Coronavirus and the Federal Reserve's Political Policy

It's when times are tough that you see what's really going on.  Last week, the stock market fell 11% because of fears over the economic impact of the coronavirus epidemic, dropping into a correction in a matter of days.  President Trump called loudly for a Fed interest rate cut.  Always ready for another government handout, Wall Streeters also chimed in for a rate cut.  Yesterday, rumors that the Fed and other central banks would act together pushed the Dow Jones Industrial Average up over 1200 points.

Early this morning, the Fed indicated it was considering accommodative action, but signaled that nothing was imminent.  https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/03/economy/federal-reserve-rate-cut/index.html.  However, a few hours later, the Fed announced a surprise 0.5% cut in short term interest rates.  The Dow, instead of responding positively, promptly fell almost 800 points.

What gives?  It's hard not to think the Fed gave in to political pressure.  A rate cut won't cure coronavirus.  Nor will it vaccinate humans against the disease.  It won't quarantine the virus or establish barriers to its spread.  People who are avoiding traveling, large gatherings, restaurants, concerts, sporting events, and other potential infection venues won't start spending and exposing themselves to the illness just because of a rate cut.  Even if stocks had risen, people wouldn't have started to engage in risky behavior.  Of course, things were only made worse because the market fell after the rate cut.  The market wanted a bigger welfare check.  The President, perhaps too lazy to do the work needed for a fiscal stimulus, promptly called for another immediate Fed rate cut.

But another immediate cut would only tell us that the epidemic is far worse than we thought, and that we'd best hunker down and isolate ourselves for a long time.  No travel, no restaurant meals, no public gatherings, no socializing, no contact with anyone we don't know and trust.  Romance would halt abruptly, as who'd want to meet new people in a time of epidemic?  Dating websites would collapse and singles bars would shutter. The President would be much better off committing billions of federal dollars to emergency medical research.  But he seems to have a problem with science, like he doesn't believe in it because it sometimes contradicts his political views.  So maybe the Fed will be bullied into another rate cut that will only instill even more alarm and panic.

There are powerful reasons for the historic independence of the Federal Reserve.  Most important among them is that an independent Fed can serve the public interest, not the short term scheming of politicians.  This means, among other things, that the long term vigor of the stock market is served by a rigorously independent Fed (see the story of Paul Volcker's career for further information).  Today's surprise rate cut gave the market and us discouraging news:  that the coronavirus crisis is much worse than we thought, that the Fed is becoming the sous chef of monetary policy, and that instead of focusing on medicine, the White House is focused on the political aspects of the coronavirus epidemic.  Now that the Fed is politicized, expect more poor policy and national distress.

Why Donald Trump Can't Stop a Recession

A recession may be on the horizon.  The Federal Reserve doesn't think so.  Some others do.  Only time will tell who is right.  But if there is a recession, President Trump can't stop it before the 2020 election. 

The principal tool for the President to fight a recession would be to partner with Congress and put together a package of spending bills that would increase federal expenditures.  This sort of program, called fiscal policy, sometimes includes tax cuts, but not always.  The greatest fiscal stimulus in U.S. history, military spending for World War II, included a massive tax increase and an even greater increase in deficit spending.  The result was both victory in the war and an economic revival at home. 

Today, however, there is an almost complete absence of agreement between the President and the Democrats in the House as to how to deploy fiscal policy.  Although both sides speak of infrastructure spending, agreement on the fine points and details has remained elusive since the President was inaugurated and won't be achieved before November 2020.  For more than the past 20 years, the federal budgetary process has been largely dysfunctional, and it has grown more so as political divisiveness has increased.  With only one full budget cycle remaining before the election, it's simply too late to implement fiscal measures in time.

To make things worse, the President would likely seek a tax cut as part of the stimulus package.  But, having alienated the Democrats by ramrodding through the 2017 tax cuts with nary a shred of consideration for Democratic views, the President has essentially no good will left with the House majority when it comes to tax policy.  The Democrats will agree to tax changes only if there is a substantial rollback of the 2017 cornucopia of tax cuts for the wealthy, and the President won't agree to that.  So no deal on tax legislation is possible.

Of course, central banks can endeavor to combat recessions.  But the President does not control central bank policy.  Monetary policy and other economic management measures such as quantitative easing and the setting of bank reserves lie within the purview of the Federal Reserve.  The President attempts to influence the Fed with shrill demands on Twitter for much more aggressive interest rate cuts than the Fed seems inclined to make.  But the Fed strives to maintain its independence, and the President would be wise to back off.  If the financial markets lose confidence in the independence and integrity of the Federal Reserve, stocks will crater and the economy will get a tummy ache.   Moreover, Fed interest rate adjustments often take 18 months or longer to affect the economy.  Although they may almost instantaneously be reflected in asset prices in the financial markets, they take a long time to wend their way through the processes of the economy.  There isn't enough time before November 2020 for interest rate cuts to have a big impact. 

The prospects for a recession remain uncertain.  Unemployment is at a 50-year low, a remarkable development that no doubt informs the Fed view of the economy.  The stock market is dancing near its all-time highs.  Transportation and manufacturing are slowing, and the business community is pulling back on new investment because of confusion and caution arising from President Trump's trade wars.  It's difficult to tell how things will go.  But if a recession is coming, it's coming.

President Trump: the Fed's Biggest Moral Hazard

Perhaps the Federal Reserve's biggest problem today is that it has a moral hazard problem with President Trump.  A moral hazard is a situation in which a person can take risks without having to bear the full consequences of those risks.  For example, when stock market investors think the Federal Reserve will cut interest rates to prop up the economy and the stock market should things go downward, they are more willing to buy stocks because they expect a bailout from the Fed.  This can lead to over-investment in stocks and greater potential for an asset bubble that can later burst painfully.

President Trump's trade war with China has created uncertainty.  The economy is slowing and the stock market has been trending downward for several weeks.  Trump has been haranguing the Fed to cut interest rates, evidently in the belief that such cuts can offset the negative impact of his trade war.  There is considerable debate among economists and others whether the Fed can actually prop up the economy and stocks while the President exchanges volleys of tariffs and other trade restrictions with China.  Perhaps the Fed can soften the impact, but it seems doubtful the Fed can do more than slow down the negative impacts of the trade war.  When the Fed lowers rates in what is already a low-rate environment, that signals things are going to be bad.  Businesses pull back, slowing hiring and investment.  Consumers spend less..  The rate cuts could produce a self-fulfilling prophecy.

