Tuesday, 29 June 2010

RBS tells clients to prepare for 'monster' money-printing by the Federal Reserve

As recovery starts to stall in the US and Europe with echoes of mid-1931, bond experts are once again dusting off a speech by Ben Bernanke given eight years ago as a freshman governor at the Federal Reserve.

 
Entitled "Deflation: Making Sure It Doesn’t Happen Here", it is a warfare manual for defeating economic slumps by use of extreme monetary stimulus once interest rates have dropped to zero, and implicitly once governments have spent themselves to near bankruptcy.
The speech is best known for its irreverent one-liner: "The US government has a technology, called a printing press, that allows it to produce as many US dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost."
Bernanke began putting the script into action after the credit system seized up in 2008, purchasing $1.75 trillion of Treasuries, mortgage securities, and agency bonds to shore up the US credit system. He stopped far short of the $5 trillion balance sheet quietly pencilled in by the Fed Board as the upper limit for quantitative easing (QE).
Investors basking in Wall Street's V-shaped rally had assumed that this bizarre episode was over. So did the Fed, which has been shutting liquidity spigots one by one. But the latest batch of data is disturbing.
The ECRI leading indicator produced by the Economic Cycle Research Institute plummeted yet again last week to -6.9, pointing to contraction in the US by the end of the year. It is dropping faster that at any time in the post-War era.
The latest data from the CPB Netherlands Bureau shows that world trade slid 1.7pc in May, with the biggest fall in Asia. The Baltic Dry Index measuring freight rates on bulk goods has dropped 40pc in a month. This is a volatile index that can be distorted by the supply of new ships, but those who watch it as an early warning signal for China and commodities are nervous.
Andrew Roberts, credit chief at RBS, is advising clients to read the Bernanke text very closely because the Fed is soon going to have to the pull the lever on "monster" quantitative easing (QE)".
"We cannot stress enough how strongly we believe that a cliff-edge may be around the corner, for the global banking system (particularly in Europe) and for the global economy. Think the unthinkable," he said in a note to investors.
Roberts said the Fed will shift tack, resorting to the 1940s strategy of capping bond yields around 2pc by force majeure said this is the option "which I personally prefer".
A recent paper by the San Francisco Fed argues that interest rates should now be minus 5pc under the bank's "rule of thumb" measure of capacity use and unemployment. The rate is currently minus 2pc when QE is factored in. You could conclude, very crudely, that the Fed must therefore buy another $2 trillion of bonds, and even more if Europe's EMU debacle goes from bad to worse. I suspect that this hints at the Bernanke view, but it is anathema to hardliners at the Kansas, Richmond, Philadephia, and Dallas Feds.
Societe Generale's uber-bear Albert Edwards said the Fed and other central banks will be forced to print more money whatever they now say, given the "stinking fiscal mess" across the developed world. "The response to the coming deflationary maelstrom will be additional money printing that will make the recent QE seem insignificant," he said.
Despite the apparent rift with Europe, the US is arguably tightening fiscal policy just as hard. Congress has cut off benefits for those unemployed beyond six months, leaving 1.3m without support. California has to slash $19bn in spending this year, as much as Greece, Portugal, Ireland, Hungary, and Romania combined. The states together must cut $112bn to comply with state laws.
The Congressional Budget Office said federal stimulus from the Obama package peaked in the first quarter. The effect will turn sharply negative by next year as tax rises automatically kick in, a net swing of 4pc of GDP. This is happening as the US housing market tips into a double-dip. New homes sales crashed 33pc to a record low of 300,000 in May after subsidies expired.
It is sobering that zero rates, QE a l'outrance, and an $800bn fiscal blitz should should have delivered so little. Just as it is sobering that Club Med bond purchases by the European Central Bank and the creation of the EU's €750bn rescue "shield" have failed to stabilize Europe's debt markets. Greek default contracts reached an all-time high of 1,125 on Friday even though the €110bn EU-IMF rescue is up and running. Are investors questioning EU solvency itself, or making a judgment on German willingness to back pledges with real money?
Clearly we are nearing the end of the "Phoney War", that phase of the global crisis when it seemed as if governments could conjure away the Great Debt. The trauma has merely been displaced from banks, auto makers, and homeowners onto the taxpayer, lifting public debt in the OECD bloc from 70pc of GDP to 100pc by next year. As the Bank for International Settlements warns, sovereign debt crises are nearing "boiling point" in half the world economy.
Fiscal largesse had its place last year. It arrested the downward spiral at a crucial moment, but that moment has passed. There is a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace. The Krugman doctrine of perma-deficits is ruinous - and has in fact ruined Japan. The only plausible escape route for the West is a decade of fiscal austerity offset by helicopter drops of printed money, for as long as it takes.
Some say that the Fed's QE policies have failed. I profoundly disagree. The US property market - and therefore the banks - would have imploded if the Fed had not pulled down mortgage rates so aggressively, but you can never prove a counter-factual.
The case for fresh QE is not to inflate away the debt or default on Chinese creditors by stealth devaluation. It is to prevent deflation.
Bernanke warned in that speech eight years ago that "sustained deflation can be highly destructive to a modern economy" because it leads to slow death from a rising real burden of debt.
At the time, the broad money supply war growing at 6pc and the Dallas Fed's `trimmed mean' index of core inflation was 2.2pc.
We are much nearer the tipping today. The M3 money supply has contracted by 5.5pc over the last year, and the pace is accelerating: the 'trimmed mean' index is now 0.6pc on a six-month basis, the lowest ever. America is one twist shy of a debt-deflation trap.
There is no doubt that the Fed has the tools to stop this. "Sufficient injections of money will ultimately always reverse a deflation," said Bernanke. The question is whether he can muster support for such action in the face of massive popular disgust, a Republican Fronde in Congress, and resistance from the liquidationsists at the Kansas, Philadelphia, and Richmond Feds. If he cannot, we are in grave trouble.

