Below is another great article from John Mauldin via his weekly newsletter.

John Mauldin, Best-Selling author and recognized financial expert, is also editor of the free Thoughts From the Frontline that goes to over 1 million readers each week. For more information on John or his FREE weekly economic letter go to:http://www.frontlinethoughts.com/learnmore

From ghoulies and ghosties
And long-leggedy beasties
And things that go bump in the night,
Good Lord, deliver us!

–Old Scottish Prayer

Where the Wild Things Are is a beloved children’s book and now a beautiful movie. But in the investment world there are really scary wild things lurking about in the hidden recesses of the economic landscape. Today we look at one of the unintended consequences of the Federal Reserve’s low interest rate policy.

For quite some time, I have been arguing that we are faced with no good choices, not just in the US but in the entire "developed" world. I see a low-growth, Muddle Through world over the next years (with a double-dip recession just to liven things up). However, that does not mean that we will lack for volatility. Things could get volatile rather quickly. Let’s quickly set the background.

It Is Not Just Japan

Let’s look at today’s interest rate picture. Yesterday, we had the bizarre occurrence of banks actually paying the government to hold their cash. Three-month treasuries yield a miniscule 0.01% in interest. If you opt to buy a one-year bill you get all of 0.26%. You can see the entire spectrum below.

Look at the graph of the yield curve below. It is as steep as we have seen it in a long time. But that is almost the point. Banks are essentially getting free money. If you are a banker and can’t make money in this environment, you need to quit and find meaningful employment.

And that is part of the rationale that the Fed espouses with its low interest rate regime. Not only does it allow banks to repair their balance sheets, it also encourages investors to put money into riskier assets in order to get some return on their investments. Over $260 billion has gone into bond funds this year, and just $2.6 billion into stock funds. However, you have to balance that with the fact that some $400 billion has left money market funds paying less than 0.2%. So there is some movement to capture yield.

But is it just banks that are getting cheap money? And is encouraging investors to find riskier assets a sound policy? Maybe not.

The Euro-Yen Cross and the Dollar Carry Trade

I wrote a great deal in the past few years about the strong correlation of the euro-yen cross to stock markets all over the world in general. (The euro-yen cross is the exchange rate of the euro and the Japanese yen.) This was a proxy for the Japanese carry trade. The stock markets of the world rose and fell in synchronization with the yen versus the euro.

A currency carry trade is a strategy in which an investor sells a certain currency with a relatively low interest rate and uses the funds to purchase a different currency yielding a higher interest rate. A trader using this strategy attempts to capture the difference between the rates, which can often be substantial, depending on the amount of leverage used.

The Japanese drove their rates down to essentially zero in the 1990s. By early 2007, it was estimated that the yen carry trade was over $1 trillion. But when the world credit crisis hit, the world wanted dollars. They paid back the yen and bought dollars, driving the yen higher and killing the yen carry trade. Who wants to borrow in a currency that continues to rise, even if the costs are low? And often, large leverage was used, so small movements in the currency could destroy outsized amounts of capital.

But now, there are some who are beginning to ask whether there is a dollar carry trade. In the last nine months, the correlation between the dollar and the stock market has gone to about 90%. If the dollar rises, the stock markets and other risk assets tend to fall, and vice-versa. It would appear that investors and funds are borrowing cheap dollars on a short-term basis and investing in all sorts of risk assets. Not only have stock markets risen, but so have high-yield bonds, commodities, and so on.

We have seen the steepest rise in US stock markets coming out of a recession since the end of the last world war. The market is "discounting" a 5% GDP next year and a profit rebound beyond anything in past experience. Depending on the quarter, operating earnings are expected to rise by anywhere from 30-40%. P/E ratios are back at 23, well above the 17 we saw in the summer of 2007 (I am using 4^th quarter 2009 estimates so as to not have to take into account the disastrous 4^th quarter of last year.)

Worrying about a dollar carry trade is not just a preoccupation of my friends Nouriel Roubini or David Rosenberg or Frank Veneroso. Look as this story from Bloomberg:

"China’s Liu Says U.S. Rates Cause Dollar Speculation

"Nov. 15 (Bloomberg) — The decline of the dollar and decisions in the U.S. not to raise interest rates have caused "huge" speculation in foreign exchange trading and seriously affected global asset prices, said Liu Mingkang, chairman of the China Banking Regulatory Commission."