However, as long as President Trump believes the Fed can offset the damage his trade war does, he has no incentive to act prudently.  He may instead proceed recklessly and then turn to the Fed to put out the fires he starts.  This is an extremely concerning instance of moral hazard, and one for which there is no easy solution (because the President doesn't seem to understand economic reality).  The President could trigger an economic downturn and a bear market with no certainty that he could secure a good trade deal.  And we'd all pay the price.

How to Stimulate the Economy

With current economic indicators mostly signaling a slowdown in the economy--and perhaps a recession--a lot of attention is focused on stimulating the economy. The dialogue revolves around central bank accommodation (via lowering interest rates and bond purchases in the form of quantitative easing) and fiscal policy (i.e., deficit spending).  Fiscal measures are essentially impossible because of political gridlock.  And central banks, having devoted the past decade to accommodation, have only limited ammo left.  So what can stave off recession and renew economic growth?

There's no simple answer.  But one important factor is the availability of inexpensive energy.  Modern life is dependent on vast amounts of cheap energy.  The Industrial Revolution that created our high tech lives was the result of the development of inexpensive ways to harness and utilize large amounts of energy.

Let's begin in A.D. 1700.  Living standards in A.D. 1700 worldwide were about the same as they were in A.D. 700 and 300 B.C.  In other words, things had hardly improved over thousands of years.  But within the 150 years following 1700, people had developed the steam engine and learned how to harness electricity for commercial use.  These developments were followed by new ways to extract large amounts of fossil fuels that could be sold inexpensively.  Then, after 200 years (i.e., by 1900), people had developed the internal combustion engine.  The internal combustion engine could be used widely in transportation, manufacturing and many other ways.  Large scale generation and distribution of electricity became feasible, and the widespread availability of electric motors greatly enhanced living standards.  Economic growth and improvement of living standards accelerated at an exponential pace.  In essence, access to inexpensive energy sources (carbon based fuels and electricity) triggered a monumental amount of economic growth and a phenomenal rise in living standards in a historically short amount of time.  Of course, we now have pollution and other byproducts of the Industrial Revolution to contend with.  But the simple truth is the astounding economic growth of the past 300 years resulted to a large degree from ever increasing access to cheap energy.  Cheap energy and the technology developed to exploit it made modern life possible.   

Why is energy so important to economic growth?  Because energy is a key input into all economic activity.  From manufacturing to transportation to farming to fast food to government offices to hair salons to slimy corporate lawyers peddling excuses for their greedy clients to sordid lobbyists plotting to kill health insurance coverage for all to the performances of rock stars in large arenas, energy is an input into essentially all economic activity.  If the cost of energy is lowered, all economic activity gets a boost and economic growth in all sectors of the economy is facilitated.  

It's no accident that America's economy grew briskly in recent years concurrently with a drop in the price of natural gas, solar and wind energy, and to some degree, oil.  The proliferation of fracking not only has capped the price of oil, but also created demand for a lot of drilling equipment, trucks of various kinds, and so on.  So it boosted the manufacturing and transportation sectors. 

We use enormous amounts of energy stored in the past to make our current lives more comfortable and enjoyable.  We now understand we can't keep relying so much on energy from fossil fuels.  We have to develop more sustainable lifestyles.  However, in order to maintain and improve our lives, we need to continue our access to cheap energy in better ways.  After decades of frustration, solar and wind energy have actually become cheaper than fossil fuels.  That is a very positive development.  More technological advance is needed. 

The policies needed continue the availability of cheap energy would be varied and sometimes controversial.  Increased federal funding of basic research is an obvious one, although the GOP has done much to cut this from the federal budget.  Republicans seem fear science.  But ignorance will not spur economic growth.

Building more gas pipelines is obviously controversial to the NIMBY crowd.  But we do need better distribution systems for gas--and electricity as well.  All the windmills and solar farms in the Plains states won't do much good without power lines to transport the electricity to the big cities that need the power.  These power lines entail a huge NIMBY problem.  But this will have to be dealt with somehow, because distribution systems have to be enhanced if there is to be growth.  We need not bow to big, bullying energy and power companies and give them everything they want.  But we should acknowledge the need for better distribution systems.

Fostering greater fuel efficiency also helps to lower energy costs.  It may not lower the stated price per unit, but it reduces the number of units people have to buy.  So it would help to pursue efficiency as well as reduce unit costs.  One hidden cost of efficiency, though, is people consume more energy when it effectively becomes cheaper--many ordinary cars and SUVs today have engines that are as powerful as those in the muscle cars of the 1960's, since engine technology has improved so much, and people drive more miles per year.  So greater efficiency isn't an improvement if it doesn't reduce the use of fossil fuels.

There are many other factors besides energy that affect economic growth.  But a lot aren't controllable by any branch of the government.  Energy policy, though, can be implemented through government.

In the 1940's, 50's and 60's, the U.S. had ultra-high marginal tax rates, not that much deficit spending (the government focused on reducing the deficit, not increasing it), a rather inactive Fed, relatively high wages that provided for a comparatively equitable distribution of wealth and income--and an era of brisk economic growth and low unemployment.  This is an era still remembered as a golden age in America.  Why?  Because oil was damn cheap.  What happened after the first OPEC oil embargo in 1973?  A decade of economic stagnation followed by decades of economic uncertainty.  When we had cheap energy, we had lots of prosperity.  When energy rose sharply in price, prosperity as we had enjoyed it went away and still hasn't returned.  We don't need to sell our souls to the fossil fuels companies.  But we need to recognize that our standard of living and future improvements to our standard of living are dependent on access to cheap energy.  And we need to find responsible and sustainable ways to keep that gravy train rolling.

To Increase Inflation, Increase Incomes

The Federal Reserve Board is desperate to increase inflation to 2% per year.  It believes that a 2% level of inflation will promote economic growth by giving businesses greater pricing power and the ability to repay debt with less valuable dollars.  Right now, inflation as measured in the way the Fed prefers, runs about 1.6% per year, and remains stubbornly below 2%.

There's no economic research that definitively shows anything magical about 2% inflation being the key to the Goldilocks economy (i.e., not too hot and not too cold).  The figure is just a guess.  But if we were to accept that 2% has miraculous powers, then why has inflation persisted in staying lower?  With unemployment levels running at historic lows of about 3.6%, one would expect inflation to be moving up briskly.

