Showing posts with label inflation vs deflation debate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label inflation vs deflation debate. Show all posts

Thursday, May 06, 2010

Stock Market Crash Alert! Here's How To Invest In Deflationary Times

So what the heck took so long?

At last - deflation has returned - and markets are falling apart once again.  It was one helluva rally - we can only imagine what the next leg down of this mess will bring.

In order to review the investing protocol and keep us sharp as a sharper, nastier wave of deflation sets in, I penned a piece over at Contrary Investing that reviews how to investing during deflation.  

Friday, April 02, 2010

Why Richard Russell is Very Worried About the Bond Market

Richard Russell thinks the bond market may be saying ENOUGH with the quantitative easing, reports The Daily Crux.

From his Dow Theory Letters:

The bond market is now very close to saying, "We've had enough."

... Many older subscribers probably remember my lifelong emphasis on the POWER of COMPOUNDING. But what of the power of negative compounding on debt? I think we are about to find out.

The power of negative compounding will be brutal. The cost of carrying the world's debt (including the US national debt) will be devastating. It will be highly deflationary and it will crush everything in its path.


I don't subscribe to Russell, but I do try to follow his writings and thinking as best I can from the outside, and this is the first I've heard him mention deflation. Very interesting!

Here's what Russell had to say in early December about gold, the dollar, and the Fed's effort to re-inflate.

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Why The Federal Deficit Is In Even Worse Shape Than You Think

If there was any question before that the federal deficit was completely out of control and unsustainable, the successful passing of the "free healthcare for all" plan should completely seal the deal!

As you probably recall, the out-of-control debt spiral faced by our government sparked some interesting conversation at our local Casey phyle meeting about the safety, or lack thereof, of our retirement savings.

That conversation was originally inspired by a fine piece of analysis that Bud Conrad, Casey's Chief Economist, put together for The Casey Report. They've graciously given us permission to republish Bud's piece here, so read on to learn just how bad the federal deficit is. Believe it or not, it's probably worse than you think!

***

Battle for the Budget

By Bud Conrad, Editor, The Casey Report

Recently the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) published its scoring of President Obama's budget for the next 10 years. It shows a budget deficit of $9.8 trillion. That is just shy of $4 trillion worse than the CBO’s baseline budget, a budget that includes only the laws as currently enacted, with no estimates of any new programs lawmakers may add that worsen future projections.

That our budget is out of control is no surprise, but the charts I present here should provide some perspective of just how dangerous this set of budget estimates could turn out to be. The first chart below shows the amount of red ink in each year for the two CBO estimates.


To get a visual interpretation of just how big these budget deficits have become, I plotted the long-term history, then tacked on the CBO evaluation of the president's proposal. Knowing the propensity of governments to spend more than they promise makes one question if the large improvement shown in the dotted line will actually occur. Even if nothing changes, however, the results look like they could be very damaging for other aspects of our economy.

One aspect of the CBO projections that is difficult to defend is the expectation that inflation will stay incredibly low. In the next chart, I present the same sort of long-term history, coupled with the projection, for the Consumer Price Index (CPI).


In the next chart, I put together two of the most important measures: the three-month T-bill interest rate and the deficit expressed as a percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP). Both history and projection are shown.


The most important observation is just how disastrous the current deficit is in the historical context, even after rationalizing it by dividing it by the GDP. I overlaid the two series to show that higher deficits in the past tended to occur along with higher interest rates.

As you can see, we now have a significant anomaly, with the budget deficit at its worst in half a century, while interest rates remain near their lows for the period. A closer look at history shows many divergences, to the point that in the short term these two series tend to bounce in opposite directions. That is probably because when the economy shows weakness, the government expands its spending and collects lower taxes, so the deficit becomes worse. Thus, in the short-term cycle of a few years, these two measures often move in opposite directions.

But the situation we face now is much bigger than anything we've seen since the 1950s. The government bailouts and stimulus are at record levels, and the special actions of the Federal Reserve have driven interest rates close to 0%. It is my expectation that both inflation and interest rates will rise dramatically because of these large deficits.

I also think the projected interest rates are much lower than what I expect the deficit would require. As foreigners and others recognize how seriously indebted the U.S. government is becoming, they will expect higher interest rates to compensate for the debasement of the currency.

The budget analysis goes further in calculating the expected growth of the economy, which ranges from 2 to 4% over the years. Those are not large numbers for real GDP, but there is no expectation of another recession during the decade. If the economy didn't grow, tax revenue would be less, and the budget deficit would be worse.

While interest rates are expected to rise as shown in the chart above, the projections expect that they roll over and stop rising at around 5%. That is contrary to my expectations that they will be much higher, and even perhaps closer to 10%, by the end of the decade. If they are, the cost of funding the outstanding government borrowing escalates rapidly because the increased interest has to be added to the debt so that the debt grows even more.

The problem from the onset of this crisis has been the debt, and that continues to be the case.

Leaving aside the above two adjustments that could make the budget deficit worse, it’s helpful to look at the outcome with the given assumptions and see where it leads. Perhaps the most problematic result is that the debt of the federal government held by the public grows from $7.5 trillion in 2009 to $20 trillion by 2020. Such big numbers are hard to understand, though you can get some sense of things by considering that the government is intending on almost tripling the debt in just 11 years. The ratio of this outstanding debt to the GDP gives a flavor of how dangerous the situation has become. As Ken Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart have indicated in their new book, when we approach 90% government debt of GDP, we have serious potential for a currency crisis. As you can see, we are well on our way to those levels, even without assuming the two adjustments above.


How will the deficit be funded?

