A basic investment strategy for investors is to diversify. Typically, investors put some of their money into stocks, and most of the rest into bonds. Small portions may go into gold or other commodities, or be held as cash. Stocks and bonds historically have tended to offset each other. When stocks rose, bonds would fall, and vice versa. A diversified portfolio would be hedged, ameliorating the ups and downs of the market and making investing less stressful.
Today, though, central bank accommodation--in the form of ultra low interest rates, negative interest rates and quantitative easing--has distorted this historical relationship. As the Fed and other central banks print more and more money, both stocks and bonds rise in value. They no longer offset, and diversified portfolios are becoming unhedged. If and when the era of easy money ends, both stocks and bonds could fall, and perhaps precipitously.
By unhedging diversified portfolios, the central banks are heightening investor risks. Many wealthy and institutional investors, apparently sensing the danger, have been increasing their levels of cash. But ordinary mom and pop 401(k) investors may not be able to shift gears so easily. They may face increasing exposure, and perhaps not know it. If they sustain losses when they expected to be hedged, they could lose confidence in the markets. The result could be rapid and ugly. That's what happened on Black Monday, October 19, 1987, when the stock market crashed and fell 22.61% in a single day because many institutional investors thought they'd be hedged by a financial product called portfolio insurance and found out unexpectedly that portfolio insurance didn't work.
The central banks could reduce accommodative policies in order to raise rates and normalize the financial markets. But that process could cause investor losses and trigger selling that leads to a market meltdown. If, on the other hand, central banks keep printing money, they may worsen the problem. You could shift more assets to cash (or at least refrain from committing fresh cash to the markets). Otherwise, understand that diversification, like everything else in the financial markets, is starting to look a little hinky.
Monday, August 22, 2016
Friday, August 12, 2016
Is the Central Banking Bubble Bursting?
America's economy is stuck in first gear, China's economic growth is slowing, Europe's economy is dead in the water, and Japan's economy has been lost in a fog bank for decades. Corporate profits have been declining on a year-to-year basis. But stocks keep reaching new highs. Given the backdrop of pessimistic data from the real world, one must wonder how much longer the delirious jollity of the markets can continue.
It's no secret that the frothiness of stocks stems from the service-minded attitude of the world's major central banks: they aim to please. Accommodation is the word of the day. Money will be printed early and often, and served on a silver platter with a flute of champagne. The central bankers are not about to take the champagne away, even though some Federal Reserve officials occasionally mutter something or other about raising rates. The markets know this--the futures market seem to view rate rises as likely as pigs flying. So the central bank bubble persists.
It's true that the central banks' tools are becoming dull. Quantitative easing--the purchasing of bonds by central banks--is playing out. Vast amounts of government bonds have been bought up, and now corporate bonds are being targeted. Private sector retirement savings are being pummeled by the lack of sources of reliable long term earnings. Pension fund deficits are like festering sores, annuity payouts are shrinking, long care insurance policies are becoming extortionately expensive, and interest payments on personal savings are going the way of the passenger pigeon. With shrinking retirement prospects, people are saving more so that they can limit the need for dog food in their retirement diets. As a result, both current and future consumption are constrained. Since consumption is 70% of the U.S. economy, the Fed is seeking short gains in aggregate economic statistics by sacrificing long term financial prospects. We've had eight years of ultra low interest rates with no end in sight, and recovery from the resulting income losses will take many years, if it ever happens.
More recently, the monetary tool that has become au courant among central bankers is the negative interest rate. Negative rates are a counter-intuitive policy where borrowers are paid to take out loans. They are supposed to stimulate lending by penalizing commercial banks for holding deposits. However, despite being all the rage among central banks in Europe and Japan, they haven't worked out. It seems that people, concerned by the weirdness of negative rates, aren't borrowing but instead are saving more. See http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/09/bonds-and-debt-negative-yields-are-doing-the-opposite-of-what-they-were-intended.html. Negative interest rates signal that the world is not well. People are hunkering down and building up financial reserves in case times get worse. This, too, dampens consumption and current economic growth.
