Bond buying

Will the US Become the Next Deflation Nation?

4032604165_c51e3de927_z.jpg

Since the Great Recession, the Federal Reserve has worked hard to boost the economy. Part of the Fed’s mission was to keep core inflation (the price of goods and services excluding food and energy), at a pace of two percent annually. Although there have been instances over the past six years when either energy or food prices jumped, temporarily raising the specter of inflation, throughout the financial crisis and the recovery, the central bank has been much more focused on deflation, which is defined as a drop in the price of goods and services. For those who were around during the inflationary 1970s and 1980s, deflation is an alien concept. But according to data released by the government last week, the near-60 percent plunge in oil prices pushed down consumer prices by 0.4 percent in December from the previous month, leaving the CPI just 1.6 percent above where it stood a year ago, below the 1.9 percent annual rate over the past ten years.

Although the idea of falling prices seems like a good thing, when deflation is persistent, it can put into a motion a scary, downward spiral. It starts when the economy cools, which prompts companies to reduce prices in the hopes of luring customers and maintaining sales volume. But as companies make less money, they could then cut jobs and/or wages, which could then cause consumers to spend less in order to service their fixed costs, like taxes and mortgages/rents.

The longer that deflation goes on, the higher the risk that consumers’ and businesses’ become accustomed to the situation and delay spending, hoping they will eventually be able to buy goods more cheaply and to invest more efficiently. They also become less willing to borrow.

The vicious deflationary cycle can mire an economy in a deep recession or even worse, a depression. As an example, between 1929 and 1933, US consumer prices fell by a cumulative 25 percent. More recently, Japanese consumer prices have been stuck for the past 20 years and the Euro Zone and the United Kingdom are both currently battling falling prices.

Besides the obvious harm that deflation can cause, the other problem is that central bankers have limited tools to fight it. (In contrast, when there is inflation, hiking interest rates may hurt in the short-term, but it is effective in combating higher prices.) In a deflationary environment, policy makers would likely return to bond buying (Quantitative Easing), which depending on the magnitude of price declines, may not stop the downward spiral. (FYI, there will be an excellent test case in the efficacy of QE coming up. This week, the European Central Bank is expected to unveil its version of bond buying to boost prices in the euro zone.)

Back to the US, where the big question is whether the current drop in prices is temporary or whether there is something scary brewing. Analysts at Capital Economics believe that odds are that while negative readings on headline inflation could persist at least for the first half of the year, “it is hard to see why this renewed slump in oil prices, which is developing against a backdrop of a rapidly improving real US economy, will lead to anything more than a temporary drop in inflation.” They are quick to point out that even when crude oil collapsed from a 2008 peak of $140 per barrel to $40, amid a deep recession, prices recovered and the economy avoided a prolonged bout of deflation.

That said, they also add that “Deflation may be just one recession away,” which is probably why Fed officials continue to err on the side of adding more stimulus to the economy than less and are taking a “wait and see” attitude towards increasing short-term interest rates. Currently, the consensus is for the first rate hike to occur in the third quarter of this year. But any indication of an economic slowdown, accompanied by a more substantial drop in core prices, could put the Fed on hold longer, to avoid a dangerous deflationary downward spiral.

MARKETS: Last week, the Swiss Central Bank’s decision to discontinue its 3½ practice of pegging the Swiss Franc to the Euro sent ripple effects throughout global markets. (The policy was intended to halt the rise of the Swiss currency, which made it difficult for Swiss exporters to remain competitive in the global market.) Meanwhile, the punk US Retail Sales report unnerved investors, who continue to worry about a slowdown in global growth.

  • DJIA: 17,511, down 1.3% on week, down 1.8% YTD
  • S&P 500: 2019, down 1.2% on week, down 1.9% YTD (still within 4% of all-time highs)
  • NASDAQ: 4634, down 1.5% on week, down 1.5% YTD
  • Russell 2000: 1176, down 0.8% on week, down 2.3% YTD
  • 10-Year Treasury yield: 1.84% (from 1.97% a week ago)
  • February Crude Oil: $48.69, up 0.7% on week (oil CAN rise!)
  • February Gold: 1,276.90 $1,216.10, up 5% on week
  • AAA Nat'l average price for gallon of regular Gas: $2.08 (from $3.33 a year ago)

THE WEEK AHEAD:

Mon 1/19: Markets closed in honor of MLK Day

Tues 1/20:

Baker Hughes, Coach, Haliburton, Morgan Stanley, Netflix

2014 Tax Season begins

10:00 NAHB Housing Market Index

State of the Union address

Weds 1/21:

American Express, eBay

8:30 Housing Starts

Thurs 1/22:

Southwest Air, Starbux, Verizon

European Central Bank Policy meeting

8:30 Weekly Jobless Claims

Fri 1/23:

General Electric, McDonald’s

8:30 Existing Home Sales

Did QE Work?

