Archive

Archive for the ‘Causes of Inflation’ Category

Potpourri for $500, Alex

June 1, 2018 5 comments

When I don’t write as often, I have trouble re-starting. That’s because I’m not writing because I don’t have anything to say, but because I don’t have time to write. Ergo, when I do sit down to write, I have a bunch of ideas competing to be the first thing I write about. And that freezes me a bit.

So, I’m just going to shotgun out some unconnected thoughts in short bursts and we will see how it goes.


Wages! Today’s Employment Report included the nugget that private hourly earnings are up at a 2.8% rate over the last year (see chart, source Bloomberg). Some of this is probably due to the one-time bumps in pay that some corporates have given to their employees as a result of the tax cut, and so the people who believe there is no inflation and never will be any inflation will dismiss this.

On the other hand, I’ll tend to dismiss it as being less important because (a) wages follow prices, not the other way around, and (b) we already knew that wages were rising because the Atlanta Fed Wage Tracker, which controls for composition effects, is +3.3% over the last year and will probably bump higher again this month. But the rise in private wages to a 9-year high is just one more dovish argument biting the dust.

As an aside, Torsten Slok of Deutsche Bank pointed out in a couple of charts today that one phenomenon of recent years has been that people staying in the same jobs increasingly see zero wage growth. Although this is partly because wage growth in general has been low, the spread between wage growth for “job switchers” and “job stayers” is now about 1.25% per year, the highest rate in about 17 years. His point is that as we see more switchers due to a tight labor market, that implies more wage growth (again, the Atlanta Fed Wage Growth Tracker does a better job, so this just means average hourly earnings should increasingly converge with the Atlanta Fed figure).


Today I was on the TD Ameritrade Network and they showed a chart that I’d included in our Quarterly Inflation Outlook (which we distribute to customers). I tweeted the chart back on May 22 but let me put it here, with some brief commentary lifted from our quarterly:

“As economic activity has started to absorb more and more unemployed into the workforce, a shortage has developed in the population of truck drivers. This shortage is not easy to overcome, since it takes time to train new truck drivers (and the robo-truck is still no more than science fiction). Moreover, recent advances in electronically monitoring the number of hours that drivers are on the road – there have been rules governing this for a long time, but they relied on honest reporting from the drivers – have artificially reduced the supply of trucker hours at just the time when more were needed because of economic growth…As a result of this phenomenon, total net-of-fuel-surcharge truckload rates are 15% higher than they were a year ago, which is the highest rate of increase since 2004. As the chart (source: FTR Associates and BLS) illustrates, there is a significant connection between truckload rates lagged 15 months and core inflation (0.74 correlation).”

According to FTR Transportation Intelligence, the US is short about 280,000 truck drivers compared to what it needs.


Remember when everyone said Europe was about to head back into deflation, thanks to that surprise dip in core inflation last month? Here is what I had to say about that on my private Twitter feed (sign up here if this stuff matters to you) at the time.

As Paul Harvey used to say, the rest of the story is that core European CPI printed this month at 1.1%, shocking (almost) everyone for a second month.


I had a conversation recently with a potential client who said they didn’t want to get into a long-commodity strategy because they were afraid of chasing what is hot. It’s a reasonable concern. No one wants to be the pigeon who bought the highs.

But some context is warranted. I didn’t want to be impolite, but I pointed out that what he was saying was that in the chart below, he was afraid it was too late to get on the orange line because it is too hot.

Incidentally, lest you think that I chose that period because it flatters the argument…for every period starting June 30, XXXX and ending June 1, 2018, the orange line is appreciably below the white line and has never been meaningfully above it, for XXXX going back to 2002. For 2002-2011, the two indices shown here were pretty well correlated. Since 2011, it has been a one-way underperformance ticket for commodities. They are many things, but “hot” is not one of them!

I haven’t heard back.

Advertisements

Central Banking Tragedy: The Case of Japan

May 22, 2018 9 comments

Today I want to talk about one of the real tragedies of monetary policy and inflation: Japan.

The tragedy is that the mystery of the deflation in Japan is no mystery at all. The cure also was no mystery. So the tragedy is that these were both treated as mysteries by the central bank, which stumbled on the right response and then stumbled right back out of it again.

The chart below shows the money supply and core inflation history of Japan going back into the 1990s. Core inflation is in red (I’ve interpolated through the sales-tax-induced spike) and M2 growth is in blue. The cause of the disinflation is pretty plain: between 1998 and 2013, year/year money growth in Japan never exceeded 4%. From 1999 to 2013, Japanese M2 rose 38% in aggregate; in the US it rose 138% over the same period. It is very hard to get inflation, especially in an environment of declining interest rates, if the money supply is increasing at or somewhat less than the rate of potential GDP growth.