Economists believe consumer expectations have a large role in determining the rate of inflation.  If people expect inflation, then there will be inflation.  If people don't expect inflation, they will resist price increases and inflation will be hard to come by.  Right now, inflation expectation are low.

Why would people today have such low expectations for price increases?  Perhaps the most obvious reason would be because they don't have the money to pay increased prices.  Wages, adjusted for the mild inflation we've had, have stagnated for decades.  The middle class, who are key consumers in the national economy, just aren't bringing in any more.  So they not surprisingly feel that they can't pay more and would resist price increases.  If the Fed wants to pump up inflation, it should hope that people get paid more.

With unemployment reaching an astonishingly low 3.6% level, one might think employers would pay more to get new hires and keep existing employees.  But that's not happening much.  Here and there, pay is jumping up.  But on the whole, incomes are mostly in a rut.  There pretty much is nothing the Fed can do to increase worker pay.  But it shouldn't hold its breath waiting for inflation to boost the economy. 

How Donald Trump Could Create a Stock Market Crash

Stock market crashes, such as in 2008, emanate from inflated asset prices.  While economic recessions and other events, such as war, can trigger market downturns, large, sharp market drops (a/k/a crashes) are the result of artificially high asset prices that often have started bubbling.  In 2008, the asset bubbles resulted from overly generous prices being paid for real estate, the resulting mortgages, stocks that seemed like good bets in light of all the real estate activity, and stocks generally because market averages kept rising.  It didn't help that the U.S. government guaranteed almost all mortgages on a de facto or de jure basis.  The easiest way to get people to pay too much for an asset is to make it seem like a sure bet.  Con men know this and profit from it because, despite all the evidence that there is no such thing as a sure bet except taxes and death, people remain suckers for sure bets. 

Donald Trump bet the image of his Presidency on the rising stock market.  Stocks rose briskly right after Election Day in 2016 and maintained their upward momentum for over a year.  Trump noisily celebrated the huzzahs he thought he heard from the financial markets and wore out the fabric of his suit jackets patting himself on the back.

But Trump, despite decades as a New York businessman, hasn't absorbed a simple lesson that he should have learned about stocks a long time ago:   that stocks go up and stocks go down.  There is no such thing in the stock markets as continuing upward momentum.  There is no endless applause.

So, when the stock markets got tummy trouble in 2018, and began to burp, belch and make other inelegant noises, Trump became discombobulated.  He berated the Federal Reserve Board for raising interest rates, manipulated oil prices down by persuading the Saudis to keep pumping large volumes, and condemned American businesses that closed down domestic operations.  Sometimes, on down days in the market, he made statements about trade talks that turned out to be optimistic or premature.  He seemed indifferent to widening federal deficits, instead suggesting a further tax cut for the middle class.  All of these actions seem linked to a desire to support stock prices.  But stocks have remained gloomy.  So we can expect that Trump will keep searching for some way to boost the metric that he thought made him look so good.

Persistent efforts by governments to support and boost asset prices have tended to end badly.  There is no free lunch, and governmental distortion of asset prices inevitably leads to misallocation of capital and other resources.  Pushed far enough, this mispricing eventually becomes too much for investors to stomach, and they back away from the asset. Then, bad things happen to the asset's price. That happened with real estate and mortgages in 2008 and it may be happening with stocks now.  If Trump pushes too hard on maintaining and increasing stock prices, he could foster a bubble in the stock markets, and nothing good for him will result from that.  If you're an investor, don't bet on governmental action to make stocks great again.  Remember:  in the final analysis, stocks go up and stocks go down.

Where Is the Stock Market Headed?

With the Dow Jones Industrial Average having dropped over 2,000 points since its peak a week and a half ago, this is the $64,000 (or more) question.  The recent market surge resulted to a large degree from too much optimism.  Market players have selectively focused on the good news (strengthening economy, big corporate tax cut, rising employment levels), while shrugging off the bad news (growing signs of inflation, rising interest rates, and increasing political discord).  Life is like a rose--pretty petals, but thorns as well.  If you ignore the thorns, you'll get an ouchie sooner or later.

So what happens after today's ouchie (1175 points off the Dow)?  The recent market surge seems similar to the valuation-driven bull markets of 1987 and 2000, which resulted in sizable drops of 25% to 30% in the Dow followed by gradual recoveries that took two to three years.  But we should bear in mind an earlier drop off. In 1973, the stock market (measured by the S&P 500) peaked after a long run up, not unlike the one we've had since 2009.  Then, it declined some 40% or more and didn't recover until some seven years later.  The 1970s were also a time of rising inflation and political scandal (Watergate), with the only resignation of a President.  Political turmoil affects economies and stock markets (look at Venezuela, where a lot of folks can't even get a square meal because of political strife).

Expect more market turmoil tomorrow, the next week, the next month, and maybe the next year.  The market could easily drop some more.  We're running out of good news.  There may be little major legislation coming out of Washington, given the political quagmire.  The Fed may go easy on the tightening, but it's not going to cut interest rates simply to support stock prices.  It's already done that, perhaps too much--and today's drop was likely a consequence.  The economy seems to be slowly gaining altitude.  But there's nothing going on that will provide it a quick major boost.  The federal government can't increase the deficit, given its recent deficit-funded splurge with the tax cut bill.  Corporations seem not to be rushing to increase reinvestment of their tax savings.  The Trump administration may spark a trade war with China and other nations.  And the stability of the federal government cannot, in these times that try our souls, be taken for granted.

History teaches that it's not a great idea to sell your stocks in an effort to staunch losses.  People who try to time the market generally fail to get back in and enjoy the resurge that will likely come (although the resurge could be a long time coming). Instead, try to spend less and save more.  Keep your investments diversified.  And don't stop knocking on wood.

Bitcoin Futures and the Growing Systemic Risks of Bitcoin

Yesterday, Bitcoin rose above $19,000, only two days after it reached $12,000.  Then, it plunged some 20%.  As we said before, Bitcoin is in a bubble.  And things will get riskier soon.

Next week, on Dec. 10, 2017, Bitcoin futures contracts will begin trading on the Cboe.   On Dec. 18, 2017, they will begin trading on the CME.  Both the Cboe and CME are longstanding exchanges that trade many well-established financial products.  The commencement of Bitcoin futures trading lends Bitcoin a legitimacy it doesn't yet have.  Investors who may shy away from the little known, often foreign markets where Bitcoin is currently traded could be drawn to the Cboe and CME because they are well-known, located in America and regulated by the U.S. government.  American investors may become far more exposed to Bitcoin than they are today.  And that could be bad.