QE3.jpg

Almost exactly six years ago the Federal Reserve launched an unconventional program of buying bonds to rescue a faltering economy. Since then, the Fed’s balance sheet has ballooned by $3.5 trillion, close to 25 percent on the nation’s gross domestic product. The central bank is expected to announce the end of the program, known as Quantitative Easing, when it concludes a two-day policy meeting this week. So did QE work? To answer that question, we have to review the policy’s two goals: (1) to restore the functionality of markets, which had essentially locked up amid the financial crisis and (2) to boost the economy by lowering interest rates.

There is no doubt that the first round of QE, which began in November 2008 and the second round, which ran from August 2010 – June 2011, eased the strain in markets. According to Joe Gagnon, Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, QE also “inspired confidence and…it convinced financial markets that the United States wouldn’t turn into Japan, which they were worried about.” The net result is that markets did start functioning more smoothly.

According to a Federal Reserve Board study, those first two rounds of QE also boosted economic growth. The bond buying “raised the level of output by almost 3 percent and increased private payroll employment by more than 2 million jobs, relative to what otherwise would have occurred…the incremental contribution of the program is estimated to grow to 3 million jobs.” Additionally, Bill McBride of Calculated Risk estimates that QE probably lowered interest rates by 0.50 percent, allowing consumers and companies to refinance their higher interest debt, thus reducing monthly payments and improving monthly cash flow.

There have been a few couple of criticisms of QE, including that it artificially boosted stock prices because investors were dissuaded from investing in bonds; it penalized savers, who have been staring at zero percent rates on their savings, checking and CD accounts; and it will ultimately lead to rampant inflation and a weaker US dollar.

Despite these concerns, it seems like doing nothing would have been far worse. Sure, stock prices are trading higher than they might have without QE, but where would they be if the economy were stuck in an even lower gear? And yes, savers have taken it on the chin, but hopefully, they were not damaged as much in the downturn because of those nest eggs. And while concerns about potential inflation are always important to consider, there is absolutely no evidence of inflation in the US economy to date – in fact, recent reports point to a slowdown in prices, not an acceleration.

QE may not have been the perfect policy solution, but in an environment where the government was a roadblock (anyone who thinks that austerity would have been the correct policy solution should take a look at how well it has played out in the eurozone), QE was far better than doing nothing.

MARKETS: Investors snapped a four-week losing streak, as earnings took center stage. With 208 S&P 500 companies reporting, the index is on track for 5.6 percent earnings growth from last year, according to FactSet. That compares with expectations for 4.5 percent growth before earnings season started.

  • DJIA: 16,805 up 2.6% on week, up 1.4% YTD
  • S&P 500: 1964, up 4.1% on week, up 6.3% YTD (largest weekly percentage gain since Jan 2013)
  • NASDAQ: 4483, up 5.3% on week, up 7.4% YTD (largest weekly percentage gain since Dec 2011)
  • Russell 2000: 1118, up 3.4% on week, down 3.9% YTD
  • 10-Year Treasury yield: 2.27% (from 2.2% a week ago)
  • December Crude Oil: $81.01, down 1.3% on the week (4th weekly loss, down 20% from June)
  • December Gold: $1231.80, down 0.6% on the week
  • AAA Nat'l average price for gallon of regular Gas: $3.06 (from $3.31 a year ago)

THE WEEK AHEAD: With worries about global growth slowing down, investors are eagerly awaiting the first estimate of third quarter growth. The economy likely expanded at an annualized rate of 3 percent, which would be down from the Q2 reading of 4.6 percent, though an improvement from the 2.2 percent pace averaged so far in this expansion.

Mon 10/27:

Amgen, Merck, Twitter

10:00 Pending Home Sales

Tues 10/28:

Dupont, Facebook, Pfizer, Sirius/XM

8:30 Durable Goods Orders

9:00 S&P Case-Shiller HPI

10:00 Consumer Confidence

FOMC Meeting Begins

Weds 10/29:

Hershey, Kraft, Visa

2:00 FOMC Meeting Announcement (no presser)

Thurs 10/30:

Conoco Phillips, GoPro, Kellogg, LinkedIn, Mastercard, Time Warner Cable

8:30 Weekly Jobless Claims

8:30 Q3 GDP – First Estimate

Fri 10/31:

Chevron, Exxon Mobil

8:30 Personal Income and Spending

9:45 Chicago PMI

9:55 Consumer Sentiment