However, in the middle of 2013 Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe persuaded Bank of Japan governor Haruhiko Kuroda to promise to double the money supply in two years, by pursuing massive QE. Although that turned out to be an exaggeration, M2 growth did peek out from behind 4%, and inflation started to perk up as well. It wasn’t a lot, but inflation in 2013 reached new 14-year highs and the economy was officially out of deflation. While QE made very little sense, at least the QE2 and later versions, in the US where inflation was positive and money growth was adequate, it made a ton of sense in Japan. In fact, if Japan had been the only country pursuing QE, I can make the argument that the yen would have likely depreciated substantially and caused inflation in that country.

In the US, the central bank pursued QE and risked inflation to hopefully spur GDP growth. But in Japan, both of those were desirable outcome. There was no reason not to pursue QE in Japan.

But the Bank of Japan lost faith in the power of money growth to cause inflation. While the BoJ continued asset purchases, those purchases diminished and the rate of increase in the central bank’s balance sheet declined from roughly 50% y/y in 2014 to around 8% today (see Chart, source Bloomberg).

Instead, the Bank decided to deploy negative interest rates, dropping the policy rate to -0.10% from +0.10% in early 2016. They did this partly because it was a central bank fad in 2015 and 2016 to experiment with negative interest rates, despite the fact that we have no idea (and no guidance from theory) about what happens to monetary velocity at negative interest rates. I wrote the following in our quarterly piece on February 20, 2016 (and I think it’s been long enough that it’s fair to put it in the public domain as our customers have had plenty of time to read it in private!). I quote at length because, frankly, it was pretty good:

 “…the question of what happens to monetary velocity at negative interest rates is one worth considering since several central banks (the latest one being the Bank of Japan) are now implementing monetary policy with a negative policy rate.

“Why the Bank of Japan is doing so is beyond us. Abstracting from the sales-tax related hike, it has successfully eliminated deflation, driving core inflation from -1.5% to near +1.0% since mid-2010. It has done so, very simply, by working to accelerate money supply growth from the 1.5%-2.0% growth that was the standard in the late pre-crisis period to over 4% by 2014 and 2015.

“This isn’t rocket science; it’s monetary science.

“Now, recently money supply growth has begun to fall off, so the BoJ likely was concerned by that development and wanted to find a way to ensure that inflation doesn’t slip back. If that was their intention, then cutting rates was probably the wrong thing to do. As Friedman explained decades ago, and we have illustrated here repeatedly, money velocity is strongly tied to the level of interest rates. Lower interest rates imply less reason to not hold cash; ergo real cash balances rise and the inverse of the demand for real cash balances is velocity.

“But we said “probably” the wrong thing to do for one reason: we don’t really know whether this relationship holds when interest rates cross the negative bound. It may be the case that this relationship ceases to apply at negative rates even though Friedman’s idea is based on the relative difference between cash yielding zero and longer-term investments or consumption alternatives. The reason that velocity might behave differently at sub-zero rates is that people respond asymmetrically to losses and gains. That is, the pleasure of a gain is dominated by the pain of the same-sized loss, in most people. This cognitive bias may cause savers/investors to behave strikingly different if they are charged for deposits than if they are merely paid zero on those deposits (even if zero is lower than other available rates). In that case, we might see a spike in money velocity once rates go through zero as cash balances become hot-potatoes, just as they would if investment opportunities suddenly appeared. Now, we need to make several observations.

“First, there is no data to suggest this effect exists. What we have posited in the preceding paragraph is rank speculation. (But, unlike the various central banks, we’re not betting our entire monetary policy on that speculation).

“Second, while we don’t really think this effect exists, if it does exist then we would expect it to be a spot discontinuity in the relationship between rates and velocity. That is, the behavior should change between 0% and some negative rate, but then be somewhat linear thereafter. Cognitively, the reaction is both a general loss aversion, which is linear but no different at negative rates from zero, and a behavioral “endowment” reaction that is to the “taking” of money from a person and not necessarily related to the size of the theft.

“Third, if this effect does exist it still doesn’t mean that cutting rates to a negative rate was wise for the Bank of Japan. After all, quantitative easing has done a fine job of pushing up inflation, and so there is no reason to take a speculative gamble like this to keep inflation moving higher. Just do more of the same.

“Fourth: more likely, the BoJ is doing this because it believes that negative rates will stimulate growth. This is much more speculative than you might think, and we may be overgenerous in phrasing the point that way. In any case, any growth benefit would stem either from weakening the currency (which QE would also do, with less risk) or from provoking investment in more marginal ventures that become acceptable at lower financing rates. We call that malinvestment, and it isn’t a good thing.

“Inflation was moving higher in Japan. As long as QE continues (with, or without negative rates), then inflation should continue to move higher. But if the BoJ abandons its successful anti-deflation policy because it was not effective at increasing growth, then it is likely to end up with neither inflation nor growth.”

