March 3, 2014

If You Build It, They Won’t Come: Opinion

Posted in business, Capital, cost of living, Economic Growth, Economy, Federal Reserve, generation, government, income gap, industrial economy, Inflation, investment advisor, investment banking, investments, job market, labor force, Labor Market, large business, medicare/medicaid, National Federation of Independent Business's, revenue, Robert Barone, small business, social media, social security, taxes, Unemployment, wages, Wall Street at 8:31 PM by Robert Barone

It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.– Charles Darwin

I am often asked: “When do you think the economy will return to normal?”

My response: If by “normal” you mean what we had from the 1980s to 2008 — the “if you build it, they will come” economy — the answer is, not anytime in the foreseeable future.

The economic environment has permanently changed, and businesses that don’t adapt to the new environment will become extinct like dinosaurs. Think about Kodak and Polaroid. They were big, strong and probably smart, but they didn’t adapt.

Slower Growth

In the new business environment, economic growth will be much harder to achieve, the income gap will continue to grow and bigger and more intrusive governments at all levels will demand more revenue.

In mid-February, the Congressional Budget Office concluded that potential economic growth for at least the next 10 years will be much lower than what we have experienced for the last few decades. They attribute this to the health system known as Obamacare as well as disincentives to work.

A Growing Income Gap

The growing income gap is well documented. What’s not well documented are the causes.

There are two major ones starting with government policy. Federal Reserve money printing, for example, benefits the most affluent and Wall Street’s financial institutions. Government policy to under-report inflation (which began in earnest in 1994) reduces budget deficits by limiting payouts to Social Security and Medicare recipients and saves interest costs on the debt. But it has kept wage rates from keeping pace with inflation.

If inflation has been understated by just three percentage points per year since 1994, then wage earners, who have only received “cost of living” adjustments, have lost 55% of their purchasing power. No wonder both spouses have to work (some with two jobs) and still have a hard time making ends meet.

But, there is another factor at play here. In the Industrial Revolution, innovation benefited all workers. It wasn’t hard for workers with little formal education to learn how to operate machine tools, and they could master skills needed in the new industrial economy.

But, that is not true today. In fact, the National Federation of Independent Business’s surveys have for some time now shown an increasing trend that businesses cannot find the skills they need. As a result, jobs go unfilled. The jobs that are available require skills only learned through and intensive educational process, such as majoring in engineering or computer science at a university.

These are the folks who are getting the high paying jobs. Those with few or no skills must take much lower-paying service type or minimum wage jobs. In the latest unemployment survey, the unemployment rate among college graduates was 3.3%, for those with high school degrees it was 7.3%, and for those with less than a high school diploma, it was 11.1%. Thus, it appears that the nature of the new technology revolution is also contributing to the income gap.

Other Endemic Factors

For the past five years, multinational corporations have been hoarding cash. Capital expenditures are at their lowest growth levels in six decades. Perhaps these large businesses have recognized that growth will be slow and that revenue growth will be a function of acquisitions.

Finally, new laws, regulation and taxation strangle small businesses — the recognized driver of economic growth for the past 60 years. The stranglehold that regulators have on community banks that restricted lending to small businesses is just one example.

Unfortunately, instead of recognizing that government policies have both slowed the economy and widened the income gap, politicians are likely to use these as wedge issues. So it appears that more regulations and increased taxation on small businesses and higher income earners is certain.

The Survival Mentality

In such a tough, low growth environment, businesses must be more innovative. For instance, 80 million Millennials (those between 15 and 35 years old) will soon have more spending power than any other generation in history. The common characteristic of this generation is they make spending decisions only after consulting social media (friends, Web sites, comments from strangers).

Businesses have to recognize this and play in that space. This generation also has different attitudes toward such things as cars. They are more interested in convenience and access than ownership. In addition, the recognition that the more highly educated are likely to have the disposable income may dictate marketing strategy.

In conclusion, don’t expect a return of the “if you build it, they will come” economy. Without an approach that is fundamentally different from what has been the norm for the past 30 years, many businesses will become extinct.

Robert Barone (Ph.D., economics, Georgetown University) is a principal of Universal Value Advisors, Reno, a registered investment adviser. Barone is a former director of the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco and is currently a director of Allied Mineral Products, Columbus, Ohio, AAA Northern California, Nevada, Utah Auto Club, and the associated AAA Insurance Co., where he chairs the investment committee. Contact Robert Barone or the professionals at UVA (Joshua Barone and Andrea Knapp) are available to discuss client investment needs.
Call them at 775-284-7778.
Statistics and other information have been compiled from various sources. Universal Value Advisors believes the facts and information to be accurate and credible but makes no guarantee to the complete accuracy of this information.

February 24, 2014

What’s Inflation? It Depends on the Definition

Posted in asset inflation, Banking, Big Banks, CPI, Federal Reserve, Inflation, investment advisor, investment banking, Markets, Nevada, Quantitative Easing, Real Estate, Robert Barone, Wall Street at 8:55 PM by Robert Barone

One of today’s economic myths is that the money that the Federal Reserve has created through its quantitative easing programs has not found its way into the money supply, and, as a result, no significant inflation has occurred.

The theory is that QE has only resulted in bank reserve creation, but little new money. Money and Banking 101 takes students through the “money multiplier” concept, where $1 of excess reserves can turn into $10 of new money if reserve requirements are 10%. Because there has been little net new bank lending since the Great Recession, the conclusion has been that there has been little money growth, and, therefore, minuscule inflation.

Those who tout this theory simply don’t understand how the money creation process works. In addition, inflation isn’t just measured by the narrowly defined and downwardly biased Consumer Price Index. Inflation means prices are rising, and, as I show below, we have plenty of that.

Money Creation

To show how the process actually works, assume that Citizen X buys $100,000 of securities from Citizen Y, and pays for it with a check drawn on X’s account at Bank XX. Citizen Y deposits the check in Bank YY. In this example, no new money has been created. An existing deposit at Bank XX was transferred to Bank YY.

Now assume that the Fed is the buyer of the $100,000 asset from Citizen Y. When Y deposits the check into his or her account at Bank YY, reserves in the banking system do rise by $100,000 as Bank YY ends up with a new deposit at the Fed.

But, also note that Citizen Y now has $100,000 in a deposit at Bank YY, a deposit that did not exist in the banking system prior to the transaction. Going back to Money and Banking 101, while the $100,000 may not be “multiplied” into $1,000,000 because the banks aren’t lending, the first step — the creation of $100,000 — did, indeed, occur.

