(What’s Left of) Our Economy: What’s with Those Financial Markets?

Tags

bonds, bottom-line, budget deficits, central banks, correction, debt, Federal Reserve, Financial Crisis, financial markets, Great Recession, interest rates, leverage, monetary policy, profits, stocks, tax cuts, top-line, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Heckuva week on the world’s financial markets, eh? This post isn’t intended to provide any investment advice, but rather to shed some light on what strikes me as the most interesting question posed by the stock market correction and the related spike in bond yields: Why is it happening as evidence keeps emerging that the world economy (including America’s) is entering its best stretch of growth since the last (Great) recession ended in mid-2009?

Right off the bat, in the interests of full disclosure, the vast majority of my investments are in bonds (mainly munis) and bond proxies (high-dividend stocks whose share prices are relatively stable, so that their main value is spinning off income). This means that my main hope is that bonds keep doing well (notwithstanding their recent slump).

That said, it seems clear to me that the answer is that investors are worried that the stronger growth seen globally isn’t sustainable. Indeed they seem fearful that it’s about to come to an ugly end because the world’s central banks look more determined than in many years to at least limit the easy money conditions they created to fight the financial crisis (and ensuing recession), and to try to spark something of a recovery.

This kind of monetary policy tightening – or even a further slowdown in or halt to the loosening, which is what’s most likely in the near future – could create a pair of closely connected economic and financial dangers. First, slower growth could imperil the sales and profits of companies that issue stocks, which could depress their prices. And P.S.: Despite the record central bank stimulus, growth has been unimpressive enough. How much tightening is needed to tip the economy back into recession?

Of course, businesses all around the world have performed magnificently in boosting profits in a slow-growth environment, and this also goes for non-financial companies that haven’t been able to enjoy the full benefits of borrowing from central banks at super-cheap rates and lending at higher rates. But precisely because growth even during the recovery’s best periods so far has been sluggish despite the gargantuan stimulus, much of the profit improvement has come from improvements in the bottom line, keyed by cost-cutting (including keeping the lid on employee paychecks). Top-line growth – that is, stronger sales of products and services – has been more difficult to come by.

Since costs can’t be cut completely, and possibly not much further, a growth slowdown could greatly reduce these firms’ potential to increase profits going forward, and turn them into much less attractive buys for investors. And tighter monetary policy, including raising interest rates, historically has been pretty effective at slowing growth.

Just as important, low interest rates per se have super-charged stock prices. The reason? They greatly depress the total return on bonds, and thus greatly boost the appeal of stocks.

Of course, this raises the question of why central banks would take such actions, or even think (out loud) about them. The reasons are that they’re worried that all this easy money will ignite a new round of dangerous inflation, and that they’re concerned that, because money has been so cheap for so long, borrowing consequently so easy, and mistakes therefore so easy to withstand, too much capital has been poured into risky investments. Central bankers are rightly concerned that this “mal-investment” eventually could imperil the entire financial system and hence the real economy just as it did during the previous decade. So they’re hoping they can wean the world off this sugary diet.

The challenge they face is making sure “the patient survives,” or doesn’t become gravely ill again. After all, the previous decade’s financial crisis showed that when dubious investments reach a certain level, creditors can start doubting borrowers’ ability to repay or even service their debt even when the cost of money is very low. When they start to pull in their bets, panic can easily set in – and did.

These dangers become much greater when the cost of money starts to rise, which is exactly the situation the nation and world are in now. Just one indication of heavily indebted businesses are: According to Standard & Poor’s, one of the financial ratings agencies, in 2007 (just before the global bubble burst), 32 percent of the world’s non-financial companies were “highly leveraged” (i.e., up to their ears in debt). The latest figure? Thirty seven percent.

This corporate debt, of course, is relatively easy to service and manage when interest rates are very low. In a higher rate environment? Not so much. And don’t think creditors don’t know this. So that’s another reason that companies could start looking less appealing to investors, and if major debt servicing (much less repayment) problems emerge, credit channels could start seizing up just as they did ten years ago. On top of this prospect, all else equal, rising rates tend to be trouble for stock prices, as more and more investors decide to opt for (higher) guaranteed returns on bonds rather than riskier equities.

P.S. If you’re wondering whether higher rates could significantly increase the debt burden on the U.S. government, even without the immense new borrowing that will be needed thanks to the Trump administration’s tax cuts and the new big-spending Congressional budget compromise, the answer is, “You bet!”

Not that reasons for optimism about stocks in particular can’t be identified. Because the big ramp up in federal budget deficits that’s on the way will inject massive new resources into the economy, more growth will result. In principle, that new growth could convince the Federal Reserve to speed up its tightening – but perhaps not enough to offset the fiscal boost. Moreover, anyone who’s positive that the Fed will keep tightening in the face of either future stock market turbulence and/or weaker economic growth hasn’t been paying attention to its record in recent decades. The central bank has been, in the view of many, all too willing to keep the economic party going at all costs, and may well do so again.

