FirstBiz

Federal Reserve ends money printing, but the easy money party will continue

yellen_janet_040512_8x10Vivek Kaul

The Federal Open Market Committee(FOMC) which decides on the monetary policy of the United States in a statement released yesterday said “the Committee [has] decided to conclude its asset purchase program this month.”
What the Federal Reserve calls “asset purchase program” is referred to as “quantitative easing” by the economists. In simple English this is just the good old money printing with a twist. Since the start of the financial crisis, the Federal Reserve has printed around $3.6 trillion of new money.
This month the Federal Reserve has printed around around $15 billion. It has pumped this money into the financial system by buying government bonds and mortgage backed securities. From November 2014, the Federal Reserve will no longer print money to buy government and private bonds.
So why is the Federal Reserve bringing money printing to an end? The simple reason is that with so much money being printed and pumped into the financial system, there is always the threat of too much money chasing too few goods, and leading to a massive price rise in the process. Even though something like that has not happened the threat remains.
As John Lanchester writes in How to Speak Money “More generally QE[quantitative easing] taps into the fear that governments printing money always leads to dangerous levels of inflation, and that inflation, like a peat-bog fire, is all the more dangerous when it’s cooking up underground.”
There have been too many instances of money printing by the government leading to massive inflation in the past. And the Federal Reserve couldn’t have kept ignoring it.
Lanchester perhaps describes quantitative easing(QE) in the simplest possible way and what it really stands for by cutting out all the jargon in his new book How to Speak Money. As he writes “QE involves a government buying its own bonds using money which doesn’t actually exist. It’s like borrowing money from somebody and then paying them back with a piece of paper on which you’ve written the word ‘Money’ – and then, magically, it turns out that the piece of paper with ‘Money’ [written] on it is actually real money.”
Lanchester describes QE in another way as well. He compares it to a situation where an individual while looking at his “bank balance online” also has “the additional ability to add to it just by typing numbers on [his] keyboard.” “Ordinary punters can’t do this, obviously, but governments can; then they use this newly created magic money to buy back their own debt. That’s what quantitative easing is,” writes Lanchester.
This has been done in the hope that with all the newly money created being pumped into the financial system, there would be enough money going around and interest rates would continue to remain low. At lower interest rates the hope was people would borrow and spend more, and this in turn would lead to economic growth.
This did not turn out to be the case. What happened instead was that financial institutions borrowed money at very low interest rates and invested that money in financial markets all over the world. This explains to a large extent why stock markets have rallied all over the world in the recent past despite slow economic growth in large parts of the world.
So with the Federal Reserve deciding to stop money printing, will the era of easy money come to an end as well? The answer is no. For “easy money” junkies the party will continue. The Federal Reserve stated yesterday that “The Committee is maintaining its existing policy of reinvesting principal payments from its holdings of agency debt and agency mortgage-backed securities in agency mortgage-backed securities and of rolling over maturing Treasury securities at auction. This policy, by keeping the Committee’s holdings of longer-term securities at sizable levels, should help maintain accommodative financial condition.”
What does this mean in simple English? The Federal Reserve has printed and pumped money into the financial system by buying bonds. It currently holds around more than $4 trillion worth of bonds. Bloomberg points out that this makes up for around 20% of all the bonds issued by the American government as well as mortgage backed securities outstanding. The Federal Reserve holds around $2.46 trillion of US government bonds.
In the days to come as these bonds mature, the Federal Reserve plans to use the money that comes back to it to buy more bonds. In this way it plans to ensure that the money that it has printed and pumped into the financial system, stays in the financial system.
Hence, Federal Reserve will not start sucking out all the money it has printed and pumped into the financial any time soon. And this means that the era of “easy money” will continue for the time being. The Federal Reserve also stated that fit plans keep interest rates low “for a considerable time following the end of its asset purchase program this month.”
