Showing posts with label Economic bubble. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Economic bubble. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 10, 2018

Ron Paul: ‘When Our Financial System Crashes…The Elites…Will Suffer The Least’

ron-paul


When the housing bubble popped in 2007, the Federal Reserve went to work to re-inflate the bubble by printing more money – quantitative easing. But the policy has made matters much worse, as now everything is a bubble, and according to Ron Paul, when it bursts, only the elite will come out unscathed.


The Federal Reserve has once again created an artificial and unsustainable economic bubble. Central planning still doesn’t work, and the sooner we move to sound money the better. Ron Paul discusses the monumental mess that The Federal Reserve has wrought.


“Some very serious consequences of this policy of unprecedented credit creation have set the stage for a major monetary reform of the fiat dollar system,” says Paul in a special report video. And the economic trouble that the United States is in should concern every single one of us. It is far from a minor issue.


As our financial system unravels, the seriousness of it will become evident to all, as the need to pay for our extravagance becomes obvious. This will make the country much poorer. Though the elite class that manages such affairs will suffer the least.-Ron Paul



“The housing bubble is back along with subprime loans. There’s an auto financing bubble encouraged by subprime loans for many customers. The stock market is in a bubble waiting to be pricked. The bond market is in a huge bubble as a result low or negative interest rates.”


The Fed wasn’t alone in its interventionist monetary policy. Central banks around the world followed the same prescription. All in all, the central banks of the world increased their balance sheets by $8.3 trillion, with only $2.1 trillion worth of GDP growth to show for it. That’s going to become apparent when all of these bubbles burst.


“This left $6.2 trillion of excess liquidity in the banking system that did not go where the economic planners had hoped. Central banks now own $9.7 trillion of negative interest-yielding bonds. The financial system has been left with a bubble mania, financed by artificial credit and unsustainable debt. The national debt in 2007 was $8.9 trillion; today it’s $20.5 trillion. Rising interest rates will come and that will be deadly for the economy and the federal budget.”


The biggest takeaway from Ron Paul’s report, is that central planning and large government never works out regardless of the intention behind both, and at the expense of liberty.


A compliant citizenry that fails to grasp the importance of liberty, and instead accepts dependency on government as a substitute for self-reliance guarantees that the bursting of the QE bubble will generate a much more serious crisis than it need be.”

Party While You Can – Central Bank Ready To Pop The ‘Everything’ Bubble

This article was originally published by Brandon Smith at Alt-Market.com


bubblepop1


Many people do not realize that America is not only entering a new year, but within the next month we will also be entering a new economic era. In early February, Janet Yellen is set to leave the Federal Reserve and be replaced by the new Fed chair nominee, Jerome Powell. Now, to be clear, the Fed chair along with the bank governors do not set central bank policy. Policy for most central banks around the world is dictated in Switzerland by the Bank for International Settlements. Fed chairmen like Janet Yellen are mere mascots implementing policy initiatives as ordered. This is why we are now seeing supposedly separate central banking institutions around the world acting in unison, first with stimulus, then with fiscal tightening.


However, it is important to note that each new Fed chair does tend to signal a new shift in action for the central bank. For example, Alan Greenspan oversaw the low interest rate easy money phase of the Fed, which created the conditions for the derivatives and credit bubble and subsequent crash in 2008. Ben Bernanke oversaw the stimulus and bailout phase, flooding the markets with massive amounts of fiat and engineering an even larger bubble in stocks, bonds and just about every other asset except perhaps some select commodities. Janet Yellen managed the tapering phase, in which stimulus has been carefully and systematically diminished while still maintaining delusional stock market euphoria.


Now comes the era of Jerome Powell, who will oversee the last stages of fiscal tightening, the reduction of the Fed balance sheet, faster rate increases and the final implosion of the ‘everything’ bubble.


As I warned before Trump won the election in 2016, a Trump presidency would inevitably be followed by economic crisis, and this would be facilitated by the Federal Reserve pulling the plug on fiat life support measures which kept the illusion of recovery going for the past several years. It is important to note that the mainstream media is consistently referring to Jerome Powell as “Trump’s candidate” for the Fed, or “Trump’s pick” (as if the president really has much of a choice in the roster of candidates for the Fed chair). The public is being subtly conditioned to view Powell as if he is an extension of the Trump administration.


This could not be further from the truth. Powell and the Fed are autonomous from government. As Alan Greenspan openly admitted years ago, the Fed does not answer to the government and can act independently without oversight. So, why is the media insisting on misrepresenting Powell as some kind of Trump agent? Because Trump, and by extension all the conservatives that support him, are meant to take the blame when the ‘everything’ bubble vaporizes our financial structure. Jerome Powell is “Trump’s guy” at the Fed; so any actions Powell takes to crush the recovery narrative will also be blamed on the Trump administration.


But, is it a certainty that Powell will put the final nail in the coffin of “economic recovery?” Yes. Last Friday the Fed finally released the transcripts of its monetary policy meetings in 2012, and in those transcripts are some interesting admissions from Powell himself. After reading these transcripts I am fully convinced that Powell is the man who will stand as the figurehead of the central bank during the final phase of U.S. decline.


Here are some of the most astonishing quotes by Powell from those transcripts along with my commentary. These quotes are yet another piece of evidence that vindicates my position on the Fed as an economic saboteur and my position on the historic market bubble the bank has created:


Powell: “I have concerns about more purchases. As others have pointed out, the dealer community is now assuming close to a $4 trillion balance sheet and purchases through the first quarter of 2014. I admit that is a much stronger reaction than I anticipated, and I am uncomfortable with it for a couple of reasons.


First, the question, why stop at $4 trillion? The market in most cases will cheer us for doing more. It will never be enough for the market. Our models will always tell us that we are helping the economy, and I will probably always feel that those benefits are overestimated. And we will be able to tell ourselves that market function is not impaired and that inflation expectations are under control. What is to stop us, other than much faster economic growth, which it is probably not in our power to produce?”


Assessment: By all indications the Fed did do more, MUCH more. Including QE3, various stimulus packages and incessantly low interest rates for years, the Fed has essentially stepped in every time stock markets in particular were about to crash back to their natural state of decline. Powell is being rather honest in his estimation here that these stopgaps are in fact temporary and that the Fed cannot produce true economic growth to support the market optimism they have created through their interventions. He is stating openly that markets will only remain optimistic so long as they are assured that the Fed will continue to intervene.


This is probably why it took almost six years before these transcripts were released.


Powell: “When it is time for us to sell, or even to stop buying, the response could be quite strong; there is every reason to expect a strong response. So there are a couple of ways to look at it. It is about $1.2 trillion in sales; you take 60 months, you get about $20 billion a month. That is a very doable thing, it sounds like, in a market where the norm by the middle of next year is $80 billion a month. Another way to look at it, though, is that it’s not so much the sale, the duration; it’s also unloading our short volatility position.”