Reversing Britain, a Nation in Decline

David Cameron: 'The world doesn't owe us a living'

Britain has no automatic right to prosperity, David Cameron has said, declaring: “The world doesn’t owe us a living.”

David Cameron
Mr Cameron told business leaders in London that Britain has no automatic right to prosperity
The Prime Minister said many people are under the “delusion” that just because the UK has historically been one of the richest countries on earth, it will always remain so.
Only if we “reboot and rebuild” the UK economy can the country’s future prosperity be assured, he said.
Mr Cameron used a speech to business leaders in London to argue that the spending cuts and other changes his Government is planning are not discretionary political choices but essential economic moves to stop the country falling behind its competitors.
He said: “I think too many people in this country are living under the delusion that a prosperous past guarantees a prosperous future. But it isn’t written anywhere that this country deserves a place at the top table.
He added: “It was once said that freedom once won is not won for ever; it’s like an insurance premium – each generation must renew it. Economic prosperity is the same. Just because we’ve had it before doesn’t mean we’ll automatically get it again.”
The Prime Minister said Britain will only remain a major economy if it can tackle the huge Government deficit, reform the welfare system and attract new investment from overseas.
“These three steps can help Britain to earn its living in the decades to come,” he said.
Despite warnings about the state of the public finances and their impact on the wider economy, Mr Cameron insisted he was optimistic about Britain’s long-term future.
“Ever since it was said that Britain had lost an empire but not yet found a role there has been a lot of anxiety about our future; about our declining place on the world stage and our diminishing fortunes with it,” he said. “But I passionately believe that decline is not inevitable.”
Britain is “blessed with huge advantages” such as the English language, its universities, established industries and the “ingenuity, openness and talent” of its people, he said.
He added: “These are the old advantages, and I believe there is a new one, too – a growing attitude across the country that we are going to deal with these debts and fight not just for our survival, but for our success."
  • The Conservatives have gained popularity as support for their Liberal Democrat coalition partners has slumped, a new poll showed last night.
The ComRes poll put the Conservatives on 40 per cent, up from 36 per cent earlier this month. The Lib Dems fell five points to 18 per cent. Labour was on 31 per cent, up one point.

