Managing Structural Economic Change and the Financial Markets

The second quarter of 2013 was particularly challenging for investors. The last two months, in particular, were impacted by the market turbulence which emerged from concerns that the Federal Reserve Bank would change its current low interest rate policy. The current policy of maintaining low interest rates was intended to support economic growth in the United States by making credit more affordable. They have done this through what is known as their quantitative easing program, which is essentially buying bonds with money that does not exist until they create it. While the historical data does not necessarily support the belief, many investors, nonetheless, associate increasing interest rates with poorer stock market performance. The prospect of a change in interest rate policy created additional uncertainty and a shift in investor sentiment from the irrational exuberance equity investors had during the first two months of the year to more anxious concerns as to the sustainability the equity markets.

What may well be a more fundamental issue, however, is that bond investors also seized upon the prospective change in the Federal Reserve Banks policy and started exiting from bonds. Trim Tabs, an investment research firm, says that investors liquidated over $60 billion from bond mutual funds and exchange traded funds in June. If this is true, that would be the single-largest monthly redemption in history. Some commentators are calling this the end of a 30 year bull market in bonds.

This drove interest rates higher causing losses for traditionally bond investments. Bonds have traditionally, and historically, been considered conservative investments. With bonds as well as stock losing value, this left very few “safe harbors” for refuge from this storm. Cash is one option that some investors will flee to, and an allocation to some percentage allocation to cash is certainly warranted as a prudent allocation strategy. However, with dollars being created without backing by anything other than the “full faith and credit” of a government that does not appear to be capable of operating in a solvent manner, it is doubtful that this is the safe refuge it might appear to be. Moreover, cash offers very little in investment return. While cash is a valuable component of an investment strategy, just as with any other asset, having too much of it has its own hazards.

In my view, while there are many economically sound justifications for higher interest rates to exist, the markets have severely over-reacted to the prospect of a policy change in the Federal Reserve Bank. Having listened to Ben Bernanke’s entire speech, I heard him say that depending upon economic conditions the Federal Reserve Bank would adjust its policy. If the economy was doing well the Federal Reserve would gradually reduce the $85 billion per month of bonds it is buying to keep interest rates low. If the economy is not doing so well, it would continue its policy, and if conditions warranted, it would even increase the amount. From what I can see, given economic conditions, the Federal Reserve Bank seems more likely than not to continue its policy longer than expected. While there can be other factors than the Federal Reserve Bank affecting interest rates, it appears to me that investors have over-reacted toward the downside during the last few months, just as they over-reacted to the upside in equity markets during the first two months of the year. These last few months of stock and bond market behavior appear to be more panicked emotional reactions of market traders rather than the economically sound reasoning of longer-term investors.

In my analysis, I would be surprised to see the Federal Reserve Bank make any significant change in the near future. The consequences for doing so would be too severe in its impact on our anemically growing economy. Were they to change their policy and allow interest rates to rise, the most recent market response to these prospects suggests that at least the initial market response would be decline in both the stock and bond markets. The result would be a further damper on economic growth because of what economist call the “wealth effect” When account values go up, people are more willing to spend and consume. When account values go down the reverse is true which results in slower economic growth. Additionally, the housing market plays a very big role in the strength of our economy. With the housing market appearing to be in the recovery stage, higher mortgage rates, resulting from a change in Federal Reserve Bank policy, could quickly kill the housing recovery, again stalling economic growth. The other important factor is that when interest rates rise, the debt servicing liabilities of the U.S. government and municipalities also start to increase. At present, the servicing of the existing debt is not financially sustainable, even given historically low interest rates. Consequently, taken together, it does not seem likely that we will see a change in Federal Reserve Bank policy anytime soon. An unknown, however, is how much control the Federal Reserve Bank really has left in capping interest rates. There have been reports of Central Banks throughout the world selling their holding of U.S. Treasury bonds. This would put additional pressure on interest rates to rise.