The question arises who will service the rising levels of debt. Clearly the taxpayers are on the hook for all these projections, with more to come. So the question becomes whether the tax base can grow fast enough to provide support for servicing the debt. The CBO gave us two series for the tax base. One is Domestic Economic Profits, and the other is Wages and Salaries. The basic assumption is that these are the main revenue streams that can be taxed by the government to fund its expenses. I added these two series together and divided by the GDP to determine if the tax base is growing more rapidly than the economy. Unfortunately, but as expected, the orange line in the above graph shows that the tax base only grows about as fast as the economy itself. That's not surprising, but the contrast to the rapid growth in debt will be a serious source of problems, as the only way the debt can be sustained will be through increasing the tax rates, and probably quite dramatically.

The latest set of budget predictions will probably be wrong, and not just because the assumptions are too optimistic, but because there is a relatively high probability that something will go off track to cause a major shift before the 10 years are completed. Unfortunately we are not preparing ourselves for such problems, and so I would interpret the CBO projections as being far too rosy.

Bud Conrad is the chief economist at Casey Research, and crunching numbers like these is his daily bread. It also enables him, together with the rest of the Casey Report team, to accurately forecast what’s in store for the U.S. economy… a skill that subscribers to The Casey Report have come to highly appreciate. Learn more about what the future holds and how to profit by clicking here.

Ed. Note: As you probably know, I am a longtime Casey Research subscriber and affiliate.

Sunday, January 17, 2010

Are Deflationist Arguments Still On Track? A Checkpoint in the Debate

Whither deflation...
Chased away by reflation?
Or eye of the storm?

Revisiting the Deflationist Arguments of 2009

Earlier this week I revisited two of my favorite inflation/deflation interviews of 2009, both courtesy of Jim Puplava at the Financial Sense Newshour. Being sympathetic to the deflationist arguments, I was interested in seeing if their forecasts were still on track, despite the relentlessness of the reflation trade.

Puplava's interview with Bob Prechter was a classic. Prechter argues that the Fed cannot do anything to stop the powers of deflation, because most of the outstanding debt in the world is going to go unpaid. And that deleveraging process will occur faster than the fed can reflate the system.

In the September interview, Prechter correctly forecasted gold's late year push, while expressing his belief that 2010 will be a banner year for deflation. In terms of timing, his thesis is still on track...he thought the shoe would drop late last year, or early this year.

As a subscriber and affiliate of his, it's clear to me that he believes a turndown is imminent, as he's aggressively laying his reputation out there right now, basically calling the top right here, right now.

In summary, the winner of the Puplava/Prechter inflation/deflation debate is still too early to call, though I anticipate the next few months will tip the scales one way or the other. I love Prechter's bravado in trying to cement his legacy - we'll see if it pays off for him!

Demographer Harry Dent was then interviewed by Puplava in October, where he shared his demographic research, and what he thought that meant for the financial markets. Dent made an extremely prescient call on gold, which was trading around $1,000 at the time of the interview. He said it'd be the last market to roll over, and that it could go quite high - even above $1,200.

When asked what could disprove his thesis, Dent mentioned the timing of the markets topping - he expects them to tank in the 1st half of 2010. If things are still humming midway through the year, Dent said he would need to re-examine their hypothesis, to see what they were missing.

So thus far from Dent's side, things are also still inconclusive, but so far roughly mapping to his forecast from a few months ago.

Revisiting these two interviews was an instructive exercise. Because us market junkies follow things every day, and every week, it's easy for us to grow impatient when things don't turn our way quickly. And that's often a big mistake, as you can go from being early, to being wrong, if you give up too early on a position.

So in summary, if you are a deflationist, as I am, I don't yet see anything that doesn't jive with the deflationist argument. Let's hold tight, and see what the next month or two has in store for us. Nothing has been proven yet, either way.


But Aren't We Missing Something?

Both sides of the inflation/deflation debate love to argue that the other side is missing one or more critical points.

I try to read as many opposing points of view as I can, to balance my thinking, though I have to admit that I find many inflation arguments to be a bit too simplistic.

But I just posted a solid guest inflation article today from Casey Research's David Galland, appropriately titled What the Deflationists are Missing - and while I am a subscriber of David's and think the world of his analysis, I thought it'd be fun to raise some counterpoints on "what we're missing".

While I don't fully agree with all of David's points, all of my counterpoints are merely academic at this point as well. As usual, the markets will be the final arbiter of who's right, and who's wrong!

So here are some excerpts from David's piece in italics, with my deflationary counterpoints beneath:

Galland writes: For starters, there is already a massive inflation operation being run by the Fed, evidenced in a historic spike in the monetary base over the last two years.


Yes, true, the Fed has increased the monetary base by a trillion or two over the last two years. BUT, a larger amount of credit was destroyed during the last market crash - 10 or 15 trillion dollars worth, depending on the source.

In that light, the Fed appears relatively powerless in their efforts to goose the money supply. It just can't print fast enough when credit is being destroyed at a breakneck clip.

If you believe the global economy has stabilized, then perhaps the inflation argument holds water. But I think the real doom and gloom is yet to come, and that we've only seen the tip of the iceberg in terms of credit destruction!

In a deflation, the value of the money increases – which is actually a pretty desirable thing, if you ask me. Inflation, by contrast, means that pretty much everything you own in the local currency steadily loses value – forcing investors into a perpetual game of catch-up. It’s hard for me to calculate how the government can dramatically increase the money supply and yet have each of the currency units become increasingly more valuable over a sustained period of time.

Arguing against that point, Evans-Pritchard makes the case that the U.S. government is making much the same mistakes that were made in the first part of the Great Depression, i.e., being overly tight with the money. And that the velocity of money is falling.