So, this is the tragedy. As the first chart above illustrates, increasing asset purchases seemed to increase the money supply and inflation; however, cutting interest rates had the evident effect of decreasing monetary velocity enough to push the Japanese economy back to near-deflation. It’s tragic, because they had the right policy and essentially for the right reasons, but changed it to the wrong policy for reasons that are tied to economic dogma which happens to be incorrect (that the act of lowering interest rates causes inflation).

It isn’t the only tragedy to be visited on global economies by too-smart-by-half central bankers, but it is one of the most tragic because they were on the right track before their buddies in the central bankers’ club persuaded them to change tack. It’s like the alcoholic who, having suffered into sobriety, is tempted by friends to have a ‘social drink’ and ends up back in the bottle. At this stage, there is no longer any way for this to end well.

Categories: BOJ, Causes of Inflation, Japan

Why the M2 Slowdown Doesn’t Blunt My Inflation Concern

April 12, 2018 1 comment

We are now all good and focused on the fact that inflation is headed higher. As I’ve pointed out before, part of this is an illusion of motion caused by base effects: not just cell phones, but various other effects that caused measured inflation in the US to appear lower than the underlying trend because large moves in small components moved the average lower even while almost half of the consumption basket continues to inflate by around 3% (see chart, source BLS, Enduring Investments calculations).

But part of it is real – better central-tendency measures such as Median CPI are near post-crisis highs and will almost certainly reach new highs in the next few months. And as I have also pointed out recently, inflation is moving higher around the world. This should not be surprising – if central banks can create unlimited amounts of money and push securities prices arbitrarily higher without any adverse consequence, why would we ever want them to do anything else? But just as the surplus of sand relative to diamonds makes the former relatively less valuable, adding to the float of money should make money less valuable. There is a consequence to this alchemy, although we won’t know the exact toll until the system has gone back to its original state.

(I think this last point is underappreciated. You can’t measure an engine’s efficiency by just looking at the positive stroke. It’s what happens over a full cycle that tells you how efficient the engine is.)

I expect inflation to continue to rise. But because I want to be fair to those who disagree, let me address a potential fly in the inflationary ointment: the deceleration in the money supply over the last year or so (see chart, source Federal Reserve).

Part of my thesis for some time has been that when the Fed decided to raise interest rates without restricting reserves, they played a very dangerous game. That’s because raising interest rates causes money velocity to rise, which enhances inflation. Historically, when the Fed began tightening they restrained reserves, which caused interest rates to rise; the latter effect caused inflation to rise as velocity adjusted but over time the restraint of reserves would cause money supply growth (and then inflation) to fall, and the latter effect predominated in the medium-term. Ergo, decreasing the growth rate of reserves tended to cause inflation to decline – not because interest rates went up, which actually worked against the policy, but because the slow rate of growth of money eventually compounded into a larger effect.

And so my concern was that if the Fed moved rates higher but didn’t do it by restraining the growth rate of reserves, inflation might just get the bad half of the traditional policy result. The reason the Fed is targeting interest rates, rather than reserves, is that they have no power over reserves right now (or, at best, only a very coarse power). The Fed can only drain the inert excess reserves, which don’t affect money supply growth directly. The central bank is not operating on the margin and so has lost control of the margin.

But sometimes they get lucky, and they may just be getting lucky. Commercial bank credit growth (see chart, source Federal Reserve) has been declining for a while, pointing to the reason that money supply growth is slowing. It isn’t the supply of credit, which is unconstrained by reserves and (at least for now) unconstrained by balance sheet strength. It’s the demand for credit, evidently.

Now that I’ve properly laid out that M2 is slowing, and that declining M2 growth is typically associated with declining inflation (and I haven’t even yet pointed out that Japanese and EU M2 growth are both also at the lowest levels since 2014), let me say that this could be good news for inflation if it is sustained. But the problem is that since the slowing of M2 is not the result of a conscious policy, it’s hard to predict that money growth will stay slow.

The reason it needs to be sustained is that we care about percentage changes in the stock of money plus the percentage change in money velocity. For years, the latter term has been a negative number as money velocity declined with interest rates. But M2 velocity rose in the fourth quarter, and my back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests it probably rose in Q1 as well and will rise again in Q2 (we won’t know Q1’s velocity until the advance GDP figures are reported later this month). If interest rates normalize, then it implies a movement higher in velocity to ‘normal’ levels represents a rise of about 12-14% from here (see chart, source Bloomberg.[1])

If money velocity kicks in 12-14% over some period to the “MVºPQ” relationship, then you need to have a lot of growth, or a pretty sustained decline in money growth, to offset it. The following table is taken from the calculator on our website and you can play with your own assumptions. Here I have assumed the economy grows at 2.5% per year for the next four years (no mean feat at the end of a long expansion).