The underlying Bitcoin market is opaque, to say the least.  Much of it is overseas, and reliable transactional data is scarce. Ownership information is, by design, unavailable.  How does one price a futures contract when one doesn't have a good idea of what's happening in market for the underlying asset?

The Bitcoin futures market will also differ dramatically from Bitcoin in another aspect.  There is a limit on the number of Bitcoins that can be created:  21 million.  There is no limit on the number of Bitcoin futures contracts that can be created.  People who don't want to pay or mine for Bitcoins can trade futures instead.  Since futures contracts can be purchased on margin (i.e., with money borrowed from a brokerage firm, after putting some cash down as collateral), it may end up being cheaper and more potentially profitable to trade Bitcoin futures instead of Bitcoins.  The volume of Bitcoin futures trading could end up dwarfing the volume of trading in the underlying Bitcoins.  And there is no limit on how large the futures market could become.

If Bitcoin futures trading expands the way Bitcoin trading has ballooned, the amount of marketwide exposure to Bitcoin price movements could increase exponentially (or maybe even faster).  The volatility of Bitcoin's price could wreak havoc with investors trading futures contracts, who generally buy futures contracts on margin.  When the price of a futures contract purchased on margin drops, brokerage firms can ask for additional cash to be deposited as collateral (via a "margin call").  This cash has to be provided quickly or the brokerage firm may sell the futures contract to prevent further losses to itself.  Investors sometimes fail to provide the additional cash demanded, either because they don't have it or can't get to it fast enough.  Either way, the brokerage firm's sales then add to the downward pressure on the market.  That can push the price of the futures contract lower and result in more margin calls.  These in turn can produce even more selling, leading to a downward spiral.  That's what happened to stocks in the great stock market crash of 1929, and it could happen to Bitcoin futures contracts.

None of this requires that the Bitcoin futures market be cornered or otherwise manipulated.  It can happen from the daily craziness we already see in the Bitcoin market.  If a lot of investors dive into Bitcoin futures, the aggregate risk created could be immense.  Abrupt price drops such as we have recently seen (i.e., 20% a day) could be catastrophic for investors trading on margin.  Widespread failures to meet margin calls can endanger the financial stability of brokerage firms and clearing houses.  Some may collapse, something that happened after the 1929 stock market crash.  That, in turn, could put the financial system at risk.

Of course, everyone thinks the Fed will bail us out.  There seems to be an assumption in the market that the Fed has always bailed us out and always will, so risk is irrelevant.  But this is no longer true, if it ever was.  The Dodd-Frank Act, much detested by conservatives, limits the extent to which the federal government can underwrite financial market bailouts.  There is no insurance covering market losses in futures accounts.  So investors taking losses in this scenario, and their brokerage firms, are pretty much on their own. 

Some might think that the way out of this dilemma is for investors and firms to hedge their exposure.  That way, if the market goes bye-bye, the losses are passed to whoever gave them the hedge.  But, from a systemic basis, hedges don't solve the problem.  Financial risks, once created, don't go away by themselves.  When they result in a loss, the loss lands somewhere.  If not on the original investor, then on the person who provided the hedge (or if that person hedged the hedge, then on the person providing hedge for the hedge, and so on).  No matter how long one extends the chain of hedges, the loss will land somewhere. 

If those losses are concentrated into one or a few firms, the result could be seriously bad in a systemic way.  That's what happened during the financial crisis of 2008, when very large amounts of derivatives market losses from mortgage-backed or mortgage-related investments were concentrated at a single large insurance company--AIG--which, had it collapsed, would have taken down the world's financial system.  As things happened, U.S. taxpayers, in a ceremony M.C.'d by the Fed, bailed out AIG and the world financial system, which although gasping for breath, was able to limp along and muddle through. 

Could Bitcoin futures losses end up concentrated in a way that would put the financial system at risk?  That will be the challenge for financial regulators, in the U.S. and elsewhere.  Since Bitcoin is traded around the world, regulators in the U.S., Europe, China, Japan and elsewhere need to be alert and communicate enthusiastically with each other.  Given the astounding celerity at which Bitcoin trading has ballooned, and the jaw-dropping volatility of Bitcoin prices, there is every reason to believe that Bitcoin futures could provide a ride as wild as, or wilder than, the Bitcoin monster roller coaster.  And the world may well not be prepared for what could happen.

Hurricane Harvey? North Korean Missiles? Stocks Shrug

So, okay, Hurricane Harvey may be the worst storm to hit America in a while.  The damage is really bad, and getting worse.  Projections for recovery time are lengthening by the minute as rainfall totals rise.  The economic impact will clearly be big.  Energy extraction and refining are being hit.  The Gulf states have a number of petrochemical and plastics plants, but they aren't manufacturing much.  The Gulf ports are major transshipment points for a lot of stuff, but not much transshipment is taking place.  The cost of rebuilding may reach $100 billion or more.

Meanwhile, the fat kid in North Korea keeps firing off missiles, in one instance over northern Japan.  He may think he's being clever, pushing the world to see how far he can go.  But shooting missiles over another country is a way to start wars.  The Japanese held their fire.  But North Korea's missiles aren't the picture of reliability and sturdiness.  If one flies in an unintended trajectory, or falls apart at the wrong time, physical impact on Japan or maybe South Korea is quite possible.  Then what?  Kim Jong Un has been on a path of escalation in recent months.  He's announced that Guam--U.S. territory--is his next target.  Since he seems intent on escalating, he will approach a flashpoint. 

But do stocks care?  Not one bit.  Even though U.S. stock futures dropped sharply last night, all indexes closed up today.  Mega hurricane--meh.  Barrage of North Korean missiles--meh.  Discord rife between and among the President, Congress and both political parties--meh.  Merrily we roll along.  Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose. 

Why do we have such insouciant stocks?  The likely explanation is the Fed.  Market participants have gotten so used to Fed bailouts that no one believes stock indexes can fall more than about 3% at the most, and therefore don't panic sell portfolios.  In some respects, this market stability may seem desirable. 