By doing this, the Federal Reserve is essentially buying time. Currently, it is very difficult to predict how exactly the financial markets will react if the Fed decides to start sucking out all the money that it has printed and pumped into the financial system.
As Lanchester writes “Nobody quite knows what’s going to happen once QE stops. In fact, the ‘unwinding’ of the QE is on many people’s list as the possible trigger for the next global meltdown.” Further, even though the American economy is doing much better than it was in the past, the recovery at best has been fragile. The US economy grew by 4.6% during the period between July and September 2014, after having contracted by 2.1% during April to June, earlier this year.
The rate of unemployment in the US has been coming down for quite a while now. In September 2014, it stood at 5.9% against 6.1% in August. This rate of unemployment is around the average rate of unemployment of 5.83% between 1948 and 2014. It is also below the 6.5% rate of unemployment that the Federal Reserve is comfortable with.
Nevertheless, even with these reasons, the Federal Reserve is unlikely to start sucking out money and raising interest rates any time soon. This is because the US has become what Lanchester calls a “two-speed economy”. Lanchester defines this as “an economy in which different sectors are performing differently at the same time”. In the American context, it is a matter of Texas and the rest of the country.
The state of Texas has been creating more jobs than any other state in the United States. As Sam Rhines an economist at Chilton Capital Management points out in a recent article in The National Interest “From its peak in January 2008 through today, the United States has created only 750,000 jobs. Texas created over a million jobs during that same period—meaning that the rest of the country (RotC) is still short 300,000 jobs. During the recovery, job creation has been all Texas or—at the very least—disproportionately Texas.”
This has meant that the contribution that Texas has been making to the US economy has increased over the last few years, from 7.7% in 2006, it now stands at 9%. So, if one takes Texas out of the equation, the United States still hasn’t recovered all the jobs it lost since the start of the financial crisis in September 2008. Further, if one takes out the Texas growth out of the equation, the GDP growth also falls considerably. As Rhines writes “From 2007 through the end of 2013, the U.S. economy grew by $702 billion, and Texas grew by $220.5 billion.”
Other than this the broad unemployment numbers hide the fact that the labour force participation rate has been falling over the years. Labour force participation rate is essentially the proportion of population older than 15 years that is economically active. The number for September 2014 stood at 62.7%. This is the lowest number since 1978. The number had stood at more than 65% before the start of the financial crisis. Hence, more and more people are now not looking for jobs and they are no longer counted as unemployed.
Further, a lot of jobs being created are part-time jobs. Also, with jobs being difficult to come by many people looking for full-time jobs have had to take on part time jobs. In August 2014, nearly 7.3 million Americans were involuntarily working part time, compared to 4.6 million in December 2007, before the financial crisis had started. In September 2014, this number dropped to 7.1 million. Even after this fall, the number remains disproportionately high. This underemployment is not reflected in the rate of unemployment number.
Janet Yellen obviously understands this. As she had said in a press conference in September 2014 “There are still too many people who want jobs but cannot find them, too many who are working part-time but would prefer full-time work.”
Taking all these factors into account the Federal Reserve is unlikely to start sucking out all the money it has printed and pumped into the financial system any time soon. Nevertheless, whenever it gets around to doing that there will be trouble ahead.
Lanchester perhaps summarises the situation well when he says: “If a medicine is guaranteed to make you very sick when you stop taking it, and you know that one day you’ll have to stop taking it, then maybe you shouldn’t start taking it in the first place.”
But that at best is a benefit of hindsight. The horse, as they say, has already bolted by now. Alan Greenspan, the former Chairman of the Federal Reserve, recently said that the next phase of Fed’s retreat would not be so smooth and the Fed would not able to avoid turmoil. “I don’t think it’s possible,” Greenspan said.

