The fall in Gold since late 2012 (2.7%/yr PP return), and
The fall in T-bonds in since mid-2016 (-4.7%?annualized PP return).
Out of 46 calendar years, the strategy makes money in 41 of them, and loses money in 5 with the losses being small: 1.0% (2008), 1.9% (1994), 2.2% (2013), 3.6% (2015), and 4.5% (1981). ?I don’t know about what other people think, but there might be a market for a strategy that loses ~2.6% 11% of the time, and makes 9%+?89% of the time.
Here’s the thing, though — just because it succeeded in the past does not mean it will in the future. ?There is a decent theory behind the Permanent Portfolio, but can it survive highly priced bonds and stocks? ?My guess is yes.
Scenarios: 1) inflation runs, and the Fed falls behind the curve — cash and gold do well, bonds tank, and stocks muddle. ?2) Growth stalls, and so does the Fed: bonds rally, cash and stocks muddle, and gold follows the course of inflation. 3) Growth runs, and the Fed swarms with hawks. Cash does well, and the rest muddle.
It’s hard, almost impossible to make them all do badly at the same time. ?They react differently to?changes in the macro-economy.
Upshot
There are a lot of modified permanent portfolio ideas out there, most of which have done worse than the pure strategy. ?This permanent portfolio strategy?would be relatively pure. ?I’m toying with the idea of a lower minimum ($25,000) separate account that would hold four funds and rebalance as stated above, with fees of 0.2% over the ETF fees. ?To minimize taxes, high cost tax lots would be sold first. ?My question is would there be interest for something like this? ?I would be using a better set of ETFs than the ones that I listed above.
I write this, knowing that I was disappointed when I started out with my equity management. ?Many indicated interest; few carried through. ?Small accounts and a low fee structure do not add up to a scalable model unless two things happen: 1) enough accounts want it, and 2) all reporting services are provided by Interactive Brokers.
Closing
Besides, anyone could do the rebalancing strategy. ?It’s not rocket science. ?There are enough decent ETFs to use. ?Would anyone truly want to pay 0.2%/yr on assets to have someone select the funds and do the rebalancing for him? ?I wouldn’t.
Information received since the Federal Open Market Committee met in December indicates that the labor market has continued to strengthen and that economic activity has continued to expand at a moderate pace.
Information received since the Federal Open Market Committee met in February indicates that the labor market has continued to strengthen and that economic activity has continued to expand at a moderate pace.
No real change.
Job gains remained solid and the unemployment rate stayed near its recent low.
Job gains remained solid and the unemployment rate was little changed in recent months.
No real change.
Household spending has continued to rise moderately while business fixed investment has remained soft.
Household spending has continued to rise moderately while business fixed investment appears to have firmed somewhat.
Shades up business fixed investment.
Measures of consumer and business sentiment have improved of late.
That sentence lasted for one statement.
Inflation increased in recent quarters but is still below the Committee’s 2 percent longer-run objective.
Inflation has increased in recent quarters, moving close to the Committee’s 2 percent longer-run objective; excluding energy and food prices, inflation was little changed and continued to run somewhat below 2 percent.
Shades their view of inflation up.
Excluding two categories that have had high though variable inflation rates is bogus. Use a trimmed mean or the median.
Market-based measures of inflation compensation remain low; most survey-based measures of longer-term inflation expectations are little changed, on balance.
Market-based measures of inflation compensation remain low; survey-based measures of longer-term inflation expectations are little changed, on balance.
Consistent with its statutory mandate, the Committee seeks to foster maximum employment and price stability.
Consistent with its statutory mandate, the Committee seeks to foster maximum employment and price stability.
No change. Any time they mention the ?statutory mandate,? it is to excuse bad policy. But don?t blame the Fed, blame Congress.
The Committee expects that, with gradual adjustments in the stance of monetary policy, economic activity will expand at a moderate pace, labor market conditions will strengthen somewhat further, and inflation will rise to 2 percent over the medium term.
The Committee expects that, with gradual adjustments in the stance of monetary policy, economic activity will expand at a moderate pace, labor market conditions will strengthen somewhat further, and inflation will stabilizearound 2 percent over the medium term.