"The continuous depreciation in the dollar, and the U.S. government’s indication, that in order to resume growth and maintain public confidence, it basically won’t raise interest rates for the coming 12 to 18 months, has led to massive dollar arbitrage speculation," he told reporters in Beijing today at the International Finance Forum.

"Liu said this has ’seriously affected global asset prices, fuelled speculation in stock and property markets, and created new, real and insurmountable risks to the recovery of the global economy, especially emerging-market economies.’

"His view echoes that of Donald Tsang, the chief executive of Hong Kong, who said the Federal Reserve’s policy of keeping interest rates near zero is fueling a wave of speculative capital that may cause the next global crisis."

"’I'm scared and leaders should look out,’ Tsang said in Singapore Nov. 13. ‘America is doing exactly what Japan did last time,’ he said, adding that Japan’s zero interest rate policy contributed to the 1997 Asian financial crisis and U.S. mortgage meltdown."

It is not just China. Brazil has moved to impose a tax (or tariff) on investment money coming into the country on a shorter-term basis, as they are worried about both a bubble in their markets and in their currency. Russia is openly considering similar policies.

I have been doing a lot of speaking in the last month. In almost every speech, I warn of the significant imbalance in the dollar. I walk to the very end of the stage to help illustrate that the world now has on a massive ABD trade. By that I mean Anything But Dollars. Everyone is now on the same side of the boat. They have borrowed dollars to buy other risk assets, assuming that the dollar, like the yen in the glory days of the yen carry trade, will continue to fall. Dollar bears are everywhere.

Explanations abound for why the dollar is a trash currency. It is Fed policy, or the Obama administration’s willingness to run massive deficits, or the trade deficit or our health-care policy or (pick any number of issues). But I wonder.

Global trade collapsed last year and well into this year. Global trade was essentially done in dollars. If global trade is down 20% or more, then there is less need for companies in various countries to hold dollars and more need for local currency because of the crisis. Thus, after a rush to safety in the credit crisis, there is a rational selling of dollars by business.

Look at the above chart. Notice that the dollar is roughly where it was 20 years ago. And notice the recent jump during the credit crisis. We are not even back to where we were before the crisis.

What happens if world trade picks back up, as it appears to be doing? Admittedly, it is not a robust recovery as yet, but it is rising. That means more need for dollars. And dollars which are being borrowed (and probably leveraged!) on the assumption the dollar will continue to fall.

And I agree that, over time, the case for the dollar is not as good as I would like. But in the meantime, we could have one very vicious dollar rally, which would take equity markets down worldwide, along with other risk assets. Why? Because it would be a major short squeeze.

Barron’s just did a survey. It revealed that the bullish sentiment on stocks is quite high and almost everyone hates US treasuries (graph courtesy of David Rosenberg of Gluskin, Sheff)

Whenever sentiment gets too strong in one way or the other, it is usually setting up the markets for a rally in the despised asset. Mr. Market like to do whatever he can to cause the most pain to the largest number of people.

I am not predicting a near-term crash or imminent precipitous bear, although in this environment anything can happen. I am merely noting that there is an imbalance in the system. The longer this imbalance goes on, the more likely it is that it will end in tears. And the irony is that a recovering world economy could be the catalyst.

The Wild Things? They may be hiding in a portfolio near you. Just food for thought. Stay nimble.

Source

Where the Wild Things Are – John Mauldin

Related posts:

• Chart of the day: Aussie – Yen cross
• Is the U.S. dollar carry trade replacing the one in Japanese yen?
• Japan’s easy money policy was the trigger for the tech wreck
• Mea culpa on the need for a new currency
• The dollar is rising against floating currencies

• •

This is a post I just wrote over at Yves Smith’s site Naked Capitalism in response to a reader request. Marshall Auerback has already written a reply as well and I will post this later today.

A reader at Naked Capitalism asked us to respond to a recent article from the Christian Science Monitor asking Does US need a second stimulus to create jobs?

Marshall Auerback has already done some heavy lifting. He says emphatically yes. Now I want to take a crack at this. My short answer is no. But before I go into this, as an aside, I wanted to mention Marshall’s new smiling, happy picture up at the great blog New Deal 2.0 where he now writes.  Earlier, when Credit Writedowns was hosted at Blogger, he used a picture best described as a mug shot in his profile, but he has changed that one too (although he smiles there a little less). He thinks we haven’t noticed this sleight of hand.  Well I have! Once upon a time, Marshall wrote with a man I called all bearish, all the time this summer. Take a look at that post; you don’t see him smiling now do you? We have Lynn Parramore, New Deal 2.0’s editor to thank for making Marshall Auerback into an optimist.