There are a couple of key differences between now and then, however. First, the Fed didn’t actually know what the money supply was back then. They literally had no monitoring tools in place, mostly because no one thought it was important enough to track. Second, they didn’t have fiat monetary powers. Today, neither of those factors apply.

During the Great Depression, FDR was able to devalue the dollar overnight by 50% by confiscating gold, and resetting it's price in dollars. This is not possible now, precisely because we have a fiat monetary system. The value of the US dollar is determined by the market everyday.

So while the Fed does have fiat monetary powers, and the theoretical ability to put as many dollars into circulation as it would like to, it is merely pushing on a string, because we have a credit based monetary system. Creating a trillion or two dollars out of thin air is not net inflationary when credit is being destroyed at a faster rate.

In fact, if the Fed swapped out all credit outstanding today, that wouldn't even be net inflationary...it would be a break-even.

The Fed will eventually have the ability to inflate, but only after most of the outstanding credit has been destroyed. At that point, the Fed may not even exist - but that's a speculation for another day.

There is something else that I think the deflationists are missing, and that has to do with confidence in the currency. If the U.S.’s many creditors come to agree with our point of view – that the dollar is being led to the altar as a sacrificial lamb to political expediency – then they’ll further reduce their purchases of our Treasuries and start trading their dollars for stronger currencies and tangible assets, including precious metals.

I agree that at some point, the bond markets are going to start rebelling against the fiscal profligacy in the US. But, I also don't see how that is an inflationary event. If long term interest rates were to spike tomorrow, that would severely hamper the Fed's ability to swap out bad debt. So instead of being propped up, that debt gets marked down to its true value - which is likely much lower than the value it's being carried at on the books today - which is deflationary.

Much of the inflation argument hinges upon the Fed's supposed unlimited ability to create new money out of thin air. But that type of activity can go on only as long as the bond market permits. And when the bond market screams "no mas", the party is over.


My Trading Activity - Shorted the S&P (Again)

On Thursday night, I shorted the S&P again, after being alerted of a favorable technical setup for a pullback. So far so good, as stocks got routed on Friday, despite the "good news" being reported in terms of earnings.

Puts expired worthless, but the new short is off to a good early start.

I've got a stop at recent highs, so not much downside on the trade. If stocks have finally tipped over, I'll look to hold this position all the way down...that being below the March '09 lows, in my estimation.

And the dollar still looks like a screaming "buy" here, as even the most optimistic projections have the dollar rallying another 10-15%. I like it to rally above it's previous highs, and will continue to look for an appropriate re-entry point in this trade.

The S&P got slammed Friday, despite good earnings news...great example of why trading on news can be unreliable at best!
(Source: Barchart.com)


Meanwhile the dollar is gearing up for it's next leg up.
(Source: Barchart.com)

Another way of playing the dollar rally would be to short currencies primed for a fall, such as the Euro or the Australian dollar. Both have started to turn down sharply.

Have a great week in the markets! Comments are always welcome and very much appreciated.

Latest Inflation Insights From Casey's David Galland

Many - including me - think that 2010 will be a pivotal year in the inflation/deflation saga. And while I hopped over to the deflationist "dark side" almost a year ago, I try to stay very tuned into the inflation scenario, to continually check my thinking on the subject. It's OK to be wrong...I just want to recognize that as soon as I can, and adjust my outlook accordingly.

David Galland always puts together some thought provoking points, and his piece here is tough to argue with. I'll let you read and absorb, and I'll be back with some thoughts from the deflationist point of view later today in our weekly update column. Enjoy!

***

What the Deflationists Are Missing

by David Galland, Managing Editor, The Casey Report

An interesting article by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard came my way the other day. It’s worth a read, if for no other reason than that he paints an appropriately dark picture of the current state of the U.S. economy. You can read it here.

While I very much share Mr. Evans-Pritchard’s view that the global economy is far from out of the woods, our views diverge in that he sees devastating deflation speeding our way down the tunnel. Casey Research readers of any duration know that we see devastating inflation.

While we could both be right, with deflation first and inflation later, I’m not so convinced.

For starters, there is already a massive inflation operation being run by the Fed, evidenced in a historic spike in the monetary base over the last two years.


And the Obama administration is far from done.

The Democrats’ reinvigorated focus on jobs – the single most important factor in this November’s elections – will soon translate into a flurry of new initiatives designed to put people back to work, most of it funded at taxpayer expense.

To believe in the deflationary case would seem to require believing that Obama and his minions are ready to forgo any further political aspirations by collectively putting their feet up on their desks for the balance of their sole term at the apex of global power.

Given Obama’s meteoric rise to power – evidence that he possesses a certain drive and competence in the game of politics – that seems highly unlikely. And so it seems safe to assume we’ll soon witness a redoubling of his efforts to keep interest rates down… to make it easy and cheap for strapped consumers and businesses to keep borrowing… and to otherwise flood the economy with money.

In a deflation, the value of the money increases – which is actually a pretty desirable thing, if you ask me. Inflation, by contrast, means that pretty much everything you own in the local currency steadily loses value – forcing investors into a perpetual game of catch-up. It’s hard for me to calculate how the government can dramatically increase the money supply and yet have each of the currency units become increasingly more valuable over a sustained period of time.

Arguing against that point, Evans-Pritchard makes the case that the U.S. government is making much the same mistakes that were made in the first part of the Great Depression, i.e., being overly tight with the money. And that the velocity of money is falling.

There are a couple of key differences between now and then, however. First, the Fed didn’t actually know what the money supply was back then. They literally had no monitoring tools in place, mostly because no one thought it was important enough to track. Second, they didn’t have fiat monetary powers. Today, neither of those factors apply.

Everyone knows what the money supply of the U.S. is and watches it keenly. Including our foreign creditors. And so it is not surprising to see the Fed publicly talking about tightening up a bit. But it’s just talk at this point.