The column is an updated version of a column that appeared on October 29, 2014. You can read it here.

(Vivek Kaul is the author of the Easy Money trilogy. He tweets @kaul_vivek)

Why the US Fed will not be sucking out all the printed money any time soon

 

Vivek Kaul

The Federal Open Market Committee(FOMC) is scheduled to meet on October 28-29. This is one of the eight regularly scheduled meetings during the year. It is widely expected that the Janet Yellen led Federal Reserve will more or less bring quantitative easing to an end.
Economists like to refer to the good old money printing as “quantitative easing”. The Federal Reserve till date has printed around $4 trillion and pumped it into the financial system. It currently prints around $15 billion per month and pumps this money into the financial system by buying government bonds and mortgage backed securities.
The writer John Lanchester perhaps describes quantitative easing(QE) in the simplest possible way and what it really stands for by cutting out all the jargon in his new book How to Speak Money. As he writes “QE involves a government buying its own BONDS using money which doesn’t actually exist. It’s like borrowing money from somebody and then paying them back with a piece of paper on which you’ve written the word ‘Money’ – and then, magically, it turns out that the piece of paper with ‘Money’ [written] on it is actually real money.”
Lanchester describes QE in another way as well. He compares it to a situation where an individual while looking at his “bank balance online” also has “the additional ability to add to it just by typing numbers on [his] keyboard.” “Ordinary punters can’t do this, obviously, but governments can; then they use this newly created magic money to buy back their own debt. That’s what quantitative easing is,” writes Lanchester.
This has been done in the hope that with all the newly money created being pumped into the financial system, there would be enough money going around and interest rates would continue to remain low. At lower interest rates the hope was people would borrow and spend more, and this in turn would lead to economic growth.
This did not turn out to be the case. What happened instead was that financial institutions borrowed money at very low interest rates and invested that money in financial markets all over the world. This explains to a large extent why stock markets have rallied all over the world in the recent past.
Lanchester believes that instead of going through the QE route the Western governments should have simply handed over this money directly to the people. He makes this comment in the context of the United Kingdom. As he writes “In the UK, the government has spent magic money on QE to the tune of £ 375 billion, an amount equal to 23.8% of…GDP…If they’d just had given the money direct to the public, perhaps in the form of time-limited. UK-only spending vouchers, it would have amounted to just under £ 6,000 for every man, woman and child in the country. Can anyone doubt that the stimulus effect that would have been much bigger?”
A similar argument can be made for the American economy as well. Nevertheless, this is just a counterfactual and something that did not happen.
Now the US Federal Reserve is likely to stop printing money after its meeting over two days. Does that mean there will be trouble ahead? As Lanchester writes “Nobody quite knows what’s going to happen once QE stops. In fact, the ‘unwinding’ of the QE is on many people’s list as the possible trigger for the next global meltdown.”
Once the US Fed stops printing money, new money will stop coming into the market every month. Hence, perpetually increasing liquidity will come to an end, at least in the American context.
So, does that mean interest rates will start to go up? The answer is no. As Mohammed A. El-Erian wrote in a recent column for Bloomberg “They will reiterate their willingness to keep interest rates low, should economic conditions warrant it. In doing all this, Fed officials will again try to buy time — both for the economy to heal and for politicians to step up to their responsibilities — hoping for better times ahead.”