One more bullish possibility for stocks – as they did during the previous decade, the leaders of stock-issuing companies decide to use most of their tax cut windfall to buy more shares of their own stock. The result would not only would prop up the share price, but in many cases boost their own compensation (which not so coincidentally is often based on that share price).

The most vexing aspect of both the investment and the economic situation is that, even though both may suffer in the short run, both urgently need to end their addiction to central bank stimulus and create the kind of foundation that will promote healthier, and thus longer-lasting (even if not faster) growth. Moreover, the longer the addiction lasts, the worse the cold turkey experience.

Because I doubt that either the Federal Reserve or the rest of the U.S. government has the spine to administer the needed policy medicine, I remain pretty bearish long-term on both the markets and the real economy, and will stay very conservatively invested. But the short term can be surprisingly long lasting; in fact, I’m surprised that the Fed’s high wire act has lasted this long. So I’m anything but an infallible guide to either. I’m just trying to be prepared for major trouble – whenever it decides to arrive.

 

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Big New Signs of Re-Bubble-Ization

Tags

2016 elections, Allison Schrager, auto loans, balance sheets, Ben Bernanke, Bloomberg, bubbles, bubbles Federal Reserve, credit, credit cards, debt, Financial Crisis, Fox Business Debate, Goldman Sachs, housing, interest rates, leverage, loans, Matt Phillips, mortgages, quantitative easing, Quartz, revolving credit, Tracy Alloway, zero interest rate policy, ZIRP, {What's Left of) Our Economy

One of the more praiseworthy features of the Fox Business Republican debate was the discussion of the last mega-financial crisis and how to prevent a repeat. Although at their debate on CNN the Democratic presidential candidates were quizzed on the bubble and its bursting and possible remedies, the Milwaukee event marked the first time these subjects came up for the Republicans.

Better late than never, but that’s pretty strange given that the last bubbles inflated and the crisis broke out on the GOP’s watch. In fact, it’s downright disturbing. For a new meltdown remains by far the greatest economic threat to America’s future due to the Federal Reserve’s overly easy money policies – despite the latest reassurances from former Fed Chair Ben Bernanke that such warnings are ludicrous. Maybe not so coincidentally, two important new signs of re-bubble-ization have just appeared.

The first was reported by Quartz’s Matt Phillips, who pointed out that the Federal Reserve’s latest figures on Americans’ borrowing behavior showed that consumers in September took out an all-time record $28.9 billion in new loans in September. In the process, they broke a record set 14 years ago, and increased their credit outstanding by the greatest percentage since 1943 – when these records started to be kept. And even if you adjust for inflation, household borrowing is at lofty levels historically.

Many economists view such increases as a bullish economic sign – signaling that Americans are so confident about their future prospects (and repayment potential) that they’re willing to take on more debt. That may be true, but the data on wages and incomes strongly indicate that this confidence is really overconfidence. And if interest rates really are going to be raised by the Federal Reserve, even gradually, this overconfidence may be tomfoolery.

Also not so bullish – the makeup of these new loans. As economist Allison Schrager has sagely pointed out, not all borrowing decisions are created equal, even for individuals with comparable incomes. Some, like student loans, are arguably sensible investments in one’s own human capital and potential (though signs of diminished returns from a college education seem to be popping up everywhere). Others, like mortgages, are arguably sensible investments in an asset that could well appreciate in value (though the inflation and bursting of the housing bubble should have taught everyone that real estate is no longer a sure thing). And still other loans simply finance consumption – which lacks any capacity to increase one’s wealth.

Unfortunately, much of the September surge in consumer borrowing was in auto and credit card debt – which won’t bring any financial benefits.

The second sign of reb-bubble-ization was reported by Bloomberg News’ Tracy Alloway, who covered a Goldman Sachs study showing that leverage levels in Corporate America are at their highest levels in a decade – during the bubble years. In other words, thanks largely to the super-easy monetary policy pursued by the Federal Reserve since the crisis peaked, even though corporate profits have surged to new records, American business has gone on such a frantic shopping spree that its debt load has grown much faster. Indeed, according to Goldman Sachs, these debts are now at twice the levels they hit in the pre-crisis era.

Just as with consumers, rising interest rates could wreak havoc with the balance sheets of U.S. companies. And just as with consumers, relatively little of this borrowing is being devoted to strengthening these firms in what might be called the old-fashioned way – i.e., through the development of new products and services. Instead, much of this new debt has been used to fund mergers and acquisitions, and stock buybacks.

The Fox Business debate, however, does deserve criticism in one sense. It followed an entirely conventional course in focusing on crisis-proofing American finance by improving Wall Street regulation. Certainly such improvement has been warranted. But the financial crisis was rooted in weaknesses in the real economy. Until presidential candidates start presenting realistic plans for fostering more good jobs and the incomes they generate, and for spurring more production and the earnings they generate – which would reduce the need for binge borrowing in the first place – a new financial crisis looks much more like a matter of “when,” not “if.”