Different policy choices

But all teasing aside, I do want to take the opposite side of this trade.  You see I too was a deficit hawk. And while I may have been backing fiscal stimulus, I have felt conflicted for doing so. Here’s how I see it. 

You have four options:

1. No stimulus. Let the chips fall where they may. Yves Smith calls this the ‘Mellonite liquidationist mode.’ The thinking here is that trying to avoid the inevitable bust only makes it that much larger. And the economic policies during recessions in 1991 and 2001 seem to bear that out. The Harding Recession of 1921 is commonly seen as gold standard response.
2. Monetary stimulus only. Quantitative easing mania. My understanding is this is what Ambrose Evans-Pritchard has been advocating.   The thinking here is that the flood of money and the low rates will eventually jump start the economy. No deficit spending needed.
3. Monetary and fiscal stimulus.  Full tilt Keynesian. This is the Krugman view. The thinking here is that one needs to credibly commit to higher inflation and close the output gap to avoid a deflationary spiral. If that is insufficient, then one needs to go full bore on fiscal stimulus aka deficit spending. And if that doesn’t work, subsidize jobs. The New Deal is commonly seen as the gold standard response.
4. Fiscal stimulus only. Deficit spending. I have been talking up this view. The thinking here is that we need to both close the output gap to prevent a deflationary spiral and revive private sector savings in order to promote deleveraging.

There is no magic bullet here.  We are living through a situation unique in time with few historical precedents. And there are a lot of competing ideas being tossed about. So policy makers are groping around, desperately seeking the holy grail of depression-busting economic policy.  In that regard, I don’t envy them. They are certainly going to make a lot of mistakes. It may seem at times that I don’t realize this given the harshness of my critiques, but I do.

Deficit hawks are misguided

However, there are some policies which could work and others which are flat out wrong.  One policy which is flat out wrong is the concept that we need to reduce deficit spending in order to avoid a double dip recession. This flies in the face of basic economics which says that more spending and less taxes equals greater demand and recovery/boom. More taxes and less spending equals less demand and recession/depression.

Now, it’s not as if we didn’t see this line of argument coming. As far back as November 2008, I heard the chatter (see my post here). So you knew this we-have-to-stop-or-we’ll be-bankrupt nonsense was coming. The problem is it’s just not true.  Here are a few data points:

• Private sector debt (incl. financial firms) was 292% of GDP as of Q2 but public sector debt (incl. state and local municipalities) was 67.2%. Who’s more indebted – the private sector by a factor of 4.
• Adding unfunded liabilities to any public debt number when talking about spiking treasury rates is inaccurate and artificially inflates the number. A lot of people do this to make the public debt scenario look worse. The issue at hand is whether a supply/demand imbalance in Treasury securities spikes interest rates. Unfunded liabilities have absolutely nothing to do with this.
• Cash and bonds are fungible. They are both obligations of the federal government to be repaid in full with a specific sum of fiat money. The Treasury could literally stop issuing government debt altogether and just start crediting accounts electronically to ‘fund’ its purchases. There is no operational constraint to government spending. The U.S. government is not going broke involuntarily. See my post here.

The real issue with deficits causing a double-dip has to do with inflation and overheating. If inflation increases because the economy begins to overheat, interest rates spike and the Fed raises rates to choke off inflation. That’s not going to happen any time soon – although it may be a problem down the line.  The issue at hand now is deflation not inflation. At least Morgan Stanley understands this when they take a deficit hawk position.

And as for the Chinese, they are not going to pull the plug on Treasuries unless they want to tank their export boom. The reason they must buy Treasuries is the dollar peg; they must re-invest in U.S.-based assets in order to prevent their currency from appreciating. This has caused a huge rise in their U.S. dollar reserves. If they changed the peg, their currency would almost certainly rise and this would choke off exports.

No more stimulus, just jobs

I have said my piece about the need for stimulus in the past. So I won’t repeat it here. If you are interested, see my December 2008 posts “Confessions of an Austrian economist,” “What does Mises say about trying to stimulate the economy out of recession,” and “A brief philosophical argument about the role of government.”

But, on the whole, I look at long-term deficits in a dubious light. There are practical constraints to deficit spending – and they lead to inflation, currency depreciation and lower standards of living. This is not national bankruptcy, but it is what Murray Rothbard called default by inflation and it makes you and me less well off.