What this means in simple English is that the Federal Reserve will not start sucking out all the money it has printed and pumped into the financial any time soon. And this means that the era of “easy money” will continue for the time being.
The reason for this is fairly straightforward. Even though the American economy is doing much better than it was in the past, the recovery at best has been fragile. The US economy grew by 4.6% during the period between July and September 2014, after having contracted by 2.1% during April to June, earlier this year.
The rate of unemployment in the US has been coming down for quite a while now. In September 2014, it stood at 5.9% against 6.1% in August. This rate of unemployment is around the average rate of unemployment of 5.83% between 1948 and 2014. It is also below the 6.5% rate of unemployment that the Federal Reserve is comfortable with.
Nevertheless, even with these reasons, the Federal Reserve is unlikely to start sucking out money and raising interest rates any time soon. This is because the US has become what Lanchester calls a “two-speed economy”. Lanchester defines this as “an economy in which different sectors are performing differently at the same time”. In the American context, it is a matter of Texas and the rest of the country.
The state of Texas has been creating more jobs than any other state in the United States. As Sam Rhines an economist at Chilton Capital Management points out in a recent article in The National Interest “From its peak in January 2008 through today, the United States has created only 750,000 jobs. Texas created over a million jobs during that same period—meaning that the rest of the country (RotC) is still short 300,000 jobs. During the recovery, job creation has been all Texas or—at the very least—disproportionately Texas.”
This has meant that the contribution that Texas has been making to the US economy has increased over the last few years, from 7.7% in 2006, it now stands at 9%. So, if one takes Texas out of the equation, the United States still hasn’t recovered all the jobs it lost since the start of the financial crisis in September 2008. Further, if one takes out the Texas growth out of the equation, the GDP growth also falls considerably. As Rhines writes “From 2007 through the end of 2013, the U.S. economy grew by $702 billion, and Texas grew by $220.5 billion.”
Other than this the broad unemployment numbers hide the fact that the labour force participation rate has been falling over the years. Labour force participation rate is essentially the proportion of population older than 15 years that is economically active. The number for September 2014 stood at 62.7%. This is the lowest number since 1978. The number had stood at more than 65% before the start of the financial crisis. Hence, more and more people are now not looking for jobs and they are no longer counted as unemployed.
Further, a lot of jobs being created are part-time jobs. Also, with jobs being difficult to come by many people looking for full-time jobs have had to take on part time jobs. In August 2014, nearly 7.3 million Americans were involuntarily working part time, compared to 4.6 million in December 2007, before the financial crisis had started. In September 2014, this number dropped to 7.1 million. Even after this fall, the number remains disproportionately high. This underemployment is not reflected in the rate of unemployment number.
Janet Yellen obviously understands this. As she had said in a press conference in September 2014 “There are still too many people who want jobs but cannot find them, too many who are working part-time but would prefer full-time work.”
Taking all these factors into account the Federal Reserve is unlikely to start sucking out all the money it has printed and pumped into the financial system any time soon. Nevertheless, whenever it gets around to doing that there will be trouble ahead.
Lanchester perhaps summarises the situation well when he says: “If a medicine is guaranteed to make you very sick when you stop taking it, and you know that one day you’ll have to stop taking it, then maybe you shouldn’t start taking it in the first place.”
But that at best is a benefit of hindsight. The horse, as they say, has already bolted by now.