Overall the global economic system is drowning in debt. Were it not for the heavy debt loads that are being carried, the underlying latent economic vigor would look promising. The real challenge to policy makers is how to manage an unwinding and restructuring of that debt. This must be done in the context of continuing demands for financial resources. The real danger is having the management of this process get out of control and become a collapse rather that a slower burn process. If there is a systemic economic collapse the trajectory of where events will lead is unknown. At this point, while I do see economic turbulence ahead, I do not place a high probability on a general overall economic meltdown, at least in the near future.

An Overview of 2013 - Setting the Scene

There were several driving forces affecting market conditions in year 2012. The year opened on a very strong start. In fact much of the overall market gain in 2012 occurred in the first six weeks of 2012. The rest of the year could best be characterized as one finger nail biting financial crisis followed by another, with a measure of election year political uncertainty thrown in for good measure.

The first crisis was the deteriorating economic conditions in Europe and the inability of governmental policy-makers to develop a constructive program to address it. While never really resolved over the course of the year, it was pushed off center stage by our own home grown financial crisis in the United States that came to be known as the fiscal cliff, and similar to their European counterparts, the inability of our own government political leaders to develop a constructive resolution. In each of these crises some sort of gerrymandering solution was developed; but the underlying problems remain not addressed with sustainable policies. The uncertainty of these circumstances created of great deal of volatility in the investment markets. In each case heightened tension increased the fear level of the markets and caused consequent drops in the markets. In each case, as well, the fears gave way to relief rallies in the markets as some policy was cobbled together to at least temporarily address the issues.

While the markets have started the year strongly, it is inevitable that will see these crises reemerge in 2013. In fact, it is highly likely that we will see a return to the same sort of volatility we experienced in 2012. The United States government has already reached the debt limit allowed by law, and while an agreement was reached with respect to taxes, the only agreement with respect to the mandatory budget cuts, known as sequestration, was to defer them for two months. This means that by March we will see the political and economic tensions again escalate, and market fears and uncertainty increase.

The issues at hand are very significant and marginalizing them into just another economic crisis would be poor judgment. The potential consequences mean there is there is not really no one safe harbor. Cash or bonds, the traditional conservative investments have to also be considered as at risk. Considering cash, in US dollar form, to be conservative would be to not recognize the link between the guarantor of the US dollar, the U.S. government, and the intractable financial problems that have brought it to the financial cliff, or are pushing it to have to continually increase its allowable debt ceiling. Bonds are also at risk as interest rates begin to rise from an unsustainable low interest rate environment, bond values, especially those long-term in nature, will decline in value. Indeed, as the markets have started 2013 strongly, many bonds have declined in value because of interest rate pressures.

One thing that seems to be fairly certain is that crises do resolve themselves, one way, or another. At this point we can only speculate on how that will occur. The worst case scenario would be a total global financial collapse and an ongoing subsequent global depression. While this cannot be dismissed as an impossible event, I see the probability of this as being extremely small. There is a great deal of potential economic vigor and potential growth. At present the main problem is the huge overhang of legacy debt. This is putting a damper on economic expansion and its consequent investment potential. Over-indebtedness is always dealt with by some sort of restructuring. That is what I would expect as a resolution in this case as well. What that restructuring will look like remains to be seen. However, as this process unfolds, we will see the economic vigor and investment potential be released. My take is that 2013 will be a pivotal year in beginning that resolution process. While I expect to see heightened volatility, I also expect to see the investment markets becoming more and more attractive as the year unfolds. As the year unfolds, I will be trying to steer a balanced course between the volatility and the potential longer term opportunities through maintaining well diversified portfolios. 

