|
This is a reponse to a comment I made in another post. I thought I would make
a new post of it since it is lenghty. I noticed that some who have read the "Reggie
Middleton's Take on Investing for Inflation, pt. 5" are looking at inflation
and deflation as being mutually exclusive. It is not necessarily an academic,
zero sum game and we can quite possibly see a combination of both. I made it
clear in my 5 part series, and I also currently posit that those who think
they know what will happen in the medium term are guessing at best. We are
in the midst of a real-time global macro experiment, an unprecedented one at
that. No government has ever tried what the Fed has/is doing, at the scale
that it is doing it at, as well as other C banks around the world.
Input costs do not have to rise much to cause havoc, and inputs costs can
manifest in a variety of ways. For instance, the obvious is commodities, which
may have been in a bubble, but still are relatively high in relation to the
last couple of years, see Bloomberg today http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/...GzTIvbgLec,
input costs are still on the rise. The cost to build is still relatively high,
but since we have so much supply, it is a non-issue. The killer caveat is the
biggest input cost of all, the cost of capital. This is currently rising, and
threatens to rise much faster in the very near future, at the same time that
the government is attempting to artificially suppress it to stimulate inflation.
This will raise the input costs for consumers, corporate and banks, while at
the same time significantly depress productivity, risky and real asset prices.
The cost of capital has been too low for too long. Since many indsutrials and
manufacturers count commodity prices as a cost of goods sold, it is in essence
a cost of productivity capital for them, which has the chance to spike further,
and even if it doesn't, I can almost guarantee that the cost of debt and credit
will rise, if for nothing but the massive demand from the US government and
its cohorts to fight the battle against deflation. Ironically, the cost of
battling deflation will cause a spike in rates which is quite likely deflationary.
The question is, where will the other input costs end up.
If you look at this as a zero sum game, this may escape you. In the past,
stagflation was marked by negative supply side shock, ex. war in a major oil
producing country made oil more scarce (just as conflict in Iran might do in
the near future), hence driving prices higher. I posit that the cost capital,
as a primary input cost, is at extreme risk of a negative supply shock, which
will cause its cost to shoot upwards. It doesn't even have to shoot that high
for damage to be done due the current situation where the government feels
it has to suppress rates (to resuscitate banks and consumers) at the same time
it has to access said capital markets for said resuscitation. 100 bp rise in
rates will severely crimp already very weak banks, overstretched consumers
and over-leveraged consumers, and a still inflated housing market (price-wise)
as a glut of inventory is still arriving due to new construction and foreclosures.
As a matter of fact, the housing market is a good example of non-zero sum
scenario (which I may have labeled stagflationary as a layman) pressures, where
you have high housing prices in relation to income, low yet rising input costs
(cost of construction which is actually fairly high in relation to, the cost
of capital) and massive supply waiting to be absorbed. Many look at things
as high demand (w. low rates) or low supply (w. high rates), ex. demand/supply.
Now we have low demand, very low historical rates (that are low due due to
govt. interference with the markets but rapidly rising in a quest for equilibrium),
high supply (and increasing).
Remember, this is not an economist speaking, just a lowly individual investor,
but one who has seen this entire scenario play keenly, well in advance and
well ahead of most academics and industry pundits/analysts. The ability to
do so was grounded in my looking at the here and now and seeing what was actually
going on versus what was told to me or what was academically supposed to be
going on.
Facts and tidbits
• In 2009, 'green shoots' of recovery, higher inflation expectations
and concerns over fiscal sustainability have burst the bubble in Treasuries.
The U.S. government is expected to issue nearly $2 trillion of debt into the
$5 trillion Treasury market to finance its rescues of the financial system.
