Archive

Archive for October, 2013

Inflation, Deflation, and Putting

October 3, 2013 2 comments

Since there is no data of note for a little while, there are some other topics I suppose I have time to remark upon.

I recently read a piece by Morgan Stanley called “Of Dogs, Deflation and Inflation.” In it, the authors essentially argue that the relative stasis of inflation recently is “best interpreted as a balance between inflation and deflation rather than concluding that neither is a material risk. While bold central bank action has been successful in stabilising inflation over the past five years, it has also increased the two-way risk to the future price level – both longer-term inflation and deflation risks have increased.”

If I see a photograph of a golf ball sitting on the rim of the cup, I might conceive of several reasons for that configuration. One is that there are no important forces acting on the ball, so it is sitting still on the edge of the cup. Another is that there are massive forces that are all canceling out: say, a strong wind blowing from right to left, and the golfer using a huge club rather than a putter to put the ball from left to right. Which of these two is inherently more likely? Is it possible that inflation has been relatively stable around the Fed’s target (using Median CPI) because massive quantitative easing just happened to exactly cancel the deflationary forces of the credit collapse? Well, of course it is possible. It is also possible that a derivatives book with two hundred trades in it just happens to have no risk at all. But when you are talking large numbers, it takes extreme precision to balance a system.

So it is more likely that neither force was very strong. However, there is yet a third explanation for that photograph, and that is that the ball was actually in motion and the picture just happens to capture a moment in time. The ball, in fact, proceeded to fall into the cup, but we don’t know that because the picture doesn’t tell us what came after.

This is the situation I believe we are in with inflation in the aftermath of the great recession. There is no doubt that the Fed’s aggressive easing helped ameliorate the deflationary pressures, although I think they were never as great as we thought at the time since the main deflationary pressure came from the decline in money velocity…which was caused mainly by a Fed-induced decline in interest rates. But these two forces, Fed easing and the deflationary impulses from a credit crunch, don’t act simultaneously. The Fed’s action takes longer to materialize in inflationary outcomes…especially when, as in this case, most of the easing from QE was sequestered in sterile bank reserves. We have, though, seen what is happening in the housing market, and it is foolishness to think that this has anything to do with strong household incomes or Congressional support for housing. It is plainly the result of a higher float of money, which has manifested in higher prices for real assets. And that putt was set in motion not this year, but with the earliest QEs that pushed money growth over 10% at times over the years since 2008.

Don’t look at the current state of the ball, that is core inflation, as being a deterministic snapshot. There is a delay between monetary policy and inflation outcomes (the old rule of thumb was 9-12 months, but it was pretty flexible), and that delay is even longer this time around because of the excess-reserves issue. The ball is in motion, and my guess is that the Fed struck the putt too hard.

Certainty About Uncertainty

I haven’t written recently because it is hard to figure out what to do here. Market action at this point seemingly has little to do with fundamentals, and isn’t even in “risk on/risk off” mode because no one seems to be sure how the government shutdown affects risk (the debt ceiling debate is another issue, which I will discuss later).

I often get comments to the effect that “political uncertainty is a fact of life,” or “the Fed always manipulates markets,” implying that we cannot simply refuse to invest because markets aren’t trading cleanly off of economic fundamentals (which don’t directly translate into market action even in the best of times anyway). This is true, but I always hearken back to the notion that uncertainty implies a smaller bet size (a long time ago I wrote an article in which I discussed the implications of the Kelly Criterion for thinking about how one invests). When the economic signals are clear but the market isn’t pricing them properly, then you have a great edge and the market is giving you good odds, and most of your chips should be on the table. When the economic signals aren’t clear, or when stochastic political events are likely to overwhelm them, then your bet should be small because your edge is lower even if you are getting good odds.

In this case, of course, no matter what market you are talking about it isn’t at all clear how the debate (perhaps calling it a “debate” is generous) about the continuing resolution to fund government operations, the ACA, and the debt ceiling will be resolved.

We can speculate about what various outcomes might mean to the markets, but even here our analysis is fraught with uncertainty. Would an extended shutdown be good for equity markets because it would imply a greater chance of lower ACA costs and a lengthier period of Fed quantitative easing? Or would it be bad because of the short-term impact on growth as government spending is delayed? Would bonds rally because there would be no incremental supply, or sell off because of the implied risk of default? A lengthy government closure might be bad for the dollar because it implies more monetary ease, but might be good because it represents “fiscal discipline” (admittedly, in this case it’s discipline in the fetishistic sense rather than in the self-control sense). The only thing I am certain about is the uncertainty, and that spells a smaller bet.