With the economy continuing to struggle, the only reasonable assumption that can be made is that the Fed – in cahoots with the entirely politicized Treasury – will keep shoveling money onto the economic embers, and continue to do so until economic activity again flares up.

That will, of course, require increasing the quantity of money that actually makes it into the economy – but that should be child’s play for Team Obama – with direct hiring and spending, continuing to buy mortgages and other loans to suppress interest rates, forgiving the bad debts of banks, or changing accounting rules so that banks can postpone reckoning day. And that’s just for starters, all of it packaged nicely in the name of the public good.

And once the money starts to flow, there will be a pick-up in economic activity, which will beget yet more money moving around. At first, this money will be a palliative for the economic worries, but then comes the inflation – a small trade-off, the politicians will decide, if it buys them enough of a recovery to make it through the November elections and get the president the second term you know he so strongly desires.

There is something else that I think the deflationists are missing, and that has to do with confidence in the currency. If the U.S.’s many creditors come to agree with our point of view – that the dollar is being led to the altar as a sacrificial lamb to political expediency – then they’ll further reduce their purchases of our Treasuries and start trading their dollars for stronger currencies and tangible assets, including precious metals.

At that point, interest rates will have to begin rising to attract new buyers. As you can see in the chart of long-term Treasury bond rates, a significant move off recent lows has already occurred, and rates are looking poised for a breakout to the upside.

Of course, the higher those rates ratchet, the more it will cost the U.S. government to carry its massive debt. While rising rates will continue to drive demand to the short end, suppressing those rates, in time the sheer quantity of paper that will have to be rolled over, and the rising tide of inflation, assures that short-term rates will have to rise too.

At that point, the train begins to leave the track.

As the train wreck approaches, the government is going to have to find creative new ways to fund its social contract with impatient voters. Perhaps, for instance, pegging everyday fines and assessments to the amount of income a person makes. Executed brashly, such policies might even allow the government to charge a person of means, say, $290,000 for a speeding violation.

I know what you’re thinking: C’mon, let’s be realistic – that could never happen. Think again…

Europe slapping rich with massive traffic fines
By FRANK JORDANS

The Associated Press

Sunday, January 10, 2010; 11:30 AM
GENEVA -- European countries are increasingly pegging speeding fines to income as a way to punish wealthy scofflaws who would otherwise ignore tickets.

Advocates say a $290,000 (euro203,180.83) speeding ticket slapped on a millionaire Ferrari driver in Switzerland was a fair and well-deserved example of the trend.

Germany, France, Austria and the Nordic countries also issue punishments based on a person's wealth. In Germany the maximum fine can be as much as $16 million compared to only $1 million in Switzerland. Only Finland regularly hands out similarly hefty fines to speeding drivers, with the current record believed to be a euro170,000 (then about $190,000) ticket in 2004.

The Swiss court appeared to set a world record when it levied the fine in November on a man identified in the Swiss media only as "Roland S." Judges in the eastern canton of St. Gallen described him as a "traffic thug" in their verdict, which only recently came to light.

"As far as we're concerned this is very good," Sabine Jurisch, a road safety campaigner with the Swiss group Road Cross.


Or maybe the government will force you to convert some or all of your IRA or 401(k) into Treasuries, perhaps packaged up in an annuity. You’d be given the choice of making the switch or making a withdrawal and paying all outstanding taxes at that point. This is something that Doug Casey has warned about for several years now.

The seeds of that possibility may be headed for the soil: the following article from BusinessWeek reveals that the Treasury is now looking very hard at the trillions in retirement accounts and trying to figure out new ways to “help” the owners of those accounts.

In my view, what’s important in this little dissertation can be summed up as follows:

1. The current administration and its congressional allies have powerful political motives to soak the economic soil with fresh dollars. The Christmas Eve announcement that the Treasury is removing the $400 billion cap on losses it will cover for Freddie and Fannie is a classic example of how far they are willing to go to keep the money moving.

2. Unlike the Great Depression, the U.S. is now on a fiat money system – which is purpose-built for the current scenario. Open the taps, and if that doesn’t work, open them even wider. Failing to do so would be political suicide, and Obama and his team are just not into the idea of serving a single term.

3. Given the size of foreign holdings of U.S. dollars, the nation is faced with a “rock and a hard place” situation, where a sharp loss in confidence on the part of our creditors would likely lead to a currency crisis that drives the value of the dollar quickly lower, at the same time that it drives interest rates higher.

Something will have to give. We think that something will ultimately be the U.S. dollar, as it’s politically more acceptable to have a failing dollar than a smoking hole where the economy used to be.

Before this thing is over, I would not be surprised to see a new currency regime adopted that introduces exchange controls and a different category of dollar to be issued for the purpose of paying back foreign creditors. Such a dual-track currency system is nothing new but has been used by desperate regimes numerous times throughout history.

Forecasting the future is actually impossible, as there are just too many variables. But that doesn’t mean that we can’t step back and make certain logical assumptions about the policies the politicians are most likely to deploy in their efforts to retain power.

In the case of today’s world, the only politically logical decision will be to keep on spending until that spending itself becomes a pressing problem, at which point the politicians will turn their attention to “solving” the newest in a long list of problems they have created.

At which point they will no doubt find some creative way to blame the inflation on speculators, profiteers, and the free market.

The economy is now so manipulated by politicians, big bankers, and special-interest groups that making sense of the markets has become an almost impossible feat. In the spirit of “making the trend your friend,” no matter how dire it is, the editors of The Casey Report are experts in analyzing budding mega-trends and seizing the profit opportunities hidden in them. Learn to do the same – click here for more information.