The explosion in the assets on the Fed’s balance sheet of more than $3.3 trillion since the beginning of the QE process has resulted in the creation of at least that much new money. Using a back-of-the-envelope calculation, the change in currency in circulation as well as demand and savings deposits at commercial banks since the start of QE has been about $4.2 trillion. Net loan growth at those institutions has been about $1.1 trillion.The $3.1 trillion difference is, as expected, close to the growth of the Fed’s balance sheet.

Asset Inflation

So, why haven’t we had inflation if the money supply has grown so much? Well, we actually have had inflation. The only place we don’t find it is in the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ CPI calculation.

But, rather than dwelling on this single measure, consider that the form that inflation — rising prices — takes very much depends on what Citizen Y does with the newly created money, and what those who receive the money from Y do with it. More concretely, the Fed purchases from the large Wall Street institutions. So, it is likely that we will find inflation if we followed the path of the newly created money from those institutions.

As I have been discussing, about 25% of the newly created money over the past five years has gone into net new lending. Where did the rest of it go? It is a pretty sure bet that, given that these are Wall Street banks, much of it went into the equity and real estate markets. Equity prices as measured by the S&P 500 have risen by 150% over the five-year period, and by 29.6% in 2013 alone. Meanwhile, real estate prices as measured by the Case-Shiller 20-City Composite rose 13.7% last year.

It is also a pretty sure bet that the newly created money found its way into the emerging markets, where interest rates have been higher and the Fed’s promise of low U.S. rates for a long period of time (known as the “carry-trade”) significantly reduced the risk of the trade.

The latest 12-month official data show that inflation in Brazil is 5.6%, in India 8.8%, in Indonesia 8.2% and in Turkey 7.8%. Of course, we are all aware that the currencies of these countries have been crushed over the past six weeks, as hedge funds and other large investors have, en masse, withdrawn their funds as the prospect of a Fed tapering has become reality, along with expected rising rates.

Despite the so-called taper, the Fed continues to create a huge amount of money each month. Currently it’s $65 billion. This money has to find a home. It appears to be more than coincidental that, despite a 5.75% mini-correction in the equity market in January, prices have once again continued their upward trek.

Conclusion

More than $3 trillion of new money has been created by the Fed. It is sloshing around and causing prices to rise in equities, real estate and, until recently, in emerging markets. The money now coming out of the EMs will find another investment, causing those asset prices to rise.

We have inflation: asset inflation. The Fed continues to create money which finds its way into the financial markets. Is it any wonder why Wall Street loves QE and hangs on every word from the Fed? If history is any guide, asset inflation will continue as long as the Fed is printing. Just think what could happen to the money supply and inflation if the banks actually start to lend again.

And what might happen to asset prices if the Fed ever started to tighten?

 

Robert Barone (Ph.D., economics, Georgetown University) is a principal of Universal Value Advisors, Reno, a registered investment adviser. Barone is a former director of the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco and is currently a director of Allied Mineral Products, Columbus, Ohio, AAA Northern California, Nevada, Utah Auto Club, and the associated AAA Insurance Co., where he chairs the investment committee. Contact Robert Barone or the professionals at UVA (Joshua Barone and Andrea Knapp) are available to discuss client investment needs.  Call them at 775-284-7778.
Statistics and other information have been compiled from various sources. Universal Value Advisors believes the facts and information to be accurate and credible but makes no guarantee to the complete accuracy of this information.

February 4, 2014

Existing Public Policy Fosters a Growing Income Gap

Posted in business, Business Friendly, Dodd Frank, Economic Growth, Economy, Federal Reserve, Finance, income gap, Inflation, lending, Public Policy, Quantitative Easing, small business at 9:12 PM by Robert Barone

There is no doubt that the gap between the rich and the middle class and poor has widened in recent years. And the most recent studies confirm a continuation of that trend with capital gains playing a major role.

What is ironic is that public policies — some long practiced, some new, — contribute significantly to the problem. Recognizing and fixing such policy issues, however, is easier said than done.

In this post, I will discuss three such policies: 1) The asset inflation policies of the Fed; 2) The policy that significantly understates inflation; and 3) The policies that strangle lending to small business. There are many other public policies, such as work disincentives, that also have an impact, but I’ll discuss them another time

Fed Policy

Since the financial crisis, the Fed, through its “quantitative-easing” policies, has relied upon the “wealth effect” via equity asset price inflation to combat the so-called deflationary forces that had built up in the economy.

Each time a QE policy ended, there was a big decline in equity prices. Those declines prompted another round of QE.

As indicated above, capital gains have played a major role in the recent growth of the income gap. Those gains also played a major role in the dot.com and subprime bubbles of the recent past.

Inflation

In his Jan. 29 missive to clients, David Rosenberg of Gluskin Sheff, a wealth-management firm, said that “if we were to replace the imputed rent measure of CPI (consumer price index) with the actual transaction price measure of the CS-20 [Case Shiller home price index], core inflation would be 5.3% today, not 1.7% as per the ‘official’ government number…”

John Williams (www.shadowstats.com) indicates that, using the 1990 CPI computation, inflation in the U.S. was 4.9% in 2013; using the 1980 computation method, it was 9.1%.

Those of you old enough may remember that in 1980 the then new Fed Chairman, Paul Volker, began to raise interest rates to double-digit levels to combat an inflation that was not much higher than the 9.1% of today (if the 1980 methodology is used).

Over the years the Bureau of Labor Statistics has changed the computation method for CPI, in effect, significantly biasing it to produce a much lower inflation rate.

In a post I wrote last September (“Hidden Inflation Slows Growth, Holds Down Wages,” TheStreet.com, 9/13/13), I showed how the growth of wages earned by middle-class employees has hugged the “official” inflation trend.

If that “official” inflation trend understates real inflation by 3% per year (the difference between Williams’ computation using the 1990 methodology and 2013’s “official” rate is 3.1%), over a 20-year period, the real purchasing power of that wage would fall by more than 80%.

That helps to explain why both husbands and wives must work today, why the birth rate is falling and why the income gap is widening.
Once again, changing the inflation measurement problem is easier said than done. In the U.S., Japan, the U.K and the eurozone, debt levels are a huge issue. Lower inflation rates keep interest rates low, allow new borrowing (budget deficits) at low rates and keep the interest cost of the debt manageable (at least temporarily).