But market stability based on government subsidies is ultimately chimerical.  The Fed produced that stability by screwing over large numbers of people.  By keeping interest rates extraordinarily low for almost a decade now, the Fed has decimated pension plans.  A lot of middle class people who depended on their pensions are now lower middle class, or even poor.  Retirees and others who relied in part on interest income from their savings have learned to like dog food in lieu of steak, or even hamburger.  Holders of long term care insurance policies have faced extortionate rate increases, or possibly the prospect of spending old age in homeless shelters until they qualify for nursing homes that take Medicaid (which sometimes aren't exactly top class institutions).  Those that still have some faith in the future and want to save for a rainy day need to tighten their belts and put aside more principal, rather than count on the compounding of interest income to make their golden years glow.  That means reducing current consumption, which is a drag on the economy and may partially explain why economic growth remains tepid.

As long as the Fed supplies financial opioids for stocks to mainline, the market will be copacetic.  But problems lurk.  Stock valuations may not truly reflect investment values.  Instead, they probably incorporate a large dose of government subsidy.  That would mean people are paying too much for stocks.  This story won't have a happy ending.  Market forces can't stay suppressed indefinitely and government subsidies can't last forever.  The failure of Communism in China and the Soviet Union prove that point.  Things generally feel good when you're on narcotics. But you don't get good quality sleep on opioids--and investors shouldn't be sleeping too soundly now.

Happy Halloween, America

This may be the scariest Halloween ever.  Two ghouls are in the lead for the Presidency.  They claim to be people, but that seems to be just a masquerade.  Even in their guises as humans, they are horrifying.  Parents could use their names to scare children to eat their vegetables and do their homework.  But then the children would have nightmares.  The parents already do.

The financial markets are being inflated by the Federal Reserve into a monstrous bubble, a bloated spectral presence that could bring back the demons and vampires of the 2008 financial crisis.  Pension plans, annuities and long term care insurance are being scared to death by ultra-low interest rates.  Anyone hoping to retire is hanging garlic over their front doors.

Overseas, demons, banshees and poltergeists bedevil us.  The Middle East is a seething mass of murderous conflict, seemingly a nightmare from which we can't wake up.  North of the Middle East, a fiendish demon toils at midnight, boiling eye of newt, toe of frog, wool of bat, and tongue of dog into a toxic mix that he flings in all directions while chanting diabolically in a language not heard since ancient times.  In North Korea, a beast with curved horns labors with a crooked smile revealing jagged teeth to find ways to deliver inferno thousands of miles.

Our industrialized economy spews noxious fumes that heat the Earth hotter and hotter.  Everything we ingest--food, water, and air--causes cancer or heart disease.  Even sweetness itself, in the form of sugar and other natural sweeteners, silently stalks our health. 

Alfred Hitchcock never made a movie so scary.  The real world would scare the bejesus out of Vincent Price.  If Stephen King needs inspiration, he can simply pick up a newspaper.  The truth is we have Halloween year round.  The only thing that happens on October 31 is people wear costumes.  The rest of the time, we can only try to stay safe, if that's possible.  Happy Halloween, America.

Would the Fed Please Shut Up?

At the beginning of 2016, the Federal Reserve Board anticipated four quarterly interest rate hikes for the year.  Three quarters of the way through the year, the Fed hasn't lift rates even once.  And it's far from certain it will in December.

Why such a divergence between expectations and reality?  In a nutshell, because economists can't predict the future.  Essentially all leading and well-regarded economists get it wrong when they try to predict future economic growth.  Since the Fed is an economist-driven agency, it devotes a lot of time and energy to being wrong.  And it has been wrong early and often this year.  It's probably wrong in suggesting a significant likelihood of a December increase.  The truth is it has no way (i.e., zero percent probability) of knowing whether or not it will raise rates in December.  Its capacity for error has been copiously demonstrated and its "guidance" is worth less than a palm reader's prognostications.

Who benefits from the Fed's "guidance"?  Not investors, who only profit if they disbelieve what the Fed says.  Not consumers, whose bank accounts and certificates of deposit, money market accounts, bond holdings, pensions, and long term care insurance policies are being devastated by the perpetuation of Lilliputian interest earnings.  Those who would prepare for the future with life insurance and annuities face ever-escalating costs.  Comfortable retirement is increasingly available only for those who have both very high incomes and a ferocious propensity to save.  Everyone else will become a burden on public retirement financing.  Anyone who thinks the government will be balancing the budget by cutting the cost of Social Security and Medicare is chilling on angel dust.  Tax increases and more deficit spending will be necessary--full stop, end of discussion.  The bulk of retirees will be largely or entirely dependent on the government and any thought of cutting retirement benefits will prompt a political insurgency that would make this year's election look like a circle of kindergartners singing Kumbaya.

There are people who benefit from the Fed's "guidance."  Speculators, who make fast money bets on what some Fed official or other will say in the next three days.  Derivatives dealers, who write contracts for those who want to hedge or speculate about the Fed's "guidance."  Pundits and journalists, who try to say something profound about every cough or facial tic from one Fed official or another.  Stock and bond market dealers, who profit when the market churns each time a Fed governor smiles or frowns.  In other words, Wall Street is making money off of this.  But the "guidance" isn't making an overall contribution to the well-being of society.

The Fed used to be pretty discrete.  Back in the 1950's and 60's, we had robust growth, low unemployment, and ebullient optimism, all without a stream of prattle from the Fed.  There's no obvious need for the Fed to yack, yack, yack all the time.  We could do without all the false expectations created by inaccurate Fed prognostications.  Would the Fed just please shut up?

Is the Fed Undermining Portfolio Diversification?

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.

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.

A Generation of Stagnation; Retirement Walks the Plank

We are now looking at a generation of stagnation.  The recovery from the 2008 financial crisis still wobbles like a drunk.  Even though we now have full employment, wages barely keep up with inflation (if at all).  And recent statistics indicate that inflation is growing as fast as a parched lawn.

Regardless of what this Federal Reserve official or that says, the central bank will raise rates as often as humans walk on Mars.  If you're wondering when rates will return to historical norms, the answer is never.  At least, this is the only rational assumption you can make.  With Asia's growth slowing, Europe's growth nonexistent, South America in free fall, Russia going negative in numerous ways, and the Middle East becoming more unstable with each passing day, and no drivers of growth in America except the Fed money printing presses running 24/7, the only future forecast that seems sensible is to expect stagnation for--well, the rest of your life.