This, of course, is over the long-run. In the short run, it is the spectre of a deflationary spiral we care about. Stimulus was important to stop this. I said in February that Obama was making a big mistake with his stimulus measures.

My view here is that Obama is forging a middle path that leads to a dead-end. The stimulus is not nearly enough by half to get the job done. The proposed deficit reduction measures for 2013 are outright scary as they risk repeating a mistake from the 1930s. And the banking sector and mortgage plans, both of which I failed to mention, are dubious half-measures as well. One needs to act aggressively and proactively or not at all.

If you are going to deficit spend you need to do it in a big way. You need to stop the deflationary spiral.  That means hitting the reset button by promoting private sector savings and deleveraging and purging all built-up malinvestments. The risk in addressing the situation this way, of course, is replacing the imperfect invisible hand of markets with the imperfect hand of politicians and legislative fiat.

This is a risk I no longer see as worth taking. I have bailout and deficit fatigue just like most Americans. It is abundantly clear that this Administration has absolutely zero intention of purging any malinvestment or promoting any deleveraging. All they want to do is continue business as usual and go back to the asset-based economy that caused this mess. This is why we have seen bailout after bailout coupled with easy money. It makes for record profits on Wall Street but it does nothing for the unemployed.

Moreover, the political process in the U.S. is such that any stimulus money will be diverted to pet projects and used to pay off political constituents. While this may increase aggregate demand, it does so at the risk of serious social unrest as the outrage will certainly spill over into populism.

So I say no to a second (third) stimulus package.  What the President needs to focus on is jobs. The reason Obama’s poll numbers are shrinking is because he now owns this economy.  And people are not benefitting from this fake recovery.  They are angry at the bailouts and distrustful of government – and with good reason.

Cut payroll taxes, subsidize job creation, divert some military spending to direct job creation by ending the foreign wars. But stop the madness.

Related posts:

• Japan does not demonstrate the failure of stimulus
• Don’t underestimate the power of printing money, part 2
• Inflation: The strategy that dare not state its name
• The inflation-deflation debate
• Barack Obama: “if we keep on adding to the debt… that could actually lead to a double-dip”

• •

This comes via Gallup:

The latest Gallup Daily tracking results show 49% of Americans approving of the job Barack Obama is doing as president, putting him below the majority approval level for the first time in his presidency.

Although the current decline below 50% has symbolic significance, most of the recent decline in support for Obama occurred in July and August. He began July at 60% approval. The ongoing, contentious debate over national healthcare reform has likely served as a drag on his public support, as have continuing economic problems. Americans are also concerned about the Obama administration’s reliance on government spending to solve the nation’s problems and the growing federal budget deficit. Since September, Obama’s approval rating had been holding in the low 50s and, although it has reached 50% numerous times, it had never dropped below 50% until now.

Of the post-World War II presidents, Obama now is the fourth fastest to drop below the majority approval level, doing so in his 10th month on the job. Gerald Ford dropped below 50% approval during his third month in office, and Bill Clinton did so in his fourth month. Ronald Reagan, like Obama, also dropped below 50% in his 10th month in office, though Reagan’s drop occurred a few days sooner in that month (Nov. 13-16, 1981) than did Obama’s (Nov. 17-19, 2009).

But all presidents except John Kennedy dropped below the majority approval level at some point in their presidencies, and all recovered after the first time below this mark to go back above 50% approval.

The full article is linked below. Good data for political historians.

Obama Job Approval Down to 49% – Gallup

See also It’s [Still] The Economy, Dumbass by Nate Silver and CNN Poll: Blame for recession shifting from GOP to Democrats

Related posts:

• 2010 elections: “Completely out of control” for Democrats
• Statistic of the day: George W. Bush’s ratings
• SNL skewers Barack Obama
• Barack Obama as Herbert Hoover
• Polls: George W. Bush at new low

• •

Morgan Stanley’s piece on Treasuries Priced for Perfection…for Now! is pretty bearish. The basic gist is that while the ten-year represents fair value today, because inflation expectations have become unanchored, Morgan Stanley expects the yield to rise from 3.3% to 5.5%. That’s a disaster of 1994 proportions. Obviously, given some of my recent comments, this is not what I expect to happen, but be well aware of the risk; in this economic environment, it would be fatal.