The Myth of the American Dream

          The United States of America has long been characterized as the land of opportunity. It was founded upon principles recognizing the inherent worth of each individual as embodied in the lines of the Declaration of Independence stating that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. It was for the ideals and principles underpinning the foundation of the United States of America that tens of thousands of courageous citizens sacrificed so much, including their lives, and the well-being of their families. The idea that if one worked hard and did the right thing, there was the reasonable possibility of creating better economic circumstances and a fulfilling life had made the United States of America an international star, holding out the achievement of the American Dream as a life aspiration. No doubt there are countless stories of many individuals and families who have, and are, realizing the fruits of these ideals. Unfortunately, as this is being written in late 2011, national polls show a growing number of dark clouds over Camelot. A recent PEW Charitable Trust poll[1] showed the largest number of Americans living in multi-generational households in modern history. This has been fueled by poor economic conditions that make living in a multi-generational household a financial lifeline. Other polls show the majority of Americans viewing their elected representatives in historically low esteem.

Some of the ideals represented by the United States of America as the land of opportunity seem to have been transformed into myths. The Brookings Institution is a nonprofit public policy organization based in Washington, DC. They have consistently ranked as the most influential, most quoted, and most trusted think tank. Their mission is to conduct high-quality, independent research and, based on that research, to provide innovative, practical recommendations that advance three broad goals:

·      Strengthen American democracy;
·      Foster the economic and social welfare, security and opportunity of all Americans and
·      Secure a more open, safe, prosperous and cooperative international system.
           Two of their Senior Fellows recently wrote an article[2] for the Washington Post in which they highlighted five myths about America. In their article they state that the idea that Americans enjoy more economic opportunity than people in other countries is contradicted by research showing that children born into a lower-income family in the Nordic countries and the United Kingdom have a greater chance than those in the United States of forming a higher income family when they are adults. They also note a myth that each generation does better than the past generation because men in their 30’s earn 12 percent less than the previous generation. If today’s families have a somewhat higher overall income than prior generations, it is because more family members are working to contribute to the overall income. While immigration and trade may serve as political straw men deserving of blame for the poverty and inequality in the United States, it appears that this too is a myth. The real culprit seems to be the increase in single-parent families that is driving the poverty rate. According to the article, the United States would have a poverty rate 30 percent lower than today if the same percent of single-parent households existed today as in 1970. Clearly, there are some significant blemishes on the American Dream causing a growing amount of social discontent.

       When considered along with a recent Associated Press Report that 1 in 2 Americans, a record number, is now classified as low-income[3], the general prevailing sentiment expressed by small business person Jonathon Smucker, participating is the Occupy Wall Street protest, is probably a fairly accurate representation of the feeling of many Americans when he said:
“Like a lot of Americans, I’m pretty ticked off. It’s not that there are rich people, it’s that the people with a lot of money over the past few decades have rigged the system so that there’s not a fair chance for anyone anymore.”[4]
      While the United States may be a glaring representation of the growing polarization between the have and the have-nots, a survey of world events suggests the increasing social and economic malaise is a global phenomenon.  Anyone interested in trying to plan their future must take notice of this state of affairs and ask themselves what might be responsible for this, as well as where this trajectory may be taking us?

---

[1] Pew Charitable Trust, Fighting Poverty in a Bad Economy, Americans Move in with Relatives, Kochhar, Rakesh and Chon, D’Vera, October 3, 2011.

[2] Brookings, Five Myths About Our Land of Opportunity,

http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2009/1101_opportunity_sawhill_haskins.aspx, Sawhill, Isabel, and Haskins, Ron.

[3] Census Shows 1 in 2 People Are Poor Or Low-Income, Associated Press, Yen, Hope, December 15, 2011.

[4] Pay Gap a $740Bn Threat to US Recovery, Financial Times, Harding, Robin, December 15, 2011.

Creditors of the World Are Not Necessarily Captive to the Debtors

In response to Martin Wolf's article in the Financial Times,  I offer the following commentary.

The conceptual framing of this argument is somewhat misleading. To begin with the phrase indicating a belief by creditors that they will inherit the earth suggests a context for concentrating wealth and power that is more benign than the underlying capitalist and human drive for dominance and control. There are enough examples in human history, and biology, be it modern or ancient, that one does not have to be much an historian to be compelled to believe that a basic survival instinct is to attempt to manage one’s environment so as to better the chances of surviving and thriving. Because of the complex web of relationships there is often some sort of mutual interdependence, sometimes beneficial, sometimes not so much.