Assessment: And here we have Powell’s shocking admission, clarifying his previous point — the “strong response” that Powell is referring to is a market reversal, or bubble implosion. He even admits the existence of the Fed’s “short position on volatility.” This explains the strange behavior of the VIX index, which has plunged to record lows as “someone” continually shorts VIX stocks in order to interfere with any decline in markets.


This interference in the VIX has conjured an aberration, a market calm and investor confidence that is artificial. Such overconfidence, when optimism turns into mania, has happened before. In fact, the end of the Greenspan era was awash in such exuberance. And this delusion always ends the same way — with crisis.


I would also like to mention here that I have seen some disinformation being planted on Powell’s statements in 2012, asserting that he was “not talking about stock markets” specifically. Obviously he is, as you will see in other parts of his statement, but to reinforce the point, here is a quote from another Fed member who spilled the beans, Richard Fisher:


“What the Fed did — and I was part of that group — is we front-loaded a tremendous market rally, starting in 2009.


It’s sort of what I call the “reverse Whimpy factor” — give me two hamburgers today for one tomorrow.”


Fisher went on to hint at his very reserved view of the impending danger:


“I was warning my colleagues, Don’t go wobbly if we have a 10 to 20 percent correction at some point… Everybody you talk to… has been warning that these markets are heavily priced.” [In reference to interest rate hikes]


So, what happens when the Fed stops shorting volatility and ends the easy money being pumped into markets? Well, again, I think Powell and Fisher have just told you what will happen, but let’s continue.


Powell: “My third concern — and others have touched on it as well — is the problems of exiting from a near $4 trillion balance sheet. We’ve got a set of principles from June 2011 and have done some work since then, but it just seems to me that we seem to be way too confident that exit can be managed smoothly. Markets can be much more dynamic than we appear to think.


When you turn and say to the market, “I’ve got $1.2 trillion of these things,” it’s not just $20 billion a month — it’s the sight of the whole thing coming. And I think there is a pretty good chance that you could have quite a dynamic response in the market.”


Assessment: The Fed balance sheet is being reduced NOW, and Powell as chairman will only continue the process if not expedite it. Some people may argue that Powell is displaying an attitude that would suggest he is not on board with tightening policies. I disagree. I believe Powell will make the argument that the band-aid must be ripped off and that stock markets need some “tough love”.


In fact, Fed members including Yellen and former member Alan Greenspan (is there such a thing as a “former” member of the Fed?) have already been fielding the notion that stock markets are suffering from “irrational exuberance” and that something must be done to “temper inflation.”


Powell is also acknowledging the mass-psychological aspect of investors, now trained like Pavlovian dogs to salivate over stock tickers instead of thinking critically on the implications of equities that “can’t lose”.  When they finally begin to realize that equities can indeed lose, and that the Fed is going to let them lose, what will the result be, I wonder?


Powell: “I think we are actually at a point of encouraging risk-taking, and that should give us pause. Investors really do understand now that we will be there to prevent serious losses. It is not that it is easy for them to make money but that they have every incentive to take more risk, and they are doing so. Meanwhile, we look like we are blowing a fixed-income duration bubble right across the credit spectrum that will result in big losses when rates come up down the road. You can almost say that that is our strategy.”


Assessment: Wow! And there you have it. The new Fed chair’s own prognostications. He even used the dreaded “B” word  bubble. Yes, as I have been arguing for quite some time, the Fed will continue to raise rates and cut off the low cost money supply to banks and corporations that has helped boost stock markets as well as numerous other asset classes.  And now we discover after six years a Fed official, soon to be the Fed chairman, telling you EXACTLY what is about to happen within American markets, reinforcing my long held position.


Powell even mentions that “this is their strategy.” Now, that could be interpreted a few ways, but I continue to hold that the Fed plans to deliberately crash markets and that this will be a controlled demolition of the U.S. economy.


Trump may actually clash with Powell over these measures in the near future, considering Trump has thoroughly taken credit for the insane stock market rally that has dominated since his election. But, this will only add to the fake drama. Imagine, the very man Trump “picked” as the new head of the Federal Reserve undermining the market bubble which Trump boasts about on his Twitter account. The Kabuki theater will be phenomenal.


All the while, the true culprits behind the bubble and the crash, the international financiers and banks, will escape almost all scrutiny as the public mindlessly follows the political soap opera played out in the mainstream media.


***


If you would like to support the publishing of articles like the one you have just read, visit our donations page here. We greatly appreciate your patronage.


You can contact Brandon Smith at: brandon@alt-market.com


With global tensions spiking, thousands of Americans are moving their IRA or 401(k) into an IRA backed by physical gold. Now, thanks to a little-known IRS Tax Law, you can too. Learn how with a free info kit on gold from Birch Gold Group. It reveals how physical precious metals can protect your savings, and how to open a Gold IRA. Click here to get your free Info Kit on Gold.

Tuesday, December 26, 2017

One Bank Is Unsure If Any Humans Still Trade Stocks In Japan, Or Have All Moved To Bitcoin

While the wholesale disappearance of retail traders from stock markets is hardly a novel observation, it has taken on a whole new meaning in Japan, where the lack of carbon-based investors has prompted Deutsche Bank to ask if "Japan"s stocks are still traded at all by humans."


As Deutsche strategist Masao Muraki writes, since the US presidential election, Japanese stocks (in this case the TOPIX index) have been almost entirely defined by just three things: US stocks (S&P 500), the implied volatility (VIX), and USDJPY. This is shown in the model correlation chart below.



And while some observers think that foreigners are buying Japanese stocks on hopes for Abenomics following the Lower House election, this aspect is not apparent in the Figure above according to Deutsche. Instead, according to the German bank, it is the 10Yr US yields  that determine relative performance of Japanese and US financial stocks most directly. Additionally, interest rates, forex, and option prices (implied volatility) are defining absolute share prices for Japanese life insurers and banks, as shown in the charts below.



Furthermore, while financial institutions delivered some surprises in earnings announcements and shareholder returns and major developments took place in bank and insurers capital regulations in 2017 too, Deutsche notes that it "cannot find any indications of active change in allocations to life insurers and banks by investors due to these factors."


These observations prompt Deutsche to ask "a basic question", namely "whether the power of price decisions for Japanese stocks (particularly financial stocks) have shifted from people to algorithms or AI." Some additional thoughts:








Shift to passive fund management has accelerated, partially due to the impact of the Department of Labor’s fiduciary rules, and the trading share of active funds, which follow decisions led by human, is declining. With reduced influence, active funds appear to be focusing on sectors with drastic fundamentals changes (such as technology sector). In fact, more than 70% of inquiries from overseas equity investors to our insurance, securities, and other financial sectors team in December were about SBI, which indirectly owns cryptcurrencies. Reduction of active management costs due to MiFID2 might accelerate this activity.