Also, a low official rate keeps the cost-of-living adjustments for social programs — Social Security, Medicare and government pensions — low. As a result, Social Security, Medicare and pension payments are significantly lower than they otherwise would be. Returning to the older, more accurate inflation measures would truly be budget busting.

Constraints on Small Business Lending

One of the reasons that the economic recovery has been so sluggish is the inability for small business to expand. Since the financial crisis, much of the money creation by the Fed has ended up as excess reserves in the banking system (now more than $2.3 trillion).

Small businesses employ more than 75% of the workforce. So, why aren’t banks lending to small businesses?

In prior periods of economic growth, especially in the 1990s and the first few years of the current century, it was the small and intermediate-sized banks that made loans to small businesses in their communities.

Today, for many of the banks that survived the last five years, there are so many newly imposed reporting and lending constraints (Dodd-Frank) and such a fear of regulatory criticism, fines or other disciplinary action that these institutions won’t take any risk at all. In earlier times, the annual number of new community bank charters was always in the high double digits.

But, since 2011, the FDIC has approved only one new bank charter that wasn’t for the purpose of saving an existing troubled bank. Only one!

In effect, the federal regulators now run the community banking system from seats of power in their far away offices.

Small businesses cannot grow due to the unavailability of funding caused by overregulation and government imposed constraints. This holds down the income growth of much of the entrepreneurial class and is a significant contributor to income inequality. Of the policies discussed in this post, this would be the easiest to change.

Conclusion

There is definitely a growing income gap, but, much of it is the result of public policy. New elections or new legislation won’t fix these policies. The first step is recognition. But, as I’ve pointed out, many of these policies are rooted in the fabric of government.

There is little desire on the part of those comfortably in power to recognize them, much less to initiate any changes.

 

 

Robert Barone (Ph.D., economics, Georgetown University) is a principal of Universal Value Advisors, Reno, a registered investment adviser. Barone is a former director of the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco and is currently a director of Allied Mineral Products, Columbus, Ohio, AAA Northern California, Nevada, Utah Auto Club, and the associated AAA Insurance Co., where he chairs the investment committee. Contact Robert Barone or the professionals at UVA (Joshua Barone and Andrea Knapp)
are available to discuss client investment needs.
Call them at 775-284-7778.

Statistics and other information have been compiled from various sources. Universal Value Advisors believes the facts and information to be accurate and credible but makes no guarantee to the complete accuracy of this information.

 

January 14, 2014

Why Gold Prices Dropped in 2013

Posted in Banking, Big Banks, Economic Growth, Economy, Europe, Federal Reserve, Finance, Foreign, gold, Inflation, interest rates, investment advisor, investments, Robert Barone at 6:39 PM by Robert Barone

Most seasoned investors have some allocation to precious metals in their portfolios, most often gold. They believe that such an allocation protects them, as it is a hedge, or an insurance policy, against the proliferation of paper (fiat) money by the world’s largest central banks. Fiat money is not backed by real physical assets. In concept, I agree with this sentiment. Most investors who invest in precious metals ETFs, such as the SPDR Gold Trust ETF (NYSEARCA:GLD), through the supposedly regulated stock exchanges (“paper gold”) believe that they actually have a hedge against future inflation. In what follows, I will try to explain why they may not, and why their investments in paper gold may just be speculation.

On February 5, 1981, then Fed Chairman Paul Volcker said that the Fed had made a “commitment to a monetary policy consistent with reducing inflation…” Contrast that with the statement of outgoing Fed Chairman Bernanke on December 18, 2013: “We are very committed to making sure that inflation does not stay too low…”

During 2013, the price of gold fell more than 28% (from $165.17/oz. to $118.36/oz.) despite the fact that other assets like real estate and equities each rose at double-digit rates. It is perplexing that the price of the hedge against inflation is falling in the face of a money-printing orgy at all of the world’s major central banks. Despite the fact that these central banks have fought the inflation scourge for half of a century, suddenly they have all adopted policies that espouse inflation as something desirable. The fall in the price of gold is even more perplexing because there are reports of record demand for physical gold, especially in Asia, and that some of the mints can’t keep up with the demand for standardized product. In his year-end missive, John Hathaway of Tocqueville.com says that “the manager of one of the largest Swiss refiners stated that after almost doubling capacity this year, ‘they put on three shifts, they’re working 24 hours a day…and every time [we] think it’s going to slow down, [we] get more orders…70% of the kilo bar fabrication is going to China.'”

One would also think that the price of gold should be rising because of a growing loss of confidence in fiat currencies. Here are some indicators:

The growing interest in Bitcoin as an alternative to government-issued currencies. One should ask, why did the price of Bitcoin rise from $13.51 on December 31, 2012 to $754.76 on December 30, 2013 while the price of gold fell? As you will see later in this essay, the answer lies in leverage. The gold market is leveraged; Bitcoin is not (at least, not yet).

The volatility that the Fed has caused in emerging market economies by flooding the world with dollars at zero interest is another reason the price of gold should be rising. The Fed’s announced zero-rate policy with a time horizon caused huge capital flows into emerging market economies by hedge funds looking for yield. The inflows caused disruption to the immature financial systems in those emerging markets. And then, with the utterance of a single word, “tapering,” all of the hedge funds headed for the exits at once. The Indian rupee, for example, which was trading around 53 rupees/dollar in May 2013, fell to 69 near the end of August, a 30% loss of value. Such behavior has stirred up new interest on the part of major international players (China, Russia) to have an alternative to the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. Don’t dismiss this as political posturing. It is based on irresponsible Fed policy in its role as the caretaker of the world’s reserve currency. As the world moves toward an alternative reserve currency, the dollar will weaken significantly relative to other currencies, and, theoretically, to gold (and even Bitcoin).

The loss of confidence on the part of some sovereign nations that the gold they have stored in foreign bank vaults is safe. Two examples immediately come to mind: Venezuela and Germany. In August of 2011, the President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, demanded that the London bullion banks that were holding Venezuela’s gold ship it to Caracas. (Again, don’t dismiss this as political posturing.) Despite the fact that the shipment could have been carried on a single cargo plane, it took until late January 2012 (17 months), for the London banks to completely comply. One should wonder why. Then, the German Bundesbank asked for an audit of its gold holdings at the Fed. One knows how the Fed has resisted audits from Congress, so why should a request from a German bank meet with any different result? After political escalation, a German minister was permitted to see a room full of gold at the New York Fed. In early 2013, the Bundesbank publicly announced that its intent was to repatriate its gold from the vaults in Paris, London, and New York. We have now learned that it will take seven years for the New York Fed to ship the gold earmarked as belonging to Germany in the Fed’s vaults. One should wonder why such a long delay.

