In today's issue, I'll closely analyze the recent
FOMC minutes, which were partially responsible for gold's performance on
Wednesday. Unlike many Fed minutes, this one was full of interesting
comments. However, I don't agree that the minutes spell doom for gold, as
some people think.
We'll get to that in a second, but first I wanted to
mention that we just released what I consider to be the best issue of
Miller's Money Forever so far. The reason for my enthusiasm is that
this issue virtually pays for itself – and I'm not just talking about
the stock recommendations. The main topic this month is how to find a
financial advisor who has your best interests at heart… which, in my
book, is just about the most valuable information you can get.
Case in point: Right before we went to press, a
reader sent us an email asking our opinion of a mutual fund that his advisor
had persuaded him to invest in. The investment was exactly what we
warn about. The fund has a sales load of 4.5% – that's almost at the
legal limit of 5.4%. On top of that, the annual expense ratio is 1.5%; that's
0.55% more than the average fund of its type. By buying into this money pit,
the reader was essentially down 5% for the year. Think about that: his
advisor – the expert he trusted with his money – put him in the hole 5% from the very beginning with this mutual fund.
A $10,000 purchase in this mutual fund would mean
$505 in avoidable fees. I wish our issue had come out earlier; maybe then our
reader wouldn't have paid in fees what is essentially the equivalent of a
five-year subscription to Money Forever. If you can avoid similar
mistakes over numerous transactions per year over your lifetime, the total
savings become enormous.
Even though Miller's Money Forever focuses on
retirement planning, I think everyone should read this issue. You can just
sign up for a three-month trial today, read our in-depth analysis on
financial advisors (and much more), and if you don't feel Money Forever
is right for you, cancel for a full refund within the next 90 days. You can
sign up by clicking here for instant access to the new issue, or click here to find out more about Dennis and Money Forever.
Dennis and I would love to have you as a subscriber,
but what we love even more is foiling financial advisors who rip off clients
with high fees. The more people read this issue, the better – so I
encourage you to give it a try.
With that, here's what you'll find in the Dispatch
today: After discussing the Fed minutes, we'll have a link to an interview
with H.L. Mencken, a great writer many of our readers adore. Though many have
read Mencken's work, I doubt most have ever heard him speak. Since he was a
writer in the first half of the 20th century, his voice recordings
were few and far between, and often not saved for posterity. Thanks to David
Galland's neighbor in Argentina for sending along the links.
Deciphering the Fed: The Confusion, the Mystery, and the Anger
By Vedran Vuk, Senior Research Analyst
With gold dropping nearly 3% on Wednesday, we had to
look closely at the FOMC minutes, which were partially responsible for that
movement. Since there are quite a few highlights, I have split this analysis
into three sections: the confusion over the minutes in the market; the
ambiguous language hinting at deep problems; and a few quotes to make your
A Bloomberg headline from Wednesday reads Fed Signals Possible Slowing of QE
Amid Debate over Risks. This headline is characteristic of most of the
reporting on the FOMC minutes. Supposedly the Fed signaled a desire to end
the quantitative easing earlier. There was actually no such signal.
The committee did, however, discuss possible reasons
why they might want to end QE4 earlier. Here are some excerpts from the
a few participants expressed concerns that the current highly accommodative
stance of monetary policy posed upside risks to inflation in the medium or
this regard, several participants stressed the economic and social costs of
high unemployment, as well as the potential for negative effects on the
economy's longer-term path of a prolonged period of underutilization of
resources. However, many participants also expressed some concerns about
potential costs and risks arising from further asset purchases. Several
participants discussed the possible complications that additional purchases
could cause for the eventual withdrawal of policy accommodation, a few mentioned
the prospect of inflationary risks, and some noted that further asset
purchases could foster market behavior that could undermine financial
Wow, that sounds pretty serious. It's like the Fed
has turned a new leaf. Isn't this a clear signal to the market that the
easing will end earlier? In a word, no. Here's the most important excerpt,
which came toward the end and which many people may have breezed over or
member dissented from the Committee's policy decision, expressing concern
that the continued high level of monetary accommodation increased the risks
of future economic and financial imbalances and, over time, could cause an
increase in long-term inflation expectations."
This quote puts the rest of the comments into
perspective. There was a discussion of possible risks, but at the end of day,
that's all it was, a simple discussion. Although several members expressed
concerns in the discussion, when it came down to voting on the actual policy,
only a single member dissented.
This reminds me of our internal meetings at Casey
Research. Every two weeks, the whole team – including some guest
participants – gets on a conference call to discuss the economy and
especially gold prices. During the meeting, some participants will voice concerns
about the possibility of weaker gold prices. However, at the end of the
meeting, all of us are still long gold. A discussion about a change of
direction is not the same thing as an actual planned change of direction.
