Or maybe it was version 2.7.5.12--humor attempt.
The Fed launched what many are calling Quantitative Easing 3. Included in the announcement was that the pedal will be to the metal into 2015. A reader asked the following after the news;
Fed announces QE 3, buying mortgages to further push historically low rates even lower. Must be nice to own a money printing press! Where do you think this will end, Roger, and how do you think it will affect/add risk to the market. I fear that when our house-of-cards comes crashing down, 2008 will look like a picnic.
There are a few different things in there to address. The starting point for me in trying to think about these things is that we now live in a distorted world. Unprecedented action on the part of the Fed is influencing many things in my opinion. Whether you are bullish or bearish, you are so in a world that is distorted in a way that it never has been before. Two or three years from now it will still be distorted in a way that it never has been before, so we are told.
My thesis for the US before the crisis started was that growth in the economy and the stock market would generally muddle and be relatively unattractive compared to select foreign countries. Net net that is what we have gotten but stocks have been more volatile than I would have thought; down 50% and then up 100%.
The current state of the economy is not horrible it is merely well below what we expect from recoveries. Jobs have not come back the way they should have by now, likewise GDP and as far as housing there are some signs of life but for now I just think of it more humbling as no longer imploding. Regardless of whether you agree with my description in this paragraph or not the numbers and the way you look at them comes in a Fed-distorted world.
As far as when this will end, the Fed keeps extending the date so obviously they don't know when it will end. I read or heard somewhere that the various versions of QE that come have diminishing returns; number 3 will be less effective than number 2 which was less effective than number 1. This theory makes intuitive sense to me and could be important if true.
If you can accept that GDP and jobs are well behind where they should be at this point in the cycle then consider that the numbers such as they are have come from desperate Fed action but only produce weak results and further action from the Fed will yield ever weaker results and we are left to wonder where, when or if meaningful natural demand will come back.
Until it does we will continue to live in a distorted world. In terms of how it will end, I do not believe it will end in such a way that makes 2008 look like a picnic. What I think is more likely is a winding down of the easing. I think there will still be economic cycles and stock market cycles with the expansion/bull phases not going up as much as they used to and the recession/bear phases going down a little more than they used to.
This is not a catastrophic outcome it is a wildly anemic outcome. As far the stock market I doubt there will too many four year periods where stocks cut in half and then go up by 100%. I think it was John Hussman who observed that the typical bear market retraces about half of the bull market run. We might still be in the snap back from 2008, but I think we will see average annual stock market growth of 4-5% and maybe the bear markets take back a little more than half of that.
Several years ago I wrote that I thought our fundamentals called for higher interest rates (this was before QE) and while I believe that fundamental argument is still intact it is obviously no match in the markets for the Federal Reserve. One way this goes haywire would be if rates started going meaningfully higher further out on the curve. This has not happened and I am not sure what the specific catalyst would be but meaningfully higher rates would gum up the works.
One reason why I do not think the market will stop rotating on its axis is the chance for surprises has greatly diminished, as it relates to the financial crisis. The Fed is effectively printing money, anyone not know this? In the last few years anyone who did not know the possible consequence of printing money now does know or at least has an awareness of the consequences. If natural demand never comes about then it is possible that consequences like price inflation could remain relatively muted (relatively muted in the context of a 15% CPI).
Another point about equities is that I do not think they are insanely priced. The low from March 2009 was in part an overreaction as people thought the financial world might be ending. The nature of panics like that is that there is some element of fast retracement that takes back a meaningful chunk of the decline which is exactly where we are now; most of the decline has been made back but there is still a ways to go. I am not one to make a bullish argument based on PE ratios and similar metrics but while I don't necessarily think the market is cheap on a PE basis I do not think it is grossly overvalued. Markets can pull back by any amount at any time but I do not think the valuations call for a massive decline.
The above is what I think has the highest probability; muddling not imploding. Of course discipline to our strategy will will be the first priority.
Proud Member Of
Random Roger
© 2009 | Gadget Theme Blogger Template
Original WPtheme By Blogger Template | Converted By Gadget Lover
| Distributed by eFree Blogger Help
Original WPtheme By Blogger Template | Converted By Gadget Lover
| Distributed by eFree Blogger Help
12 comments:
Roger, I am the commenter who asked the question about QE 3 yesterday. Thank you for the response. I am glad that you do not see a resolution that makes 2008 look like a picnic; I hope you are correct, and you probably are. Embedded in your response, however, is something that I actually fear more than the "making 2008 look like a picnic resolution," because it is more likely, actually it's probable. That is a new normal where peaks will generally be less than those we experienced in the previous century and lows will be lower; market and general economic activity that predicts a general lowering of the standards of living for the next generation of Americans. Feels a lot like the 1970's, and, other than the fact that we were all 40 years younger, that's not a good thing. We are half a century beyond the point in time when governments started to routinely spend more than they took in, and the bills are coming due.