The way to read this chart is to say “what if velocity over the next four years returns to X. Then what money growth is associated with what level of inflation?” So, if you go down the “1.63” column, indicating that at the end of four years velocity has returned to the lower end of its long-term historical range, and read across the M2 growth rate row labeled “4%”, you come to “4.8%,” which means that if velocity rises to 1.63 over the next four years, and growth is reasonably strong, and money growth remains as slow as 4%, inflation will average 4.8% per year over those four years.

So, even if money growth stays at 4% for four years, it’s pretty easy to get inflation unless money velocity also stays low. And how likely is 4% money growth for four years? The chart below shows 4-year compounded M2 growth rates back thirty or so years. Four percent hasn’t happened in a very long time.

Okay, so what if velocity doesn’t bounce? If we enter another bad recession, then it’s conceivable that interest rates could go back down and keep M2 velocity near this level. This implies flooding a lot more liquidity into the economy, but let’s suppose that money growth is still only 4% because of tepid credit demand growth and velocity stays low because interest rates don’t return to normal. Then what happens? Well, in this scenario presumably we’re no longer looking at 2.5% annual growth. Here’s rolling-four-year GDP going back a ways (source: BEA).

Well, let’s say that it isn’t as bad as the Great Recession, and that real growth only slows a bit in fact. If we get GDP growth of 1.5% over four years, velocity stays at 1.43, and M2 grows only at 4%, then:

…you are still looking at 2.5% inflation in that case.

I’m going through these motions because it’s useful to understand how remarkable the period we’ve recently been through actually is in terms of the growth/inflation tradeoff, and how unlikely to be repeated. The only reason we have been able to have reasonable growth with low inflation in the context of money growth where it has been is because of the inexorable decline in money velocity which is very unlikely to be repeated. If velocity just stops going down, you might not have high inflation numbers but you’re unlikely to get very low inflation outcomes. And if velocity rises even a little bit, it’s very hard to come up with happy outcomes that don’t involve higher inflation.

I admit that I am somewhat surprised that money growth has slowed the way it has. It may be just a coin flip, or maybe credit demand is displaying some ‘money illusion’ and responding to higher nominal rates even though real rates have not changed much. But even then…in the last tightening cycle, the Fed hiked rates from 1% to 5.25% over two years in 2004-2006, and money growth still averaged 5% over the four years ended in 2006. While I’m surprised at the slowdown in money growth, it needs to stay very slow for quite a while in order to make a difference at this point. It’s not the way I’d choose to bet.


[1] N.b. Bloomberg’s calculation for M2 velocity does not quite match the calculation of the St. Louis Fed, which is presumably the correct one. They’re ‘close enough,’ however, for this purpose, and this most recent print is almost exactly the same.

Trump and Tariffs – Not a New Risk

March 6, 2018 5 comments

Last week, the stock market dove in part because President Trump appeared to be plunging ahead with new tariffs; on Monday, the market recouped that loss (and then some) as the conventional wisdom over the weekend was that Congress would never let that happen and so it is unlikely that tariffs will be implemented.

I’m always fascinated by market behavior around events like this. Investors seem to love to guess right, and to put 100% of their bet on an outcome that depends on being right. Here’s what I know about tariffs – prior to last week, if there was a risk that tariffs would be implemented that risk was not priced into the markets. And markets are supposed to price risks. Regardless of what you think the probability of that outcome is, surely the probability is non-zero and, therefore, ought to be worth something on the price. Putting it another way: if I was willing to pay X for the market when I wasn’t worried about the possibility of the detrimental effect of future tariffs, then assuredly I will pay less than X once I start to consider that possibility. Although the outcome may be binary (there will be increasing tariffs and decreasing free trade, or there won’t be), the risk doesn’t have to be either/or.

This is one of the things that irritates me about the whole “risk on/risk off” meme. There is no such thing as “risk off.” Risk is ever-present, and an investor’s job is not to guess at which risks will actually present themselves, but to efficiently preserve as much upside as possible while protecting against downside risks cheaply. Risk management is really, really important, but it often seems to get overlooked in the ‘storytime’ that 24-hour market news depends on.

To be sure, the risk of tariffs coming out of the Trump Administration is not new…it’s just that it has been ignored completely until now. Right after Trump’s election, in our Quarterly Inflation Outlook I wrote about which elements of Trump’s professed plans were a risk to steady inflation. The one area which I felt could be the real wildcard leading to higher inflation as a result of policy (as opposed to higher inflation from natural dynamics, which are also a risk as interest rates normalize) was the possibility of a Trump tariff. Here is what I wrote at that time – and it’s poignant today:

Policies Which Will Erect Trade Barriers of Some Kind

This is the area in which we would be most concerned about the possible upward pressure on inflation from a Trump Administration. The President-Elect got to this point partly by pledging to “make better deals” with trading counterparties such as China, and to work to “bring jobs back” to the US. While this may be at least partly bluster, Mr. Trump was consistent enough during the campaign on this topic that it is hard to imagine him doing an about-face and strengthening NAFTA, rather than weakening it.