The heart of Martin Wolf’s argument seems to suggest that the relationship between creditors and debtors is such that there is some sort of “lock” binding specific sets of creditors and debtors to one another. While perhaps the world cannot trade with Mars, specific parts of the world can rearrange their trading relationships and thier drivers of growth. For example, while no doubt the western developed world does serve an important function in sucking up the exports of China, it is also possible that through a combination of weaning itself from such heavy dependence on an export driven economy by developing its domestic aggregate demand, and shifting its trade relationships to for example Brazil, or even Russia, to meet some of its export needs it can transition from its heavy dependence its current export targets. As to being held captive because of its $3,200bn of currency reserves, it should be keep in mind that it is only held captive as long as the currency reserve exists in its current form. If these reserves begin to be exchanged for foreign equity positions representing control in strategic future resources that China needs, the current foreign reserves cease to be a control on China’s behavior, and rather serve to further concentrate power and wealth in the hands of those with capital.

Is this so different than when the Native Americans in New York sold Manhattan Island for the equivalent of $24 in baubles, or when the Soviet Union dissolved, dispersed shares of ownership of formerly state owned enterprises among the people, only to have aspiring oligarchs acquire and concentrate these assets for controlling interests in exchange for perhaps teh equivalent of a supply of vodka for a short period of time. There are innumerous other examples which can be given wherein the exchange of future earnings capacity (read indebtedness) for a more immediate gratification leads to servitude.

To suggest that because we are all on the same planet, as Martin Wolf does in his argument, the fix to the current capital imbalances are compelled by some notion of constraint by reciprocity is to have blinders hindering one’s vision as to the fuller range of feasible alternatives.

Recapitalize the Banks?

The concern about a Greek default is really more about the contagion effect. The central question is how does one contain the impact arising from a disorderly Greek default. From this follows the discussion about potential bank recapitalization. There are all sorts of sub-plots in the recapitalization schemes, from the moral hazard issue, to the inequity inflicted on those who have been fiscally responsible, to whether or not an effective scheme can really be created to many more. Politicians have been receiving the brunt of criticism because of the perceived lack of leadership in dealing with an extremely complex, and perhaps insoluble by mere mortals problem. I would be one of the last ones to come to the defense of the politicians, however, the political posture of the “deer in the headlights” when facing public outcry to “do something, do anything”, is understandable giving the mutually check-mated position the global financial situation has emerged into.

The idea of recapitalization is lacking unless one can quantify with some reasonable degree of confidence the extent of recapitalization that would be needed to effectively resolve the issues. I have heard plausible figures of up to $2 trillion dollars worth. I have not, however, seen much discussion of potential derivative exposure, and counter party risks which might amplify the amount of fiscal deficiencies,  and the number of systemically important institutions which may be impacted. If there is one thing that the institutional failures of 2008 should have taught us, it is that with the degree and scale of economic and financial integration that currently exists, it is all but impossible to see where the chips may fall, or the ensuing consequences. Moreover, when talking recapitalization, ultimately one is talking about using public money to enable those who, either directly or indirectly, were responsible for egregiously imprudent financial behaviors to retain their private ownership interest with minimal risk of loss. The backlash from this sort of thinking is emerging at the main street level that potentially will threaten governments if it continues. As evidence witness the emerging demonstrations in Greece and on Wall Street, and the rising pervasive discontent among so many of the affected citizenry. Perhaps a more honest and equitable approach to allowing Greece to default, and stabilizing the banking system would be an outright state takeover of those systemically important institutions to give the funding public an equity stake rather than a debt holders stake in future recovery. When looking at the impact of the US TARP program the argument is made that the US actually made money from many of its bailouts. I think, however, that this misses the point, if governments are going to use public money to bailout out private institutions, it should be done with the focus of maximizing the return of the investing public, as well as a policy measure to provide a consequence to those who have acting so financially imprudent, directly, or through agency. It really is time to start acting like responsible adults.