Retail investors are especially at a disadvantage, because of the huge amount of misinformation that is out there about likely scenarios and the results of various outcomes. This misinformation is often unwittingly disseminated by media outlets, but I suspect it is rarely unwittingly initiated by the original sources.

For example, a recent New York Times blog was pretty good at discussing the possible outcomes, but flunked on at least one aspect when it stated what would happen to the economy as a result of a federal default. I don’t mean to pick on the Times here, and in general it is a good article. But at one point the writer said that a default could cause a spike in Treasury yields (likely true), but then continued “The price tag on a huge range of other debt products is benchmarked to the cost of Treasuries. That means a spike in the federal government’s borrowing costs would translate into pricier mortgages, car loans and corporate borrowing costs.”

Well, that’s wrong. It’s not offensively wrong, but it’s wrong (and I’m pointing it out partly as an example of how even simple stuff is confused right now). The interest rate on any nominal debt instrument consists of several components: the real cost of money, a premium for expected inflation, and a premium for the riskiness of the credit.[1] Normally, with Treasuries we can say the credit spread is effectively zero, so that we refer to the spread that a corporate bond trades over Treasuries as “the” credit spread because that spread minus zero equals that spread. But there is no reason to think that spread would remain constant if the Treasury’s credit was diminished, any more than it would remain constant if the corporate’s credit was diminished. If Treasury rates spiked because the government’s perceived credit spread was no longer zero, then unless that also affected the perceived credit of, say, Caterpillar then there is no theoretical reason that CAT yields should also rise.[2]

In any event, a federal default is not going to happen unless someone in the Administration wants it to happen. The government’s $2.9 trillion in revenues is quite a bit more than is needed to pay the $300bln or so in interest costs per year, so unless the Treasury simply decided to default (see an excellent article here by my friends at TF Market Advisors) it isn’t going to happen. The Treasury has made some mystifying statements about how they don’t have the capability to pay some expenses and not others, but in the worst case someone can sit down and manually wire the money to every holder. So that’s nonsense that is meant to scare us.

So I don’t have any decent “trading opinions” on the basis of the government shutdown. What I do believe is that this is an unmitigated positive for inflation (positive in the sense of pushing it higher), and thus for breakevens and inflation swaps. The longer the government stays shut, the longer quantitative easing will be in force as the Fed attempts to counteract the short-term contraction of economic activity (the fact that monetary policy is ineffective at affecting growth rates never seems to enter their minds); furthermore a long shutdown will more likely to push the dollar lower in my opinion – although, as I said above, I can argue the reverse position as well. On the other hand, if the Republicans cave quickly, as is likely in my view, and the ACA goes into effect, prices for consumer-purchased medical care will rise rapidly. This is less a statement about whether the ACA will push aggregate health care costs higher, although I believe that it will. It’s more an observation that controlled prices in the government-purchased sector will produce higher prices outside of the controls, and it is this latter group that will be sampled for consumer prices (since the price the government purchases at is not a “consumer” price). Since it is the Medical Care subgroup of CPI that has been pressing core CPI to be lower than median CPI, any rebound in Medical Care inflation will push aggregate core inflation higher.

Was that said in a confusing-enough manner?

TIPS should do well while the government is shut, because there is ongoing growth in demand for TIPS while the supply will be drying up. Unlike with the nominal Treasury market, there is no corporate inflation-linked bond sector that can replace the inflation exposure (although there should be) demanded by investors, so TIPS will tend to outperform nominal bonds in the event that both sets of auctions are canceled.


[1] There are other costs, such as the discount to the interest rate that the Treasury pays as a result of the status of Treasuries as superior collateral in repo and similar exchanges, but they are not relevant to this point.

[2] There may be a practical argument that there might be a substitution effect, but that’s also saying that investors would bet the selloff in Treasuries makes them a better risk-adjusted bet than CAT bonds. However, if the Treasury’s credit spread moved permanently higher, it would not affect the equilibrium bond yield of a corporate bond.

%d bloggers like this: