Income Inequality? American Savers Treated Like Dogs

By Tony Sagami

One of the hot political topics these days is income inequality, but one of the groups of Americans that’s the most mistreated by Washington DC is the millions of Americans who have responsibly saved for their retirement.

When I entered the investment business as a stock broker at Merrill Lynch in the 1980s, savers could routinely get 7-9% on their money with riskless CDs and short term Treasury bonds.

In fact, I sold multimillions of dollars’ worth of 16 year zero coupon Treasury bonds at the time. Zero coupon bonds are debt instruments that don’t pay interest (a coupon) but are instead traded at a deep discount, rendering profit at maturity when the bond is redeemed for its full face value.

At the time, long term interest rates were at 8%, so the zero coupon Treasury bonds that I sold cost $250 each but matured at $1,000 in 16 years. A government-guaranteed quadruple!

Ah, those were the good old days for savers, largely thanks to the inflation fighting tenacity of Paul Volcker, chairman of the Federal Reserve under Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan from August 1979 to August 1987.

Monetary policies couldn’t be more different under Alan “Mr. Magoo” Greenspan, “Helicopter” Ben Bernanke, and Janet Yellen. This trio of hear see speak no evil bureaucrats have never met an interest rate cut that they didn’t like and have pushed interest rates to zero.

The yield on the 30 year Treasury bond hit an all time record low last week at 2.45%. Yup, an all time low that our country hasn’t seen in more than 300 years!

These low yields have made it increasingly difficult to earn a decent level of income from traditional fixed-income vehicles like money markets, CDs, and bonds.

Unless you’re content with near-zero return on your savings, you’ve got to adapt to the new era of ZIRP (zero interest rate policy). However, you cannot just dive into the income arena and buy the highest paying investments you can find. Most are fraught with hidden risks and dangers.

So to fully understand how to truly and dramatically boost your investment income, you absolutely must look at your investments in a new light, fully understanding the new risks as well as the new opportunities. There are really two challenges that all of us will face as we transition from employment to retirement: longer life expectancies; and lower investment yields.

Risk #1: Improved health care and nutrition have dramatically boosted life expectancies for both men and women. We will all enjoy a longer, healthier life, which means more time to enjoy retirement and spend with friends/family, but it also means that whatever money we’ve accumulated will have to work harder as well as longer.

Today, a 65 year-old man can expect to live until age 82, almost four years longer than 25 years ago; the life expectancy for a 65 year old woman is also up—from 82 years in the early 1980s to 85 today.

The steady increase in life expectancy is definitely something to celebrate, but it also means we’ll need even bigger nest eggs.

Risk #2: Don’t forget about inflation. Prices for daily necessities are higher than they were just a few years ago and constantly erode the purchasing power of your savings.

The way I see it, your comfort in retirement has never been more threatened than it is today, and it doesn’t matter if you’re 20 or 70.

The rules are different, and you only have two choices:

#1. spend your retirement as a Walmart greeter (if you’re lucky enough to get a job!); or

#2. adapt to the new rules of income investing.

Today, the new rules of successful income investing consist of putting together a collection of income focused assets, such as dividend paying stocks, bonds, ETFs, and real estate, that generate the highest possible annual income at the lowest possible risk.

Even in an environment of near zero interest rates and global uncertainty, there are many ways an investor can generate a healthy income while remaining in control. Income stocks should form the core of your income portfolio.

Income stocks are usually found in solid industries with established companies that generate reliable cash flow. Such companies have little need to reinvest their profits to help grow the business or fund research and development of new products, and are therefore able to pay sizeable dividends back to their investors.
What do I look for when evaluating income stocks?

• Macro picture. While it’s a subjective call, we want to invest in companies that have the big-picture macroeconomic wind at their backs and have long-term sustainable business models that can thrive in the current economic environment.

• Competitive advantage. Does the company have a competitive advantage within its own industry? Investing in industry leaders is generally more productive than investing in the laggards.

• Management. The company’s management should have a track record of returning value to shareholders.

• Growth strategy. What’s the company’s growth strategy? Is it a viable growth strategy given our forward view of the economy and markets?

• A dividend payout ratio of 80% or less, with the rest going back into the company’s business for future growth. If a business pays out too much of its profit, it can hurt the firm’s competitive position.

• A dividend yield of at least 3%. That means if a company has a $10 stock price, it pays annual cash dividends of at least $0.30 a year per share.

• The company should have generated positive cash flow in at least the last year. Income investing is about protecting your money, not hitting the ball out of the park with risky stock picks.

• A high return on equity, or ROE. A company that earns high returns on equity is usually a better-than-average business, which means that the dividend checks will keep flowing into our mailboxes.

This doesn’t mean that you should rush out and buy a bunch of dividend-paying stocks tomorrow morning. As always, timing is everything, and many—if not most—dividend stocks are vulnerably overpriced.

But make no mistake; interest rates aren’t rising anytime soon, and the solid, all weather income stocks (like the ones in my Yield Shark service) will help you build and enjoy a prosperous retirement. In fact, you can click here to see the details on one of the strongest income stocks I’ve profiled in Yield Shark in months.


Tony Sagami

30 year market expert Tony Sagami leads the Yield Shark and Rational Bear advisories at Mauldin Economics. To learn more about Yield Shark and how it helps you maximize dividend income, click here.

To learn more about Rational Bear and how you can use it to benefit from falling stocks and sectors, click here.

The article Connecting the Dots: Income Inequality? American Savers Treated Like Dogs was originally published at mauldineconomics.com.

Get our latest FREE eBook "Understanding Options"....Just Click Here!

Would a Republican Win Be Bullish for the Stock Market?

By Jared Dillian

I had an instant messenger conversation with one of my clients the other day. It was pretty annoying—he wrote things like “BULL MARKET, DUDE,” and harangued me about my net-short positioning. Then he started telling me that the market was going to rip if the Republicans took both houses of Congress in the midterm elections. At that point, I felt like I needed to intervene.

First of all, just about every single piece of academic research on the subject shows that the stock market (and GDP, and many other metrics) outperforms under Democratic presidents. You don’t need to look very far for a contemporary example, considering that the stock market has done a three bagger under our current leader, and the economy has recovered.

Wait, that doesn’t make any sense. The current administration is the least friendly to business and private enterprise in recent history—so why have stocks been in a prolonged bull market? There are a million reasons why, but let’s focus on the biggest and most obvious one: the Federal Reserve.

Shaping the Fed Board of Governors

Lots of people have opinions on the Fed without really knowing the Fed as an institution or how it works.
To review, there are seven members of the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors who live and work in Washington, DC. They are presidential appointees, and their term of service is 14 years.

There are 12 regional bank presidents, who are nominated by their respective boards of directors. They are not, theoretically speaking, political appointees. Four of them at a time serve on the FOMC, on a rotational basis. The president of the New York Fed is a permanent member of the FOMC. Their term of service is five years.

In the old days, a Fed governor would serve all 14 years, but now they have to go make money on the speaker circuit, so they serve only three to five years if they are lucky. This means that a two-term president has the opportunity to “pack the court” with Fed governors of similar political affiliation over an eight-year period.

I would argue that the power to shape the Fed Board of Governors is even greater than the power to shape the Supreme Court.

Look at the current Board of Governors:

Janet Yellen
Stanley Fischer
Daniel Tarullo
Jerome Powell
Lael Brainard

There are two vacancies, but these are all Obama appointees. Yellen served as president of the San Francisco Fed before joining the Board of Governors as vice chair.

By and large, you can divide up central bankers into two camps: dovish central bankers, who prefer easy monetary policy (low interest rates) and hawkish central bankers, who prefer tighter monetary policy (high interest rates). Dovish central bankers tend to be Democrats. Hawks tend to be Republicans. It’s not a one-for-one correlation, but it’s close.

Everyone currently on the Board of Governors is a dove. (Powell is sometimes thought of as a centrist.) There are some hawks at the regional Federal Reserve banks, since the boards of directors are businesspeople and tend to appoint other businesspeople. Jeffrey Lacker, Charles Plosser, and Richard Fisher are all notable hawks. Inconveniently, though, they only end up on the FOMC once every three years.
George W. Bush packed the Fed, too (Duke, Warsh, Mishkin, Kroszner), but his appointees are all gone now. However, if they had served out their 14-year terms, they would still be around, and we would have a much more balanced Fed.

What Life Would Look Like Under a Hawkish Fed

Even though the presidential election is two years away, I think it’s worth having this conversation today. Seriously, what would happen if someone like Rand Paul became president? And Congress were solidly Republican?

Let’s start with the Fed. Yellen would not be reappointed; that is very clear. Over the course of a few years, the Board of Governors would be reshaped.

It’s hard to imagine in a day and age where every time a relatively benign stock market correction occurs, Fed officials are dropping hints of quantitative easing, but a hawkish Fed wouldn’t go for that kind of stuff. It would allow the market to purge its own excesses. It might even be a little laissez-faire.

We’ve had an interventionist Fed and an interventionist monetary policy on and off throughout the history of central banking, but especially since 1998, when the Greenspan Fed bailed out everyone during the blowup of Long-Term Capital Management (LTCM).

I remember reading articles about the “Greenspan Put” in 2000. That turned into the Bernanke Put, then the Yellen Put, and more recently, the Bullard Put. If there’s a perception that the Fed doesn’t allow the stock market to go down, it is probably because the Fed really doesn’t want the market to go down.

All kinds of conspiracy theories have blossomed from this (the Plunge Protection Team, for example), which I don’t like. But the Fed has nobody to blame but itself.

Under a hawkish Fed, valuations would be sharply lower. “Sharply” is italicized here for a reason. If we get away from QE and ZIRP and back to something resembling a normal rate environment, you’d be looking at the stock market being down 20-40%.

Would a Republican Midterm Win Be Bullish?

Aside from the Federal Reserve, a Republican administration, together with Congress, would completely reshape government, in ways that we can’t even conceive of right now. Would the resulting legislation be more business-friendly? Well, it might be more market-friendly, and market-friendly and business-friendly are two different things.

I think there is a reason that the stock market outperforms during Democratic administrations. Two, actually.

1. Republicans appoint hawkish Fed officials who tend to tank the market.
2. Republicans tend to pass supply-side legislation, which works with a long lag.

I think Reagan should get credit for the massive expansion of the ‘80s and ‘90s, and Clinton should get credit for expanding free trade, but people forget that the early years of Reagan’s presidency were very tough. Paul Volcker unleashed a hurricane-force bear market—the ‘82 recession was one of the worst on record, though the economy recovered quickly.

So, no—I don’t think it’s clear that Republicans winning the midterm elections is bullish at all, aside from what a few computer algorithms will do the day after. In fact, I think it could be the prelude to a lot of pain in the markets.

I’m sure investors will be exchanging some inadvisable fist bumps the morning after Election Day. When George W. Bush was reelected in 2004, the market went bananas, but let’s not forget that he campaigned on lower taxes on dividends and capital gains. 2016 will be very, very different.

Jared Dillian

The article The 10th Man: Midterm Elections: Would a Republican Win Be Bullish for the Stock Market? was originally published at mauldin economics

Get our latest FREE eBook "Understanding Options"....Just Click Here!

Yellen’s Wand Is Running Low on Magic

By Doug French, Contributing Editor

How important is housing to the American economy?

If a 2011 SMU paper entitled "Housing's Contribution to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) quot; is right, nothing moves the economic needle like housing. It accounts for 17% to 18% of GDP. And don't forget that home buyers fill their homes with all manner of stuff—and that homeowners have more skin in insurance on what's likely to be their family's most important asset. All claims to the contrary, the disappointing first quarter housing numbers expose the Federal Reserve as impotent at influencing GDP's most important component.

The Fed: Housing's Best Friend

 

No wonder every modern Fed chairman has lowered rates to try to crank up housing activity, rationalizing that low rates make mortgage payments more affordable. Back when he was chair, Ben Bernanke wrote in the Washington Post, "Easier financial conditions will promote economic growth. For example, lower mortgage rates will make housing more affordable and allow more homeowners to refinance."

In her first public speech, new Fed Chair Janet Yellen said one of the benefits to keeping interest rates low is to "make homes more affordable and revive the housing market."

As quick as they are to lower rates and increase prices, Fed chairs are notoriously slow at spotting their own bubble creation. In 2002, Alan Greenspan viewed the comparison of rising home prices to a stock market bubble as "imperfect." The Maestro concluded, "Even if a bubble were to develop in a local market, it would not necessarily have implications for the nation as a whole."

Three years later—in 2005—Ben Bernanke was asked about housing prices being out of control. "Well, I guess I don't buy your premise," he said. "It's a pretty unlikely possibility. We've never had a decline in home prices on a nationwide basis." With never a bubble in sight, the Fed constantly supports housing while analysts and economists count on the housing stimulus trick to work.

2014 GDP Depends on Housing

 

"There's more expansion ahead for the housing market in 2014, with starts and new-home sales continuing to rise at double-digit rates, thanks to tight inventory," writes Gillian B. White for Kiplinger. The "Timely, Trusted Personal Finance Advice and Business Forecast(er)" says GDP will bounce back. Fannie Mae Chief Economist Doug Duncan says, "Our full-year 2014 economic forecast accounts for three key growth drivers: an acceleration in spending activity from private-sector forces, waning fiscal drag from the federal government, and continued improvement in the housing market."
We'll see about that last one.

Greatest Housing Subsidy of All Time Running Out of Gas

 

With the central bank flooding the markets with liquidity, holding short rates low, and buying long term debt, mortgage rates have been consistently below 5% since the start of 2009. For all of 2012, the 30 year fixed mortgage rate stayed below 4%. In the post gold standard era (after 1971), rates have never been this low for this long. The Fed's unprecedented mortgage subsidy has helped the market make a dead cat bounce since the crash of 2008. After peaking in July 2006 at 206.52, the Case-Shiller 20 City composite index bottomed in February 2012 at 134.06. It had recovered to 165.50 as of January. However, while low rates have propped up prices, sales of existing homes have fallen in seven of the last eight months. In March resales were down 7.5% from a year earlier. That's the fifth month in a row in which sales fell below the year earlier level.

David Stockman writes, "March sales volume remained the slowest since July 2012." He listed 13 major metro areas whose sales declined from a year ago, led by San Jose, down 18%. The three worst performers and 6 of the bottom 11 were California cities. Las Vegas and Phoenix were also in the bottom 10, with sales down double digits from a year ago. This after housing guru Ivy Zelman told CNBC in February, "California is back to where it was in nirvana." Considering the entire nation, she said, "I think nirvana is not far around the corner… I think that I have to tell you, I'm probably the most bullish I've ever been fundamentally, and I'm dating myself, been around for over 20 years, so I've seen a lot of ups and downs."

Housing Headwinds

 

Housing is contributing less to overall growth than during both the days of 20% mortgage rates in the 1980s and the S&L crisis of the early 1990s. In Phoenix, where home prices have bounced back and Wall Street money has vacuumed up thousands of distressed properties, the market has gone flat. In Belfiore Real Estates' April market report, Jim Belfiore wrote, "The bad news for home builders is they have created a glut of supply in previously hot market areas… Potential buyers, as might be expected, feel no sense of urgency to buy because they believe this glut is going to exist indefinitely."

Nick Timiraos points out in the Wall Street Journal that with a 4.5% mortgage rate and prices 20% below their peak, "… homes are still more affordable than in most periods between 1990 and 2008." So why is demand for new homes so tepid? And why have refinancings fallen 58% year over year in the first quarter?
"Housing's rocky recovery could signal weakness more broadly in the economy," writes Timiraos, "reflecting the lingering damage from the bust that has left millions of households unable to participate in any housing recovery. Many still have properties worth less than the amount borrowers owe on their mortgages, while others have high levels of debt, low levels of savings, and patchy incomes."

More specifically, "So far we have experienced 7 million foreclosures," David Stockman, former director of the Office of Management and Budget, writes. "Beyond that there are still nine million homeowners seriously underwater on their mortgages, and there are millions more who are stranded in place because they don't have enough positive equity to cover transactions costs and more stringent down payment requirements." Young people used to drive real estate growth, but not anymore. The percentage of young home buyers has been declining for years. Between 1980 and 2000, the percentage of homeowners among people in their late twenties fell from 43% to 38%. And after the crash, the downtrend continued. The percentage of young people who obtained mortgages between 2009 and 2011 was just half what it was ten years ago.

Young people don't seem to view owning a home as the American dream, as was the case a generation ago. Plus, who has room to take on more debt when 7 in 10 students graduate college with an average $30k in student loan debt? "First time home buyers are typically an important source of incremental housing demand, so their smaller presence in the market affects house prices and construction quite broadly," Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke told homebuilders two years ago.

There's not much good news for housing these days. For a little while, the Fed's suppression of interest rates juiced housing enough to distract Americans from weak job creation and stagnant real wages. Don't have a job? No problem! Just borrow against the appreciation of your house to feed your family. But Yellen's interest rate wand looks to be out of magic. The government had a pipe dream of white picket fences for everyone. But Americans can't refinance their way to wealth. Especially in the Greater Depression.

Read more about the Fed’s back-breaking economic shenanigans and the ways to protect your assets in the Casey Daily Dispatch—your daily go-to guide for gold, silver, energy, technology, and crisis investing.

Click here to sign up—it’s Free.

The article Yellen’s Wand Is Running Low on Magic was originally published at Casey Research

Sign up for one of our Free Trading Webinars....Just Click Here!

 

Every Central Bank for Itself

By John Mauldin

“Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face.”

– Mike Tyson

For the last 25 days I’ve been traveling in Argentina and South Africa, two countries whose economies can only be described as fragile, though for very different reasons. Emerging market countries face a significantly different set of challenges than the developed world does. These challenges are compounded by the rather indifferent policies of developed world central banks, which are (even if somewhat understandably) entirely self centered. Argentina has brought its problems upon itself, but South Africa can somewhat justifiably express frustration at the developed world, which, as one emerging market central bank leader suggests, is engaged in a covert currency war, one where the casualties are the result of unintended consequences. But the effects are nonetheless real if you’re an emerging market country.

While I will write a little more about my experience in South Africa at the end of this letter, first I want to cover the entire emerging market landscape to give us some context. Full and fair disclosure requires that I give a great deal of credit to my rather brilliant young associate, Worth Wray, who’s helped me pull together a great deal of this letter while I am on the road in a very busy speaking tour here in South Africa for Glacier, a local platform intermediary. They have afforded me the opportunity to meet with a significant number of financial industry participants and local businessman, at all levels of society. It has been a very serious learning experience for me. But more on that later; let’s think now about the problems facing emerging markets in general.

Every Central Bank for Itself

Every general has a plan before going into battle, which immediately begins to change upon contact with the enemy. Everyone has a plan until they get hit… and emerging markets have already taken a couple of punches since May 2013, when Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke first signaled his intent to “taper” his quantitative easing program and thereby incrementally wean the markets off of their steady drip of easy money. It was not too long after that Ben also suggested that he was not responsible for the problems of emerging-market central banks – or any other central bank, for that matter.

As my friend Ben Hunt wrote back in late January, Chairman Bernanke turned a single data point into a line during his last months in office, when he decided to taper by exactly $10 billion per month. He established the trend, and now the markets are reacting as if the Fed's exit strategy has officially begun.

Whether the FOMC can actually turn the taper into a true exit strategy ultimately depends on how much longer households and businesses must deleverage and how sharply our old age dependency ratio rises, but markets seem to believe this is the beginning of the end. For now, that’s what matters most.

Under Fed Chair Janet Yellen’s leadership, the Fed continues to send a clear message to the rest of the world: Now it really is every central bank for itself. 

The QE-Induced Bubble Boom in Emerging Markets

By trying to shore up their rich-world economies with unconventional policies such as ultra low rate targets, outright balance sheet expansion, and aggressive forward guidance, major central banks have distorted international real interest rate differentials and forced savers to seek out higher (and far riskier) returns for more than five years.

This initiative has fueled enormous overinvestment and capital misallocation – and not just in advanced economies like the United States.

As it turns out, the biggest QE-induced imbalances may be in emerging markets, where, even in the face of deteriorating fundamentals, accumulated capital inflows (excluding China) have nearly DOUBLED, from roughly $5 trillion in 2009 to nearly $10 trillion today. After such a dramatic rise in developed world portfolio allocations and direct lending to emerging markets, developed world investors now hold roughly one third of all emerging market stocks by market capitalization and also about one third of all outstanding emerging market bonds.

The Fed might as well have aimed its big bazooka right at the emerging world. That’s where a lot of the easy money ran blindly in search of more attractive real interest rates, bolstered by a broadly accepted growth story.

The conventional wisdom – a particularly powerful narrative that became commonplace in the media – suggested that emerging markets were, for the first time in a long time, less risky than developed markets, despite their having displayed much higher volatility throughout the past several decades.

As a general rule, people believed emerging markets had much lower levels of government debt, much stronger prospects for consumption led growth, and far more favorable demographics. (They overlooked the fact that crises in the 1980s and 1990s still limited EM borrowing limits until 2009 and ignored the fact that EM consumption is a derivative of demand and investment from the developed world.)

Instead of holding traditional safe haven bonds like US treasuries or German bunds, some strategists (who shall not be named) even suggested that emerging market government bonds could be the new safe haven in the event of major sovereign debt crises in the developed world. And better yet, it was suggested that denominating these investments in local currencies would provide extra returns over time as EM currencies appreciated against their developed market peers.

Sadly, the conventional wisdom about emerging markets and their currencies was dead wrong. Herd money (typically momentum based, yield chasing investors) usually chases growth that has already happened and almost always overstays its welcome. This is the same disappointing boom/bust dynamic that happened in Latin America in the early 1980s and Southeast Asia in the mid 1990s. And this time, it seems the spillover from extreme monetary accommodation in advanced countries has allowed public and private borrowers to leverage well past their natural carrying capacity.

Anatomy of a “Balance of Payments” Crisis

The lesson is always the same, and it is hard to avoid. Economic miracles are almost always too good to be true. Whether we’re talking about the Italian miracle of the ’50s, the Latin American miracle of the ’80s, the Asian Tiger miracles of the ’90s, or the housing boom in the developed world (the US, Ireland, Spain, et al.) in the ’00s, they all have two things in common: construction (building booms, etc.) and excessive leverage. As a quick aside, does that remind you of anything happening in China these days?

Just saying…...Broad based, debt fueled overinvestment may appear to kick economic growth into overdrive for a while; but eventually disappointing returns and consequent selling lead to investment losses, defaults, and banking panics. And in cases where foreign capital seeking strong growth in already highly valued assets drives the investment boom, the miracle often ends with capital flight and currency collapse.

Economists call that dynamic of inflow induced booms followed by outflow induced currency crises a “balance of payments cycle,” and it tends to occur in three distinct phases.

In the first phase, an economic boom attracts foreign capital, which generally flows toward productive uses and reaps attractive returns from an appreciating currency and rising asset prices. In turn, those profits fuel a self-reinforcing cycle of foreign capital inflows, rising asset prices, and a strengthening currency.

In the second phase, the allure of promising recent returns morphs into a growth story and attracts ever stronger capital inflows – even as the boom begins to fade and the strong currency starts to drag on competitiveness. Capital piles into unproductive uses and fuels overinvestment, overconsumption, or both; so that ever more inefficient economic growth increasingly depends on foreign capital inflows. Eventually, the system becomes so unstable that anything from signs of weak earnings growth to an unanticipated rate hike somewhere else in the world can trigger a shift in sentiment and precipitous capital flight.

To continue reading this article from Thoughts from the Frontline – a free weekly publication by John Mauldin, renowned financial expert, best-selling author, and Chairman of Mauldin Economics – Please Click Here.

The article Thoughts from the Frontline: "Every Central Bank for Itself" was originally published at Mauldin Economics

Sign up for one of our Free Trading Webinars....Just Click Here!

Weekly Futures Recap With Mike Seery for week ending March 21st

Natural gas prices are trading below their 20 day but above their 100 day moving average in the April contract telling you that the trend is mixed as prices have broken down recently hitting a 7 week low in last Fridays trade as warm weather is on the horizon. The trend has turned negative at least here in the short term as I would sell a futures contract at the break out of 4.40 and place my stop loss at the 2 week high which currently stands at 4.73 risking around $3,300 if your trading the large contract or $850 dollars in the mini contract as the chart structure is very solid allowing you to place a tight stop loss minimizing risk. The long term trend is higher in natural gas as prices rallied to 5.20 last month due to the cold weather however I am trading with the short term trend which is lower while making sure that the chart structure is solid before entering so currently this meets criteria.
TREND: LOWER
CHART STRUCTURE: SOLID

Coffee futures in New York finished lower for the 6th consecutive trading session finishing lower by about 2800 points for the trading week hitting a 4 week low in today’s trade and if you followed my recommendation in yesterday’s blog when prices hit 181 which was the 10 day low I was recommending to take profits and move on as this market remains neutral at this time so sit on the sidelines and wait for better chart pattern to develop. Prices are trading below their 20 day but above their 100 day moving average telling you the trend is mixed and as I stated yesterday I believe a possible good entry to get long this market is around 160 level which is about the 50% retracement from recent lows to highs as I don’t believe this bull market is over it was just overextended to the upside. I keep in contact with several Brazilian coffee producers and they still believe that the crop is devastated and prices eventually will move higher so look for a possible entry point below the market as prices still remain weak finishing down over 300 points this Friday afternoon right near session lows.
TREND: MIXED
CHART STRUCTURE: POOR

Sugar futures were down about 35 points this week hitting a 4 week low as prices continue to the downside and I still remain neutral this market as I’m waiting to see better chart structure as the trend currently is mixed so look for some other commodity that has a strong trend and just keep an eye on sugar at this time. The 50% retracement from contract lows of around 15.00 to the recent 4 month highs that were hit earlier in the month was 18.50 which is about 350 points divided by 2 equaling 175 points so currently the 50% retracement is at about 16.75 which is just an eyelash away so if you’re looking at possibly getting long this market look to buy around that level. Sugar futures are trading far below their 20 day and right at the 100 day moving average as the next support levels are all the way down at 16.00.
TREND: MIXED
CHART STRUCTURE: SOLID

The 10 year notes in Chicago this week sold off sharply due to the fact of Janet Yellen’s testimony stating that bond purchases that the Federal Reserve has been doing for several years now will come to an end in September with the possibility of rates rising 6 months after that date sending the yield on the 10 year note to 2.77% & in my opinion I think the bond market has started their bearish trend. Prices are trading below their 20 and 100 day moving average hitting an 8 week low and I’m recommending selling the futures contract at today’s price placing your stop above the 10 day high at 125 risking around $2,000 per contract as the trend has turned bearish and I think this could be a special situation as interest rates look to finally start to rise after years of record low rates.
TREND: LOWER
CHART STRUCTURE: EXCELLENT

Still time to sign up for this weeks webinar "How to Trade Options - The Complete Roadmap"

Forecast 2014: The Killer D’s

By John Mauldin

It seems I'm in a constant dialogue about the markets and the economy everywhere I go. Comes with the territory. Everyone wants to have some idea of what the future holds and how they can shape their own personal version of the future within the Big Picture. This weekly letter is a large part of that dialogue, and it's one that I get to share directly with you. Last week we started a conversation looking at what I think is the most positive and dynamic aspect of our collective future: The Human Transformation Revolution. By that term I mean the age of accelerating change in all manner of technologies and services that is unfolding before us. It is truly exhilarating to contemplate. Combine that revolution with the growing demand for a middle class lifestyle in the emerging world, and you get a powerful engine for growth. In a simpler world we could just focus on those positives and ignore the fumbling of governments and central banks. Alas, the world is too complex for that.

We'll continue our three part 2014 forecast series this week by looking at the significant economic macrotrends that have to be understood, as always, as the context for any short term forecast. These are the forces that are going to inexorably shift and shape our portfolios and businesses. Each of the nine macrotrends I'll mention deserves its own book (and I've written books about two of them and numerous letters on most of them), but we'll pause to gaze briefly at each as we scan the horizon.

The Killer D's
The first five of our nine macro-forces can be called the Killer D's: Demographics, Deficit, Debt, Deleveraging, and Deflation. And while I will talk about them separately, I am really talking threads that are part of a tapestry. At times it will be difficult to say where one thread ends and the others begin.

Demographics – An Upside Down World
One of the most basic human drives is the desire to live longer. And there is a school of economics that points out that increased human lifespans is one of the most basic and positive outcomes of economic growth. I occasionally get into an intense conversation in which someone decries the costs of the older generation refusing to shuffle off this mortal coil. Typically, this discussion ensues after I have commented that we are all going to live much longer lives than we once expected due to the biotechnological revolution. Their protests sometimes make me smile and suggest that if they are really worried about the situation, they can volunteer to die early. So far I haven't had any takers.

Most people would agree that growth of the economy is good. It is the driver of our financial returns. But older people spend less money and produce far less than younger, more active generations do. Until recently this dynamic has not been a problem, because there were far more young people in the world than there were old. But the balance has been shifting for the last few decades, especially in Japan and Europe.

An aging population is almost by definition deflationary. We can see the results in Japan. An aging, conservative population spends less. An interesting story in the European Wall Street Journal this week discusses the significant amount of cash that aging Japanese horde. In Japan there is almost three times as much cash in circulation, per person, as there is in the US. Though Japan is a country where you can buy a soft drink by swiping your cell phone over a vending machine data pad, the amount of cash in circulation is rising every year, and there are actually proposals to tax cash so as to force it back into circulation.

A skeptic might note that 38% of Japanese transactions are in cash and as such might be difficult to tax. But I'm sure that Japanese businesses report all of their cash income and pay their full share of taxes, unlike their American and European counterparts.

Sidebar: It is sometimes difficult for those of us in the West to understand Japanese culture. This was made glaringly obvious to me recently when I watched the movie 47 Ronin. In the West we may think of Sparta or the Alamo when we think of legends involving heroic sacrifice. The Japanese think of the 47 Ronin. From Wikipedia:

The revenge of the Forty-seven Ronin (Shi-jū-shichi-shi, forty-seven samurai) took place in Japan at the start of the 18th century. One noted Japanese scholar described the tale, the most famous example of the samurai code of honor, bushidō, as the country's "national legend."

The story tells of a group of samurai who were left leaderless (becoming ronin) after their daimyo (feudal lord) Asano Naganori was compelled to commit seppuku (ritual suicide) for assaulting a court official named Kira Yoshinaka, whose title was Kōzuke no suke. The ronin avenged their master's honor by killing Kira, after waiting and planning for almost two years. In turn, the ronin were themselves obliged to commit seppuku for committing the crime of murder. With much embellishment, this true story was popularized in Japanese culture as emblematic of the loyalty, sacrifice, persistence, and honor that people should preserve in their daily lives. The popularity of the tale grew during the Meiji era of Japanese history, in which Japan underwent rapid modernization, and the legend became subsumed within discourses of national heritage and identity.

The point of my sidebar (aside from talking about cool guys with swords) is that, while Japan may be tottering, the strong social fabric of the country, woven from qualities like loyalty, sacrifice, and diligence, should keep us from being too quick to write Japan off.

"Old Europe" is not far behind Japan when it comes to demographic challenges, and the United States sees its population growing only because of immigration. Russia's population figures do not bode well for a country that wants to view itself as a superpower. Even Iran is no longer producing children at replacement rates. At 1.2 children per woman, Korea's birth rates are even lower than Japan's. Indeed, they are the lowest in the World Bank database.

A basic equation says that growth of GDP is equal to the rate of productivity growth times the rate of population growth. When you break it down, it is really the working-age population that matters. If one part of the equation, the size of the working-age population, is flat or falling, productivity must rise even faster to offset it. Frankly, developed nations are simply not seeing the rise in productivity that is needed.
As a practical matter, when you are evaluating a business as a potential investment, you need to understand whether its success is tied to the growth rate of the economy and the population it serves.

In our book Endgame Jonathan Tepper and I went to great lengths to describe the coming crisis in sovereign debt, especially in Europe, which shortly began to play itself out. In the most simple terms, there can come a point when a sovereign government runs up against its ability to borrow money at reasonable rates. That point is different for every country. When a country reaches the Bang! moment, the market simply starts demanding higher rates, which sooner or later become unsustainable. Right up until the fateful moment, everyone says there is no problem and that the government in question will be able to control the situation.