Near-term risks to the economic outlook appear roughly balanced. The Committee continues to closely monitor inflation indicators and global economic and financial developments.
Near-term risks to the economic outlook appear roughly balanced. The Committee continues to closely monitor inflation indicators and global economic and financial developments.
No change.
In view of realized and expected labor market conditions and inflation, the Committee decided to maintain the target range for the federal funds rate at 1/2 to 3/4 percent.
In view of realized and expected labor market conditions and inflation, the Committee decided to raise the target range for the federal funds rate to 3/4 to 1 percent.
Kicks the Fed Funds rate up ?%.
The stance of monetary policy remains accommodative, thereby supporting some further strengthening in labor market conditions and a return to 2 percent inflation.
The stance of monetary policy remains accommodative, thereby supporting some further strengthening in labor market conditions and a sustained return to 2 percent inflation.
Suggests that they are waiting to see 2% inflation for a while before making changes.
In determining the timing and size of future adjustments to the target range for the federal funds rate, the Committee will assess realized and expected economic conditions relative to its objectives of maximum employment and 2 percent inflation.
In determining the timing and size of future adjustments to the target range for the federal funds rate, the Committee will assess realized and expected economic conditions relative to its objectives of maximum employment and 2 percent inflation.
No change.
This assessment will take into account a wide range of information, including measures of labor market conditions, indicators of inflation pressures and inflation expectations, and readings on financial and international developments.
This assessment will take into account a wide range of information, including measures of labor market conditions, indicators of inflation pressures and inflation expectations, and readings on financial and international developments.
No change.? Gives the FOMC flexibility in decision-making, because they really don?t know what matters, and whether they can truly do anything with monetary policy.
In light of the current shortfall of inflation from 2 percent, the Committee will carefully monitor actual and expected progress toward its inflation goal.
The Committee will carefully monitor actual and expected inflation developments relative to its symmetric inflation goal.
Now that inflation is 2%, they have to decide how much they are willing to let it run before they tighten with vigor.
The Committee expects that economic conditions will evolve in a manner that will warrant only gradual increases in the federal funds rate; the federal funds rate is likely to remain, for some time, below levels that are expected to prevail in the longer run. However, the actual path of the federal funds rate will depend on the economic outlook as informed by incoming data.
The Committee expects that economic conditions will evolve in a manner that will warrant gradual increases in the federal funds rate; the federal funds rate is likely to remain, for some time, below levels that are expected to prevail in the longer run. However, the actual path of the federal funds rate will depend on the economic outlook as informed by incoming data.
No change.? Says that they will go slowly, and react to new data.? Big surprises, those.
The Committee is maintaining its existing policy of reinvesting principal payments from its holdings of agency debt and agency mortgage-backed securities in agency mortgage-backed securities and of rolling over maturing Treasury securities at auction, and it anticipates doing so until normalization of the level of the federal funds rate is well under way. This policy, by keeping the Committee’s holdings of longer-term securities at sizable levels, should help maintain accommodative financial conditions.
The Committee is maintaining its existing policy of reinvesting principal payments from its holdings of agency debt and agency mortgage-backed securities in agency mortgage-backed securities and of rolling over maturing Treasury securities at auction, and it anticipates doing so until normalization of the level of the federal funds rate is well under way. This policy, by keeping the Committee’s holdings of longer-term securities at sizable levels, should help maintain accommodative financial conditions.
No change.? Says it will keep reinvesting maturing proceeds of treasury, agency debt and MBS, which blunts any tightening.
Voting for the FOMC monetary policy action were: Janet L. Yellen, Chair; William C. Dudley, Vice Chairman; Lael Brainard; Charles L. Evans; Stanley Fischer; Patrick Harker; Robert S. Kaplan; Neel Kashkari; Jerome H. Powell; and Daniel K. Tarullo.
Voting for the FOMC monetary policy action were: Janet L. Yellen, Chair; William C. Dudley, Vice Chairman; Lael Brainard; Charles L. Evans; Stanley Fischer; Patrick Harker; Robert S. Kaplan; Jerome H. Powell; and Daniel K. Tarullo.