With stagnation instead of brisk economic growth, the government's ability to support retirees will be limited.  While Social Security and Medicare won't disappear, they will likely be parsimonious.  If you drop your porridge bowl, they won't refill it.  And pension fund and personal investment returns are being decimated by low interest rates on bonds and bank accounts.  Your retirement is starting to walk the plank.  What to do, then, about your future?

Spend less, save more.  This is a no brainer.  It's not what the Fed wants, because hesitant consumer demand constrains economic growth.  But the Fed be damned.  Your long term well-being requires the thriftiness of Ben Franklin, and if that results in lower economic growth that makes the Fed look bad, well who cares?  (Or, you can substitute more lively terminology if you wish).  With interest rates so low, you can't use the financial magic of compounding to build much of a retirement (see http://blogger.uncleleosden.com/2009/09/if-you-love-compounding-compounding.html). You have to set aside more principal, and hope that the few crumbs of interest income you get will elevate your retirement diet above dog food.

Put some money in stocks.  The inequality of wealth in America has increased because the Fed's easy money policies tend to inflate asset values.  Since the rich own most assets, their wealth  has increased disproportionately from central bank policies.  Realistically, with stagnant wages and a Republican controlled Congress, you can't expect the inequality of wealth to diminish.  (Maybe things would be different if Bernie Sanders is elected President, but both the Democratic and Republican establishments are using all their smoke-filled back room influence and power to prevent that.)  So you might as well join 'em if you can't beat 'em.  Owning stocks can be gut wrenching in times of market turmoil.  But so is a retirement spent eating dog food.  Learn to live with the market's turbulence, and collect the rates of return that the 1% are getting from equities.

Work longer.  This increases your lifetime earnings, which allows you to save more and build up your Social Security benefits.  If you're lucky enough to have a pension, it will likely increase your pension benefits.  Okay, so working longer means a shorter retirement.  But, like we said, retirement is walking the plank.  Just try to avoid having to live in a cardboard box on the sidewalk with a couple of cans of cat food in your raggedy backpack.

Avoid debt.  You can't go bankrupt if you don't borrow.  If you do borrow, some of your future income will go to banks and other lenders in the form of interest payments, instead of enhancing your future lifestyle.  Granted, you may need to borrow for big ticket items like college, cars and a house.  But otherwise, avoid debt.  And pay down the debt you have as you approach retirement.  Especially, lose the mortgage.  Financial advisers may tell you it's okay to have a mortgage in retirement.  But guess what?  If you have a mortgage, that means you may have more financial assets to invest in ways that pay fees and commissions to the financial advisers.  Meanwhile, you have to pay interest on the mortgage debt.  Who's better off?

For more on ways to yank your retirement back off the plank, read http://blogger.uncleleosden.com/2009/11/techniques-for-retirement-saving.html, http://blogger.uncleleosden.com/2009/07/simplest-financial-plan-of-all.html, and http://blogger.uncleleosden.com/2011/01/hope-for-financially-lost.html.  Good luck.

How the Federal Reserve Destabilizes the Markets and Influences Politics

The Fed is being hoisted on its own petard.  Since 2008, it has suppressed interest rates, keeping them exceptionally low and forcing investors to put savings into risk assets such as stocks and high-yield bonds.  While there were good reasons for taking extraordinary action in 2008 and 2009, the Fed left rates so low for so long that investors, corporate America and borrowers have come to expect that really easy money is the norm, the default.  This dependency has made it virtually impossible for the Fed to normalize interest rates.  If the Fed raises rates, risk assets fall in value (as they did in recent months when faced with the specter of short term rates reaching a ghastly 1% to 1.25% by the end of this year).  The markets simply won't stand for interest rate increases, and the Fed sees itself as having no choice but to do the markets' bidding.  However, as the Fed continues to suppress interest rates, it only increases the markets' dependency, making future rate increases even more difficult. 

The Fed claims its interest rate policy is data dependent, and that it will raise rates as warranted by the data.  The U.S. economy is now at full employment and growing moderately.  Although last month's inflation data show stable prices, the recent rise in oil and gasoline prices will push up inflation numbers for March.  Yet, when it comes to the decision whether or not to increase rates, there is only one data point that matters.  That is the willingness of the financial markets to accept an increase.  With the markets' long term addiction to low rates deeply embedded, and their turbulent hissy fits every time the Fed hints at rate normalization, there is no foreseeable time when interest rates will return to historical norms. 

The Fed is undermining deeply rooted foundations of our society.  Highly rated long term bonds are essential to the stable retirements for which Americans and many other peoples hope.  Shorter term interest rates provide important supplemental income to savers, and promote financial stability and responsibility that mitigate the impact of economic cycles.  When people face lousy retirements (see http://blogger.uncleleosden.com/2015/04/is-federal-reserve-wrecking-retirement.html), and can't count on much of any return on savings (especially after netting out inflation), you can get the political unrest that we see today. 

The Fed is missing an important part of the picture.  People don't just want cheap credit.  They want stable long term prospects.  During the 1950's, 60's and 70's, the World War II generation endured many layoffs and cutbacks, due to recessions, factory retoolings, labor strikes and so on.  But their fundamental faith in the future was unshaken, because they knew they had pensions and Social Security to take care of them in their golden years (which in fact were golden for many of them).  This kind of long term stability isn't evident today.  Instead, havoc permeates today's politics.  Angry voters in America and Europe are upending established political orders because they fear the future.

Personal consumption and wealth have suffered greatly from low interest rates.  From 2008 to 2013, savers lost about $750 billion due to low interest rates (see http://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-low-interest-rates-have-cost-consumers-750-billion/).  Adding in likely losses for 2014 through today, the amount now is probably around $1 trillion.  That's real money.  Take that much out of people's hands, and they feel less secure, less inclined to spend, less inclined to borrow (you borrow less if you have less income), and more angry about the status quo.

What's more, the Fed's insistence on favoring risk assets has exacerbated the increasing inequality of income and wealth.  Rich people have the capital to invest in risk assets, and they become increasingly wealthy when cheap money pumps up the value of those assets.  Those getting the short end of the stick are now turning toward political extremism, because they feel they have no other choice.