And since Deutsche is clearly correct that increasingly more, if not the vast majority, of trading decisions and execution has shifted from humans to machines, the outcome is concerning, because as the German bank notes, "if the price formation based on model is prolonged, the gap between price and fundamentals will be wider. Thus, stock price correction may occur periodically."


Yet while Japanese equities may no longer be interesting to local humans, the same can not be said for bitcoin, where as the same DB strategist "discovered" two weeks ago, it was mostly "Mr. Watanabe" trading the world"s most popular cryptocurrency:








An 11 December Nikkei report stated that 40% of cryptocurrency trading in Oct-Nov was yen-denominated. Japanese traders have reportedly come to account for nearly half of cryptocurrency trading since China started to shut down cryptocurrency exchanges, and this is said to be widely known among industry insiders (various estimates exist). This report shows that Japanese men in their 30s and 40s who are engaged in leveraged FX trading (or who used to trade but have stopped) are driving the cryptocurrency market.



This in turn prompted us to wonder, tongue-in-cheek, if Bitcoin wasn"t a secretive ploy by the BOJ - which has had a far more permissive approach to bitcoin cryptocurrencies than its central bank peers - to boost Japanese animal spirits, which had been squashed by three decades of chronic deflation and disenchantment with rigged equities. Today, Deutsche Bank poses a similar question when it asks "Will Bitcoin ignite the “speculative spirit” of Japanese people?"








We will be closely monitoring the risk-taking stance of Japanese retail investors in 2018 in light of the management of ¥900trn of the ¥1,800trn as deposits in overall personal financial assets. Japanese retail investors eagerly purchased certain assets at prices with little support from fundamentals during the bubble period in the 1980s and the IT bubble period around 2000. Symbolic choices were NTT shares that listed in February 1987 for the former and Hikari Tsushin shares that listed in 1999 for the latter (Figure 1).


 


 


 


The emergence of “Bitcoin wealthy” might ignite the “speculative spirit” of Japanese people with strong follower aspirations.



Taken to its extreme, encouraging speculation in bitcoin - and in general any asset that is up over 15x YTD - would be a perfect way to rekindle not only animal spirits, but Japan"s reflationary impetus.  One can see why the BOJ could, if not would, be behind such a "wealth creation" mechanism.


Finally, as Deutsche accurately points out, "of course, speculation at prices with flimsy fundamentals support unleashes strong backlash once asset prices weaken. Overly leveraged trades, in particular, are a concern. Cryptocurrency prices plunged on 22 December, and we think this impacted retail investors using margin trades."


Well, not really, because the December 22 plunge is now long forgotten, and the real question one should ask is whether the Bank of Japan had anything to do with the sharp rebound in bitcoin which plunged as low as $10,500 last week before surging back to $16,000 earlier today...









Bubble Watch: The Fed KNOWS We"re in a 1999-Type Mania...

The Fed raised rates another 0.25% the week before last.


This marks the 5th rate hike since the Fed embarked on its policy tightening in December 2015 and the fourth rate hike in the last 12 months. The Fed’s latest statement also indicates it plans on raising rates three more times in 2018.


It is easy to gloss over the significance of this, but the Fed’s actions are indeed unusual; other major Central Banks (the Swiss National Bank, Bank of Japan, European Central Bank and Bank of England) are all currently running QE programs (the BoJ, ECB and BoE) or openly printing new money to buy stocks outright (the SNB).


What precisely is the Fed doing? Why the urge to tighten when other banks are all printing new money by the billions?


The following quotes from Fed offer us clues.


Fed Monetary Policy Report, June 2017:


“Forward price-to-earnings ratios for equities have increased to a level well above their median of the past three decades,


Fed minutes, July 2017:


"Since the April assessment, vulnerabilities associated with asset valuation pressures had edged up from notable to elevated, as asset prices remained high or climbed further, risk spreads narrowed, and expected and actual volatility remained muted in a range of financial markets."


Janet Yellen response to question from IMF Panel, October 2017:


Market valuations “are at high level in historical terms” when assessed on metrics akin to price-earnings ratios,


Fed Minutes, October 2017:


"In light of elevated asset valuations and low financial market volatility, several participants expressed concerns about a potential buildup of financial imbalances,"


Janet Yellen during Fed presser December 13th, 2017:


Stock valuations are at high end of historical levels.


I want to be clear on the significance of these statements.


The Fed’s primary role is to maintain financial stability. This means that the Fed will always downplay risks in its public statements. Indeed, former Fed Chair Ben Bernanke once stated that Fed policy is “98% talk, 2% action.”


With that in mind, the above quotes are astonishing in their clarity: the Fed is explicitly stating (in Fed terms) that the markets are in a bubble. And the Fed didn’t just do this once, the Fed has been warning about asset valuations/froth in the system for six months straight.


So just how “frothy” are things that the Fed is being so explicit?


Try “1999-levels” frothy.


Perhaps the best means of measuring frothiness in stocks is the Price to Sales (P/S) multiple. Most investors prefer to use Price to Earnings (P/E), but I am wary of that method because earnings can easily be fudged via gimmicks (different methods of depreciation, write-offs, reducing loan loss reserves, tax loopholes, etc.).


Sales, on the other hand, are very hard to fudge. Either money came in the door, or it didn’t. And if a company gets caught fudging its revenues, someone goes to jail.


With that in mind, consider that the S&P 500’s current P/S multiple has surpassed its former all time peak from 1999: a period that is now widely considered to be the single largest stock bubble in history.


Put simply, stocks are extraordinarily overvalued by a reliable measure.



H/T Bill King


However, there is one main difference between 1999 and today...


Namely, that the Fed has been INTENTIONALLY creating bubbles for nearly 20 years today... and it"s out of more senior asset classes to use!


Let me explain...


The late ‘90s was the Tech Bubble.


When that burst in the mid-‘00s, the Fed created a bubble in housing.


When that burst in ’08 the Fed created a bubble in US sovereign bonds or Treasuries.


And because these bonds are the bedrock of the US financial system, the “risk-free rate” of return against which ALL risk assets are valued, when the Fed did this it created a bubble in EVERYTHING (hence our coining of the term “The Everything Bubbleand our bestselling book by the same name).


On that note, we are putting together an Executive Summary outlining all of these issues as well as what’s to come when The Everything Bubble bursts.


It will be available exclusively to our clients. If you’d like to have a copy delivered to your inbox when it’s completed, you can join the wait-list here:


https://phoenixcapitalmarketing.com/TEB.html


Best Regards


Graham Summers


Chief Market Strategist


Phoenix Capital Research

Thursday, December 21, 2017

Is the Bond Market About to Call the Fed"s Inflationary Bluff?

