William McChesney Martin, the longest sitting Federal Reserve Chairperson
in history, once famously quipped that it was the Fed's job to "order
the punch bowl removed just when the party" really starts to get going.
His point was that the Fed should raise interest rates and restrict liquidity
to preempt an overheating economy before the economy actually overheats and
it is too late. The metaphor is a bit dusty as it's been over a decade since
the Fed was in a tightening mode, but the "punchbowl" reference is
increasingly relevant again.
Following the first interest rate hike last December, the Fed, like
chaperones at a fraternity house party, has appeared overly concerned about
the prospect of upsetting the party-goers and has backed off from earlier
indications that it would raise rates four times this year. In mid-March, the
Fed not only passed on hiking rates but also issued its updated FOMC median
projection for the year-end Fed Funds rate. The median forecast was lowered
by 50 basis points, effectively signaling there will now be only two rate
hikes over the course of 2016. At the April FOMC meeting the Fed remained
cautious about raising rates. As things stand, rates will remain below 1% for
the rest of the year.
The news was greeted by some (including me) as a total capitulation by the
central bank to the more dovish views held by traders in the financial
markets. It added fuel to the notion that central banks have lost control and
are letting markets dictate monetary policy. Fed Chair Janet Yellen's
comments about a very gradual path were reinforced at a recent speech before
The Economic Club of New York where she used the word "gradual"
nine times. But those assurances may be part of what's driving expectations in
the Fed Funds futures market where traders are not even pricing in those two
hikes. At this point, traders don't believe the Federal Funds Rate will hit a
full 1% by the end of 2018! As that famous monetary economist Crocodile
Dundee might have said, "Now that's gradual!"
Janet Yellen has defended the Fed's dovish shift on the grounds that
"financial conditions" had tightened during the first quarter. She
cited "declines in broad measures of equity prices and higher borrowing
rates for riskier borrowers." In other words, stocks went down and junk
bond spreads widened. But, those moves in securities prices were more a
function of the fleeting fear and greed impulses of Wall Street traders than
that of some highly complex model that measures "financial conditions."
Could it then be that the whims of Wall Street traders are driving monetary
policy at the most powerful central bank in the world?
There is an even more scary feedback loop from the "frat boys"
to the Fed. Some Fed officials had cited a sharp decline in long-term
inflation expectations as another concern during the first quarter. Inflation
expectations in the markets are usually quantified by taking the difference
between the yield-to-maturity ("YTM") of a conventional Treasury
coupon bond and that of a Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) bond
of the same maturity term. This difference produces the breakeven inflation
rate, so named because if future inflation were equal to this value, then the
realized return of the conventional UST bond would be the same as for the
TIPS bond. One can extract inflation expectations for the next five years
beginning five years from now by using the 10-year and 5-year conventional
and TIPS bonds.
But as we show in the chart above, inflation for the five-year period
beginning five years from now seems to correlate highly with changes in the
spot price of oil from two nanoseconds ago. When hedge funds were heavily
shorting crude and prices were plunging into the high 20s, the inflation
expectation for five years from now plunged as well. The correlation is
over 0.9. Huh? And now, with spot oil prices having risen smartly since
mid-February, traders' expectations of what inflation will be in the five
year period beginning five years from now have risen accordingly. Bizarre!
Even more bizarre was the fact that some FOMC members would cite the plunge
as "worrisome."
This punchbowl experience is somewhat reminiscent of the prolonged cycle
of easy money maintained by the Fed in the period leading up to Y2K, an era
of monetary policy aptly characterized by the notion of the "Greenspan
Put." This was the idea that, by lowering interest rates to create cheap
money and prop up markets whenever they might get shaky, then Fed Chairman
Alan Greenspan was essentially providing investors with a put option used to
insure against market declines.
So now what?
Will every dip in stock or junk bond prices be justification for further
delaying the path to more "normal" interest rates? In our view, if
the Fed continues to postpone further tightening, market participants will
experience a worse hangover than we are already headed for. As the WSJ
characterized recently, it is as if the Fed has given inflation a hall pass.