In the face of all of this — unparalleled money printing, the rise in the prices of real estate and equities in 2013, and the creeping suspicions regarding the real value of fiat currencies — how is it that the price of gold fell 28% in 2013? The answer lies in leverage and hypothecation, the modus operandi of Wall Street, London, and financiers worldwide. The paper gold market, the one that trades the ETFs such as the SPDR Gold Trust, is 92 times bigger than the physical supply of gold according to Tocqueville’s John Hathaway. Think about that. It means that each physical ounce of gold that actually exists has been loaned, pledged, and re-loaned 92 times on average. Each holder in the paper gold market thinks that the ounce of paper gold held in the brokerage account is backed by an ounce of real gold. But there are, on average, 92 others who apparently have a claim on the same real, physical ounce.

The answer to the question, why did gold fall 28% in 2013 when, theoretically, it should have risen, is that Wall Street, London, and hedge funds have turned the paper gold market into a market of speculation, where the price rises or falls, not based on the purchasing power of currencies (the hedging characteristic of gold), but on such things as whether or not the Fed will taper, what impact Iranian nuclear talks will have on oil flows, if the interest rates in the eurozone periphery are likely to rise or fall, etc.

In my next article, I will explain how all of this occurred, and what investors who want to hedge and not speculate should do.

Robert Barone (Ph.D., economics, Georgetown University) is a principal of Universal Value Advisors, Reno, a registered investment adviser. Barone is a former director of the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco and is currently a director of Allied Mineral Products, Columbus, Ohio, AAA Northern California, Nevada, Utah Auto Club, and the associated AAA Insurance Co., where he chairs the investment committee. Barone or the professionals at UVA (Joshua Barone, Andrea Knapp and Marvin Grulli) are available to discuss client investment needs.
Call them at 775-284-7778.
Statistics and other information have been compiled from various sources. Universal Value Advisors believes the facts and information to be accurate and credible but makes no guarantee to the complete accuracy of this information.

December 27, 2013

Part I: The Short-Term Outlook – A Strong and Accelerating Economy

Posted in Banking, business, Economic Growth, Economy, Federal Reserve, Finance, Housing Market, investment advisor, investment banking, investments, Markets, mortgage rates, Robert Barone at 4:41 PM by Robert Barone

Those who read our blogs know that over the past 6 months or so, we have turned positive on the underlying private sector of the U.S. economy.  We have had comments from several readers about this apparent change of heart, some of them almost in disbelief.  So, let us dispel any doubts.  There is a huge difference between the short-term and the long-term outlooks.  Let’s realize that long-term trends are just that, long-term, and that they take a long time to play out.  As you will see if you read through both parts of this year end outlook, our long-term views haven’t changed.  But, since the long-term doesn’t just suddenly appear, there really isn’t anything contradictory in being optimistic about the short-term.  As a result, we have divided this outlook up into its two logical parts, the short-term and the long-term.

Let’s start with the short-term.  First, at least through 2014 and probably 2015, the ‘fiscal drag’ that caused headwinds for the economy has now passed with the signing of the budget deal in mid-December.  In his December 18th press conference, Fed Chairman Bernanke indicated that four years after the trough of the ’01 recession, employees at all levels of government had grown by 400,000; but at the same point today, that number is -600,000, i.e., a difference of a million jobs.  Think of that when you think about ‘fiscal drag.’  The November jobs data shows that jobs at all levels of government have now turned positive.  No matter your view of the desirability of this, those employees receive paychecks and can consume goods and services.  So, from a short-term point of view, the ‘fiscal drag’ has ended, and, all other things being equal, this will actually spur the growth rate of real GDP.

Manufacturing and Trade

The institute for Supply Management’s (ISM) indexes, both manufacturing and non-manufacturing, are as high or higher than they were in the ’05-’06 boom period.  This is shown in the chart immediately below.

pic 1

Shown in the next chart is industrial production, which in November, finally exceeded its ’07 peak.

Pic 2

Now look below at the auto chart.  Sales are as frothy today as they were in the pre-recession boom.  Sales for the holiday buying period are destined to surprise to the upside.

Pic 3 

Housing

Part of the reason that the economy is not overheating is housing.  The chart clearly shows that housing starts are significantly lagging their ’05-’06 levels.  But, recognize that ’05-’06 was the height of the housing bubble.

Pic 4

November’s housing starts surprised to the upside.  But, they are still only 53% of their bubble peak.  Nevertheless, because new home construction has been in the doldrums for the past six years, the resurgence evident in the economy has pushed the median price of a new home north of what it was then.  In addition, the lack of construction has put the months’ supply of new homes at less than 3.  In the housing bubble, when everyone was in the market, the average level of supply was 4 months.  So, in some respects, the current housing market is hotter than it was at the height of the bubble.  And, while interest rates have risen and are a cause for concern, they are still very low by historic standards, and we have a Fed that on December 18th recommitted to keeping them down for a period much longer than the market had anticipated.

 Labor Markets

Because the popular unemployment index is a lot higher today than it was in the ’05-’06 boom (7% vs. 5%), the popular media assumes that the labor markets are still loose.  But, demographics and incentives to work have changed over the past seven years.  The labor sub-indicators imply a much tighter labor market than the traditional unemployment index would lead one to believe.  Recent new nonfarm payrolls are equivalent to their monthly gains of ’05-’06.  The weekly Initial Jobless Claims number for the week ending 11/30 was 298,000.  Except for one week this past September, you have to go all the way back to May ’07 to find a number that low.  The first chart below shows the definite downtrend in new and continuing jobless claims.

Pic 5

The next chart shows that layoffs and discharges are lower than they were in ’05-’06 and that both the “Job Openings” and “Jobs Hard to Fill” sub-indexes are in up trends and are approaching ’05-’06 levels.

Pic 6 

The Aggregates

So, while auto sales are booming, the labor markets are tight, and manufacturing and services are expanding at or near boom levels, why do the aggregates (Real GDP, for example) appear so depressed?  One explanation that we think has some credibility, is that there has been an expansion in the underground economy (barter; working for cash, etc.).  The ‘fiscal drag’ headwinds discussed earlier, have, no doubt, had a large impact on the sluggish growth in the aggregates.  On a positive note, the latest revisions to Q3 ’13 Real GDP show a growth rate of 4.1%, which, on its face, supports our short-term optimism.  And until mid-December, the markets had discounted this as resulting mainly from growth in unwanted inventories.  But Black Friday and Cyber Monday sales along with upbeat ongoing retail reports tell us something different, i.e., the inventory growth was not unwanted at all.  While the markets expect a 2% Real GDP growth for Q4 ’13, don’t be surprised if it is much higher.