The article originally appeared on www.FirstBiz.com on Oct 29, 2014

(Vivek Kaul is the author of the Easy Money trilogy. He tweets @kaul_vivek)

Dragon slows down: Why China may not continue to grow at high growth rate

chinaVivek Kaul

Three recent pieces of data coming out of China suggest that all is not well in the Middle Kingdom. The economic growth (as measured by the rate of growth of gross domestic product) during July to September 2014 came in at 7.3%.
While the number is on the higher side in comparison to the economic growth rates that prevail all over the world, it isn’t in comparison to the rates at which China has grown over the last three decades. As The Economist put it “It[i.e. the Chinese economic growth] was well below the roughly 10% pace China had averaged from 1980 until two years ago.”
Over and above this, the consumer price inflation for September 2014 came in at 1.6% against 2% in August 2014. This is another sign of the Chinese economy slowing down. In fact, the producers price index (or what we call the wholesale price index) has been falling since early 2012. In fact, September 2014, saw the biggest month on month drop of 0.4%.
Over and above this, the foreign exchange reserves declined big time. As Albert Edwards of Societe Generale put it in a recent research note titled Once again the key Chinese data were overlooked and dated Oct 23, 2014 “I was also surprised to see that the $100bn decline in China’s Q3 FX[foreigh exchange] reserves, the largest quarterly fall ever. As I have explained, this reflects deterioration in Chinese competitiveness from its excessively strong real exchange rate.”
China has grown at a rapid rate since the late 1970s, when Deng Xiaoping took over the reigns of the country. And no country has ever come close to matching the astonishing growth that China has achieved since then.
As economists Lant Pritchett and Lawrence H. Summers of Harvard University point out in a recent research paper titled Asiaphoria Meets Regression To The Mean “Episodes of super-rapid growth (>6 percent) tend to be extremely short-lived…China’s experience from 1977 to 2010 already holds the distinction of being the only instance, quite possibly in the history of mankind, but certainly in the data, with a sustained episode of super-rapid (> 6 percent per annum) growth for more than 32 years.”
Very few countries have come close to achieving what China has. As the Harvard economists point out “The median duration of a super-rapid growth episode is nine years…There are essentially only two countries with episodes even close to China’s current duration. Taiwan had a growth episode from 1962 to 1994 of 6.8 percent (decelerating to growth of 3.5 percent from 1994 to 2010). Korea had an episode from 1962 to 1982 followed by another acceleration in 1982 until 1991 when growth decelerated to 4.48 percent—a total of 29 years of super-rapid growth (>6 percent)—followed by still rapid (>4 percent) growth.”
Given this, the Chinese economic growth is what we could call an exception to the rule that sustained rapid economic growth is a rarity. It is safe to say that beyond a point economic growth collapses more often than not. And once the growth starts to collapse it tends to come down to the mean growth rate of the world, which is just a little over 2%. “The typical (median) end of an episode of super-rapid growth is near complete regression to the world mean growth rate. The median of the growth episode that follows an episode of super-rapid growth is 2.1 percent per year,” write Pritchett and Summers.
In this scenario what are the chances that China will continue to grow at a high growth rate in the days to come? The China bulls would obviously like to tell us that people have talking about Chinese growth stalling for a while now. Nevertheless, even though Chinese growth has slowed down it hasn’t really crashed.
The trouble with forecasters is that they “invariably extrapolate recent growth”. They expect the present state of affairs to continue. But that as we know is not the case more often than not. As the Harvard economists point out “There was a widespread view right up until the end of the 1980s that Japan would continue to grow and outcompete the world….During the late 1980s, it was widely believed that Japanese-style industrial policy, Japanese emphasis on corporate linkages through keiretsu, and high levels of investment supported by financial repression were keys to rapid growth. A decade later, the conventional wisdom held nearly the opposite views.”
The same is true about Africa as well. “In the opposite direction, consider the pervasive pessimism of even a decade ago regarding Africa. Since then, African countries emerged as a majority of the world’s most rapidly growing nations.”
In fact in the 1960s there was even the belief that the Soviet Union would outgrow the United States. This was “based on an extrapolation of its recent growth performance.”
Another good example here is that of Brazil. As The Economist points out “Slowdowns often occur despite seemingly sound prospects: both Brazil in 1980 and Japan in 1991 looked like juggernauts, yet they managed scarcely any growth at all in real GDP per person over the following 20 years. A slowdown is not a sign of failure, they say; rather, persistent rapid growth suggests unusually good fortune or policy.”
To conclude, what all this clearly tells us is that Chinese growth will falter sooner rather than later. The only question is when. On that your guess is as good as mine.

The article originally appeared on www.FirstBiz.com on Oct 28, 2014

(Vivek Kaul is the author of the Easy Money trilogy. He tweets @kaul_vivek)

Jaitley again asks for interest rate cuts, needs lessons in basic economics

Fostering Public Leadership - World Economic Forum - India Economic Summit 2010Vivek Kaul