If you or I have a debt issue, the solution is very simple: balance our family budget. But it is manifestly more difficult, politically and otherwise, for a major developed country to balance its budget than it is for your average household to do so. There are no easy answers. Cutting spending is a short-term drag on the economy and is unpopular with those who lose their government funding. Raising taxes is both a short term and a long-term drag on the economy.

The best way to get out of debt is to simply hold spending nominally flat and eventually grow your way out of the deficit, as the United States did in the 1990s. Who knew that 15 years later we would be nostalgic for Clinton and Gingrich? But governments almost never take that course, and eventually there is a crisis. As we will see in a moment, Japan elected to deal with its deficit and debt issues by monetizing the debt.

Meanwhile, in Europe, the ECB had to step in to save Italy and Spain; Greece, Ireland, and Portugal were forced into serious austerities; and Cyprus was just plain kicked over the side of the boat.



There is currently a lull in the level of concern about government debt, but given that most developed countries have not yet gotten their houses in order, this is a temporary condition. Debt will rear its ugly head again in the not too distant future. This year? Next year? 2016? Always we pray the prayer of St. Augustine: "Lord, make me chaste, but not today."

Deleveraging and Deflation – They Are Just No Fun
At some point, when you have accumulated too much debt, you just have to deal with it. My associate Worth Wray forwarded the following chart to me today. There is no better explanation as to why the current recovery is the weakest in recent history. Deleveraging is a b*tch. It is absolutely no fun. Looking at this chart, I find it rather remarkable and somewhat encouraging that the US has done as well as it has the past few years.



As I've outlined at length in other letters and in Code Red, central banks can print far more money than any of us can imagine during periods of deleveraging and deflation. For the record, I said the same thing back in 2010 when certain hysterical types were predicting hyperinflation and the end of the dollar due to the quantitative easing of the Federal Reserve. I remain actively opposed to the current level of quantitative easing, not because I'm worried about hyperinflation but for other reasons I have discussed in past letters. As long as the velocity of money keeps falling, central banks will be able to print more money than we would have thought possible in the '70s or '80s. And seemingly they can get away with it – in the short term. Of course, payback is a b*tch. When the velocity of money begins to rise again for whatever unknown reason, central banks had better have their ducks in a row!

Deflationary conditions make debt worse. If you borrow money at a fixed rate, a little inflation – or even a lot of inflation – helps a great deal. To think that even conservative Republican leaders don't get that is naïve. Certainly it is understood in Japan, which is why the success of Abenomics is dependent upon producing inflation. More on that below.

For governments, there is more than one way to deleverage. You can default on your payments, like Greece. We're going to see a lot more of that in the next five years – count on it. Or you can get your central bank to monetize the debt, as Japan is doing. Or get the central bank to convert your debt into 40-year bonds, as Ireland did. (Brilliant move, by the way, for tiny Ireland – you have to stand back and applaud the audacity. I wonder how much good Irish whiskey it took to get the ECB to agree to that deal?)

Inflation is falling almost everywhere today, even as central banks are as accommodative as they have ever been. Deflation is the default condition in a deleveraging world. It can even create an economic singularity.
Singularity was originally just a mathematical term for a point at which an equation has no solution. Then, in astrophysics, it was proven that a large enough collapsing star would become a black hole so dense that its own gravity would cause a singularity in the fabric of space time, a point where many standard physics equations suddenly have no solution.

Beyond the "event horizon" of the black hole, the physics models no longer work. In terms of general relativity, an event horizon is a boundary in space time beyond which events cannot affect an outside observer. In a black hole it is "the point of no return," i.e., the point at which the gravitational force becomes so large that nothing can escape.

Deflation and collapsing debt can create their own sort of black hole, an economic singularity. At that point, the economic models that we have grown comfortable with no longer work. As we approach a potential event horizon in a deflationary/deleveraging world, it can be a meaningless (and extremely frustrating) exercise to try to picture a future that is a simple extension of past economic reality. Any short term forecast (less than one or two years) has to bear that fact in mind.

We Are in a Code Red World
We need to understand that there has been a complete bureaucratic and academic capture of central banks. They are all run by neo-Keynesians. (Yes, I know there are some central bankers who disavow the prevailing paradigm, but they don't have the votes.) The default response of any present day central banker faced with a crisis will be massive liquidity injections. We can argue with the tide, but we need to recognize that it is coming in.

When there is a recession and interest rates are at or close to the zero bound, there will be massive quantitative easing and other, even more creative injections of liquidity into the system. That is a reality we have learned to count on and to factor into our projections of future economic possibilities. But as to what set of econometric equations we should employ in coming up with accurate, dependable projections, no one, least of all central bankers, has a clue. We are in unknown territory, on an economic Star Trek, with Captain Bernanke about to turn the helm over to Captain Yellen, going where no reserve currency printing central bank has gone before. This is not Argentina or Zimbabwe we are talking about. The Federal Reserve is setting its course based on economic theories created by people whose models are demonstrably terrible.

Will we have an outright recession in the US this year? I currently think that is unlikely unless there is some kind of external shock. But short term interest rates will stay artificially low due to financial repression by the Fed, and there will be an increased risk of further monetary creativity from a Yellen led Fed going forward. Stay tuned.
 
To continue reading this article from Thoughts from the Frontline – a free weekly publication by John Mauldin, renowned financial expert, best-selling author, and Chairman of Mauldin Economics – please click here.
© 2013 Mauldin Economics. All Rights Reserved.

Get our Genetically Modified Scalping Program.... FREE!

Thoughts from the Frontline: Interview with Steve Forbes

By John Mauldin

I'm not certain how many interviews I've done over the last decade. Hundreds? I know it is a lot. There are some interviewers who can somehow tease out what you really have in you. Tom Keene at Bloomberg, for instance, forces you to bring your A game, at whatever level you play. He brings it out of you. You know that he is smarter than you will ever be and that you should really be asking him the questions. Except that you're not smart enough to ask the questions. I have to confess that every time I walk into the room with Tom I'm a little intimidated. I try never to show it, somewhat like the new kid on the block trying to put on a brave face, but inside I keep looking for the exit doors just in case I throw up all over myself. At the end of the day I'm still a small town country boy from Bridgeport, Texas, trying to figure out how the big city works.

And then there's Steve Forbes. If I've done hundreds of interviews, then Steve has done many thousands, on the presidential campaign trail with the best of the best, and gods did he learn the craft. I've done multiple interviews with Steve, and every time I sit down with him I feel that I'm with my best friend. Maybe it's because we have a ton of shared values and I have read and admired him for years. I truly think he would've made a great president in the mold of Ronald Reagan, but for whatever reason New Hampshire did not agree. As I think even Steve will admit, while he may have a philosophical mind meld with Reagan, the Gipper had some small genetic extra, call it what you will.