Here’s an excerpt of what Manoj Pradhan had to say (emphasis added):

Fed Chairman Bernanke’s speech on Monday could not have been better tailored to keep bond markets happy. The commitment to keep policy rates "exceptionally low" for an "extended period" and the benign outlook for inflation were both very well received by bond markets, as well as other risky assets… Our proprietary model, MS FAYRE, shows a current fair value of 3.3% for the US 10-year Treasury yield – bang in line with actual yields…

Priced for perfection… MS FAYRE generates its fair value estimate using the real fed funds rate, 1-year ahead CPI inflation expectations from the SPF conducted by the Philadelphia Fed and the 5-year rolling standard deviation of inflation as a proxy for inflation volatility (for more details on the MS FAYRE model, see Fairy Tales of the US Bond Market, July 26, 2006). With the fed funds rate at 12.5bp, core PCE inflation tracking at 1.3% and the 4Q09 number for 1-year ahead CPI inflation expectations from the SPF coming in at 1.6%, MS FAYRE produces a fair value of 3.3% for 10-year bond yields, which is exactly where the 10-year yield is now (interested readers should contact us for a user-friendly spreadsheet for simulating the FAYRE model). Forward-looking bond markets thus seem to be pricing in altogether too rosy a scenario for the foreseeable future.

…for now: With actual bond yields bang in line with our fundamental fair value estimate, investors seem to be receiving no compensation for macroeconomic or fiscal risks..

Our forecasts look for bond yields to rise in 2010: Our US economics team expects bond yields to rise to 5.5% by the end of 2010 – an increase of 220bp that outstrips the 137bp increase in the fed funds rate expected over the same horizon (see Don’t Fear the Double-Dip, October 6, 2009). Our US interest rate strategy colleagues suggest that this bear steepening of the curve in 2010 may well be preceded by slightly lower 10-year yields in 2009 (see Liquidity Aplenty but Rising Sensitivity to Rates, October 22, 2009)…

Inflation expectations don’t seem to be anchored… The SPF measure of long-term CPI inflation expectations in the US has indeed remained stable, as claimed, since the median expectations have held steady for nearly a decade now. However…

…our conversations with clients also suggest a split into two fairly distinct camps. A smaller set of clients are bearish on the economic outlook and believe that inflation will be extremely low or even be outright negative for the next few years. The rest believe that inflation risks, and probably inflation itself, will rise within a year or so as the recovery becomes sustainable. The important point here is that it is difficult to find investors who believe that inflation over the medium-to-long run will be precisely in line with central bank targets. Both pieces of evidence do not support the argument that inflation expectations are anchored.

Obviously, Morgan Stanley is bullish on the economy because they are talking about a bear steepener across the Treasury curve. Their thinking on Treasuries is one reason you see Barack Obama talking about reeling in deficit spending. He obviously believes that an increase in interest rates would trigger a double dip recession.

My thinking goes more to bull flatteners where the two-year – ten-year spread decreases as expectations of a fed rate hike are countered by weak economic fundamentals.  This dichotomy points out some very real risks in the bond market right now.

Bill Gross his on the record expecting Treasuries to rally because he is cautious on the economic environment.

Gross has been talking about a “new normal” of deleveraging, deglobalization and reregulation. In his view, this means weak consumer demand counterbalanced only by heavier government intervention, leading to slow growth for the foreseeable future (See my post ‘Gross: The new normal for “the next 10 years and maybe even the next 20 years”’).  In essence, he sees a scenario that is bullish for bonds (especially longer duration types like the 10-year and the 30-year) but not particularly bullish for shares.

But we know that Gross loves to talk his book and he made billions from the Fannie/Freddie bailout doing so.  You have to make your own call here. It’s Morgan Stanley on one side of the trade and Pimco on the other.

Realistically, if rates spike to 5.5%, it would be a blood bath for insurers, and probably for pension funds (and hence municipalities as well). Mortgage rates would skyrocket and this would stop any housing recovery dead in its tracks. That sounds like double dip and depression to me; this is not an early 1990s economic environment. 

Ironically, 5.5% rates would sow the seeds of future 3.3% rates or lower. If you hold – and do not sell at the bottom – I don’t see how this induces a capital loss.

Related posts:

• Morgan Stanley: Recession will ‘end by mid-to-late summer’
• Morgan Stanley sees U.K. downturn worse than Great Depression
• Financial Alchemy at Morgan Stanley: Greywolf A3 CDOs now Aaa bonds
• Another take on the treasuries bubble
• Bill Gross: Fed on hold through 2010

• •