But the deleterious effects of ultra low and negative interest rates are more likely to cause further economic stagnation, not a sudden collapse of stock prices. The reality is that central banks aren't subject to market forces the way the rest of us are. They are, however, subject to a lot of political pressure to keep current economic statistics looking good. They know that the political process is largely dysfunctional, and fiscal proactivity isn't on the agenda. So they keep exchanging small near term benefits for large long term costs without any immediate consequence. The bubble won't burst simply because they are making a bad long term deal.
Could the central banking bubble burst? The breakup of the EU might do the trick. A return of significant inflation would be a major risk factor. But it's hard to predict the likelihood of either. In the meantime, stock prices could remain manically frothy. Central banks can't defeat market forces when the market works against them, as the Bank of England found out in 1992 when it tried to support an overvalued pound against market forces pushing the pound down. But right now, the financial markets want the central banks to be accommodative. They applaud the idea. Since the central banks face no reality checks, they can keep printing money indefinitely.
So, should you suspend belief and keep buying stocks? Certainly, seeing stocks go ever higher just about every day is encouragement to drink the Kool-Aid and invest more. But staying well-diversified, with a healthy dollop of cash, may be the sanest choice in an insane world.
It's no secret that the frothiness of stocks stems from the service-minded attitude of the world's major central banks: they aim to please. Accommodation is the word of the day. Money will be printed early and often, and served on a silver platter with a flute of champagne. The central bankers are not about to take the champagne away, even though some Federal Reserve officials occasionally mutter something or other about raising rates. The markets know this--the futures market seem to view rate rises as likely as pigs flying. So the central bank bubble persists.
It's true that the central banks' tools are becoming dull. Quantitative easing--the purchasing of bonds by central banks--is playing out. Vast amounts of government bonds have been bought up, and now corporate bonds are being targeted. Private sector retirement savings are being pummeled by the lack of sources of reliable long term earnings. Pension fund deficits are like festering sores, annuity payouts are shrinking, long care insurance policies are becoming extortionately expensive, and interest payments on personal savings are going the way of the passenger pigeon. With shrinking retirement prospects, people are saving more so that they can limit the need for dog food in their retirement diets. As a result, both current and future consumption are constrained. Since consumption is 70% of the U.S. economy, the Fed is seeking short gains in aggregate economic statistics by sacrificing long term financial prospects. We've had eight years of ultra low interest rates with no end in sight, and recovery from the resulting income losses will take many years, if it ever happens.
More recently, the monetary tool that has become au courant among central bankers is the negative interest rate. Negative rates are a counter-intuitive policy where borrowers are paid to take out loans. They are supposed to stimulate lending by penalizing commercial banks for holding deposits. However, despite being all the rage among central banks in Europe and Japan, they haven't worked out. It seems that people, concerned by the weirdness of negative rates, aren't borrowing but instead are saving more. See http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/09/bonds-and-debt-negative-yields-are-doing-the-opposite-of-what-they-were-intended.html. Negative interest rates signal that the world is not well. People are hunkering down and building up financial reserves in case times get worse. This, too, dampens consumption and current economic growth.
But the deleterious effects of ultra low and negative interest rates are more likely to cause further economic stagnation, not a sudden collapse of stock prices. The reality is that central banks aren't subject to market forces the way the rest of us are. They are, however, subject to a lot of political pressure to keep current economic statistics looking good. They know that the political process is largely dysfunctional, and fiscal proactivity isn't on the agenda. So they keep exchanging small near term benefits for large long term costs without any immediate consequence. The bubble won't burst simply because they are making a bad long term deal.
Could the central banking bubble burst? The breakup of the EU might do the trick. A return of significant inflation would be a major risk factor. But it's hard to predict the likelihood of either. In the meantime, stock prices could remain manically frothy. Central banks can't defeat market forces when the market works against them, as the Bank of England found out in 1992 when it tried to support an overvalued pound against market forces pushing the pound down. But right now, the financial markets want the central banks to be accommodative. They applaud the idea. Since the central banks face no reality checks, they can keep printing money indefinitely.
So, should you suspend belief and keep buying stocks? Certainly, seeing stocks go ever higher just about every day is encouragement to drink the Kool-Aid and invest more. But staying well-diversified, with a healthy dollop of cash, may be the sanest choice in an insane world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