Large agreement.
Voting against the action was Neel Kashkari, who preferred at this meeting to maintain the existing target range for the federal funds rate.
Kashkari willing to be the lone dove amid rising inflation.? I wonder if he is thinking about systemic issues?
Comments
2% inflation arrives, and the FOMC tightens another notch.
They are probably behind the curve.
The economy is growing well now, and in general, those who want to work can find work.
The change of the FOMC?s view is that inflation is higher. Equities and bonds rise. Commodity prices rise and the dollar weakens.
The FOMC says that any future change to policy is contingent on almost everything.
I wrote this to summarize my thoughts from a chat session that I was able to participate in at Thompson Reuters Global Markets Forum yesterday.? It was wider ranging than this, but was a very enjoyable time.? Thanks to Manoj Rawal for inviting me.
On the Pursuit of Economic Growth
I think one of the conceits of the modern era is the degree of trust we place in governments.? We want them to do everything for us.? The truth is that their power is limited.? Even if we delegate more power to them, that doesn?t mean the power can/will be used by the government for the purposes intended.
The government is composed of people with their own goals.? It?s not much different than shareholders delegating power of the corporation to a board of directors, who collectively oversee management, should they care to do so.? Often delegated power gets misdirected for the ends of the power- and money-hungry.
Who watches the watchers?? It is one reason why we have ?rule of law? in many republics ? there is law that governs the government, if we have the will to maintain that.? It differs from ?rule by law? which exists more commonly on Earth ? laws exist so that the rulers can maintain their rule over those they rule ? of which China is an excellent example.? Freedom that is good for the interests of the Communist Party is allowed to exist, but not other freedoms.? There are no rights that are God-given, not subject to the dictates of governments.
Sorry for the digression ? my main point is that even the most powerful governments get bogged down, and can?t do nearly what people imagine they can do.? It is akin to what Peter Drucker said on management, that where managers proliferate, it takes progressive more people to manage all of the people ? you might actually be able to get more done with fewer people.
Governments face another constraint ? because people think the government can stimulate the economy, we have had governments stretch past their budgetary limits, borrow a lot of money, and make long-dated promises that they can?t keep.? This is not just a US phenomenon.? This is happening globally.? It is rare, possibly even non-existent to find countries that run balanced budgets, have sound monetary policy, and haven?t overpromised on entitlements.
As such, there isn?t that much that governments can do in terms of discretionary spending.? Even when they do allocate money, most projects of any significance don?t produce immediate results, but take years to start and more years to complete.? China may be able to run roughshod over its citizens, but where rule of law exists, there is necessary delay for most projects.? Obama or Trump can long for ?shovel ready? projects.? They don?t exist, at least not many of them exist that are sizable.
As such, when I look at the plans of Donald Trump, I don?t give them a lot of weight in investment decisions that I make.? The same goes for any US or foreign leader, central banker, or whatever.? Short of starting a war, the amount of truly impactful things he can do is limited, especially for overly indebted governments.
What does matter then?? I think culture matters a lot.? Here are some questions to think about:
What priority do we place on taking risk?
How do you balance the competing needs of creditors and debtors?
How easy is it to start a business?
How do we feel about people using natural resources for profit?
How predictable is government policy, so that people can make long-term plans, and not worry about whether they will be able to see those plans to their fruition or not?
Does the culture protect private property?
Do we encourage men and women to marry, start families, and raise intelligent children?
Do we encourage charitable endeavors, so that effective help can be given to those who genuinely want to escape poverty? (rather than perpetuate it through continual handouts?)
How much do we play favorites across and within industries?
To what degree do we force uneconomic growth objectives through tax incentives, such as owning a home, rather than renting?
How much are we willing to allow technology to eliminate jobs, such that labor is directed away from simple tasks to tasks of higher complexity?
It is my opinion that those are the greater drivers of economic growth, and that the government can do little to foster growth, aside from having simple long-term policies, and letting us get on with being productive.
As such, I don?t see a lot going on right now that should promote higher growth.? Note that high growth is not necessary for a strong stock market, but it is necessary if you want to see ordinary laborers benefit in society.