Yields have risen and the yield curve has steepened since January, with price
losses concentrated in the long end rather than the short end: 10yr and 30yr
Treasuries are yielding between 3-5%, 2yr notes yield 1-2%, T-bills remain
near zero. The TIPS market is anticipating 2% annual inflation for the next
10 years and 0.05% annual inflation in a year
• In 2008, the Treasury market had its best annual rally in more than
25 years on fears of global credit crisis, recession, deflation. 10yr and 30yr
Treasury yields fell to all-time lows and T-bill yields even dipped into negative
territory for the first time since the Great Depression. The total return of
the 30-year bond was c. 45%, its best year since 1982. Treasuries in general
returned 14%, outperforming S&P 500 by 53 percentage points
• Because of the low income on Treasury securities, it would take only
a small rise in yields for total returns on Treasuries to turn negative (Merrill)
• Given the level of extension in yields, it would not be difficult to
generate losses of say 10% in the 10-year Treasury bond, and as much as 20-25%
in the 30-year Treasury bond over a very short period of time (Hussman)
• The last time investors lost money on U.S. government bonds was the
year after the 1998 bailout of LTCM and Russia's default sent investors rushing
to Treasuries. Yields on 10-year notes rose to 6.44% in 1999 from 4.65%
• The specter of deflation and Japan's experience in the 1990s suggest
bond yields could fall significantly further - 10yr JGB yields went on to find
a low of 0.45% despite massive fiscal stimulus. Ironically, it was the start
of quantitative easing in March 2001 when yields ticked up (JPMorgan)
• If Treasury yields rise, mortgage yields and corporate bond yields
can be expected to follow suit. And they are. Yields on 30Y fixed term mortgages
have risen by about 65bp, to well above 5.0%. And we are now beginning to see
mortgage refinancing activity dwindle again after a promising uptick in recent
months (ING)
• It's unlikely the rise in bond yields will derail the tepid recovery
we anticipate for 2H09. This should be clear from the decomposition of nominal
yields into real yields and inflation discussed above. What matters for the
real economy are real interest rates, not nominal rates, and real interest
rates have fallen rather than risen. Late last year, when deflation fears were
widespread, consumers probably held back spending in the expectation of lower
prices. This is less likely to be the case now that inflation expectations
have normalized (Morgan Stanley)
• If the dollar holds steady, Treasury bond prices are likely to plunge;
if Treasury prices hold steady, the value of the dollar is likely to plunge.
Either way, foreign holders of Treasury securities are facing probable losses,
and they know it (Hussman)
Bubble Origins
• This bubble was motivated by fear rather than greed. Investors were
seeking to protect themselves against deflation and declining stock markets
by blindly acquiring "risk-free" government bonds
• Institutional investors also contributed to the bond bubble. Pension
funds, insurers and others sold off toxic securitized triple-A rated bonds
and replaced them with Treasuries. Government bonds were attractive for diversification
purposes since they held up while just about everything else in their investment
portfolios collapsed
• The Federal Reserve's decision to buy longer U.S. government maturities
added momentum to the epic rally
• Overview: By June 18, the average 30-year rate dropped to 5.38 percent
from 5.59 percent a week earlier. Rates are down from 6.46 percent in late
October, and up from a record low of 4.78 percent in the first and last weeks
of April. From 4.92%, the 15-year rate averaged 4.89 percent for the week ended
June 18..
NEGATIVE IMPACTS:
• May 29, Tracy Alloway:With the mortgage market currently in a Treasury-related
turmoil, the ability of homeowners to refinance their mortgages at low rates
is in danger. The delinquency rate seems to be spreading to safer mortgages,
and the the struggle to find refinancing in the current market (everyone is
after it, banks are overloaded with requests, etc.) means many people have
yet to take advantage of the low interest rate environment
• May 29, WSJ: "Higher rates: makes it less likely for homeowners to
be able to lower their monthly payments by refinancing, which can put a crimp
on consumer spending. Also means lower earnings for banks, which have profited
from increased refinancing. In addition, higher rates are likely to put more
downward pressure on home prices and sales. In terms of the burden on home
buyers, Credit Suisse estimates that each rise of 0.10 percentage point in
mortgage rates is equivalent to a 1% rise in home prices."
INTERESTING FACTS:
• The yield curve (measures the risk associated with longer dated maturities)
is at record levels, 2.75 percentage points."several analysts suggest the current
ten year sell-off is due to concerns about increased Treasury issuance to finance
the deficit."
• May 28, Bloomberg: Delinquency rates. In Q1 2009 the U.S. delinquency
rate jumped to a seasonally adjusted 9.12% from 7.88%. One in every eight Americans
is now late on a payment or already in foreclosure and the number of borrowers
at least two months behind on their mortgage is hitting 5.22%
|