It is fashionable in Delhi circles these days to ask for an an interest rate cut at a drop of a hat. The finance minister Arun Jaitley like his predecessor P Chidambaram likes to remind the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) now and then that the time is just right for a rate cut.
In an interview to The Times of India late last week Jaitley said “”Currently, interest rates are a disincentive. Now that inflation seems to be stabilizing somewhat, the time seems to have come to moderate the interest rates.”
Before Jaitley, the senior columnist Prem Shankar Jha became the newest interest-rate-wallah on the block and in a column in The Times of India held the RBI responsible for India’s slow economic growth over the last few years. As he wrote“[The] Indian economy is not on the road to recovery. The reason is the sustained high interest rate regime of the past four years. Industry has been begging for cuts in the cost of borrowing since March 2011… On August 5, RBI governor Raghuram Rajan surprised the country by announcing that he would not lower interest rates, because at 8% consumer price inflation was still too high.”
I guess Jha must have been among the few people surprised by Rajan’s decision given that among those who follow the workings of the Indian central bank closely, almost no one had expected Rajan to cut interest rates.
The premise on which interest-rate-wallahs work is that at lower interest rates people will borrow and spend more, which will lead to economic growth. But the entire premise that low interest rates will lead to a pick up in consumption and hence, higher economic growth, doesn’t really hold. (As I have explained here). Jaitley believes that “expansion in real estate will take place significantly only if the interest rates come down a little.”
This is what the real estate companies also like to believe. But the basic point is that people are not buying homes because home prices have risen way above what they can afford. As I have explained in the past, for an average Mumbaikar it currently takes around 34 years annual income to buy a home to live in. This is true for other cities as well, though the situation maybe a little better than that in Mumbai. So even a major cut in interest rates is not going to lead people buying homes to live in unless real estate prices fall. This is something that Arun Jaitley as the finance minister of this country needs to understand.
Having said that, those looking to move their black money around will always look at investing in real estate and for them the interest rates really don’t matter.
The other big reason offered is that companies can borrow at lower rates of interest. The idea being that lower interest rates might encourage companies to borrow and expand. Again it needs to be realized that companies don’t always decide to expand just because money is available at low interest rates, especially in difficult times as these.
Factors like ease of doing business and consumer demand play an important role. As I have explained in the past, due to many years of high inflation consumer demand in India continues to remain subdued. And unless it starts to pick up, there is no real reason for companies to expand.
Also, it is worth remembering here that a some of the major business groups in India have already borrowed a lot of money and are having tough time paying interest on the debt they already have. Hence, where is the question of borrowing more?
The bigger question that interest-rate-wallahs tend to ignore is how much control does the RBI really have over interest rates that banks pay their depositors and in turn charge their borrowers? Over the last few weeks, banks have cut interest rates on their fixed deposits. The list includes State Bank of India, Punjab National Bank and Central Bank of India. (You can read about here, here and here). The Indus Ind Bank also cut the interest it pays on its savings account to 4.5% from the earlier 5.5% for a daily balance of up to Rs 1 lakh, starting September 1, 2014.
All these cuts in interest rates have happened despite the RBI maintaining the repo rate at 8%. Repo rate is the interest rate at which the RBI lends to banks. So what has changed that has allowed these banks to cut the interest rates at which they borrow?
Let’s look at some numbers. As on October 3, 2014, over a period of one year, the loans given by banks rose by 9.87%. During the same period the deposits raised by banks rose by 11.54%. How was the situation one year back? As on October 4, 2013, over a period of one year, the loans given by banks had risen by 15.18%. During the same period the deposits had grown by 12.9%.