George Soros' European Crisis Solution

If one accepts George Soro’s solution to preventing a second Great Depression, the prognosis is indeed grim. His solution, while in itself conceptually problematic, appears in a pragmatic context to reside in never-never land. The bold steps he presents as necessary conditions to prevent a second Great Depression require the cooperation and coordination which would transcend the polarization and fractionalization of regional narrow self-interest at such a scale that defies observable reality. Moreover, while the conditions he proposes may or may not be necessary, he has not presented a convincing argument that they are sufficient conditions.

A nebulous foundation block of his strategy is to provide time for “Europe to develop a growth strategy, without which the debt problem cannot be solved”. The development of a growth strategy is central to every economic and business interest, as he well knows. The question which must be asked is what the potential drivers would be of any effective growth strategy, what are the competitive and comparative advantages that Europe could bring forth, and what the time frame for implementation would be? If this proposed growth strategy would be a palliative to the “debt problem”, one is assuming a sufficient rate of growth to offset the burden of debt service. Even assuming a growth strategy could be developed; getting a realistic idea of whether the growth rate would be sufficient to counter the demands of debt servicing takes us into the unquantifiable speculative realm. While George Soros is a demonstrably recognized master in the realm of speculation, a no small part has been his ability to be adaptable and flexible as changing conditions warrant. Unfortunately governmental and national policies rarely show the same nimbleness in response to changing realities.

http://blogs.ft.com/the-a-list/2011/09/29/how-to-stop-a-second-great-depression/#axzz1ZHNkRk4j

Reflection and Analysis

A Look Back

Shock, confusion, and fear are probably some words which describe many people’s overall experience of 2008. As difficult and challenging as the year was, it is important to try to make some sense out of what happened, what is happening, and provide some analysis towards a sense of where things are likely to go. To this end, I am offering my thoughts on this subject with the recognition that the complexity and magnitude of world economic events can cloud even the best crystal balls. Having said this, those of you who have read my book, The Emperor’s Clothes, know that I discussed many of the issues of this global financial crisis prior to their occurrences.

The news of the past year has been filled with details of the institutional pillars of American finance, such as Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, Washington Mutual, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and many others, collapsing or being taken over because of pending collapse. This has been followed by the frenzied attempts of the world’s Central Banks, such as the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank, coming up with one scheme after another to try to prevent a complete breakdown of the global financial system. Indeed, while trying to get support from Congress for a $700 billion bailout package to save the U.S. banking and financial system, the chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank, Ben Bernanke, and the U.S. Secretary of Treasury, Hank Paulson, testified before Congress that the U.S. financial system was within days of collapsing.

Massive indiscriminate selling pressure was created as a result of this financial turmoil. These institutions were forced to raise capital to meet their regulatory requirements. At the same time the credit markets froze up, capital very difficult to acquire. This made the situation even worse. Hedge funds are investments for institutions and very wealthy individuals. They operate by borrowing huge amounts of money using their invested positions of stocks, bonds, and more the esoteric derivative investments, as collateral. Some of these funds borrow 30-40 times the amount of actual dollars directly invested in them by their investors. The lenders who provide this money to the hedge funds have lending requirements which require the hedge funds to come up with more money if the value of their investments drops too much. During the financial turmoil, the decline of the investments in these hedge funds forced the hedge fund managers to start selling their investments whether they considered them good investments or not. This amplified the overall selling pressure and made a bad situation even worse.

Today, there appears to be some degree of stabilization from the worst of the turmoil. It will be many years, keeping many scholars employed, trying to sort out the details of what actually happened. The one thing that is abundantly clear is that financial imprudence at all levels of our society, and throughout the world, became institutionalized into an acceptable form of conduct. Imprudent lending, and imprudent borrowing, created a vicious destructive cycle of over-consumption and over-indebtedness. As with many extreme indulgences, when the party is over, we are left with a big hangover and a big cleanup job. Right now the United States in particular, and the world economy, in general, has one gigantic hangover, and a daunting clean up job.