And here is why it matters. We have written in the past that a big part of the reason for the generous growth/inflation tradeoff of the 1990s was the rapid globalization of many industries following the end of the Cold War. Parameterizations of inflation models, in general, cannot be consistently calibrated on any period that spans 1992-1993. That is to say that for any model that we have seen, the parameters if the model is fit to 1972-1992 are different than if the model is fit to 1994-2014. Specifically, models calibrated to the former period consistently over-estimate inflation in the latter period, while models calibrated to the latter period consistently under-estimate inflation in the former period. The Federal Reserve believes that this is because inflation expectations (which we cannot measure very well) somehow became “anchored” in 1993. On the other hand, we believe that the culprit was globalization. In the 2014Q3 QIO, we illustrated that assertion with this chart of Apparel prices, set against domestic apparel production.

The chart (Source Bloomberg) is updated to 2016. We think it illustrates clearly the inflation dividend brought by globalization – as production was moved to cheaper overseas manufacturers, apparel price increases first leveled off, and then actually declined. Prices continued to go sideways or down until apparel production in this country was essentially gone – and thus, there was no further gain in production costs to be passed on to consumers. In late 2012, apparel prices started to rise again, although it has still been only in fits and starts. (We think this is because manufacturing is being moved further downstream, to manufacturers located in even cheaper countries – but this can only go on for so long of course.)

What we haven’t been able to find before, until recently, is more general evidence that there was a dramatic shift in the globalization dynamic in general, rather than in this isolated case. We found the evidence recently in a Deutsche Bank piece, in a chart that plots the number of free trade agreements signed per year. The chart is printed below (sources: as cited).

This chart is the “smoking gun” that supports our version of events, in terms of why the inflation dynamic shifted in the early 1990s. The apparel story is supporting evidence about the next step in the chain, illustrating how free trade helped to restrain prices in certain goods, by allowing the possibility of significant cost savings on production.

The flip side of a cost savings on production, though, is a loss of domestic manufacturing jobs; it is this loss that Mr. Trump took productive advantage of. We believe that Mr. Trump is likely to move to increase tariffs and other barriers to trade, and to reverse some of the globalization trend that has driven lower prices for the last quarter-century. We view this as potentially very negative news for inflation. While there was some evidence that the globalization dividend was beginning to get ‘tapped out’ as all of the low-hanging fruit had been harvested – and such a development would cause inflation to be higher than otherwise it would have been – we had not expected the possibility of a reversal of the globalization dividend except as a possible and minor side-effect of tensions with Russia over the Ukraine, or the effect the Syrian refugee problem could have on open borders. The election of Mr. Trump, however, creates the very real possibility that the reversal of this dividend might be a direct consequence of conscious policy choices.

John Mauldin and Long Soapy Showers

February 27, 2018 Leave a comment

I feel like I am falling behind in my articles and commenting on other articles that people have recently written about inflation. After years – literally, years – in which almost no one wrote anything about inflation, suddenly everyone wants to opine on the new shiny object they just found. At the same time, interest in the solutions that we offer – investment strategies, consulting, bespoke inflation hedges, etc – has abruptly picked up, so it feels like the demand for these articles is rising at the same time that my time to write them is shrinking…

But I try.

I want to quickly respond to an article that came out over the weekend, by widely-read author John Mauldin. I’ve corresponded over the years from time to time about inflation, especially when he got way out on the crazy-person “CPI is made up” conspiracy theory limb. To be fair, I think he considers me the crazy person, which is why he’s never referred to me as the inflation expert in his articles. C’est la vie.

His recent article “State of Inflationary Confusion”, though, was much more on-point. Honestly, this is the best article Mauldin has written on this topic in years. I don’t agree with all of it but he at least correctly identifies most of the issues correctly. He even seems to understand hedonic adjustment and the reason we need it, and the reason the PCE/CPI debate exists (which is no easy thing – it depends on what you’re trying to do, which one is ‘better’), and that hasn’t always been the case.

Where I agree with him is when he says that ‘None of us are average’. This is obviously true, and is one reason that we have on our website a calculator where you can look at your own CPI by adjusting the components for what you personally spend (though it doesn’t take into account where you live, which is one reason your experience differs).

But I disagree with him when he says “Reducing this complexity to one number and then using that number to guide monetary policy is asking for trouble.” What an odd remark. We do that for every other piece of data: GDP, home sales, home prices, durable goods sales, retail sales, unemployment, and so on, and we use that information to guide all sorts of policy. Why would it be the case that CPI, of all of the figures, isn’t very useful for this reason? Look, your personal unemployment number is not 4%. It is either 0% or 100%. Totally binary. If Mauldin was making a compelling argument here, you’d throw out the Unemployment Rate long before you’d throw out CPI.