Perhaps the single biggest development this year, as far as the markets were concerned, was the Fed admitting on the record that it has no idea what is going on with inflation.


This represents a kind of endgame for the Fed. Since the early ‘80s, the Fed has been actively understating inflation via a variety of gimmicks.


It first removed home prices and replaced them with “owner’s equivalent rent.” Doing that removed any sharp rise in home prices from affecting inflation data, thereby downplaying the official inflation rate.


Then in 1998, the Fed started playing around with “hedonics” (think food and energy prices). The Fed claimed that the goal was to somehow balance the deflationary forces of technology vs. the inflationary forces of hedonics items… but the reality was that this was just another gimmick to understate inflation.


Then, finally in 1999, the Fed introduced the idea of “substitutions.” Here again the Fed claimed it was trying to get an accurate read on inflation (the Fed argues here that if a consumer cannot afford steak anymore, the fact he or she can substitute hamburger indicates his or her quality of life is roughly the same as before).


And once again the goal was to understate inflation.


I realize this is getting a bit complicated, so let’s put this in simple terms…


1)   Since the early ‘80s, the Fed has been employing various gimmicks to hide the real rate of inflation.


2)   Doing this allowed the Fed to overstate GDP growth while understating the true decline in incomes/ quality of life for most Americans.


This game worked for a while, but this year the whole scheme crashed into a wall when the various gimmicks resulted in data that made no sense what-so-ever.


At a time when the NY Fed’s UIG inflation measure and the Atlanta Fed’s “sticky inflation” measure, showed inflation at 2.8% and 2.1% respectively, the Fed’s official inflation measures (CPI and trimmed PCE) were clocking in at 1.7% and 1.4%,


The Fed’s Board of Governors had a choice here:


1)   Admit the official inflation numbers were garbage


Or…


2)   Act surprised by the official rate being so low and claim it’s an anomaly.


The Fed went with #2 in what was one of the most insane Fed statements ever. According to the Fed’s July FOMC statement…


  • Most participants expect inflation to pick up over the next couple years.

  • Many Fed participants think inflation will remain below 2% longer than expected.

  • Many Fed participants believe that inflation measures dropped recently due to “idiosyncratic factors.”

  • A few Fed participants believe the Fed’s framework for forecasting inflation is no longer valid.

  • Some Fed participants noted their increase uncertainty about the outlook for inflation.

Put simply: the Fed admitted that it no longer had a clue what was going on with inflation. It has since maintained this “who knows!” shtick (I note that Fed Chair Janet Yellen, in last week’s conference stated that the Fed’s understanding of inflation is “imperfect.”)


Why does this matter?


As I explain in my bestselling book The Everything Bubble: the Endgame For Central Bank Policy, US sovereign bonds (also called Treasuries) trade based on inflation expectations.


Put simply, when inflation spikes higher, so do Treasury bond yields.


When bond yields rise, bond prices fall.


When bond prices fall, the Bond Bubble bursts.


When the Bond Bubble bursts, the EVERYTHING bubble follows.


Well, guess what? The yield on 10-Year US Treasuries is spiking, having broken above its 20-year trendline.



What"s coming will take time for this to unfold, but as I recently told clients, we"re currently in "late 2007" for the coming crisis. The time to prepare for this is NOW before the carnage hits.


On that note, we are putting together an Executive Summary outlining all of these issues as well as what’s to come when The Everything Bubble bursts.


It will be available exclusively to our clients. If you’d like to have a copy delivered to your inbox when it’s completed, you can join the wait-list here:


https://phoenixcapitalmarketing.com/TEB.html


Best Regards


Graham Summers


Chief Market Strategist


Phoenix Capital Research

Tuesday, December 19, 2017

Is It 1999? 2007? Or Both?

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,


In last week’s Technical Update, I discussed the potential for the S&P 500 to hit 2700 by Christmas. To wit:


“The current momentum behind the market advance is clearly bullish, and with the ‘smell of tax reform’ in the air, there is little to derail the bulls before year-end.


 


However, in the meantime, there seems to be nothing stopping the market from going higher. As stated in the title, the current push higher puts 2700 in sight by the time Santa fills the ‘stockings hung by the chimney with care."”




With the markets within striking distance of that target, the run to Nasdaq 7000, Dow 25000 and S&P 2700 are all but guaranteed at this juncture. More interestingly, all three will be ticking off milestone gains at some of the fastest paces in market history. In fact, the Dow has posted three all-time records just this year:


  • 70 new highs,

  • A 5000-point advance in a single year, and;

  • 12-straight months of gains.

Just as a reminder of previous market bubbles, here is what they looked like.



As I discussed with Danielle Dimartino-Booth this morning. Not only is the current rally reminiscent of 1999, but to 2007 as well. In fact, the current bubble, as she states, is a combination of both.



As Danielle and I discussed, it seems eerily familiar.


In 1999:


  • Fed was hiking rates as worries about inflationary pressures were present.

  • Economic growth was improving 

  • Interest and inflation rates were rising

  • Earnings were rising through the use of “new metrics,” share buybacks and an M&A spree. (Who can forget the market greats of Enron, Worldcom & Global Crossing)

  • Margin-debt / leverage was at the highest level on record. 

  • Stock market was beginning to go parabolic as exuberance exploded in a “can’t lose market.”

  • Speculative asset of choice: Dot.com stocks

In 2007:


  • Fed was hiking rates as worries about inflationary pressures were present.

  • Economic growth was improving 

  • Interest and inflation rates were rising

  • Debt and leverage provided a massive “buying” binge in real estate creating a “wealth effect” for consumers and high-valuations were justified because of the “Goldilocks economy.” 

  • Margin-debt / leverage was at the highest level on record. 

  • Stock market was beginning to go parabolic as exuberance exploded in a “can’t lose market.”

  • Speculative asset of choice: Real Estate

In 2017:


  • Fed was hiking rates as worries about inflationary pressures were present.

  • Economic growth is improving because of 3-hurricanes and 2-wild fires.

  • Interest and inflation rates are expected to rise

  • Earnings were rising through the use of “new metrics,” share buybacks and an M&A spree. 

  • Margin-debt / leverage is at the highest level on record. 

  • Stock market was beginning to go parabolic as exuberance exploded in a “can’t lose market.”

  • Speculative asset of choice: Bitcoin

Of course, those are just some of the similarities.


Valuations in all three cases exceeded the long-term market peaks of 23x reported earnings. Investor confidence was pushing extremes and deviations from long-term means in prices, relative-strength and moving-averages were all present.


The chart below shows the S&P 500 from 1993-present. As shown, the 100-period RSI, 3-standard deviations above the 200-dma and the 50/200 day moving average MACD line are all at historical extremes. While such readings do NOT suggest a downturn is imminent, it does suggest that risk is elevated and potential upside from current levels is likely limited.