Ed. note: I am a Casey affiliate, and have been a subscriber of theirs for over 3 years now. The Casey Report gets my highest recommendation for its excellent analysis.

Wednesday, December 09, 2009

Jim Rogers is Buying...US Dollars???

On Sunday, I mused that one of my deepest concerns about being bullish on the US Dollar is that I'm on the opposite side of the trade from Jim Rogers, who thinks the buck is doomed.

Not so, pointed out astute reader Sibbie via email, citing a recent Rogers interview in BusinessWeek:

Q: How much of the runup is being driven by U.S. deficits and the weakening dollar?

Jim Rogers: A huge amount is about not just U.S. deficits, but all deficits. Deficits are going berserk nearly everywhere. Throughout history, printing money has led to weaker currencies and higher prices for real assets. And there are many, many pessimists about the dollar, including me. So many pessimists that I suspect there's a rally coming. I have no idea why there should be, but things do usually rally when you have this many bears at the same time. I've actually accumulated a few more dollars. I mean, it's not a significant position, but I do own more dollars than I did a month ago. And we'll probably also have a gold correction because there's so many bulls on gold.

Nice find, Sibbie, thank you!

You can read the rest of Jim Rogers' interview with Maria "Money Honey 1.0" Bartiromo here.

Just to clarify my position - I also believe we're heading for higher inflation...just a little later than many pundits think, because we have some massive deflationary forces to work through in the short term. Here's my take on inflation/deflation in the near term.

Related reading: Jim Rogers' latest thoughts on Commodities, Treasuries, and the Economy

Friday, November 06, 2009

Why Nouriel Roubini Thinks Commodities Will Correct, and Dollar Will Rally...Eventually

Nouriel Roubini thinks that commodities and equities have gotten ahead of their fundamentals - now pricing in a "V-shaped" recovery, which Roubini thinks is unlikely (I agree).

Here's an interview with Roubini conducted by our friend Lara Crigger at Hard Assets Investor.

Well, in my view, commodity prices have increased since the beginning of the year too much, too fast, when compared to the improvement in economic fundamentals. Some of that increase is justified. But if the global economy were to have a more anemic, subpar recovery—if instead of a V-shaped recovery, there's going to be a U-shaped recovery—then I actually think demand for commodities would be weak compared to supply, and there could be a correction in commodity prices in 2010.

Take oil prices: They have gone up from $30/barrel to over $80, at a time when demand is back to 2005 levels, and oil inventory is at all-time highs. Part of the increase is justified by fundamentals. But part of it is essentially this wall of liquidity chasing assets, and the effect of carry trade on the U.S. dollar, driving further higher these commodity prices.

So these nonfundamental factors can push oil and commodity prices higher, especially if there's going to be an increase in expected inflation. But the fundamentals of supply and demand actually suggest that, from now on, oil and other commodity prices should be lower, rather than higher.

Also Roubini was also on CNBC, where he described the reversal of the dollar carry trade that he is anticipating at some point in the future. The results are similar to the "All the same markets" theory that Robert Prechter coined, in which the dollar will rally and all other asset markets will tank.

Here's the CNBC interview, which runs about 8 minutes:












Thursday, November 05, 2009

Inflaton Isn't Here Yet - Here's When You Can Expect It

A couple of Sundays ago, I spent the morning reviewing the best inflation and deflation arguments and articles that I'd read since the financial world began falling apart. The inflation perspective that I enjoyed the most was that of Terry Coxon, editor of The Casey Report.

Below is one of Terry's recent pieces, which takes a look at the timing of a potential wave of inflation. I was fortunate that the Casey folks granted me permission to reprint the piece below.

Enjoy Terry's guest piece, as he explores what we can expect from inflation over the next few months and years.

***

When Will Inflation Really Hit Us?

By Terry Coxon, Editor, The Casey Report

Most of us are gathered at the station, watching for the Inflation Express to come rumbling in. But we've been waiting for a while now. Just when should we expect the big locomotive to arrive and start pushing the prices of most things uphill?

We’d all like to know the exact date, of course, but no one can know for sure. Not even a careful reading of the Mayan calendar will help. What we can do is estimate a time range for price inflation to show up, and that alone should have some important implications for investment decisions.

Why It’s Expected

The reason for expecting price inflation is the recent, rapid growth in the money supply and the deficit-driven likelihood that more such growth is coming.

As of July, the M1 money supply (currency held by the public plus checking deposits) had grown 17.5% in a year's time. That's not just unusually rapid, it's extraordinarily rapid. Since 1959, M1 has grown more rapidly in only one other 12-month period – and that was the one ending last June, when the M1 money supply jumped 18.4%. Even in the inflation-plagued 1970s, growth in M1 never exceeded 10% in any 12 months.

Dropping large chunks of newly created money into the economy leads to price inflation, because the recipients are likely to find themselves overprovisioned with cash. As they try to unload the excess, they bid up the prices of the things they buy, whether it be stocks, shoes, gasoline, silver coins, or granola. The sellers of those things then find themselves cash rich and start doing some buying of their own, and so the wave of excess money and the bidding it inspires propagate through the economy.

The process isn't instantaneous. It takes time. Just as each player in the economy has a sense of how much of his wealth he wants to hold in the form of money, everyone will move at his own speed to make adjustments when his actual cash holdings seem to be off target.

And the process can seem to stall, especially when fear is growing. When people are worried or otherwise feel a heightened sense of uncertainty, they will gladly hold on to abnormally large amounts of cash – for a while. But when fear abates, as it will when the economy begins to recover from the recession, that temporary demand for extra cash will also fade, and the hot-potato process of trying to pare down cash balances will emerge to do its inflationary work.

But when?

The speed at which the public tries to unload excess cash and the timing of the effects have actually been measured, in the work of the late Milton Friedman and his monetarist colleagues.