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: The Fed’s Dangerous Can-Kick

Tags

China, debt, Federal Open Market Committee, Federal Reserve, Financial Crisis, Great Recession, inflation, interest rates, Janet Yellen, Jobs, leverage, monetary policy, recovery, unemployment, yield, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Reverberations continue from the Federal Reserve’s decision last Thursday to keep the short-term interest rate directly controlled by the central bank at the so-called zero bound – after strong hints most of the spring and well into the summer that the financial crisis-born policy of super easy money would finally start coming to an end. Most of the commentary has focused on the incredibly convoluted rationale for delay presented by Fed Chair Janet Yellen at a press conference held following the “stand pat” announcement. That’s entirely understandable, as I’ll explain below. What worries me even more, though, is how the kinds of financial stability threats that triggered the 2007-08 crisis have apparently dropped off the Fed’s screen completely.

It’s not necessary to believe that the U.S. economy is performing well to be puzzled by the Fed decision – which was nearly unanimous. That’s because the Fed majority itself clearly believes it’s performing well. Here’s how Yellen described the recovery from the Great Recession:

“The recovery from the Great Recession has advanced sufficiently far, and domestic spending appears sufficiently robust, that an argument can be made for a rise in interest rates at this time. We discussed this possibility at our meeting.” A little later, Yellen emphasized, “You know, I want to emphasize domestic developments have been strong.”

The Chair did spotlight areas of continued economic weakness, including sluggish wage growth that was contributing to overall inflation rates remaining well below the levels characteristic of a truly healthy economy; the stubbornly high number of Americans who remained out of the workforce, which takes much of the sheen off of the major reduction seen in the headline unemployment rate; and weakening economies in China and elsewhere abroad, which roiled stock markets in the United States and overseas in August.

But she persisted in describing weak prices as mainly due to “transitory” factors, like the depressed global energy picture and the strong dollar (which makes imported goods bought by Americans cheaper). More important, Yellen repeatedly emphasized points like “I do not want to overplay the implications of these [and other] recent developments, which have not fundamentally altered our outlook. The economy has been performing well, and we expect it to continue to do so.” 

Moreover, and most important, the record makes clear that most of the voting members of the Fed’s leadership – the Open Market Committee – “continue to expect that economic conditions will make it appropriate” to raise interest rates “later this year.” All of which inevitably and justifiably has raised the question of why, if most Fed policymakers remain confident that the U.S. and even world economies will remain on a course encouraging enough to warrant slightly tighter monetary policy by year end (i.e., in three months), all except one decided that the conditions of these economies are too fragile now to withstand rates even the slightest bit higher than their current emergency, mid-crisis levels.

Nor is this question answered adequately by Yellen’s claim that it’s crucial not to raise rates too early because such actions could snuff out the recovery’s momentum. Indeed, the Chair herself stated that she buys one of the most compelling reasons to hike sooner rather than later – because the delay between the approval of a monetary policy decision like a rate hike and the appearance of its effects on the economy means that inflation could overheat if the Fed waits too long to step on the brakes.

As a result of these contradictory messages, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion either that the Fed is genuinely confused about the real state of the economy and how it can strengthen it; or that despite its expressed confidence, it still believes that even the kind of minimal rate hike it’s been telegraphing – which Yellen further has intimated will still leave monetary policy “highly accommodative for quite some time” – could bring the recovery to its knees. No wonder investors are confused, too – and increasingly nervous.

And this is only the set of problems on which the economic and financial chattering classes are concentrating. The problem they’ve overlooked for now is even more disconcerting: The Fed’s latest statements about the future of its super-easy money policies contain no mention of the big reason to be genuinely scared of super-easy money policies: They’ve shown a strong tendency to encourage reckless financial practices that tend to end in oceans of tears.

The reason should be pretty obvious, especially since it played out just a few short years ago and nearly blew up the American and global economies. When money is for all intents and purposes free and in glut conditions, incentives to use it responsibly vanish. After all, by definition, it’s no longer precious: If you lose some in a bad investment, you feel confident that more will be easy to get.

At very best, then, nothing like market forces exist to discipline lending and investing, and thereby increase the odds that credit will be used in productive ways that bring the greatest, most durable benefits to the entire economy and society. In fact, too many investors will view the strongest incentives as those fostering a thirst for yield – which drives them into ever riskier assets simply because safer choices offer so little return. At worst, borrowers take on amounts of debt that become ruinous whenever interest rates do finally rise – and threaten the entire financial system and economy.

The Fed’s reluctance to raise rates may in fact stem in part from fears about that latter scenario. It’s true that the economy is less leveraged these days than it was during the previous bubble decade. But that doesn’t mean there’s not a lot of bad, vulnerable debt out there – including that wracked up by the federal government. Worse, precisely because the longer the Fed waits, the more dubious debt will accumulate, the more painful any rate hikes are bound to be.

What’s genuinely sobering about can-kicking by the Fed is that the central bank is structured to be insulated from politics and its obsession with short-run gratification. If the Fed is so reluctant to bite this bullet, and impose some near-term costs on the economy to place it on a sounder footing, where will America’s adult supervision come from?