Well, here we go again with a continuing war on conservatively invested retirees and the saving class to fund freebies and other stuff that is dangled in front of the ever growing masses hooked on "government crack". Or, is it a shameless effort to re-elect those who value power and ideology more than service to the nation? Probably both.
As investors, we need to play the hand we are dealt. Thee are always tactics to game the markets. I agree with Roger that continued feeding of the Fed beast through another QE may well have diminishing effectiveness for Helicopter Ben.
"Rome" is ripe for a burn.
T
Anon, from the standpoint of managing portfolios 'the new normal' is simply the next obstacle and one I have been writing about since before PIMCO coined the term so I am not too concerned, it simply means finding returns in other countries. The last decade showed this is possible.
T, you of course correct. I considered titling this post Fed to retirees; drop dead to explore it from the standpoint of people trying to collect interest.
Newly found footage of Ben Bernanke as a child:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-NhXqXKdf6Vw/UFI8QL_qgkI/AAAAAAAAUuw/xTWTw2wb9WU/s1600/throwing-money.gif
Acknowledgement to the blog CARPE DIEM.
A pretty level-headed post by you Roger.
Ref: "fed distorted world". It isn't just the Fed. We also have a demographic distorted world. We also have a fiscal policy distorted world-trillion dollar wars at no cost to you the buyer. We also have a technology distorted world along the lines of the industrial revolution. I for one, say thank god for Bernake and the Fed. Without their actions, we would be in a huge depression at the moment. IMHO, of course.
Two recent posts by Barry Ritholtz are germane to several of Roger's points:
Situational Awareness at http://tinyurl.com/8am58s8
"Long digressions into why the Fed is misguided or Congress has failed are beside the point. That should be the starting point of ...analysis, not the end point. The rest of the analysis must be: If the Fed is misguided, how shall we position ourselves?"
Overlooked: Slumping Durable Goods Orders & QE3 at http://tinyurl.com/9cmj9vj
"All the way back on September 6th, Société Générale’s Albert Edwards gave us a heads up as to what might be concerning the Fed. While everyone else was watching NFP data, Edwards had already observed something off with the Durable Goods Orders. They were slumping hard — indeed, as hard as often accompanies major recessions and Bear markets."
Wouldn't it be better economically if instead of Q1,2,3 we used the funds for infrastructure improvements that created jobs.
Anonymous 12:30PM,
Not "instead" but along with: The central bank can provide liquidity (money) but it cannot create demand, someone out there has to spend.
Anon 12:30. Infrastructure improvements were supposed to be a keystone of Obama's stimulus program. Trouble was, paraphrasing a joking Obama, that there were not as many "shovel ready" jobs as anticipated. In this country, and I am not saying this is all bad, we no longer simply go out and build a road, a bridge, a dam, etc.; it takes years to jump through all of the environmental hoops, legal challenges, and other assorted delays that always proliferate. I recall from an economics class during the mid-1970s, being told that the cost of regulation added about 5% to the cost of everything we buy. I am sure that cost is now higher, and the delays are much longer. A great deal of the stimulus money targeted for infrastructure was actually spent on projects that were already planned and would have been accomplished anyway. To do otherwise would have been to spend infrastructure money on planning, lawyers, etc.
Roger - how would you position your portfolio if you thought a war with Iran was imminent? I have a very reliable friend on the ground in Israel. As I write this he writes that Israel is transporting busloads of troops to the Wailing wall for prayers before forward deployment and a lot of SAMS and anti-aircraft equipment are being moved to Isael's perimeter. U.S. dependents who live there are also being encouraged to send dependents home.
Gold, puts? Your thoughts?
well we have been at war for an awfully long time now, haven't we?
you could look at what did well in 1990 and 2001.
I have trouble believe that Israel would parade a bunch of soldiers anywhere as a marker for imminent attack or whatever. Among other things that is a huge tourist spot and they are going to show their hand this way? Very difficult for me to believe.
As a retiree who would like more interest, I just counter the Fed by not spending. My car is 11 years old, my house is paid for, and I do all my maintenance on everything. I own some farmland, I own a few stocks and bonds. I just don't have ANY urge to BUY anything that is relatively costly or of importance.
Post a Comment