Short-term Implications

The underlying data, at least for the next 6 to 12 months, point to a strengthening economy.  Certainly, a stock market correction is possible.  We haven’t had one for more than 2 years.  But, while possible, a significant downdraft like those of ’01 or ’09, don’t typically occur when the economy is accelerating (1987 is an exception) without an extraneous and unanticipated shock.  With the signing of the first budget deal in four years, and with the Fed clearing the air about tapering and actually extending its announced period of zero interest rates, almost all of the short-term worries appear to be behind us, except one.

 Inflation – The Potential Fly in the Ointment

The ‘official’ Consumer Price index (CPI) was flat in November, dominated, as it has been all autumn, by the fall back in gasoline prices.  Somehow, while we all know that everyday prices are rising at a significant pace, the markets have bought into the deflation theme.  Perhaps the belief is that if the markets play along with the Fed’s low inflation theme, the Fed will remain easier for longer.

In his December 16th blog, David Rosenberg (Gluskin-Sheff) has the following to say about inflation:

I have a tough time reconciling the ‘official’ inflation data with what’s happening in the real world… the .7% jump in retail sales in November on top of +.6% in October – these gains were all in volume terms?  No price increases at all?  Restaurants are now registering sales at a double-digit annual rate… No price increases here?  The BLS tells us in the CPI data that there is no pricing power in the airline industry and yet the sector is the best performing YTD within the equity markets…  global airline service fees have soared 18% in 2013… these [fees] are becoming an ever-greater share of the revenue pie and one must wonder if they are getting adequately captured in the CPI data.

Inflation could be the fly in the ointment for 2014.  As long as the markets play along with the Fed’s deflation theme, as we expect they will as long as they can, the economy and markets will do just fine (this doesn’t mean there won’t be a correction in the equity markets, as we haven’t had a meaningful one for two years).  But sooner, or later, something will have to be done about inflation.  We will close this Part I with a quote from Jim Rogers, the commodity guru (Barron’s, October 12, 2013):

The price of nearly everything is going up.  We have inflation in India, China, Norway, Australia – everywhere but the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.  I’m telling you, they’re lying.

December 20, 2013

Robert Barone, Ph.D.

Joshua Barone

Andrea Knapp Nolan

Dustin Goldade

 

Robert Barone (Ph.D., economics, Georgetown University) is a principal of Universal Value Advisors, Reno, a registered investment adviser. Barone is a former director of the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco and is currently a director of Allied Mineral Products, Columbus, Ohio, AAA Northern California, Nevada, Utah Auto Club, and the associated AAA Insurance Co., where he chairs the investment committee. Barone or the professionals at UVA (Joshua Barone, Andrea Knapp and Marvin Grulli) are available to discuss client investment needs.
Call them at 775-284-7778.
Statistics and other information have been compiled from various sources. Universal Value Advisors believes the facts and information to be accurate and credible but makes no guarantee to the complete accuracy of this information.

 

 

November 19, 2013

The Fed’s ‘Bizarro World,’ Part II

Posted in Banking, Big Banks, Bonds, Economy, Federal Reserve, Finance, Robert Barone, Uncategorized at 11:12 PM by Robert Barone

The Fed’s ‘Bizarro World,’ Part II

Robert Barone

By Robert Barone, Ph.D
 

The “Seinfeld” TV comedy series (1989-98) had a set of episodes, known as “Jerry’s Bizarro World,” where everything “normal” was turned upside down and inside out. I have referred to this world in a previous column, and continue to find such Bizarro patterns in our real world.

The Fed was established in 1913 to act as a lender of last resort to a financial system that had been plagued with “panics” and deep recessions. At inception, its main policy tool was the “discount rate” and “discount window” where banks could submit eligible collateral to obtain needed liquidity when such options had dried up in the capital and financial markets.

Open market operations

Beginning in 1922, the Fed began to use a tool known as Open Market Operations (OMO), the buying and selling of government securities to add or subtract liquidity from the capital markets, reserves from the banking system, and to impact interest rates. OMO has traditionally been considered to be the Fed’s main policy tool. But that ended in late 2010 with the implementation of Quantitative Easing II (QE2).

In 2009, as the financial system was experiencing one of those financial panics, the Fed did what it was created to do, and provided liquidity to the markets where none was otherwise available. Many argue that Fed action via QE1 was instrumental in stabilizing the U.S. and world banking systems

Look at those excess reserves!

But, then, because the U.S. rebound from the ensuing recession was too slow, in late 2010 and again in 2012, the Fed announced more QE. Today, the latest figures show excess reserves in the banking system of $2.23 trillion. The reserves required on all of today’s existing deposits are $67 billion ($0.067 trillion). Today’s excess reserves are so massive that they can support 33 times current deposit levels without the Fed creating one more reserve dollar. Yet, with QE3, it continues to create $85 billion/month.

While they sit in an account at the Fed, excess bank reserves don’t directly influence economic activity. This, of course, has been the issue for the past five years. But, when banks do lend, the newly minted money gets into the private sector, impacting economic activity with the well-known “multiplier effect” described in money and banking textbooks. When such bank lending occurs, if the labor market is tight or there is little or no excess capacity in the business community, inflation ensues. Just think of how much money the banks can create if their current excess reserves are 33 times more than they need!

Sell side of OMO is impotent

So, how is the Fed going to control bank money creation in the future? They can’t use their most powerful traditional tool, OMO, because they would have to sell trillions of dollars of securities into the open markets before reserves would become a restricting issue for the banking system. The utterance of the word “tapering” last May sent rates up 100 basis points in a two-week period. This is just a taste of what would happen to interest rates if the Fed actually began to sell (instead of just buying a lesser amount, which is what “tapering” means).

Furthermore, long-term fiscal issues have become a real concern. With somewhere between $85 and $120 trillion of unfunded liabilities rapidly approaching as the population ages (as a comparison, annual U.S. GDP is only $16 trillion), huge fiscal deficits are a certainty barring entitlement, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid reform. To keep the cost of the debt manageable within the U.S. government budget, the Fed must continue to keep interest rates low. With foreign criticism of U.S. policies on the rise, purchases of U.S. Treasury debt by foreign entities are likely to diminish in the future. That leaves the Fed as the major lender (lender of last resort!) to the Treasury via OMO purchases.