A Lost Decade for U.S. Stocks

Dec 23, 2009


I came across two charts that show the dismal performance of U.S. equities in this decade. The first chart below is from the Numbers column in the latest issue of Bloomberg Businessweek. It shows the return of the S&P 500 Index from Dec 31, 1999 through Dec. 14, 2009. The S&P 500 lost 23% in this period. During the same period market indices in developed countries like France, Finland, etc. showed relatively better performance. The main stock market indices in the Netherlands, Japan and Greece performed worse than the S&P 500.
It is interesting to note that while the S&P lost 23%, the Brazilian Bovespa Index gained an astonishing 318% during the same time frame. This is one reason why US investors should look beyond the US for better returns.
click to enlarge
Stock-Markets-Soared-Sank
Source: Bloomberg BusinessWeek
The second chart is from a Wall Street Journal December 20th article titled “Investors Hope the ’10s Beat the ‘00“. From the article:
“The U.S. stock market is wrapping up what is likely to be its worst decade ever.
In nearly 200 years of recorded stock-market history, no calendar decade has seen such a dismal performance as the 2000s.
Investors would have been better off investing in pretty much anything else, from bonds to gold or even just stuffing money under a mattress. Since the end of 1999, stocks traded on the New York Stock Exchange have lost an average of 0.5% a year thanks to the twin bear markets this decade.
The period has provided a lesson for ordinary Americans who used stocks as their primary way of saving for retirement.
Many investors were lured to the stock market by the bull market that began in the early 1980s and gained force through the 1990s. But coming out of the 1990s—when a 17.6% average annual gain made it the second-best decade in history behind the 1950s—stocks simply had gotten too expensive. Companies also pared dividends, cutting into investor returns. And in a time of financial panic like 2008, stocks were a terrible place to invest.
With two weeks to go in 2009, the declines since the end of 1999 make the last 10 years the worst calendar decade for stocks going back to the 1820s, when reliable stock market records begin, according to data compiled by Yale University finance professor William Goetzmann. He estimates it would take a 3.6% rise between now and year end for the decade to come in better than the 0.2% decline suffered by stocks during the Depression years of the 1930s.
The past decade also well underperformed other decades with major financial panics, such as in 1907 and 1893.
The last 10 years have been a nightmare, really poor,” for U.S. stocks, said Michele Gambera, chief economist at Ibbotson Associates.”
Chart - U.S. Stocks’ Cumulative Returns by Decade
“This decade is on pace to be the worst period ever for owning stocks. On the right are the annual returns, by year and decade, for a broad measure of stock-ownership. Stock returns were even better during the Civil War and World War I than from 2000 to 2009.”
Worst-Decade-Stocks

Why should you invest in Foreign Stocks?

Why should you invest in Foreign Stocks?


The answer to the title question is: For better returns and diversification purposes.
Simply put, in this age of globalisation it is almost a requirement to invest in foreign countries if ones to make above average returns. It does not mean putting 5 to 10% as most Americans do. it means allocating 30-40% of ones portfolio to foreign equities. An average investor in the US has less than 10% of his portfolio invested in foreign stocks.
Of course there are many risks to investing in foreign stocks.For a brief summary go to the SEC page on International Investing.
Today foreign companies are competing and growing rapidly when compared with US companies. For example, the market capitalization of all the stocks listed in the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) is about $27.1 Trillion as of December 31,2007. Out of this, 421 foreign companies’ capitalization is $11.4 Trillion. This shows that foreign companies are increasingly becoming more powerful and important in the global market place. On a worldwide basis the US markets constitutes only 45%of the total market capitalization of all companies. In addition to the NYSE there are many more foreign stocks listed in the Amex,Nasdaq and the OTC markets.
In addition to the above reasons, investing in foreign stocks may provide higher returns than investing in US stocks.
The following table and chart compares the Total Return of MCSI EAFE against US Indices for a period of 25 years. The MCSI EAFE Index is the all Non-US major stock markets of the world including Australasia, Europe and the Far East.
Total Return - MCSI EAFE Vs. US Index
YearAll Major Stock Markets outside USUS
198325%22%
19848%6%
198557%33%
198670%18%
198725%4%
198829%16%
198911%31%
1990-23%-2%
199112%31%
1992-12%7%
199333%10%
19948%2%
199512%38%
19966%24%
19972%34%
199820%31%
199927%22%
2000-14%-13%
2001-21%-12%
2002-16%-23%
200339%29%
200421%11%
200514%6%
200627%15%
200712%6%
Chart: Total Return - MCSI EAFE Vs. US Index
US-NonUS-Returns
As we see in the above table and chart, in the past 25 calendar years foreign stocks have outperformed US stocks in 15 years.
From the above data, we can also infer the following:
1. In the past 5 years (2003 to 2007), foreign stocks have returned far higher returns than US stocks for each year. The year by year return difference is as follows:
Years 2003 and 2004 - Foreign stocks returned 10% higher than US stocks
Year 2005 - Foreign equities’ return was 8% higher than US stocks
Year 2006 - International stocks returned 12% higher then US stocks
Year 2007 - Foreign stocks returned 6% higher then US stocks
While some portion of this higher returns is due to the dollar depreciation, the majority is due to foreign companies making higher profits than our domestic ones.
2. From 1995 to 1999 during the high tech craze, the US markets outpaced international markets.
So overall foreign stocks performed better in most of the past 25 years. As US economy struggles to recover it may be the right time for US investors to take a fresh look at foreign markets and invest according to their risk appetite.
Question:
What is you portfolio allocation for foreign stocks?. Do you think you need to re-allocate your portfolio now?. Which country/region is your favorite? Post your story on portfolio allocation in the comments section.