The method was indirect and roundabout, and so the results, unsurprisingly, were nothing as precise as nailing down the value of a physical constant.

What the monetarists (or the first of them to be equipped with computers) found was that when the growth rate of the money supply rises:
  • The initial effect is on the prices of bonds and stocks, an effect that comes within a few months.
  • The peak effect on the growth rate of economic activity comes about 18 to 30 months after the pick-up in the growth rate of the money supply.
  • The peak effect on the rate of consumer price inflation comes about 12 to 18 months after that, which is to say it comes 30 to 48 months after the peak growth rate in the money supply.
As Friedman famously put it, the lags in the effects of changes in monetary policy are "long and variable." He might have said, "It's a big, wide blur, but we're sure we've seen it."

And even that picture exaggerates the precision that's available to us. The emergence of money substitutes, such as NOW accounts and money market funds, has added its own muddiness to the picture of how growth in the money supply translates into growth in the level of consumer prices. It is only because the recent episode of monetary expansion has been so extreme that we can look to the results just listed for an indication of what's to come.

If you apply the findings of the monetarists to the present situation, here's what you get. The peak growth rate in the money supply occurred last December, so based on the general monetarist schedule:
  • Some of the effect on stocks and bonds should already have been felt.
  • The peak effect on economic activity should come between the middle of 2010 and the middle of 2011.
  • The peak effect on consumer price inflation should come between the middle of 2011 and the end of 2012.
A More Particular Schedule

This time around, should we expect things to move more rapidly or more slowly than average? My bet is on slow, which would push the peak inflation rate out toward the end of 2012. One reason for slow is that the government's rescue packages are delaying the process. Rescuing banks that are choking on bad loans postpones the day of reckoning for both the banks and the loan customers. It retards the pace of foreclosure sales (whether of real estate or other collateral) and puts the deleveraging that has been going on since last fall into slow motion. A wilting of the recent stock market rally would confirm this.

Investment Implications

The big plus about the Mayan calendar is that, right or wrong, it is very definite about things. Human civilization will come to an end, I'm told, on Dec. 21, 2012 – not on the 20th and not on the 22nd. There was no room for monetarists in those step-sided pyramids, but there still are few what-to-do implications from the monetarist findings.
  1. When you hear would-be opinion leaders cite the current absence of rising prices at the supermarket as proof that all the new money isn't a source of inflation, don't believe them. It is much too early for the inflation bomb to be going off, even though the powder has been packed and the fuse has been lit.

  2. If the large and growing federal deficits and the Federal Reserve's unprecedentedly easy policies tempt you to leverage up on inflation-sensitive assets, such as gold, give the idea a second thought. It likely will be a year or more until price inflation becomes obvious and undeniable (which is what it would take to bring the general public into the gold market). In the meantime, your inflation-sensitive assets could get paddled rudely as the deleveraging that began last year continues.
For at least the next year, the simple, fire-and-forget strategy is 50-50 gold and cash – gold for what looks to be inevitable but on its own schedule, cash to be ready for the bargains that may show up while we're waiting for the inevitable to arrive.

The editors of The Casey Report keep their ears to the ground, listening for the first rumblings of the inflation stampede coming in. But you can bet on rising inflation – and interest rates – right now and be way ahead of the investing herd. To learn more about investing in this all but inevitable trend, click here.

Sunday, October 25, 2009

Three Sanity Checks at this Key Inflation-Deflation Inflection Point

I think we're at a key inflection point in the financial markets at this juncture. The direction that things head next could decide the winner, at least for the next few years, of the inflation vs. deflation battle.

So I spent the morning revisiting and rereading many of my favorite arguments from both sides of the debate, and came up with three key metrics for us to revisit.

First, let me lay a little groundwork and list my preexisting assumptions:
  • My timeframe is defined as the next 3 years. After that, we may well see hyperinflation and/or a true crash in the dollar - but for the sake of this argument, I want to look at the next 3 years only (reason being, if you misplay the next 3 years, you could be toast anyway!)
  • I accept the Fed's ability to "print" money.
  • I also believe that inflation is preferable to the government, and given the choice between inflation and deflation, they will inflate (or at least attempt to) every time. Also, massive government deficits certainly make inflation all the more tempting.
When revisiting my favorite arguments for both sides, I noticed that three central themes were the focus of much of the debate:
  1. Inflation will occur when the banks start lending again.
  2. The demand for money, or prevailing social mood, will determine if consumers trade in their cash for anything (leading to inflation), or if they hoard their cash to pay down debt (leading to debt deflation.)
  3. Stock prices will reflect a goosing of the money supply.

Checkpoint 1: Inflation requires an increase in bank lending

Thanks to the wonders of our fractional reserve banking system, where banks are only required to have a fraction of the money they lend out, bank lending has a tremendous multiplier effect on the money supply. During times of expanding credit (2002 - 2007 most recently), this effect was felt in full force, as loose credit led to a bubble in nearly all asset markets.

Since the credit crisis began, banks have significantly curtailed their lending. While the Federal government has boosted the balance sheets of the big banks, there has not been a proportionate growth in loans (see chart below).


Herein lies the rub - bank lending has not picked up, at least yet. Check out the graph below, courtesy of the St. Louis Fed:


Conclusion: As long as bank lending continues to decline, it's difficult to make an argument for inflation. However, if and when this chart begins ticking up once again, that will be a strong indicator that inflation may be on the way.

Checkpoint 2: The demand for money and prevailing social mood

From World War II until 2007, the world was a place of expanding credit. This growth was driven by consumer demand for credit, which was particularly strong in the US. That is the key point - that the growth was driven by from the demand side, which in turn, resulted in increasing supply.