Indeed, if you play with the numbers on our calculator you will find that unless your consumption basket is wildly different, your CPI is likely to be fairly similar to the average. This is why TIPS make sense for many investors – it’s “close enough” to what your consumption basket is actually doing. And it is certainly close enough for policy.

The problem with monetary policy isn’t that they’re using PCE or CPI when they should be using the other, or that neither PCE nor CPI reflects the exact experience of most people. The problem with monetary policy is that policymakers don’t know what the right policy response is given the numbers because they don’t believe in monetarism any more. So their models don’t work. And that’s the problem.

Here’s an analogy (and you know I love analogies). You’re taking a shower, and your impression is “hey, this seems too hot.” It doesn’t really matter if you are using Celsius or Fahrenheit, or just a general visceral sense that it’s too hot. You simply think the water is too hot. So, to solve your problem you apply more soap.

That’s what the Fed is doing. The water is too hot, so they’re applying soap. And they’re really confused when that doesn’t seem to make the water any colder. So they say “gosh, our model must be wrong. The water temperature must be somewhat less sensitive to the amount of soap applied than we thought it was. So let’s recalibrate and apply more soap.” It never occurs to them that they’ve got the wrong model.

That’s the problem with central banking. It isn’t what you use to measure the water temperature, as long as you’re close; it’s how you respond to it that matters. And policymakers don’t understand inflation and, as a result, don’t understand how to affect it.

The Era of Bizarro Bill Gross is Beginning

February 2, 2018 2 comments

Note: my articles are now released about 8 hours earlier on the blog site and on my private Twitter feed @inflation_guyPV, which you can sign up for here, than they are released on my ‘regular’ Twitter feed.


It’s hard to believe that 10-year yields in the US have doubled in the last 18 months. It’s the last 50bps, taking us from 2.35% to 2.84% since December, that has received the most attention but 10yr Treasury rates have literally spanned the width of the nearly 40-year-old channel over that 18 months (see chart, source Bloomberg).

Such a long-term chart needs to be done in log scale, of course, because a 200bp move is more significant when rates are at 2% than when they are at 10%. I have been following this channel for literally my entire working career (more than a quarter-century now), and only once has it seriously threatened the top of that channel. Actually, that was in 2006-07, which helped precipitate the last bear market in stocks. Before that, the last serious test was at the end of 1999, which helped precipitate that bear market.

You get the idea.

The crazy technicians will note that a break above about 3.03%, in addition to penetrating this channel, would also validate a double bottom from the last five years or so. Conveniently, both patterns would project 10-year rates to, um, about 6%. But don’t worry, that would take years.

Let’s suppose it takes 10 years. And let’s suppose that velocity does what it does and follows interest rates higher. The regression below (source: Bloomberg) shows my favorite: velocity as a function of 5y Treasury rates. Rates around 5% or 6% would give you an eyeball M2 velocity of 2.1.

So, let’s go to the calculator on our website, and see what happens if money velocity goes to 2.1 over the next decade, but real growth averages a sparkling 3%.

Looking down the “2.1” column for velocity, we can see that if we want to get roughly 2% inflation – approximately what the market is assuming – then we need to have money growth of only 1% per annum for a decade. That is, the money supply needs to basically stop growing now. The only problem with that is that there are trillions in excess reserves in the banking system in the US, and trillions upon trillions more on the balance sheets of other central banks, and not only does the Fed not plan to remove all of those reserves but rather to maintain a permanently larger balance sheet, but other central banks are still pumping reserves in. So, you can see the problem. If money growth is only 3%, then you’re looking at average inflation over the next decade of 3.9% per annum. By the way, average money growth in the US since the early 1980s has been 5.9% (see chart, source Bloomberg). Moreover, it has been below 3% only during the recessions of the early 1990s and the global financial crisis, and never for more than a couple of years at a time.

The bottom line is that rising interest rates and more importantly rising money velocity create a very unfortunate backdrop for inflation, and this is what creates the trending nature of inflation and the concomitant ‘long tails’: higher rates create higher velocity, which creates higher inflation, which cause higher rates. Etc. The converse has been true for nearly 40 years – a happy 40 years for monetary policymakers. Yes, I know, there are a lot of “ifs” above. But notice what I am not saying. I am not saying that interest rates are going directly from 3% to 6%. Indeed, the rates/equity ecosystem is inherently self-dampening to some degree (at least, until we reach a level where we’ve exceeded the range of the spring’s elasticity!) in that if equity prices were to head very much lower, interest rates would respond under a belief that central bankers would moderate their tightening paths in the face of weak equities. And if interest rates were to head much higher, we would get such a response in equities that would provoke soothing tones from central bankers. So tactically, I wouldn’t expect yields to go a lot higher from here in a straight shot.