Hence, the rate of loan growth for banks has fallen much faster than the rate at which their deposit growth has fallen. Given this, it is not surprising that banks are cutting fixed deposit rates, given that their rate of loan growth is falling at a much faster rate.
As Henry Hazlitt writes in Economics in One Lesson “Just as the supply and demand for any other commodity are equalized by price, so the supply of demand for capital are equalized by interest rates. The interest rate is merely a special name for the price of loaned capital. It is a price like any other.”
As Hazlitt further points out “If money is kept…in…banks…the banks are eager to lend and invest it. They cannot afford to have idle funds.”
Hence, given that the rate of loan growth is much slower than the rate of deposit growth, it is not surprising that banks are cutting interest rates on their fixed deposits. Given this, the impact that RBI’s repo rate has on interest rates is at best limited. It is more of a broad indicator from the RBI on which way it thinks interest rates are headed.
Further, it also needs to be remembered that financial savings in India have fallen dramatically over the last few years. The latest RBI annual report points out that “the household financial saving rate remained low during 2013-14, increasing only marginally to 7.2 per cent of GDP in 2013-14 from 7.1 per cent of GDP in 2012-13 and 7.0 per cent of GDP in 2011-12…the household financial saving rate [has] dipped sharply from 12 per cent in 2009-10.”
Household financial savings is essentially the money invested by individuals in fixed deposits, small savings scheme, mutual funds, shares, insurance etc. It has come down from 12% of the GDP in 2009-10 to 7.2% in 2013-14. A major reason for the fall has been the high inflation that has prevailed since 2008.
The rate of return on offer on fixed income investments(like fixed deposits, post office savings schemes and various government run provident funds) has been lower than the rate of inflation. This led to people moving their money into investments like gold and real estate, where they expected to earn more. Hence, the money coming into fixed deposits slowed down leading to a situation where banks could not cut interest rates., given that their loan growth continued to be strong.
What also did not help was the fact that the borrowing requirements of the government of India kept growing over the years.
The RBI was not responsible for any of this. The only way to bring down interest rates is by ensuring that inflation continues to remain low in the months and the years to come. If this happens, then money flowing into fixed deposits will improve and that, in turn, will help banks to first cut interest rates they offer on their deposits and then on their loans.
The government needs to play an important part in the efforts to bring down inflation. In fact, it has been working on that front. In a recent research report analysts Abhay Laijawala and Abhishek Saraf of Deutsche Bank Market Research write that the “the government is firmly ‘walking the talk’ on fiscal consolidation” through a spate of “recent administrative moves on curbing food inflation (such as fast liquidation of surplus foodstock, modest single-digit hike in MSPs, an effort to eliminate fruits and vegetables from ambit of APMC etc.)”
This is very important given that once inflation remains low for an extended period of time, only then will inflationary expectations (or the expectations that consumers have of what future inflation is likely to be) be reined in. And consumer demand is likely to pick up after this.
The Reserve Bank of India’s Inflation Expectations Survey of Households: September – 2014 which was a survey of 4,933 urban households across 16 cities, and which captures the inflation expectations for the next three-month and the next one-year period. The median inflation expectations over the next three months and one year are at 14.6 percent and 16 percent. In March 2014, the numbers were at 12.9 percent and 15.3 percent. Hence, inflationary expectations have risen since the beginning of this financial year.
To conclude, RBI seems to have become everyone’s favourite punching bag even though its impact on setting interest rates is rather limited. It is time that interest-rate-wallhas like Jaitley and Jha come to terms with this.