While many blame Alan Greenspan for creating a housing bubble this decade with artificially low interest rates, it's important to consider the role that consumers played in that spectacle. Greenspan was only giving the populace what it wanted - more credit. He may have spiked the punch bowl, but only at the insistence of the drunken party goers!

Today, with mortgage rates still near historic lows, we have no housing bubble any longer. In fact, we have a plummeting housing market. Why?

Because there's no demand for credit. Consumers are choking on debt - they are screaming "No Mas!"

Can the Fed inflate the asset markets one more time? They are trying like hell, but they'll only be successful if the social mood in the United States permits it.

One of the major reasons Japan was never able to reignite another bubble after 1989 is that the mood of consumers permanently shifted. The demand for money increased - consumers wanted to hoard it. They did not want to speculate, or trade it in for assets.

Did the social mood of the US permanently change in 2007?

One tea leaf worth paying attention to is the demographics card. By 2007, the US had some noteworthy demographic parallels with Japan of 1989 (ie. we're getting old). Though we are not "as screwed" as Japan in terms of demographics, thanks to immigration and somewhat higher birth rates, we've peaked demographically as a country, at least until further notice.

Conclusion: Demand for money, and social mood, are admittedly challenging to measure in an objective manner. There may have been a permanent shift in 2007 - if so, the Fed may find that, like Japan, it's "pushing on a string" in terms of trying to change consumer behavior and attitudes towards debt.

Checkpoint 3: Monetary goosing will show up in stocks, especially financials, first

According to Milton Friedman, the script for inflation roughly goes like this:
  1. Increase the money supply
  2. The new money goes into stocks first, increasing stock prices
  3. Then economic activity increases (a false boom)
  4. Then the Consumer Price Index (CPI) rises
Sure appears like the script is playing out to a tee. With regards to stocks, we've seen that financial stocks have been the strongest performers, which you'd probably expect in an inflationary boomlet.

But - this market rally has, thus far, only qualified itself as a stellar bear market bounce. We are still in typical retracement territory. Bounces usually retrace roughly half of their losses - often even more. The 2009 bounce is currently eerily similar to the 1930 bounce in terms of magnitude.

Conclusion: The jury is still out on what has actually driven this stock market rally. We could be at an important inflection point. If the market continues to head higher, the case that it's being driven by inflation will strengthen. If it makes new highs, that would probably seal it.

On the flip side, if the market turns down from here, then all we saw this summer and autumn was a classic bear market bounce.

Bottom Line: The coming months will be very interesting, and hopefully quite insightful, in terms of illuminating which side is winning the inflation/deflation battle. It's too close to call just yet in my opinion, as both scripts have been fulfilled thus far. But we could be near a fork in the road!

Some More Good Reading

Positions Update - Still Long the Buck

It looks like the broader markets may, at last, be rolling over. Which should be bullish for the buck.

The dollar - gearing up for another megarally?
(Source: Barchart.com)

Open positions:


Thanks for reading!

Current Account Value: $23,859.83

Cashed out: $20,000.00
Total value: $43,859.83
Weekly return: -1.9%
2009 YTD return: -53%

Prior yearly returns:
2008: -8%
2007: 175%
2006: 60%
2005: 805%

Initial trading stake: $2,000.00

Friday, October 09, 2009

The Gold & Interest Rate Paradox - in Haiku Form

Government prints cash

Gold zooms, along with script. But -

Why are rates still low?


(Source: St Louis Federal Reserve)


Sunday, October 04, 2009

Demographics are Screaming "Deflationary Depression!" Here's Why...

This week I caught another fascinating interview on the Financial Sense Newshour - with Harry S. Dent, author of The Great Depression Ahead.

OK, so what's so insightful about a guy publishing a next Great Depression in 2009? Well when it comes from the same guy that published The Great Boom Ahead in 1992, I definitely give his depression calls some credence!

I love guys who can call booms and busts. There aren't many of them. Most investment analysts seem to have a bullish or bearish slant that, ultimately, sways their outlook.

Harry S. Dent seems to be pretty even keel. He made the case in '92, and again earlier this decade, that the US boom would last longer, and go much farther, than anyone would anticipate. Why? Demographics.

By studying America's demographics, Dent concluded that baby boomers would keep on spending, and driving the economy, until the latter part of this decade. I recall reading an article by him in 2004, where he made the case that the boom was going to last for at least a few more years. I thought the guy was nuts at the time! I was still waiting for the '00-'02 correction to continue.

Well, Dent called it. And now he's turning bearish. He sees a lot of dark clouds coming together at the same time, as the US descends into what he deems will be a long "economic winter."

Japan, Dent says, suffered the same fate. Japan's 1990 was our 2007, he says. That's when the demographic worm turned for the Japanese, as they sank into their long, extended deflationary depression.

What a lovely older couple. Unfortunately for the US, we'll soon have too many of them to keep our economy humming - according to Harry S. Dent.

In his interview with Puplava, Dent makes a very strong case for deflation ruling the day. According to him, inflation and deflation alternate in cycles that are strongly driven by demographics. So first deflation takes hold, then decelerates, then inflation grabs hold, decelerates, and the cycle starts anew.

In other words, he's not expecting a repeat of the 1970's, but instead, the 1930's. Interestingly I've heard this from other market observers as well - some folks favor the 80-year megacycle.

The conversation was fascinating, and I'd highly recommend you give it a listen at least once. He's going to be re-releasing his book later this year, so stay tuned, as we can reconvene to discuss it after it's out. I'm looking forward to hearing his latest thoughts.