I am also not saying that money velocity is going to gap higher, and I am not saying that inflation is about to spring to 4% (in fact, just the other day I said that it will likely be mainly the optics on inflation that are bad this year because some one-off events are rolling out of the data). Just as with interest rates, this cycle will take a long time to unwind even if, as I suspect, we have finally started that unwind. We’re going to have good months and bad months in the bond market. But the general direction will be to yields that are somewhat higher in each subsequent selloff. And some Bizarro Bill Gross will be the new Bond King by riding yields higher rather than riding them lower.

I am also told that mortgage convexity risk, which in the past has taken rallies and selloffs in fixed-income and made them more extreme, is less of a problem than it used to be, since the Fed holds most mortgages and servicing rights have been sold from entities that would hedge extensions to those who “just want yield” (unclear how this latter group responds to the same yield, at longer maturities). On the other hand, the Volcker Rule has gutted a lot of the liquidity provision function on Wall Street, so if you have a million to sell you’re okay; if you have a yard (a billion) then best of luck.

I will note that real yields are still lower (10year TIPS yields 0.70%) than they reached at the highs in 2016, which were lower than they got to in 2015, which were lower than they hit in 2013. The increase in interest rates is not coming from a surge in belief about rising real growth. The increase is coming from a surge in concern about the backdrop for inflation. For nominal interest rates to go much higher, real yields will have to start contributing more to the selloff. So I think we are probably closer to the end of the bond selloff, than to the beginning…at least, this leg of it.

Summary of My Post-CPI Tweets (Jan 2018 – Dec figure)

January 12, 2018 Leave a comment

Below is a summary of my post-CPI tweets. You can (and should!) follow me @inflation_guyPV and get this in real time, by going to PremoSocial. Or, sign up for email updates to my occasional articles here. Investors with interests in this area be sure to stop by Enduring Investments or Enduring Intellectual Properties. Plus…buy my book about money and inflation. The title of the book is What’s Wrong with Money? The Biggest Bubble of All; order from Amazon here.

  • 22 minutes until CPI. Not sure I am looking forward to this one. The little birds are all whispering that this is supposed to be high, and that concerns me.
  • Not the economists: consensus forecast is for a reasonably high 0.24% on m/m core. But we drop off 0.22% from last December so the y/y won’t move much from 1.7% if that’s the print we get.
  • Yes – there are lots of reasons this COULD be higher. Chief among them is the divergence between surveys of used car prices and the BLS cars index. Cars are 6.4% of CPI, so it matters. But PPI showed weakness in vehicles for another month. (I usually ignore PPI, though).
  • ..it’s December, which means it’s crazy-seasonal-adjustment month. December is the only month of the year where you can confidently reject the hypothesis that there’s no seasonal (on headline CPI), as prices tend to fall. But there’s also a lot of volatility.
  • Rents have come back to model, and home prices continue to rise, so decent chance that housing starts to contribute again here soon.
  • What I fear is that some of the forecasts for a “surprise” higher are coming from the fact that the inflation markets have been rallying, so people are afraid “someone knows something.” Economists don’t ignore markets. But in this case I think it’s just year-end reassessment.
  • …let’s face it, inflation bonds are cheap. About 50bps cheap at the 10-year point by my model. Commodities are cheap. And everything else is expensive. I don’t have to believe inflation is coming to swap out of stocks into commodities.
  • Of note – inflation swaps have been rising in every major market recently. So there definitely is an undercurrent of inflation concern.
  • Don’t fade the whispers! +0.3% on core. Actually 0.277%. But enough to put y/y up to 1.77%, rolling it to 1.8% rounded.
  • Wow, 2 yr Tsy above 2% for the first time since September 2008!
  • Last 12 CPIs. Try hard not to see an uptrend here. It’s an illusion caused by the low mid-year figures. But that said, this is highest in a while.

  • Let’s see…Housing up slightly, Transportation up, no change in medical care (talking major subgroups here)…will be interesting to see where the wiggle is.
  • Core services 2.6% vs 2.5% and core goods -0.7% vs -0.9% y/y. That’s the least goods deflation since last July. But it’s still deflation.
  • Pulling in the micro data now. The BLS series is so rich. But while the sheet is calculating this is a good time to remind everyone that these figures are for DECEMBER so try hard not to get too excited. The breakdown will be more important to tell us if this is ‘real.’
  • If you haven’t read Ben Inker’s piece in the latest GMO quarterly, arguing why inflation is a bigger risk for portfolios right now than recession, do so. Very good piece. “What happened to inflation? And What happens if it comes back?” https://www.gmo.com/docs/default-source/research-and-commentary/strategies/gmo-quarterly-letters/what-happened-to-inflation-.pdf?sfvrsn=5
  • One more item of context before we dive deeper: Median CPI is at 2.3%. So we should be expecting something right around 0.2% per month if there’s no trend. The uptick from 1.7% to 1.8% is just catching up, mostly.
  • OK on the breakdown. New and Used cars, 8% of core CPI, rose to -0.33% from -1.05%. As expected, and that’s a big part of the surprise.
  • I say “surprise,” but it really oughtn’t be a surprise. Remember that Hurricane Harvey had a similar effect to Cash for Clunkers in terms of the number of cars removed from the road. The private car prices indices were showing this. BLS has a lot of catching up yet.