Looking Forward

Currently the governments of the world have made massive commitments toward maintaining financial and economic stability. On a global scale, I have read estimates of up to $7 trillion dollars already committed to various bailout type endeavors. The bailout line also seems to be getting longer each time the government responds to an industry or business in financial crisis. The auto industry is the latest example. Following this bailout, I have read accounts of state and local municipalities, and the commercial real estate industry lining up to be next. When the government starts handing out money, there is no shortage of willing, ready, and potentially deserving takers.

Even if one considers these policies to be necessary to prevent an even more disastrous financial collapse, a number of issues arise which impact what the outcomes are that we can expect. One of these issues is the implementation of these policies. For example, the early reports on the banking system bailouts leave much to be desired as to the accountability of the use of the funds. The reports indicate that many of the recipients of the bailout funds are unable or unwilling to account for their use. Other reports suggest a business as usual attitude for many of these troubled institutions. They seem to feel at liberty to pay huge bonuses and compensation packages, and provide extravagant perks to the very management personnel who contributed to bringing about this disastrous situation. It was only when the spotlight of public opinion focused on some of these issues that public relations considerations brought about a more contrite demeanor in these institutions. This suggests to me that the only thing that has really changed is the public relations campaign.

Another issue, which I refer to as the elephant in the living room is: How are all these bailouts going to be paid for? In addition, the other component of trying to climb out of what is being referred to as the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, is the massive economic stimulus package being put together by the incoming Obama administration. It may, perhaps, be necessary, but there are also consequences. It is the consequences that, in my opinion, will provide both the hazards, as well as the long term opportunities from an investment and financial planning perspective.

Current discussions of the economic stimulus package lead me to believe that by the time it becomes policy it will have a cost ranging from $1-$2 trillion over a two year period. The funding for this will be added to the operating budget deficit of the United States. Prior to all these bailouts and economic stimulus packages, the United States had already needed to borrow $60-$70 billion per month in foreign money in order to continue funding its operations. Luckily, China, the petrodollar countries, and the other countries accumulating U.S. dollar reserves were doing well and were quite willing to continue lending money to the United States. The question that must be asked now is: How willing and how able are these countries going to be to continue loaning money to the United States to fund its budget deficit?

Many of these countries are having a more difficult financial time themselves in the present financial crisis. Many of these countries were, prior to this financial crisis, considering reducing the amount of money being loaned to the United States. In addition, because of this financial crisis the credit worthiness of the United States has deteriorated, and there are alternative places where these countries can deploy their financial resources which may be more directly beneficial to themselves. The funding requirements of the United States its meet the Budget Deficit needs may rise above $150 billion per month; the conclusion is inescapable of a potential funding crisis as being one of the major consequential fallout of the current attempts to contain this financial crisis.

It is exactly here that both the risks and the opportunities reside. In my estimation, the results of these circumstances will result in escalating interest rates, which is another version of credit availability reduction, and a damper on economic growth. This would be an unacceptable outcome for our government whose interests are critically tied to economic growth. The policy response will be an attempt to create vast amounts of money in order to effectively devalue debt, and consequently the dollar. Current economic policy discussion focuses on the immediate deflationary impact of the global financial crisis. However, I believe we will be seeing a very real potential of rapidly escalating inflation by the later part of 2009.

If we remember that the basic function of money is as a store of value and the viability of this function becomes impaired, it is important to consider where economic value will be best preserved, or even increased. Some of investment areas which I will be scanning for appropriate opportunities will be in areas such as precious metals, as well as real use assets such as energy, food, and materials. The added benefit to these areas, apart from providing a potential defense against some of the forces I discussed, is that when the global economy begins to get through this financial catastrophe, these will be among the things which will be crucial to growth and in consequently high demand, with limited supply.