The borrowing window in reverse

Unable to use the “sell” side of OMO to influence the banking system, the Fed is now stuck with only one tool, the discount or borrowing window. Only now, because the financial system is drowning in the sea of liquidity, the borrowing window and discount rate must now work in reverse!

In the traditional use of the borrowing window, the Fed used the discount rate (short-term borrowing rate) to encourage (by lowering rates) or discourage (by raising rates) banks from borrowing to lend to the private sector. But, in today’s Bizarro World, the Fed will have to use the rate it pays (currently 0.25 percent/year) to the banks with excess reserves to encourage or discourage bank lending. Yes! Not the rate the banks pay to the Fed to borrow, but the rate the Fed pays to the banks to encourage them to keep their reserves instead of lending them. The original concept of the Fed as the lender of last resort has been turned on its head. It’s backward — it’s Bizarro!

Implications for investors

It is difficult for investors to deal with a system turned on its head. The bond market gets spooked whenever there is talk of the Fed “tapering” its bond purchases. The return on those bonds is simply too low for the risk involved, so the best advice here is to avoid them unless you are exceptionally skilled. That leaves equities — but that is a topic for another column in this new and Bizarro World.

 

 

Robert Barone (Ph.D., economics, Georgetown University) is a principal of Universal Value Advisors, Reno, a registered investment adviser. Barone is a former director of the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco and is currently a director of Allied Mineral Products, Columbus, Ohio, AAA Northern California, Nevada, Utah Auto Club, and the associated AAA Insurance Co., where he chairs the investment committee. Barone or the professionals at UVA (Joshua Barone, Andrea Knapp, Matt Marcewicz and Marvin Grulli) are available to discuss client investment needs.
Call them at 775-284-7778.
Statistics and other information have been compiled from various sources. Universal Value Advisors believes the facts and information to be accurate and credible but makes no guarantee to the complete accuracy of this information.

 

November 6, 2013

The Fed in Reverse

Posted in Banking, Federal Reserve, Robert Barone tagged , at 5:11 PM by Robert Barone

NEW YORK (TheStreet) — The Federal Reserve has strayed so far from its original mandate that its only effective policy tool, the so-called discount window, must now be used in reverse to be effective.

A brief history of the Fed shows how we got to this point.

The Fed was established in 1913 to act as a lender of last resort to a financial system that had been plagued with panics and the inevitable recessions that resulted since at least the Civil War. At the Fed’s inception, the central bank’s main policy tool was the “discount rate” and “discount window,” where banks could submit eligible collateral to obtain needed liquidity when such options had dried up in the capital and financial markets.

Early on, the Fed contemplated the use of Open Market Operations (OMO), the buying and selling of government securities in the open market to add or subtract liquidity from the banking system, which would affect interest rates. The first use of OMO occurred in 1922, and from that time on, until recently, that is, OMO was considered to be the Fed’s main policy tool. In many of today’s money and banking textbooks, you may still find such sentiment. But the era of OMO as the Fed’s major policy tool ended in late 2010 with Quantitative Easing II (QE2).

In 2009, as the financial system was experiencing one of those financial panics, the Fed did what it was created to do and provided liquidity to the markets where none was otherwise available. Many argue that Fed action via QE1 was instrumental in stabilizing the U.S. and world banking systems. QE1 provided the U.S. banking system with excess reserves — reserves in excess of those required for the existing deposit levels — of about $1 trillion.

But, then, because the U.S. rebound from the recession was too slow for the Fed, in late 2010 and again in 2012, the Fed announced more QE. Today, the latest figures show excess reserves in the banking system of $2.23 trillion. The reserves required on all of today’s existing deposits are $67 billion.

Today’s excess reserves are so massive that they can support 33 times current deposit levels without the Fed creating one more dollar. Yet with QE3, it continues to create $85 billion per month in additional excess reserves.

Excess bank reserves are called “high powered money.” While they sit in an account at the Fed, they don’t directly influence economic activity. But when banks lend, the newly minted money gets into the private sector and affects economic activity. And if there is no excess capacity in the labor or capital markets, inflation ensues.

Just think of how much money the banks can create if their current excess reserves are 33 times more than they need. Given the magnitudes here, the use of the reserve requirement policy tool to control future bank lending doesn’t appear to be feasible.

So what about the use of its most powerful traditional tool, OMO? Unfortunately, the recent overuse via QE2 and QE3 has made this tool ineffective. Imagine the Fed trying to control bank lending by reducing excess reserves. It would have to sell trillions of dollars of securities into the open markets before excess reserves would become an issue for the banking system. Where would interest rates be at that point?

Furthermore, long-term fiscal issues have become a real concern. With somewhere between $85 trillion and $120 trillion of unfunded liabilities rapidly approaching, huge fiscal deficits are a certainty barring entitlement, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid reform.

To keep the cost of the debt manageable within the U.S. government budget, the Fed must continue to keep interest rates low. With pressures building internationally for a different world reserve currency, foreign purchases of Treasury debt may diminish in the future. That leaves the Fed as the major lender to the Treasury via OMO purchases. Trying to reduce its holdings of securities at this time would likely result in another financial panic.

Unable to use the “sell” side of OMO to influence the banking system, and unable to effectively use reserve requirements because of the magnitude of the imbalance, the Fed is now stuck with only one tool, the discount or borrowing window. Only now, because the financial system is drowning in the sea of liquidity produced by the Fed, the borrowing window and discount rate must now work in reverse.

In the traditional use of the borrowing window, the Fed used the discount rate (short-term borrowing rate to encourage (by lowering rates) or discourage (by raising rates) banks from borrowing to lend to the private sector. But now because of the volume of excess reserves created by QE2 and QE3, the Fed will have to use the rate it pays, currently 0.25%/year, to the banks with excess reserves to encourage or discourage bank lending.

Yes! Not the rate the banks pay to the Fed to borrow, but the rate the Fed pays to the banks to encourage them to keep their reserves instead of lending them.

The original concept of the Fed as the lender of last resort has been turned on its head. Instead of the private-sector banks paying to get needed liquidity, the public sector, i.e., taxpayers, will be paying the banks not to use the excess the Fed has created. It’s backward — it’s Bizarro.