The last thing the Fed wants to do is get entangled in politics.  It is supposed to be an independent agency that dispassionately dispenses policy in the public interest.  But the Fed's inability to act independently of the financial markets' short term tantrums is having significant impact on social stability and political trends.  Things will only get worse.  As the fall election approaches, the Fed will find itself in the horns of a dilemma largely of its own making.  If it raises rates because inflation is flaring (which is possible given the recent sharp increases in oil and gasoline prices), it will be accused of tilting the political picture one way.  If it does not raise rates despite an upswing in inflation, the markets will hum along on their cheap credit high, and the Fed will be accused of tilting the political landscape another way. 

The Fed is largely staffed and run by economists.  The economists there have failed to appreciate the diminishing returns of continuing the cheap money IV for the markets.  They have also failed to appreciate the costs of their cheap money policy.  If all they acknowledge is the upside (the return to full employment and moderate growth), and fail to acknowledge the pain they inflict on savers and workers who want to retire, then of course they will continue to inject cheap credit into the markets because they only see the benefits and not the costs.  Economists who don't acknowledge diminishing returns and see only benefits but not costs are bound to get policy wrong. 

The Fed measures its performance by short term metrics--current GDP growth, current unemployment, current inflation.  It doesn't appear to pay much attention, if any, to long term factors.  Long term factors are harder to measure.  But that doesn't mean they aren't important.  By focusing on the short term, and ignoring the long term, the Fed inevitably creates problems.  And we all have to live with the consequences of those problems.

Afraid of Another Financial Crisis? Watch the Banks

Financial crises like we had in 2008 before the Great Recession, and earlier in the 1930's before the Great Depression, are the triggers for big, long lasting economic downturns that require painfully long times from which to recover.  They differ from ordinary economic recessions (i.e., two quarters of negative economic growth), which generally don't last more than a couple of years and are usually followed by good levels of growth.  Financial crises are caused by liquidity shortages in the financial system.  When major banks and other financial institutions cannot obtain ready access to loans, especially short term loans, the financial system can teeter, and in worst case scenarios, collapse. 

Recent news articles report that European banks are under stress because of the decline in oil prices (http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/08/european-banks-face-major-cash-crunch.html), and because of low interest rates and legal costs, as well as oil prices (http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/05/investing/bank-stocks-worse-than-oil/index.html?iid=EL).  Things got so shaky today that Deutsche Bank, Germany's largest, felt compelled to put out a statement reassuring shareholders about its financial condition.  http://www.reuters.com/article/us-deutsche-bank-stocks-idUSKCN0VI1WI.  If Europe's major banks begin to encounter liquidity shortfalls, we could have a problem.  If not addressed properly, it could be a big problem.

Europe's big banks are in general not as well capitalized as America's big banks, so it's not surprising that the Europeans might encounter turbulence sooner.  But if Europe's big banks teeter, America's big banks will, because of the interconnections between all major banks worldwide, at least feel pretty nauseated.  Of course, in such a scenario, the European Central Bank and U.S. Federal Reserve will mount up and ride to the rescue.  But not even the Brobdingnagian bailouts of 2008 prevented the Great Recession.

If the financial system stays sound, the slowdown in China and the other BRICS may cause a recession, but probably not a catastrophe.  But if the financial system dives into the septic tank, as it did in 2008, then we can expect a stinky mess.  So watch the banks.

The Challenge For China

The Chinese stock market fell some 12% this first week of 2016.  The downturn triggered corresponding drops in other stock markets around the world, including a loss of over 6% for the week in the U.S.  The financial press is probably secretly delighted, since such volatility captures the attention of a lot of people and brings a surge of traffic onto their websites.  But most people are unhappy.

The Chinese stock market fell for a simple reason--it's overvalued.  It's been overvalued for a while, at least since early 2015.  As we in America know, overvalued stocks fall sooner or later.  It happened in 2000 and 2008.  It's happening now in China, and elsewhere. 

Chinese financial regulators complicated matters by halting trading after a circuit breaker was triggered by a 7% fall two days in a row.  Circuit breakers can be useful in ameliorating short term panics.  But significant overvaluation, as one sees in China, is a long term problem, and circuit breakers may actually increase selling pressure by sharply limiting the time available for trading.  When trading hours are circumscribed, sellers want to move quickly to sell, but buyers want time to evaluate whether or not prices are leveling out.  The result is that there are many more sellers than buyers in a limited amount of time and prices plummet.  Chinese regulators had to suspend the circuit breakers, which was followed by a modest rise in Chinese stocks at the end of the week.

But the regulatory miscues aren't the long term story.  Stocks in China were pumped up by a number of government policies that directly or indirectly encouraged investment in equities.  The bubble peaked and burst this past summer, and the Chinese government has since been trying to prop up the market with restrictions on selling and government-induced purchasing.  These measures to balance supply and demand don't address the basic underlying problem--Chinese stocks aren't worth their nominal market prices--and consequently can't really calm things down. 

At this point, losses inhere in Chinese stocks.  These losses have not been fully recognized in market prices.  With the Chinese economy slowing and capital flowing out of China, there isn't much realistic prospect of the losses reversing.  They will have to be realized sooner or later.  The Chinese government probably understands this, but will endeavor to smooth out the process of realization of the losses to reduce the pain perceived by investors.  The U.S. Federal Reserve and European Central Bank used similar smoothing strategies to deal with the fallout from the Great Recession and the European sovereign debt crisis.  Smoothing carries a major risk of kicking the can down the road, with losses emerging like new heads of the Hydra if underlying economic growth hasn't been revived.  The challenge for China will be to accelerate its economic growth.  But the prospects for a near-term rebound of the Chinese economy are poor.  Low-cost manufacturing is gradually shifting out of China, where wages are rising, and hasn't yet been fully replaced by anything else.  China's economy seems to be meandering.  We can expect more market volatility.

Fed Raises Rates, Civilization Ends

Today, the Federal Reserve raised short term interest rates a quarter point.  Stock up on food, water, blankets, toilet paper and ammo.  Barricade your doors and windows.  Civilization is ending.  Massive hordes wielding pitchforks will rage through the streets.  Entropy will increase.  Chaos will reign.

Okay.

Actually,

in all likelihood, not much will happen in the near future.  A quarter point really isn't a lot.  If the typically usurious credit card interest rate were increased a quarter point, you'd barely notice it, unless you're so deep in debt that bankruptcy is a more realistic option than minimum monthly payments.  If a quarter point increase on your mortgage rate knocks you out as a buyer of your dream home, you were probably about to pay too much for that house.  Money market funds and bank money market accounts have been paying almost nothing in interest.  If they now start paying a quarter point, you won't see a stampede from stocks to money markets.  The only thing that will happen is that savers will start thinking they can add one four-dollar cup of coffee per year to their budgets.