I have combined the three periods below, scaled to 100, so you can see just how far we have currently gone.



Sure. This time could be different. It just probably isn’t.


Our Job As Investors


Again, none of this suggests the market is going to crash tomorrow. But a massive mean reversion process is coming, it is inevitable, the only question is of the timing.


As I noted last week in “The Exit Problem,” it is time to start considering sitting a little closer to the “exit.” To wit:


Am I sounding an ‘alarm bell’ and calling for the end of the known world? Should you be buying ammo and food? Of course, not.


 


However, I am suggesting that remaining fully invested in the financial markets without a thorough understanding of your ‘risk exposure’ will likely not have the desired end result you have been promised.


 


As I stated often, my job is to participate in the markets while keeping a measured approach to capital preservation. Since it is considered ‘bearish’ to point out the potential ‘risks’ that could lead to rapid capital destruction; then I guess you can call me a ‘bear.’


 


Just make sure you understand I am still in ‘theater,’ I am just moving much closer to the ‘exit.’”



What does that mean?


I have now been in the financial markets in some capacity since prior to the crash of 1987.


Yes, I am that old.


During that time I have watched investors repeat the same mistakes over and over again. From exuberance to fear, buying high to selling low, chasing returns, and always believing this time is different, only to once again be reminded it’s not. 


As the old saying goes:


“The more things change, the more they remain the same.”



If you have been around the markets for any length of time, you can quickly spot the “pigeons at the poker table.” These are the ones that continually rationalize why prices can only go higher, why this time is different than the last, and only focus on the bullish supports. Trying to “draw to an inside straight” is not impossible, it just leads to losses more often than not. 


But therein lies an important point.


As investors, our job is NOT making the case for why markets will go up.


Read that again.


Making the case for why markets will rise is a pointless endeavor because we are already invested.


If the markets rise, terrific. We all made money, and we are the better for it. However, that is not our job.


Our job, is to analyze, understand, measure, and prepare for what will reduce the value of our invested capital. 



Period.


If we are to accumulate capital over the time-span that we have available, from today until we reach retirement, the most important thing we can do to ensure our success is not suffering a large loss of capital. 


Therefore, our job as investors is actually quite simple:


  • Capital preservation

  • A rate of return sufficient to keep pace with the rate of inflation.

  • Expectations based on realistic objectives.  (The market does not compound at 8%, 6% or 4%)

  • Higher rates of return require an exponential increase in the underlying risk profile.  This tends to not work out well.

  • You can replace lost capital – but you can’t replace lost time.  Time is a precious commodity that you cannot afford to waste.

  • Portfolios are time-frame specific. If you have a 5-years to retirement but build a portfolio with a 20-year time horizon (taking on more risk) the results will likely be disastrous.


With forward returns likely to be lower and more volatile than what was witnessed in the 80-90’s, the need for a more conservative approach is rising. Controlling risk, reducing emotional investment mistakes and limiting the destruction of investment capital will likely be the real formula for investment success in the decade ahead.


This brings up some very important investment guidelines that I have learned over the last 30 years.


  • Investing is not a competition. There are no prizes for winning but there are severe penalties for losing.

  • Emotions have no place in investing.You are generally better off doing the opposite of what you “feel” you should be doing.

  • The ONLY investments that you can “buy and hold” are those that provide an income stream with a return of principal function.

  • Market valuations (except at extremes) are very poor market timing devices.

  • Fundamentals and Economics drive long-term investment decisions – “Greed and Fear” drive short-term trading. Knowing what type of investor you are determines the basis of your strategy.

  • “Market timing” is impossible– managing exposure to risk is both logical and possible.

  • Investment is about discipline and patience. Lacking either one can be destructive to your investment goals.

  • There is no value in daily media commentary– turn off the television and save yourself the mental capital.

  • Investing is no different than gambling– both are “guesses” about future outcomes based on probabilities.  The winner is the one who knows when to “fold” and when to go “all in”.

  • No investment strategy works all the time. The trick is knowing the difference between a bad investment strategy and one that is temporarily out of favor.


As an investment manager, I am neither bullish or bearish. I simply view the world through the lens of statistics and probabilities. My job is to manage the inherent risk to investment capital. If I protect the investment capital in the short term – the long-term capital appreciation will take of itself.









Saturday, December 16, 2017

Bank of Canada Governor Is Right To Be Worried About The Economy

 


Bank of Canada Governor Is Right To Be Worried About The Economy


Written by Peter Diekmeyer, Sprott Money News


 


 



Stephen Poloz Right To Be Worried - Peter Diekmeyer

 


Bank of Canada governor Stephen Poloz cited numerous worries plaguing the economy during his speech to Toronto’s financial elites yesterday at the prestigious Canadian Club.





However, the title of Poloz’s presentation, “Three things keeping me awake at night” seemed odd, given positive recent Canadian employment, GDP and other data.





Poloz highlighted high personal debts, housing prices, cryptocurrencies and other causes for concern, along with actions that the BoC is taking to alleviate them. His implicit message was (as always) “We have things under control.”





But if that’s all true, then Canada’s central bank governor should be sleeping like a baby. So, what is really keeping Mr. Poloz up at night? Three possibilities come to mind.





The Poloz Bubble




Firstly, far from just a housing bubble, Canada’s economy shows signs of being in the midst of an “everything bubble.” Bitcoin, for example, hovered near CDN $23,000 this week. Stock and bond valuations are not far behind in their relative loftiness.





Worse for Poloz, who took office four years ago, his fingerprints are all over those bubble-like levels.





Canadian stock, bond and house prices were already at dizzying heights when Stephen Harper hired Poloz with the implicit expectation that he would juice up the economy, in preparation for what Canada’s then-Prime Minister knew would be a tough upcoming election.





Poloz didn’t disappoint, promptly delivering a nice Benjamin Strong-styled “coup de whiskey” to asset prices in the form of two interest rate cuts, which brought the BoC’s policy rate down to just 0.50% during the ensuing months.





Although Harper lost the election, loose BoC policy continues to provide the Canadian government with free money to borrow and spend as it wishes.





More broadly, the Poloz BoC’s current policy, like that of the US Federal Reserve, is to boost asset prices even higher in the hope that the resulting wealth effect will trickle down to spur economic activity among ordinary Canadians.






 


At the household level, the BoC’s low interest rates enticed Canadian families to borrow themselves to the hilt. Businesses haven’t been that far behind.





The upshot is that total government, private sector and personal debts are now in nosebleed territory with Canada’s economy seemingly on a knife’s edge, in danger of crumbling at the first patch of rough road.





Chained to a Ponzi




Another worry is that the Poloz BoC, by broadly mirroring the Federal Reserve’s actions, has firmly lashed Canada to a US economy which could prove to be an even bigger Ponzi than its own.