Gauging Investor Sentiment With the WSJ
    My article last week, about using the Wall Street Journal to gauge investor sentiment, was republished by Seeking Alpha. It collected quite the stream of comments - some very astute, and some pretty dumb. Here's the link to the article and comments:

    I plan to continue to work sentiment indicators into our discussion more and more. Because I find them fascinating, and also because I believe I made my biggest investing/trading mistakes when I was trading euphorically with the herd, rather than against it.

    Your feedback and comments are always very much appreciated.


    Most Popular Posts Last Week

    Positions Update - Still Long the Buck

    The dollar continues to see strong support at these levels, while sentiment appears to still be quite negative. It's a good sign when an asset goes up, despite continued "bad" fundamental news.

    Sure, the dollar may indeed be a doomed currency - eventually. But you're not going to make any money on that trade as long as everyone else believes it too!

    Reports of the dollar's demise have, until now, been greatly exaggerated.
    (Source: Barchart.com)

    Open positions:

    Thanks for reading!

    Current Account Value: $25,479.83

    Cashed out: $20,000.00
    Total value: $45,479.83
    Weekly return: 1.0%
    2009 YTD return: -49.8% (Yikes!)

    Prior yearly returns:
    2008: -8%
    2007: 175%
    2006: 60%
    2005: 805%

    Initial trading stake: $2,000.00

    Wednesday, September 30, 2009

    Links to Two More (Excellent) Marc Faber Interviews

    Here's a good one with Marc Faber and Jim Puplava on the Financial Sense Newshour: http://www.netcastdaily.com/broadcast/fsn2009-0919-3b.mp3

    The topic is - surprise, surprise - inflation/deflation. Faber used to be a deflationist - his book Tomorrow's Gold is written in that perspective - and at some point, he found Fed Religion.

    I think Faber is fantastic, and I try to listen to everything I can by him. His newsletter is a tad rich for my blood ($700/year) - though I did get my hands on a copy once, and thought it was great.

    Faber believes the Fed will be able to inflate because it can, and because it has too. Of note in the context of our inflation/deflation coverage, he believes the potential lynch pin of the argument is the dollar. To have inflation, the dollar must weaken. So if we see a strong dollar, that could be a sign that inflation is not happening.

    Another good one, this interview a video, is Faber on Yahoo Tech Ticker. This is classic Faber. In the first part, he lays out a very thorough argument for inflation and possible financial scenarios. Then he drops the hammer in the second part - as he casually transitions into talk of global wars and social instability. They don't call him Dr. Doom for nothing!

    (Thanks to our friend and past guest author Jonathan Lederer for forwarding that 2nd link along).

    Sunday, September 20, 2009

    So Long, Cotton...I'm Just Too Wary of Deflation

    I have to admit - I think the Great Deleveraging permanently seared my psyche. I haven't been the same since.

    It's for the best. Until you live, and invest, through an event like that, I don't think you can appreciate the awesomeness of the destruction. A history book just doesn't do it justice.

    When it came time to roll my cotton position last Friday, I reflected on whether or not I wanted to keep the position. That's one nice thing about trading futures - when it's time to roll, you have a check point of sorts that forces you to reflect, even if for only a second.

    My plan with cotton has been to hold as long as it stays above it's lower resistance points (which is has...but just barely), and sell if I was fortunate enough to see it hit its upper resistance.

    Well, I got lucky and cotton broke $0.62 - and with some serious resistance here, I was happy to sell my position.

    Cotton has been doing the range trading thing.
    (Source: Barchart.com)

    Why not wait for a potential breakout? After all, cotton has traded north of 90 cents in the past two years - perhaps a decisive break above 63 could send it on a moonshot?

    Perhaps. But like I mentioned before, I'm still gunshy. I fear that the deflation monster is still lurking in the shadows. Last time I stayed stubbornly long - big mistake. I hope that next time, I can at least make a new set of mistakes, rather than repeating the same old ones!

    Remember what happened last time deflation took hold of the markets - it took hold of all of them. All assets traded together - correlation went to 1. So much for diversification...it doesn't really help to have your eggs in a few different baskets when ALL of the baskets hit the ground, and ALL of the eggs crack in half!

    I guess I can't see why things would be different if we see another wave of deleveraging. The dollar would rally. Treasuries may as well. And everything else would get slammed.

    At the very least, I think we're due for a correction in most assets. Optimism is quite high on, well, just about everything. Gold is everyone's darling, stocks are in the midst of a rally for the ages, and the Fed is being heralded as the saviors of the financial universe.

    I'm just not completely sold on this story, at least just yet.

    So, for the meantime, I'll be mostly in cash. And that means even a commodity with favorable fundamentals - such as cotton - is something I'll be casting a skeptical eye on at these prices.


    Popular Posts for the Week Ahead

    In case you missed them - here are the most popular posts from the past week:


    Positions Update - Still Like the Buck

    We bid cotton a farewell, at least for now. My favorite trade is still the US dollar - I think it's due for a massive rally, at least in the short to medium term, if for no other reason than the fact that absolute everyone is bearish on the buck.

    I outlined my hypothesis for going long the buck a few weeks ago, and I don't think the story has changed. Sentiment still appears to be overwhelmingly negative, and I am still not (yet) a believer in the inflation story.

    If the facts appear to change - or, more importantly, if the chart proves me wrong - I'll definitely reevaluate this position.

    The dollar still sits well above its 2007 lows - at least for now.
    (Source: Barchart.com)

    Open positions:


    Thanks for reading!

    Current Account Value: $25,119.83

    Cashed out: $20,000.00
    Total value: $45,119.83
    Weekly return: 6.6%
    2009 YTD return: -50.6% (Yikes!)

    Prior yearly returns:
    2008: -8%
    2007: 175%
    2006: 60%
    2005: 805%

    Initial trading stake: $2,000

    Most Popular Articles This Month