But for whatever reason, Steve seems to bring out the passion in me. When I think about what central bank policies are doing to savers and investors, how we are screwing around with the pension system, circumventing rational market expectations because of an untested economic theory held by a relatively small number of academics, I get a little exercised. And Steve gives me the freedom to do it.

And so a few weeks ago, philosophically like minded old friends sat down at his offices in New York to talk about the world in general. Monetary policy, Janet Yellen, gold, stocks, commodities, the time value of money, grandchildren, and a lot of other stuff, all folded together into what I think may be the best interview I've ever done in my career. Steve gives me the room to be me and allows that passion that has always been inside me to come to the fore. And with his smile and gentle demeanor, he eggs it on.

So this week, for the first time in 14 years of Thoughts from the Frontline, I offer you  a wide ranging interview with John Mauldin, as conducted by the inimitable Steve Forbes. You can watch the video on our home page (lower right, under "Latest Video") or read the transcript below.



John Mauldin: How Central Bankers Will Ruin The Global Economy

John Mauldin, investor and co-author of the new book Code Red, recently sat down with me to discuss monetary policy, a still-lagging economy, and how he might operate the Federal Reserve if he were in Ben Bernanke's or Janet Yellen's shoes.

Steve Forbes: John, good to have you back again.

John Mauldin: Steve, it is always fun to be with you.

Forbes: You've got a new book out, called Code Red.

Mauldin: Yes.

Forbes: Hot off the press.

Mauldin: Yeah, show it up twice now. There we go.

Forbes: Code Red, Jack Nicholson, A Few Good Men. Explain first the title.

Mauldin: Well, in that movie Jack Nicholson famously felt that he had to protect America. He was in charge. And so he issued his famous "code red," and his line was, "You need me on that wall." So at the beginning of the book I paraphrased his speech as if it were Ben Bernanke talking or now Janet Yellen:

"You need me on that committee. You want me on that central bank. Yes, you work for savers and creditors, but I'm responsible for whole economies. I have greater things to worry about."

So in 2008 the central banks of the world had to issue a code red.

It's like, a patient is brought by ambulance to the hospital, and instead of operating you put him on morphine. Or it's like asking the arsonist to put out the fire. Part of the reason we had this very crisis was because of central bank policies and government regulations and the interweaving of large investment banks and politicians and central bankers. I don't want to get into conspiracy theories; I think it's just people's self interest.

Forbes: How about a stupidity theory?

Mauldin: Some of it was stupid, but some of it was just greed. Nonetheless, we had a crisis. The banking system froze up. We went to the edge of the abyss. We looked over and it was a long way down. And I believe central banks appropriately provided liquidity. That was their function, and I would argue that almost the sole true function of a central bank is to be there when the stuff hits the fan.
Forbes: To be what Bagehot called the lender of last resort.

Mauldin: Yes, the lender of last resort. That being said, they never took the patient off morphine. At your and my age, we've had the unpleasant experience of caring for friends who are in the hospital. And in today's world, my mother has a hip operation, and they have her up and walking the next day.

They just opened up her hip, put a new hip in. One of my good friends, the same thing – the next day he's up and walking. Forget this morphine stuff. Forget lying around in a hospital bed like we used to have to do. Well, the central banks are still operating with 1900s medicine, so they just kept the patient on morphine.
And now the patient is addicted. The problem is, when you want to end that addiction, whether it's alcohol or drugs or quantitative easing, withdrawal is not going to be pretty. But the Fed's hope is that somehow or other, "We can get the economy going. We can create animal spirits," and that people won't notice when they start withdrawing a trillion dollars a year of monetary easing out of the global system.

To continue reading this article from Thoughts from the Frontline – a free weekly publication by John Mauldin, renowned financial expert, best-selling author, and Chairman of Mauldin Economics – please click here.

© 2013 Mauldin Economics. All Rights Reserved.



Get our "Gold and Crude Oil Trade Ideas"

The Unintended Consequences of ZIRP

By John Mauldin

Yellen's coronation was this week. Art Cashin mused that it was a wonder some senator did not bring her a corsage: it was that type of confirmation hearing. There were a few interesting questions and answers, but by and large we heard what we already knew. And what we know is that monetary policy is going to be aggressively biased to the easy side for years, or at least that is the current plan. Far more revealing than the testimony we heard on Thursday were the two very important papers that were released last week by the two most senior and respected Federal Reserve staff economists. As Jan Hatzius at Goldman Sachs reasoned, it is not credible to believe that these papers and the thinking that went into them were not broadly approved by both Ben Bernanke and Janet Yellen.

Essentially the papers make an intellectual and theoretical case for an extended period of very low interest rates and, in combination with other papers from both inside and outside the Fed from heavyweight economists, make a strong case for beginning to taper sooner rather than later, but for accompanying that tapering with a commitment to an even more protracted period of ZIRP (zero interest rate policy). In this week's letter we are going analyze these papers, as they are critical to understanding the future direction of Federal Reserve policy. Secondly, we'll look at what I think may be some of the unintended consequences of long-term ZIRP.

We are going to start with an analysis by Gavyn Davies of the Financial Times. He writes on macroeconomics and is one of the more of the astute observers I read. I commend his work to you. Today, rather than summarize his analysis, I feel it is more appropriate to simply quote parts of it. (I will intersperse comments, unindented.) The entire piece can be found here.

While the markets have become obsessively focused on the date at which the Fed will start to taper its asset purchases, the Fed itself, in the shape of its senior economics staff, has been thinking deeply about what the stance of monetary policy should be after tapering has ended. This is reflected in two papers to be presented to the annual IMF research conference this week by William English and David Wilcox, who have been described as two of the most important macro-economists working for the FOMC at present. At the very least, these papers warn us what the FOMC will be hearing from their staff economists in forthcoming meetings.

The English paper extends the conclusions of Janet Yellen's "optimal control speeches" in 2012, which argued for pre-committing to keep short rates "lower-for-longer" than standard monetary rules would imply. The Wilcox paper dives into the murky waters of "endogenous supply", whereby the Fed needs to act aggressively to prevent temporary damage to US supply potential from becoming permanent. The overall message implicitly seems to accept that tapering will happen broadly on schedule, but this is offset by super-dovishness on the forward path for short rates.

The papers are long and complex, and deserve to be read in full by anyone seriously interested in the Fed's thought processes. They are, of course, full of caveats and they acknowledge that huge uncertainties are involved. But they seem to point to three main conclusions that are very important for investors.