Robert Barone (Ph.D., economics, Georgetown University) is a principal of Universal Value Advisors, Reno, a registered investment adviser. Barone is a former director of the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco and is currently a director of Allied Mineral Products, Columbus, Ohio, AAA Northern California, Nevada, Utah Auto Club, and the associated AAA Insurance Co., where he chairs the investment committee. Barone or the professionals at UVA (Joshua Barone, Andrea Knapp, Matt Marcewicz and Marvin Grulli) are available to discuss client investment needs.

Call them at 775-284-7778.

Statistics and other information have been compiled from various sources. Universal Value Advisors believes the facts and information to be accurate and credible but makes no guarantee to the complete accuracy of this information.

November 5, 2013

The Fed is bungling world’s reserve currency

Posted in Federal Reserve, Finance, Uncategorized tagged at 9:38 PM by Robert Barone

The Fed has proven to be a terrible caretaker of the responsibilities that come with reserve currency status, even while the U.S. economy benefits greatly from it. The bungling is so great that the dollar is now at risk of the loss of that status, and with it, those huge benefits.

Some history

After both world wars, the U.S. had the strongest economy. And despite FDR’s removal of the U.S. from the gold standard in 1933, the Bretton Woods agreements of 1944 established a “gold exchange” standard wherein balance of payment deficit nations were to settle up with surplus nations in gold (at $35 per ounce).

Under this system, when gold payment settlements were made, the gold never was physically shipped but simply “moved” in the holding vault to an area designated for the recipient country.

In 1971, Republican President Richard Nixon removed the world from the gold exchange standard when France demanded physical delivery. Since then, the dollar has served as the world’s reserve currency, with “trust” as the only underlying asset.

The perks of reserve status

Most international transactions today occur in dollars, even if none of the transacting parties is American. For example, if Hyundai (South Korea) sells autos to a business in Argentina, the buyer must first convert the Argentina peso to dollars to pay for the autos. Hyundai can either hold the dollars, or convert them to their home currency (Won).

Note that this transaction has little to do with U.S. economic activity. Yet, it means that there has to be a lot of dollars floating around to support worldwide trade.

The reserve currency status and trust in the U.S. dollar has resulted in the U.S. government’s ability to overspend and issue debt because of the demand for dollars in international trade.

On the other hand, when an emerging economy’s government runs a large and systemic deficit, there are serious fiscal consequences. The value of the currency immediately falls, inflation occurs and the markets force up interest rates, thus impacting that economy’s economic growth.

The reserve currency status and the accompanying trust in the currency also have resulted in the investment of excess dollars in the international system back into U.S. Treasury securities, allowing the Treasury to run large deficits without significant consequences for the currency’s value.

Emerging pressures

Of course, we’ve all heard stories that countries like China and Russia have been advocating that the world adopt a different reserve currency. Many dismiss China’s and Russia’s positions as political rants. But these gripes are legitimate, and unless they are changed, the existing monetary and fiscal policies in the U.S. eventually will move the world toward an alternative reserve currency system.

Policy impacts

While Congress has played a major role, the Fed in particular has been irresponsible as the caretaker of the world’s reserve currency. Because the U.S. never openly asked that the dollar be the reserve currency, the Fed maintains that its only interest is in America’s economic performance. But Fed policies, such as quantitative easing, have huge consequences worldwide.

For example, when the Fed tells the capital markets that interest rates will be 0 percent for an “extended period,” as it did in 2012, hedge funds borrow dollars at minuscule yields and send unwanted dollars to higher-yielding emerging market economies.

Those capital movements have been monstrous, often overwhelming the emerging economy’s underdeveloped financial system, causing inflation in the local economy along with rising interest rates and slowing economic growth.

Then, last May, when Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke used the word “taper,” those huge flows, which had built up over a period of months, almost instantaneously reversed as the hedge funds raced to repay their borrowings before interest rates rose further.

Robert Barone (Ph.D., economics, Georgetown University) is a principal of Universal Value Advisors, Reno, a registered investment adviser. Barone is a former director of the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco and is currently a director of Allied Mineral Products, Columbus, Ohio, AAA Northern California, Nevada, Utah Auto Club, and the associated AAA Insurance Co., where he chairs the investment committee. Barone or the professionals at UVA (Joshua Barone, Andrea Knapp, Matt Marcewicz and Marvin Grulli) are available to discuss client investment needs.

Call them at 775-284-7778.

Statistics and other information have been compiled from various sources. Universal Value Advisors believes the facts and information to be accurate and credible but makes no guarantee to the complete accuracy of this information.

September 23, 2013

The Fed Has Lost Its Cred 09.23.2013

Posted in Federal Reserve, Markets, Robert Barone, Uncategorized tagged , at 7:59 PM by Robert Barone

NEW YORK (TheStreet) — After nearly eight years of trying to make the Federal Reserve more transparent, in one stroke Chairman Ben Bernanke has undone much of that effort.
In May, he telegraphed the “taper” of the Fed’s “Large Scale Asset Purchase” program (known as LSAP to Fed economists and quantitative easing, or QE, to Wall Street) based on a strengthening economy and labor market.

The market reacted by pushing 10-year Treasury yields to nearly 3% from 1.6%, one of the most rapid backups in yields on record. Then, in the face of that strengthening economy and labor markets, last Wednesday, Bernanke pulled the rug out.

The Data: Except for the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) August unemployment report, almost all of the underlying data underscore a strengthening economy. Both ISM manufacturing and non-manufacturing indexes for August were strong, with the non-manufacturing index setting a record high. The employment sub-indexes were no exceptions. Initial unemployment claims have been in a steady and steep downtrend since 2010.

The week of Sept. 7 saw this number at 294,000, a number not seen since April 2006. The four-week moving average, considered more reliable, at 314,750, hasn’t been this low since October 2007. The Fed’s own economists have indicated that concerns over “structural” employment issues (i.e., labor force drop-outs) have been overdone. Job openings in the private sector are higher than at any time since 2008, and employers complain they cannot find qualified candidates.

Thus, based on labor market conditions, which Bernanke indicated was key, in conjunction with the lack of success of the LSAP programs in stimulating economic growth (also according to the Fed’s own economists), the “taper” should have occurred.

After months of “taper” talk and years of trying to promote transparency, last Wednesday, something else happened. We don’t know what it was — yet. Maybe we will find out soon, or maybe we will have to wait for Bernanke’s memoirs.