This an updated version of a column that appeared on Oct 22, 2014. You can read the original column here

(Vivek Kaul is the author of the Easy Money trilogy. He tweets @kaul_vivek)

Central bankers are morons: Why bad economic news is treated as good news by stock market

yellen_janet_040512_8x10

Vivek Kaul


When it comes to investing in the stock market, there used to be two kinds of investors: those who invested on the basis of the fundamentals of a stock and and those who invested on the basis of non fundamentals.
Investors like Warren Buffett specialise in investing on the basis of fundamentals. These investors go through balance sheets, annual reports etc., in great detail, trying to figure out how well a company they want to invest in is doing in terms of sales, expenditure and profits.
On the other hand, the non fundamental investor most of the times is trying to do what John Maynard Keynes described best. John Lanchester writes about this “famous description” in his recent book How to Speak Money” “He (i.e. the non fundamental investor) is looking at a photo of six girls and trying to pick, not which girl he thinks is the prettiest, and not which he thinks most people will think is the prettiest, but which most people will think most people will think is the prettiest…In other words the non-fundamentals investor isn’t trying to work out what companies he should invest in, or what company most investors will think they should invest in, but which company most investors will think most investors will want to invest in.”
Or as Keynes put it in his magnum opus The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money “It is not a case of choosing those [faces] that, to the best of one’s judgement, are really the prettiest, nor even those that average opinion genuinely thinks the prettiest. We have reached the third degree where we devote our intelligences to anticipating what average opinion expects the average opinion to be.”
And this is how the stock market investors were neatly divided with the majority of them trying to figure out “ what average opinion expected the average opinion to be”. This neat division was broken down in the aftermath of the current financial crisis which started in September 2008. The markets are now ruled by the central banks.
As Ben Hunt wrote in the Epsilon Theory investment letter dated August 5, 2014, and titled Fear and Loathing on the Marketing Trail, 2014 “Today, everyone believes that market price levels are largely driven by monetary policy and that we are all being played by politicians and central bankers using their words for effect rather than direct communication.”
Monetary policy is essentially the process by which a central bank controls the amount of money in the financial system of a country. In the aftermath of the financial crisis, central banks of Western economies started printing money.
Economist John Mauldin in a recent column titled The End of Monetary Policy estimates that central banks have printed $7-8 trillion since the start of the financial crisis. It is worth pointing out here that this money is not actually printed, but created digitally, nonetheless “money being printed” is an easier way to talk about the whole thing.
Once this new money is created it is used to buy bonds, both private as well as government. This has been done to pump money into the financial system and ensure that there is enough money going around to keep interest rates low.
At low interest rates the hope was that people would borrow and spend more. This would create some demand and help economic growth. But that did not happen. What happened instead was that this newly created money found its way into financial markets all over the world.
This broke down the link between economic performance of a country and the performance of its stock market. The stock markets rallied anyway. This point was very well made recently by Claudio Borio, the head of the Bank of International Settlement’s monetary and economic department: “Buoyant financial markets are out of sync with the shaky global economic and geopolitical outlook. Overall, it is hard to avoid the sense of a puzzling disconnect between the markets’ buoyancy and underlying economic developments globally. Financial markets are euphoric, in the grip of an aggressive search for yield, and yet investment in the real economy remains weak while the macro-economic and geopolitical outlook is still highly uncertain.”
This has led to a situation where bad economic news is treated as good news by the stock markets because the investors know that this will lead to central banks printing more money as they try and get economic growth going again. As Gary Dorsch, Editor, Global Money Trends newsletter, wrote in a recent column “Bad economic news is treated as Bullish news for the stock market, because it lead to expectation of more “quantitative easing.” And the easy money flows that are injected by central banks go right past goods and services (ie; the real economy) and are whisked into the financial markets, where it pushes up the prices of stocks and bonds. In simple terms, what matters most to the stock markets are the easy money injections from the central banks, and to a lesser extent, the profits of the companies whose stocks they are buying and selling.”
This single paragraph explains all the stock market rallies that have happened all over the world in the last few years. At the same time the “easy money” created by central banks has also helped boost corporate profits. As Dorsch puts it “The boom in corporate profits has been heavily subsidized by cheap and easy credit, which has allowed big companies to boost returns by paring down interest costs and buying back shares.” And this has also boosted stock market performance. The question is till when can this last? Do investors really believe that central banks will keep coming to their rescue forever? These are not easy questions to answer and on this your guess is as good as mine.
Hunt who writes the Epsilon Theory newsletter believes that “No one requires convincing that market price levels are unsupported by real world economic activity. Everyone believes that this will all end badly, and the only real question is when.”
Albert Edwards of Societe Generale is a little more direct about the issue. As he wrote in recent research note dated October 23, 2014: “The central banks for all their huffing and puffing cannot eliminate the business cycle. And they should have realised after the 2008 Great Recession that the longer they suppress volatility, both economic and market, the greater the subsequent crash. Will these morons ever learn?” He also quotes Guy Debelle, head of the BIS market committee, as saying that “investors had become far too complacent, wrongly believing that central banks can protect them, and many staking bets that are bound to “blow up” at the first sign of stress.”
The Federal Reserve of the United States has gradually been winding down its money printing programme. Currently it prints $15 billion every month. The Federal Open Market Committee is supposed to meet on October 28-29, later this month. The expectation is that the committee will wind up the money printing programme.
The stock market in the US has remained largely flat over the last two months. In case it starts to fall, once the Federal Reserve stops printing money, it is likely that the American central bank will start printing money again. As Christopher Wood wrote in the Greed and Fear investment newsletter in November last year “The key issue is what might trigger a market correction. The market consensus continues to focus on the tightening in financial conditions triggered by “tapering”. Still such a hypothetical correction is not so big a deal to GREED & fear, since any real equity decline caused by tapering is likely to lead, under a Fed run by Janet Yellen, to renewed easing.”
So what is the real threat then? “The real threat to US equities is when the American economy fails to re-accelerate as forecast,” wrote Wood. And that is something worth worrying about.

The article originally appeared on www.FirstBiz.com on Oct 26, 2014

(Vivek Kaul is the author of the Easy Money trilogy. He tweets @kaul_vivek)