It's healthy to have a devil's advocate in any discussion, regardless of the
Now, the fact that the Fed is discussing these
problems is certainly significant; after all, they could just ignore the
issues. The sheer fact that there was a discussion means there's a possibility
that at some point the concerns could become more serious and then turn into
action. But that action hasn't taken place yet, nor is the FOMC planning it.
So while what happened in the meeting may warrant a temporary weakening in
gold prices, it certainly shouldn't have resulted in Wednesday's major drop.
A few parts of the meeting were quite intriguing,
but the purposely murky wording makes it difficult to completely nail down
their meaning. It seems that the FOMC has deeper concerns than those
discussed above. Here's the first of these mysterious paragraphs from the
general, after having been depressed for some time, investor appetite for
risk had increased. A few participants commented that the Committee's
accommodative policies were intended in part to promote a more balanced
approach to risk-taking, but several others expressed concern about the
potential for excessive risk-taking and adverse consequences for financial
stability. Some participants mentioned the potential for a sharp increase in
longer-term interest rates to adversely affect financial stability and
indicated their interest in further work on this topic."
So what does "excessive risk-taking and adverse
consequences for financial stability" mean? The next sentence on
long-term interest rates offers a clue. Participants warn of a
"potential for a sharp increase in longer-term rates." Sure, a
sharp upward turn in rates would hurt just about everything, including the
stock market, but the sectors that will get hurt the most are real estate and
Let's see if we can find out which one they're
talking about. I wouldn't exactly describe the current real estate market as
an area of excessive risk-taking. Most people still won't touch real estate
with a ten-foot pole, and though real estate has heated up a bit, I wouldn't
call the recent moves in the market excessive. Bonds, however, are in a
bubble – and the yields of risky junk bonds have been pushed down a
great deal by investors piling into them in search for higher yield,
regardless of the underlying risk. Now this is just my interpretation, but it
seems to me the Fed is saying that the bond bubble is a serious problem.
Here's our next mystery paragraph:
few also raised concerns about the potential effects of further asset
purchases on the functioning of particular financial markets, although a
couple of other participants noted that there had been little evidence to
date of such effects. In light of this discussion, the staff was asked for
additional analysis ahead of future meetings to support the Committee's
ongoing assessment of the asset purchase program."
You see what I mean by murky wording.
"Particular financial markets" and "little evidence to date of
such effects" don't say much. What evidence and what effects, and in
which financial market? Apparently, the Fed members find this issue worrisome
enough to warrant further analysis; unfortunately, they're not being very
forthcoming about it. What it does show, though, is that there are two
conversations taking place about risk: one for the public and another one
behind closed doors.
As promised, here are a few quotes that might make
your blood boil. If you read through the minutes quickly, they seem benign,
but if you stop to think about them, they're infuriating. Here's the first:
2014 and 2015, real GDP was projected to accelerate gradually, supported by
an eventual lessening of fiscal policy restraint, increases in consumer and
business sentiment, further improvements in credit availability and financial
conditions, and accommodative monetary policy."
Umm… wait; what "eventual lessening of
fiscal policy restraint"? Essentially, the Fed is saying that as
economic conditions improve, the American voter will stop complaining, and
the government can finally get back to spending wheelbarrows of money. It's
scary to think that these additional government spending plans are already
reflected in the Fed's GDP projections, but apparently this isn't the only
forward-looking policy prediction from the Fed:
example, a couple of participants noted evidence suggesting that a shift in
the relationship between the unemployment rate and the level of job vacancies
in recent years was unlikely to persist as the economy recovered and
unemployment benefits returned to customary levels."
It seems that the Democrats have been very touchy
about reducing those unemployment benefits, and the Fed seems to have a lot
of faith in the government doing the right thing. But it's going to be tough
for any party to curb those benefits when unemployment rates are even as low
as 6%. Let's see what else the Fed's crystal ball forecasts for us:
staff continued to project that inflation would be subdued through 2015. That
forecast is based on the expectation that crude oil prices will trend down
slowly from their current levels, the boost to retail food prices from last
summer's drought will be temporary and relatively small, longer-run inflation
expectations will remain stable, and significant resource slack will persist
over the forecast period."
OK, I buy the argument about the temporary effect
from the summer drought, but the assumption of downward-trending oil prices
seems a bit unrealistic. And if we're seeing growth in the economy as the Fed
expects, then shouldn't the Fed forecast rising oil prices to match growing
demand? Why even tinker with the numbers in this way? The Federal Reserve
doesn't have a comparative advantage at projecting oil prices.
Here's the last bit worth noting:
addition, the Committee's highly accommodative policy was seen as helping
keep inflation over the medium term closer to its longer-run goal of 2
percent than would otherwise have been the case."
If you read that quickly, you might think to
yourself, "Well, that sounds good. I guess they managed to keep
inflation closer to the 2% target." But think about what they're
actually saying. Their accommodative policy is also known as "printing
money." That's a process of pushing inflation up, not down. So, what
they're saying is, "Man, we did a good job of pushing inflation up to
2%! Otherwise, it would have been lower." Ain't that just great?