1. They have moved on from the tapering decision.

Both papers give a few nods in the direction of the tapering debate, but they are written with the unspoken assumption that the expansion of the balance sheet is no longer the main issue. I think we can conclude from this that they believe with a fairly high degree of certainty that the start and end dates for tapering will not be altered by more than a few months either way, and that the end point for the total size of the balance sheet is therefore also known fairly accurately. From now on, the key decision from their point of view is how long to delay the initial hike in short rates, and exactly how the central bank should pre-commit on this question. By omission, the details of tapering are revealed to be secondary.

Yellen said as much in her testimony. In response to a question about QE, she said, "I would agree that this program [QE] cannot continue forever, that there are costs and risks associated with the program."
The Fed have painted themselves into a corner of their own creation. They are clearly very concerned about the stock market reaction even to the mere announcement of the onset of tapering. But they also know they cannot continue buying $85 billion of assets every month. Their balance sheet is already at $4 trillion and at the current pace will expand by $1 trillion a year. Although I can find no research that establishes a theoretical limit, I do believe the Fed does not want to find that limit by running into a wall. Further, it now appears that they recognize that QE is of limited effectiveness with market valuations where they are, and so for practical purposes they need to begin to withdraw QE.

But rather than let the market deal with the prospect of an end to an easy monetary policy (which everyone recognizes has to draw to an end at some point), they are now looking at ways to maintain the illusion of the power of the Federal Reserve. And they are right to be concerned about the market reaction, as was pointed out in a recent note from Ray Dalio and Bridgewater, as analyzed by Zero Hedge:

"The Fed's real dilemma is that its policy is creating a financial market bubble  that is large relative to the pickup in the economy that it is producing," Bridgewater notes, as the relationship between US equity markets and the Fed's balance sheet (here and here for example) and "disconcerting disconnects" (here and here) indicate how the Fed is "trapped." However, as the incoming Yellen faces up to her "tough" decisions to taper or not, Ray Dalio's team is concerned about something else – "We're not worried about whether the Fed is going to hit or release the gas pedal, we're worried about whether there's much gas left in the tank and what will happen if there isn't."

Dalio then outlines their dilemma neatly. "…The dilemma the Fed faces now is that the tools currently at its disposal are pretty much used up, in that interest rates are at zero and US asset prices have been driven up to levels that imply very low levels of returns relative to the risk, so there is very little ability to stimulate from here if needed. So the Fed will either need to accept that outcome, or come up with new ideas to stimulate conditions."

The new ideas that Bridgewater and everyone else are looking for are in the papers we are examining. Returning to Davies work (emphasis below is mine!):

2. They think that "optimal" monetary policy is very dovish indeed on the path for rates.

Both papers conduct optimal control exercises of the Yellen-type. These involve using macro-economic models to derive the path for forward short rates that optimise the behaviour of inflation and unemployment in coming years. The message is familiar: the Fed should pre-commit today to keep short rates at zero for a much longer period than would be implied by normal Taylor Rules, even though inflation would temporarily exceed 2 per cent, and unemployment would drop below the structural rate. This induces the economy to recover more quickly now, since real expected short rates are reduced.

Compared to previously published simulations, the new ones in the English paper are even more dovish. They imply that the first hike in short rates should be in 2017, a year later than before. More interestingly, they experiment with various thresholds that could be used to persuade the markets that the Fed really, really will keep short rates at zero, even if the economy recovers and inflation exceeds target. They conclude that the best way of doing this may be to set an unemployment threshold at 5.5 per cent, which is 1 per cent lower than the threshold currently in place, since this would produce the best mix of inflation and unemployment in the next few years. Such a low unemployment threshold has not been contemplated in the market up to now.

3. They think aggressively easy monetary policy is needed to prevent permanent supply side deterioration.

This theme has been mentioned briefly in previous Bernanke speeches, but the Wilcox paper elevates it to center stage. The paper concludes that the level of potential output has been reduced by about 7 per cent in recent years, largely because the rate of productivity growth has fallen sharply. In normal circumstances, this would carry a hawkish message for monetary policy, because it significantly reduces the amount of spare capacity available in the economy in the near term.

However, the key is that Wilcox thinks that much of the loss in productive potential has been caused by (or is "endogenous to") the weakness in demand. For example, the paper says that the low levels of capital investment would be reversed if demand were to recover more rapidly, as would part of the decline in the labour participation rate. In a reversal of Say's Law, and also a reversal of most US macro-economic thinking since Friedman, demand creates its own supply.

This concept is key to understanding current economic thinking. The belief is that it is demand that is the issue and that lower rates will stimulate increased demand (consumption), presumably by making loans cheaper for businesses and consumers. More leverage is needed! But current policy apparently fails to grasp that the problem is not the lack of consumption: it is the lack of income. Income is produced by productivity. When leverage increases productivity, that is good; but when it is used simply to purchase goods for current consumption, it merely brings future consumption forward. Debt incurred and spent today is future consumption denied. Back to Davies:

This new belief in endogenous supply clearly reinforces the "lower for longer" case on short rates, since aggressively easy monetary policy would be more likely to lead to permanent gains in real output, with only temporary costs in higher inflation. Whether or not any of this analysis turns out to be justified in the long run, it is surely important that it is now being argued so strongly in an important piece of Fed research. 

            Read that last sentence again. It makes no difference whether you and I might disagree with their analysis. They are at the helm, and unless something truly unexpected happens, we are going to get Fed assurances of low interest rates for a very long time. Davies concludes:

The implication of these papers is that these Fed economists have largely accepted in their own minds that tapering will take place sometime fairly soon, but that they simultaneously believe that rates should be held at zero until (say) 2017. They will clearly have a problem in convincing markets of this. After the events of the summer, bond traders have drawn the conclusion that tapering is a robust signal that higher interest rates are on the way. The FOMC will need to work very hard indeed to convince the markets, through its new thresholds and public pronouncements, that tapering and forward short rates really do need to be divorced this time. It could be a long struggle.

On a side note, we are beginning to see calls from certain circles to think about also reducing the rate the Fed pays on the reserves held at the Fed from the current 25 basis points as a way to encourage banks to put that money to work, although where exactly they put it to work is not part of the concern. Just do something with it. That is a development we will need to watch.

The Unintended Consequences of ZIRP

Off the top of my head I can come up with four ways that the proposed extension of ZIRP can have consequences other than those outlined in the papers. We will look briefly at each of them, although they each deserve their own letter.

To continue reading this article from Thoughts from the Frontline – a free weekly publication by John Mauldin, renowned financial expert, best-selling author, and Chairman of Mauldin Economics – Please Click Here.

Here's our up coming FREE trading webinar schedule....don't miss out!