America’s “everything bubble”, like Canada’s, has been stroked by a central bank that has been pushing credit growth at a rate faster than GDP growth, a textbook Ponzi scenario.




 




 


One result, as Grant Williams, co-founder of Real Vision Television, noted in a recent presentation, is that US stock prices are currently far higher than they were during the Internet and housing bubbles. “[Central bankers] keep hoping that this time is different,” Williams warned. “But ladies and gentlemen – it’s never different.”





Refusal to ring fence Canada




Another worry for Poloz to ponder, is that although the BoC has identified financial system interconnectedness as a key concern, the central bank has done little to ring fence Canada’s economy from huge global macro threats on the horizon.





That’s particularly true of the hundreds of trillions of dollars in global derivatives books, many of which are unquantifiable, as they are trading outside of traditional exchanges. This threat is particularly acute, as it was the failure of AIG, a derivatives player, to cover its bets (not the subprime mortgage and Lehman implosions as most assume) that sparked the 2008 financial crisis.





Poloz, had he been ready to condone a recession, could have encouraged broader interest rate hikes to incentivize Canadian governments, businesses and households to pay down debts, build up savings and increase overall system stability.





Similarly, instead of building up Canada’s gold reserves to cushion against potential external shocks, the supposedly-independent BoC (as noted above) gives the money it prints to the big banks and the Canadian government to help it finance raises for politicians and bureaucrats.





Government and academic elites would argue that Poloz’s actions are understandable as he has only limited powers. They cite key constraints on the central bank’s actions.





These range from the BoC’s agreement with the Department of Finance to target 2% inflation, the fact that the government has primary authority over foreign exchange purchases and by realpolitik which dictates that Canada has to follow US policies – or else.





Tied to discredited Keynesian econometrics




Others, such as James Rickards, author of The Road to Ruin, would argue that Poloz is plagued with the same “group think” problem that faces Fed Chairmen.





Almost all the top economists these days, despite obvious brilliance, remain trapped by Keynesian/econometrics educations they endured to get their graduate degrees, which left them with few ideas regarding how to generate growth other than to print more money.





Canada’s top central banker rarely deviates from his talking points. So, it’s almost impossible to know what he really thinks.





However, a base case scenario suggests that Poloz (who has considerable private sector experience from his days at BCA Research) knows full well the treacherous position in which the BoC has placed the Canadian economy.





If that’s true, it’s little wonder that he is having trouble sleeping.


 


 


 


Questions or comments about this article? Leave your thoughts HERE.


 


 


 


 


Bank of Canada Governor Is Right To Be Worried About The Economy




Written by Peter Diekmeyer, Sprott Money News


 


 


Check out these other articles by our contributors:




Bitcoin Proves You Cannot Have Your Digital Cake and Eat it Too - Nathan McDonald


Political Pizza - Jeff Thomas


For Clues On The Economy, Follow The Money - Dave Kranzler




Eric Sprott Talks Lows in Gold, Comex Shenanigans, and Answers Your Questions (Weekly Wrap-Up, December 15, 2017)


 

This Map Shows Where Millennials Are Buying Houses (And For How Much)

Millennial homeownership rates are essential to understanding the housing market because they facilitate additional home sales for other people.


How does this work? As HowMuch.net explains, suppose you make an offer on a house. The current owner is also probably on the market, and he or she likely has a contingent offer on another house. This sets off a chain reaction throughout the economy. Millennial homeownership rates are therefore an easy way to judge the economic vitality of any given area.


That’s why HowMuch.net created this new map...



Source: HowMuch.net


Our viz takes millennial homeownership data from Abodo and maps it by metro area across the country. Abodo adopted the data from the U.S. Census Bureau, which regularly collects a variety of information about the population, including the age of homeowners, the estimated value of their homes, and how long it would take to accumulate a 20% down payment. Our numbers are from 2015. We then overlaid this information across metro areas with bubbles representing the portion of millennial homeowners in each market: the bigger the bubble, the more millennial homeowners there are. We also color-coded each bubble to represent the median value of their homes—dark red circles mean the homes are worth over $500k, and dark blue means under $200k. This gives you a quick snapshot of the overall economy and the housing market.


The first trend you can see on the map is a clustering of red circles on both the West Coast and along the Northeast.


The most expensive city in the country for millennials is San Jose, CA, where the average millennial buys a home worth $737,077. Seattle, WA in the Northwest is also relatively expensive at $342,769. These are population-dense areas with booming tech sectors. At the other end of the spectrum, you can see clusters of blue bubbles across the Midwest in old manufacturing cities like Detroit, MI ($148,404) and Cleveland, OH ($160,251). Memphis, TN is the cheapest place for millennials at $142,795. Southern states like Texas and Florida are also relatively affordable thanks in large part to their suburban sprawl, which Zillow predicts will expand next year.


It’s no surprise that homes are more expensive in California (think Silicon Valley) than the industrial heartland, but consider how homeownership rates change based on affordability. The red bubbles all tend to be smaller than the blue bubbles. This means that as homes get more expensive, millennials become increasingly unable to afford them. It’s not like there’s a surplus of ultra-rich millennials buying up all the houses in California and New York. Millennials are just as sensitive to high prices as everyone else.


Let’s break the map down into a top ten list of the urban areas with the highest rates of millennial homeownership, combined with the average price of their home. A full 42% of the millennials living in Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN own their own home, the highest rate in the country.


1. Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI: 42.4% and $222,528


2. St. Louis, MO-IL: 40.2% and $167,791


3. Detroit-Warren-Dearborn, MI: 40.2% and $148,404


4. Louisville/Jefferson County, KY-IN: 38.5% and $158,974


5. Pittsburgh, PA: 37.5% and $152,731


6. Indianapolis-Carmel-Anderson, IN: 37.4% and $161,856


7. Kansas City, MO-KS: 37.1% and $170,254


8. Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro-Franklin, TN: 37.0% and $213,090


9. Oklahoma City, OK: 36.7% and $172,485


10. Baltimore-Columbia-Towson, MD: 36.3% and $272,805



Buying a home is often the biggest financial decision anybody makes, and that’s especially true for young people. And there’s a lot to consider when buying your first home, but one thing other than affordability to keep in mind is how many other millennials are in the same situation. If you’re a millennial looking to buy a home, and you want to live next to other young people, you just might have to move to the Midwest.









Why We Should Worry About China

Authored by Daniel Lacalle via The Mises Institute,


Many of our readers might remember the late 80s. There were hundreds of movies, songs and books about the inevitable Japanese economic invasion.


The ones of you that did not live that period can see that it did not happen.


Why? Because the Japanese growth miracle was built on a massive debt bubble and, once it burst, the country fell into stagnation for the better part of two decades. It still has not recovered.


China presents many similarities in its economic model. Massive debt, overcapacity and central planned growth targets.