Will the rate increase exacerbate the fallout in the junk bond market?  Maybe by a bit.  Mathematically speaking, higher interest rates imply lower bond prices.  But, again, a quarter point won't greatly change bond prices.  The junk bond losses are, to a large degree, a result of the oversupply in the energy markets (oil and natural gas).  That's not the result of Fed policy.  It's because the energy markets were overstimulated by rapid growth in some parts of the world (especially China) which has now abated. 

The key question is how fast the Fed will raise rates over the one, two and three years.  Rapid increases will, indeed, significantly change the relative values of assets.  But Fed Chair Janet Yellen is signaling that the Fed will be kinder and gentler with rate increases than it has been in the past. 

Could the Fed be making a mistake?  As one former vice presidential candidate would have put it, you betcha.  The Fed has made many mistakes in the past and some of them were egregious.  Stay alert for trouble--the junk bond market, the manufacturing slowdown, China's slowdown, falling commodities prices and who knows what else could signal the next economic dislocation.  But the market was expecting a quarter point increase today, and if the Fed hadn't raised rates, it would have probably created more market turmoil than raising rates causes. 

Ask Not What Your Country Can Spend For You

Ask what you can spend for your country.  At least, some folks might like it if you did.  The Federal Reserve is in trouble.  The economy is meandering.  Unemployment levels have reached full employment, but labor force participation levels are low.  The Fed accentuates the negative and projects gloom about employment.  Wages stagnate, and, net of inflation, are lower than a generation ago.  The dollar is strong, which encourages imports while discouraging inflation. The Consumer Price Index is dropping, leading some to conclude that we have deflation.  This conclusion is a classic example of how statistics mislead.  Prices are higher if you take out energy costs.  If the price of everything except energy is going up, and energy is dropping a lot, do we really have deflation?  Or a misleading statistic?

But we digress. The Fed has greatly reduced its quantitative easing measures, since they didn't seem to be doing much good any more.  It's holding short term interest rates lower than a snake's belly.  But it can't do more.  The Fed is now low on ammo and can't expend what it has left; it has to hold something in reserve in case the economy belly flops.

There's no possibility of fiscal stimulus.  The federal government tied its budget into knots with the sequestration law, which requires automatic spending cuts each year through 2021.  Congress and the White House can get around the cuts by passing specific legislation providing for something other than sequestration.  But, given how the daily love fest between Congress and the White House consists of brickbats, but not bouquets, the chance for fiscal stimulus is lower than short term interest rates.

That leaves you, dear consumer.  The U.S. economy is about 70% consumption, and if consumers don't consume, the economy reaches for one of those little airline bags.  So spend, spend, spend.

Right?  Come on, right?

Or maybe not.  Consumers learned the hard way after the 2008 financial crisis that lavish spending and debt accumulation are shortcuts to financial ruin, and that saving improves the quality of your sleep.  Just because the Fed made it cheap to borrow doesn't mean borrowing is a good idea--soda is inexpensive but drinking a lot of it is a very bad idea.  If the Fed can't move short term interest rates above a complete goose egg, you have to suspect that maybe the Fed knows that the economy is a complete goose egg.  In which case, the last thing you want to do is spend freely.

We live with a contradiction:  our individual financial health requires acting in a way that is unhelpful to near term economic growth.  But those who are prudent can get through hard economic times, and it makes sense to put self and family first.  This leaves policy makers with controversial choices--negative interest rates, easing immigration restrictions to bring in educated, ambitious foreigners, and even more hotly debated measures (can you say Ex-Im Bank?).  How likely are these?

The truth is government policy is largely played out.  The economy will have to rise or fall based mostly on its own.  The next surge of growth, whenever that is, will probably come in a rush of technological innovation that may be hard to foresee.  Until then, the economy will likely meander.  If you're building up your savings and preparing for a tough slog, you'll probably be okay.  Ask not what you can spend for your country.  Ask what you can save for yourself and your family.

Do the Financial Markets Regulate the Fed?

When the Federal Reserve decided last week to hold short term interest rates at zero, the stock market's reaction was to drop.  Even though easy money has been a shot of glucose for stocks since the 2007-08 financial crisis, the market seemed to be saying that there can be too much of a good thing.

Yesterday, Fed Chair Janet Yellen stated her view that rates should rise sometime this year.  The market reacted positively, even though rising interest rates logically should push stock prices down (since fixed rate investments that compete with stocks would offer higher yields than before).

The implication is that the market is leading the Fed.  The market wanted rates to rise, and when they didn't, the market pouted.  That may have prompted Chair Yellen to make more noise about rates rising, and then the market cooed with approval.

Why would the market want rates to rise when conventional wisdom holds that stocks should love easy money?  Maybe it's because the stock market absorbs information from a variety of inputs, both short and long term.  Easy money is positive in the short run, but can be corrosive in the long run.  Accommodative policy by the Fed and other central banks has continued for almost 8 years now, and is distorting asset values and relationships to the point where the social contract may be changing.  With interest rates so low, the ability of pension funds, insurance companies and other asset managers to provide pension and annuity income is becoming impaired.  (For more, see http://blogger.uncleleosden.com/2015/04/is-federal-reserve-wrecking-retirement.html.)  When private parties can no longer provide retirement income, greater responsibility falls on the government.  Social Security and similar programs become more essential.  If these programs suffer from fiscal imbalance, taxpayers become more burdened.  We can't toss retired and disabled people into the gutter, but who besides taxpayers can cover their needs?

Another change in the social contract is that easy money favors the wealthy.  Low interest rates have pushed up the value of risk assets--stocks, real estate, commodities and so on.  The distribution of income and wealth have become more skewed in favor of those who need the money the least.  Such growing inequality makes it more difficult to attain social and political compromises and consensus.  A resentful and angry society may lack the optimism and initiative for investment and risk-taking that would foster strong economic growth.  (Note that jaded, cynical Europe is hardly a hotbed of innovation.)

The voices that are heard at the Fed tend to be those of elites--Wall Street executives, influential academics, power players like IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde.  A lot of these voices have advocated keeping interest rates at zero.  But the accumulated knowledge of many thousands of participants in the real financial world seems to signal that continued distortion of asset values is doing more harm than good.  Maybe the market is regulating the Fed.  And maybe, at least this time, that's a good thing.