Here are some possibilities:
•The Fed misread the August employment report. This doesn’t seem possible. As outlined above, all of the underlying employment data are much stronger, not weaker than last spring. Also, the Fed knows that the BLS heavily massages the employment releases.
The concurrent seasonal adjustment process used by the BLS, where each month the entire year’s series is recalculated but not released to the public, makes it not only possible but highly probable that the weaker August release simply reflected catch-up from the frail first and second quarters. So, while the August BLS numbers could be used as an excuse, they surely cannot be the underlying reason.

•The market reaction to the May “taper” announcement was more than the Fed anticipated and interest rates backed up too fast. The Fed may be concerned over the impact of higher rates on the nascent housing recovery. After all, the QEs seem to be aimed squarely at housing (the purchase of Mortgage Backed Securities in QE3) and the equity markets. But if this were the case, the Fed could easily jawbone rates lower, even in the face of the initial taper. In fact, many market pundits thought that rates would fall if the “taper” amount was as anticipated ($10 billion to $15 billion).
•There is a third possibility, one that is purely speculative on my part: Bernanke has decided that he wants another four-year term as chairman. Of course, that requires a White House nomination. Recognizing that nothing happens in Washington that isn’t manipulated or controlled, the events of the past 10 days surrounding the Fed seem too coincidental not to be related.
It is clear that while the markets want Janet Yellen to be the next Fed chair, the White House is not keen on her. Perhaps the “no-tapering” announcement was the quid pro quo between Bernanke and the White House and that Lawrence Summers’ formal withdrawal of his name from consideration (quite unusual, since there was no formally announced candidate list) was part and parcel. After all, a rising stock market is always desirable for the White House’s occupant.

Conclusion: History will eventually sort all of this out. Meanwhile, one thing is clear: The eight years of effort to make the Fed more transparent and credible have been dealt a serious blow. Last Wednesday, with the “no-taper” announcement, the Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 147 points. Since then, it has fallen 226 points, with a loss of 185 on Friday, as the markets have begun to rethink the implications.

In the end, without Fed credibility, markets will be more uncertain and, therefore, more volatile.

Robert Barone (Ph.D., economics, Georgetown University) is a principal of Universal Value Advisors, Reno, a registered investment adviser. Barone is a former director of the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco and is currently a director of Allied Mineral Products, Columbus, Ohio, AAA Northern California, Nevada, Utah Auto Club, and the associated AAA Insurance Co., where he chairs the investment committee. Barone or the professionals at UVA (Joshua Barone, Andrea Knapp, Matt Marcewicz and Marvin Grulli) are available to discuss client investment needs.

Call them at 775-284-7778.

Statistics and other information have been compiled from various sources. Universal Value Advisors believes the facts and information to be accurate and credible but makes no guarantee to the complete accuracy of this information.

June 20, 2013

Domestic and Foreign Events Are Tying the Fed’s Hands

Posted in Federal Reserve, Finance, Uncategorized tagged , , at 10:29 PM by Robert Barone

NEW YORK (TheStreet) — Despite apparent emerging strength in the U.S. economy, the Fed is faced with serious consequences, if it moves toward a reduction of policy ease. Those consequences include:

           • A potential violent market reaction;
           • the quashing of the nascent private sector animal spirits;
           • the short-term negative consequences of a stronger dollar on imports and exports; and
           • the long-term issues of the size and cost of the debt.

The Wealth Effect

The “wealth effect” has been studied for decades with the universal conclusion that its overall economic impact is marginal; i.e., the wealthy simply have a low marginal propensity to consume. Yet, this appears to be the only benefit of the massive QE programs, which — as documented by two revered market pundits, David Rosenberg and Jeffrey Gundlach — has a nearly 90% correlation with the equity markets.

In recent weeks, we saw the violent reactions in both equity and fixed-income markets to the mere concept of “tapering,” which is not tightening, but simply less easing (a change in the 2nd derivative). Clearly, a move to lessen ease risks the small success that massive QE has had to date.

Deflation

Deflation is a worldwide issue, even among emerging industrial powers like the BRICS. China’s economy, which has been the world’s economic growth engine for the past half decade, appears to be slowing significantly, despite its official purported 7.5% growth rate. The underlying data tell the story, including depressed raw commodity prices, excess high seas shipping capacity, the value of the currencies of commodity-producing countries like Australia, and a falloff in exports from lower-cost producers like South Korea.

Except for Japan, in April, the IMF significantly lowered its growth forecasts for every industrial economy. Thus, any tightening move by the Fed would only exacerbate worldwide deflationary pressures.

Debt Costs

The high and rising cost of U.S. debt, much of which is financed by foreigners, makes abandonment of easy money highly risky for U.S. fiscal policy. The U.S. public is unaware that the true GAAP deficit has exceeded $5 trillion for the past five years. Instead, the $1 trillion cash-flow budget deficit is viewed as the issue. Nevertheless, as time passes, the already built-in additional $4 trillion per year of promises will become current obligations.

I have seen several estimates of the cost of that future debt in rising-interest-rate scenarios. None are pretty. The most recent from Jeffrey Gundlach of Doubleline estimated the cost of the debt and deficit at $2.5 trillion by 2017, if the 10-year rate were to rise gradually from its current 2.1% level to 6.0%. By then, Gundlach says, the debt itself will be $26 trillion. Such deficits and debt levels risk not only inflation, but the dollar’s role as the world’s reserve currency.

Conclusion

The consequences of rising U.S. interest rates are dire. They would exacerbate worldwide deflation, play havoc with the nascent U.S.economic recovery, reverse the limited positive impact of the wealth effect via U.S. equity markets and have dire consequences for the dollar and U.S. fiscal policy. Rising rates will inevitably occur, but don’t count on them anytime soon. 

Robert Barone (Ph.D., Economics, Georgetown University) is a Principal of Universal Value
Advisors (UVA), Reno, NV, a Registered Investment Advisor. Dr. Barone is a former Director of the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco, and is currently a Director of Allied Mineral Products, Columbus, Ohio, AAA Northern California, Nevada, Utah Auto Club, and the associated AAA Insurance Company where he chairs the Investment Committee.

Information cited has been compiled from various sources which UVA believes to be accurate and credible but makes no guarantee as to its accuracy. A more detailed description of the company, its management and practices is contained in its “Firm Brochure” (Form ADV, Part 2A) which may be obtained by contacting UVA at: 9222 Prototype Dr., Reno, NV 89521.

Ph: (775) 284-7778.

Next page