. .suggesting that the central bank is willing to fall behind the curve on
inflation as opposed to getting ahead of it. At the risk of sounding like the
old curmudgeon at the party, things are likely to end badly.
But perhaps not. The Fed Committee has repeatedly stated that it is going
to be data-dependent, and there are reasons to expect a strengthening GDP
through the second half of 2016. More importantly, since the Fed has already
achieved its target for unemployment, which is now at 5%, greater attention
is likely to be paid to the 2% inflation target. Already, the CPI for March
is showing an inflation awakening: although the aggregate index is up only
0.9% year-over-year, that figure masked the upward trend of Services (60% of
CPI), which rose 2.7% from a year ago. Even the core PCE Deflator, the Fed's
preferred inflation measure, was up 1.6% YoY in March, and has matched the
FOMC expectations of 1.6% for year-end 2016. We believe future inflation
numbers will rise sharply as energy prices recover.
At this point, the markets have improved dramatically since the
mid-February trough: junk bond yields have dropped almost 200 basis points
and stocks have rallied 15%, and are now flirting with all-time highs. By
keeping the fed funds rate unchanged in March, the Fed has certainly made the
frat boys happy. But it won't take much further deterioration in the
inflation numbers for the data-dependent Fed to get back to cutting off the
punch bowl. If the Fed is indeed data dependent, new inflation numbers
suggesting it is falling behind the curve could lead it to put those rate
hikes right back on the table, causing the markets to slip once again into
correction mode. Notably, in the April statement the Fed deleted the reference
to "financial developments."
Fortunately, there are always groups of securities that do well even when
the leading indexes are not. MRP has outlined four themes in our Market
Viewpoints reports over the past six months that should prove to be resilient
even in a renewed broad market correction. First, MRP believes that during
periods of increasing interest rates value stocks will outperform growth
stocks. We also believe that as the Fed "gradually" tightens
monetary policy, U.S. inflation will be rising faster than interest rates,
causing the inflation-adjusted rate to fall. This in turn will cause the USD
to weaken.
As the USD falls, investors will turn to inflation-protected assets such
as gold, which will also boost gold miner shares. In recent months the dollar
has fallen more than 8% since its peak last year. The downturn has sparked a
rally in emerging markets, which we recommended as an attractive opportunity
in early December. And finally, we believe that crude oil prices have
bottomed and will rise steeply as supply shrinks while demand surges ahead.
Disclosure: 1) Statements and opinions expressed are the opinions of
Joe McAlinden and not of Streetwise Reports or its officers. Joe McAlinden is
wholly responsible for the validity of the statements. Streetwise Reports was
not involved in any aspect of the article preparation or editing so the
author could speak independently about the sector. Joe McAlinden was not paid
by Streetwise Reports for this article. Streetwise Reports was not paid by
the author to publish or syndicate this article.
2) This article does not constitute investment advice. Each reader is
encouraged to consult with his or her individual financial professional and
any action a reader takes as a result of information presented here is his or
her own responsibility. By opening this page, each reader accepts and agrees
to Streetwise Reports' terms of use and full legal disclaimer.
This article is not a solicitation for investment. Streetwise Reports does
not render general or specific investment advice and the information on
Streetwise Reports should not be considered a recommendation to buy or sell
any security. Streetwise Reports does not endorse or recommend the business,
products, services or securities of any company mentioned on Streetwise
Reports.
3) From time to time, Streetwise Reports LLC and its directors, officers,
employees or members of their families, as well as persons interviewed for
articles and interviews on the site, may have a long or short position in
securities mentioned. Directors, officers, employees or members of their
families are prohibited from making purchases and/or sales of those
securities in the open market or otherwise during the up-to-four-week
interval from the time of the interview until after it publishes.
Charts courtesy of Joe McAlinden