Many economists and investors feel relieved because China is still growing at 6.8%. They should think twice. On one side, that level of growth is clearly overestimated. By any realistic measure of growth, China’s Gross Domestic Product annual increase is significantly lower than the official figures show. Patrick Artus, global chief economist at Natixis Global Asset Management, as well as other economists have noted that there has been a significant decoupling since mid-2014 between the government’s official growth reading and more reliable indicators. On the other hand, even if we agree with the official readings, this growth has been achieved using a worryingly high level of debt.


Chinese growth of 6.5% per annum came with more than 14% annual growth in money supply. Total debt has quadrupled since the financial crisis, and official messages of “measures to curb indebtedness” have shown a different reality. China has added more debt in 2017 than the The European Union, the US, UK, and Japan combined. The IMF estimates debt as a proportion of Gross Domestic Product may rise from 235% to almost 300% by 2022.


This increase in debt would not be a concern if it yielded solid economic returns, but the latest figures show that more than 40%of the Hang Seng Index components are adding debt to repay interests, and China needs now four times more debt to generate the same growth as in 2007. Now bond yields are soaring, which triggered a rise in bond cancellations. Companies postponed or canceled a total of 71 bond issuances worth a combined $13.42 billion in November, according to Reuters. Although bond yields are not at excessive levels, with the Chinese 10-year bond still below 4%, most companies and households cannot absorb a modest rise in yields due to the weak returns and revenues they have. A massive housing bubble has made high-risk debt rise.


Overcapacity has soared, and industries face the impossible task of keeping capacity and jobs as well as deleveraging. And exporting its way out of overcapacity is not easy. In 1992, only two G20 countries had China as one of their top five export destinations, now there are fifteen. However, in 1992 China had a productive capacity deficit, now it has 60% overcapacity, and – as it cannot destroy that excess in a centralized planned economy – it intends to export it. But this is almost impossible to achieve when excess capacity is an endemic problem all over the world.


It is true that Chinese imbalances are mostly local-currency denominated, that household savings rate is healthy and that the high productivity sectors are doing well, but that was the case with Japan in the late 80s as well. And none of these factors offset the large risks created by the housing bubble and excess debt taken by state-owned conglomerates and private businesses. These risks are highly disinflationary and are likely going to impact long-term growth and inflation expectations globally. As China tries to export its way out of the bubble, the impact on prices and trade all over the world should not be underestimated. We should not ignore the financial risks either. Although China’s financial concerns are mostly concentrated in its own system and currency, this does not mean that worldwide spill-over effects can be ruled out.


China is a big risk, and the best outcome for all the world economies is that the government forgets impossible growth targets and focuses on reducing the rising financial imbalances. All of us will prefer a modest Chinese growth-rate rather than an inevitable crisis.









Four Charts Prove The "Economic Recovery" Is Just A Fed-Induced Entitlement Program For The Wealthy

"Economic recovery" in America no longer means what it used to mean.  Historically "economic recovery" was largely characterized by job and wage growth, distributed across the income spectrum, and a rebound in GDP growth to north of ~3%-5%.  These days, the notion of "economic recovery" has been hijacked by the Fed and bastardized in such a way that they celebrate "asset bubbles" rather than real growth in economic output.


Presented as "exhibit A", here is the Fed"s modern-day definition of "economic recovery" (chart per Bloomberg):



Of course, digging a little deeper you quickly realize that the problem is even worse than what the data in the chart above might suggest.  While overall average wage growth has been anemic since 2009, to say the least, it has been almost nonexistent for those on the bottom end of the income spectrum.








Soaring markets helped the top 1 percent of Americans increase their slice of the national wealth to 39 percent in 2016, according to the Fed’s Survey of Consumer Finances. The bottom 90 percent of families held a one-third share in 1989; that’s now shrunk to less than one-quarter.


 


The current one has helped millions of people find work; it’s also benefited asset-owners far more than people who trade their labor for a paycheck. Income distribution, already the most unequal in the developed world, is getting worse. And that’s starting to influence everything from America’s spending habits to its elections.




In fact, those in the bottom quintile of wage earners in the U.S. basically haven"t experienced wage growth, on a real basis, since the late 1970"s whereas those in the top quintile have nearly doubled theirs.



Of course, none of this should be particularly surprising to those who are paying attention as the top quintile of earners are the only ones financially positioned to benefit from Yellen"s economic recovery asset bubbles...



Meanwhile, the growing wealth disparity has seemingly put America on a collision course with political chaos as fringe candidates on both the Left and Right increasingly promise to have an "easy" solution for the seemingly inescapeable economic plight of the poorest households. 


Unfortunately, the sad truth just might be that there is no solution, absent some transformational technological advancements, and that the U.S. has just reached the maturity phase of it"s "business cycle"...and while the Fed may try to cover up that fact by repeatedly blowing assets bubbles, per the charts above, they"re only making the problem worse with each successive iteration.









Friday, December 15, 2017

Swedish Housing Bubble Pops As Stockholm Apartment Prices Crash Most Since June 2009

Even though Sweden’s property bubble is not the longest running (that accolade goes to Australia at 55 years), it is probably the world’s biggest with prices up roughly 6-fold since starting its meteoric rise in 1995.



Of course, as we noted last month when the SEB"s housing price indicator, which measures the difference between those who believe prices will rise and those who expect them to drop, took its first substantial tumble, the era of the steadily inflating housing bubble in Stockholm may finally have come to an end.


Sweden


Now, it seems that the "hard data" is aligning with the "soft data" as Swedish home prices across the Nordic country posted their first decline since the spring of 2012, down 0.2% year-over-year and 2.9% sequentially.  Per Bloomberg:








The property market in the largest Nordic economy is rapidly cooling after years of price increases that were driven largely by housing shortages and ultra-low interest rates. Supply is now outstripping demand and stricter mortgage rules, as well as growing apprehension among households, are driving prices lower. The drop is being led by high-end apartments in Stockholm.


 


According to Maklarstatistik’s number, nationwide apartment prices fell a monthly 3 percent in November, adding to October’s 1 percent drop. House prices fell 1 percent in the month, after being unchanged in October. Apartment prices in greater Stockholm fell 3 percent in the month and were down 4 percent from a year earlier, the first such decline in almost six years.




Worse yet, the slump in Stockholm specifically is even more dramatic with apartment prices down 4.2% sequentially, the steepest since October 2008, and 6.0% year-over-year, the biggest June 2009.



Not surprisingly, the sudden pricing collapse has sparked a bit of a panic supply boost as sellers attempt to beat the bursting of the bubble.  Of course, we"re sure this strategy will work out perfectly, as it always does, because nothing helps correct an over-supplied market like a massive flood of even more supply. 








Greater supply “has resulted in buyers having more to choose from and taking longer before buying,” Hans Flink, head of sales and business development at Maklarstatistik, said in a statement. “The sellers are therefore starting to adjust their prices to the tougher competition, which is pushing prices down somewhat.”




Luckily, Bloomberg was able to find at least one economist who dug up some "rather encouraging" signs amongst the wreckage...








But there may be glimmers of hope. Andreas Wallstrom, an economist at Nordea Bank AB in Stockholm, said data for the last few weeks from property-listings website Booli “are rather encouraging,” as they indicate that prices have leveled out since mid-November and up until the first week of December. Average prices per square meter have even increased somewhat in both Stockholm and in the country as a whole in that period, he said.


 


“Our tentative call for December is that home prices will stay unchanged compared to November,” Wallstrom said. “In all, we forecast relatively stable home prices from here. To see a sustained downturn in prices, it will likely require a change in households’ housing costs. As long as mortgage rates remain low, which we expect, it is difficult to see a marked decline.”



Of course, we remember some Bear Stearns analysts who saw similarly "rather encouraging" signs in the U.S. housing market back in 2008...









Thursday, December 14, 2017

Bubble Watch: Warning Signs That The Everything Bubble Will Burst in 2018

I believe 2018 will be the year inflation arrives.


The reason, as I’ve noted throughout mid-2017, is that multiple Central Banks, particularly the European Central Bank (ECB), Bank of Japan (BoJ) and Swiss National Bank (SNB) have maintained emergency levels of QE and money printing, despite the fact that globally the economy is performing relatively well.


All told, in 2017 alone, these Central Banks will printed over a $1.5 trillion in new money and funneled it into the financial system. This is an all-time record, representing even more money printing than what took place in 2008 when the whole world was in the grips of the worst crisis in 80 years!


And it has finally unleashed the much sought after inflation. Around the world, inflationary data are breaking out to the upside. Producer prices are soaring in the EU, Japan, China and the US.



H/T Jeroen Blokland


Why does this matter?


Because the $199 TRILLION Bond Bubble trades based on inflation.


When inflation rises, so do bond yields to compensate.


When bond yields rise, bond prices FALL..


And when bond prices fall, this massive bubble, which I call The Everything Bubble bursts.


This process has already begun. Around the world, bond yields are spiking to the upside as the bond market adjusts to the threat of future inflation.



The time to prepare for this is NOW before the carnage hits.


On that note, we are putting together an Executive Summary outlining all of these issues as well as what’s to come when The Everything Bubble bursts.


It will be available exclusively to our clients. If you’d like to have a copy delivered to your inbox when it’s completed, you can join the wait-list here:


https://phoenixcapitalmarketing.com/TEB.html


Best Regards


Graham Summers


Chief Market Strategist


Phoenix Capital Research

2 Charts That Might Define The Fed"s Jerome Powell Era

Authored by Daniel Nevins via FFWiley.com,


In September, we proposed a theory of the Fed and suggested that the FOMC will soon worry mostly about financial imbalances without much concern for recession risks. We reached that conclusion by simply weighing the reputational pitfalls faced by the economists on the committee, but now we’ll add more meat to our argument, using financial flows data released last week.


We’ve created two charts, beginning with a look at cumulative, inflation-adjusted asset gains during the last seven business cycles:



According to the way that the Fed defines its policy approach, our first chart stamps a giant “Mission Accomplished” on the unconventional policies of recent years. Recall that policy makers explained their actions with reference to the portfolio balance channel, meaning they were deliberately enticing investors to buy riskier assets than they would otherwise hold. Policy makers hoped to push asset prices higher, and they seem to have succeeded, notwithstanding the usual debates about how much of the price gains should be attributed to central bankers. (See one of our contributions here and a couple of other papers here and here.) But whatever the impetus for assets to rise, it’s obvious that they responded. In fact, judging by the data shown in the chart, policy makers could have checked the higher-asset-prices box long ago, and with a King Size Sharpie.


Consider the measure on the vertical axis, percent of personal income. From the risky asset trough in Q1 2009 through Q3 2017, households accumulated asset gains, in real terms, equivalent to 139% of personal income. (Nominal gains were much greater, but we used the CPI to deduct the amount of purchasing power that households lost on their asset holdings. Also, we defined asset holdings as the four biggest categories that the Fed computes gains for—equities, mutual funds, real estate, and pensions.)


In other words, households are enjoying an investment windfall that amounts to nearly sixteen months of personal income, which is larger than the windfalls accrued in any other business cycle since the Fed began tracking asset gains in 1947. Not only that but the gap continues to widen—as of this writing, we’re likely approaching 145% of personal income and well clear of the previous peak of 128% from the 1991–2001 expansion.


Getting back to policy priorities, the chart seems to tell us that asset prices no longer need boosting. The Fed’s pooh-bahs proved they could boss the investment markets, and they’ve almost certainly moved on to new endeavors.


Bull, bear, or donkey?


But record asset gains are just one of the reasons the Fed’s priorities are likely to be changing. To describe another reason, we’ll first show that policy makers may wield a King Size Sharpie but that it’s not a Permanent Marker:



As you can see, our second chart looks like the first, except that we pinned the tails on the asset price donkeys.


We tacked on the down halves of each cycle, showing that the portfolio balance channel has a reverse mode.


So what should we make of the result that asset price cycles, adjusted for inflation, have ended with busts that reverse a large portion and often the entirety of the prior booms?


According to our beliefs about how investment markets work, the up and down phases of asset cycles are closely connected. Also, monetary stimulus influences both phases at the same time. It helped fuel the giant gains of recent expansions, but it also helped create the imbalances that led to giant losses. And after the accelerated advances of 2016-17, it’s fair to wonder if today’s imbalances are approaching the extremes of 2000 and 2007. Even some FOMC members are gently acknowledging that risk.


But we think the committee members are even more concerned than you would know by just reading their meeting minutes. We expect financial imbalances to become their biggest worry, bigger than the risk of recession, which should matter less and less to the central bankers’ reputations as the business cycle expansion continues to lengthen. In fact, a garden variety recession would barely affect their legacies at all by mid-2019, when the expansion, if still intact, would become the longest ever. By that time, the FOMC’s greatest reputational threat would be another financial market debacle, which would suggest that manipulating asset prices maybe wasn’t such a good idea, after all. In other words, the committee’s reputational calculus will change significantly during Jerome Powell’s first few years as chairperson.


All that said, Powell probably wants a recession-free economy in, say, his first year or two in the position. Moreover, he’ll certainly stress continuity with his predecessors’ policies. But once he becomes comfortable in the job, the Fed’s priorities will look nothing like they did under Janet Yellen and Ben Bernanke. Instead of fueling asset gains, Powell’s biggest challenge will be containing imbalances connected to prior gains. He and his peers will aim to avoid pinning another oversized tail on the donkey—or at least to manage the fallout from said tail—and that’s a challenge that could very well define his regime.