  • Just lost power. Anyway. Wasn’t just used cars. Used cars went from -2.1% to -0.99% but new went from -1.08% to -0.53%
  • Owners Equivalent Rent went to 3.175% from 3.124%, and primary rents from 3.675% to 3.689%. So housing back on track.
  • Medical Care broadly went to 1.78% from 1.68%. Pharma went 1.87% to 2.37%. Other components pretty stable (in medical). Medicinal drugs (pharma) is about one fifth of medical care subindex.
  • Wireless telephone services again steady. The jump will be fun when the plunge washes out. Right now it’s -10.19% y/y vs -10.24%.
  • Wish I could post my chart of distributions of price changes. Left tail starting to move rightward a bit. Hopefully get power back soon. This is all on backup power to my pc. [Editors’ Note – I added it later, see below]
  • Well, looks like power isn’t coming back on quickly. I will have to come back later with the median CPI estimate etc. Got most of the details out though.
  • Bottom line is that the components we expected to start converging, did. Housing behaved. Medical care behaved. And so we moved towards the real middle of the distribution, around 2.3% or so presently.
  • This shouldn’t be taken as an acceleration in inflation. This is just one (flawed) number converging with the better ones. Core inflation is going to head higher, but this isn’t convincing evidence that it is yet doing so.
  • Having said that, in a couple of months the y/y comps start to get better so the inflation story will have much better OPTICS. And it’s optics these days, more than fundamentals, that drive markets. So don’t jump off the commodities or tips bandwagon. That trend will continue.
  • Power’s back on! Of note is that Median CPI printed at 0.29%, the highest level since July 2008 (sound familiar? That was also true two months ago when it was 0.27%). So y/y up to 2.44% now.
  • Yeah, I know I said don’t think of this was an uptrend. And it’s not; it’s an unwind of one-offs. But still, that’s gotta look scary.

  • Better late than never. Here’s what I meant about the distribution moving right. Those two bars on the left were one bar before today. So you can see those components – largely cars and cell phones – are dragging down core relative to median.

  • The rally in breakevens shouldn’t be terribly surprising – this chart shows it’s just keeping pace (and not even) with the turn back higher in median CPI.

  • The market is NOT AT ALL ahead of itself in this sense.

This was certainly not the easiest time I have had with a CPI report, but that’s mostly because the power grid in this country is as brittle as glass. The story was actually not as much about screwy seasonal as I was concerned about. Actually, it was a fairly humdrum report in many ways, and that’s what is scary if you’re thinking we are in a “lowflation” period. The chart of Median CPI is interesting. Core inflation had risen mostly because car prices are starting to catch up with private measures of car prices – what remains in the gap between the red line and the blue line in the “Manheim” chart would add about 0.5% to core CPI – and housing stopped decelerating. But then Median CPI, which doesn’t care about the New and Used car prices since those are outliers, rose at the highest rate (m/m) in nearly a decade, and the Median-Core spread actually widened slightly this month. That means more core acceleration is ahead.

I mentioned that in a few months the year-ago comparisons will start getting easier. This month, we got 0.28% from core CPI versus 0.22% last year. But in Jan 2017, core CPI was +0.31%. That will be a hard comp to beat. But after that, Feb 2017 was +0.21%, March was -0.12%, April was +0.07%, May was +0.06%, June was +0.12%, and July was +0.11%. At the time, we mused “is the natural run rate for core really 0.5%/annum?” which was what those five months were averaging. That seemed very unlikely. Median CPI told us that wasn’t the case. Now, if core CPI merely averages a monthly 0.17% print from now until July, the y/y figure will be up at 2.20%. And if it’s 0.2% per month, in July we will be sitting at 2.42%.

I don’t think you want to fade those optics, even if you think we’re only going to get 0.15%. Perhaps the next month or two, because of the more-difficult comps, will take some wind out of the sails of the inflation bulls and offer better entry points. But the direction of travel looks fairly clear for the next six months or so. And that also means that the direction of travel for monetary policy is also likely set, to be at least as aggressive as the market is pricing. And, perhaps, the direction of travel for equity prices isn’t quite as clear as it currently seems.

And it bears repeating that this is going to be the case even if inflation is not actually in an uptrend, but just maintaining its current run rate around 0.2% per month (commensurate with median CPI at 2.4%/yr). If inflation is in fact turning higher – and there are some signs of that, though not as widespread as everyone seems to suddenly think – then it could be a lot uglier in 2018. As I said again above: don’t jump off the commodities or TIPS bandwagon yet. But…you might want to trim some of that nominal bond exposure!

%d bloggers like this: