|
Today we have a
guest article by Chris
Ciovacco on
the effects of excess liquidity being pumped into the system.
Editor
The Reverse Wealth
Effect
By Chris Ciovacco
Ciovacco
Capital Management
June 8, 2008
In our current global
economic environment, the number of moving parts for the individual
investor to track and attempt to analyze is often overwhelming.
Without a systematic approach to the global asset markets, it is
virtually impossible to discern the relative importance of an almost
infinite number of inputs. While it is a tall order, we’ll attempt
to highlight some of the key moving parts of the economic engine in
terms of the possible long-term impact on your portfolio and
purchasing power.
Monetary Policy, Structured Finance, and Net Worth
According to the Wall Street
Journal, the net worth of individuals soared 82% from 1992 through
2000, and increased 39% from 2000 through 2008. How did this happen?
Was it the “productivity miracle” fueled by technology? Since we all
know productivity did not increase by 82% from 1992 through 2000,
and again by 39% from 2000 through 2008, there had to be some other
important factors.
A prime candidate to explain the previously
unheard of rapid increases in John Q. Public’s net worth is access
to credit. By slicing and dicing debt into marketable and tradable
(at least in theory) securities, Wall Street’s promise of reducing
risk to lenders helped John Q. borrow his way to prosperity. During
the last 15 years, John and his neighbors, the Jones family,
borrowed money and bought consumer goods, stocks, bonds, and real
estate. Sales increased and asset prices went up. John and the Jones
family were happy because they felt better off when they looked at
their brokerage statements and ever-increasing home equity. Feeling
good from the “wealth effect” of their new found net worth, John,
the Jones family, and the banks all thought even more credit was a
good idea. It all worked well as long as asset prices continued to
go up. It does not work so well when they don’t. With stocks not
doing much since March of 2000 and real estate prices dropping like
a lead balloon, it may be time to coin the term “reverse wealth
effect.” Today, rather than feeling wealthy, the American public is
saddled with debt loads which are heavier than ever. Since homes
became ATM machines during the boom, John and the Jones family also
have record low equity in their once piggybank homes.
Asset Prices, the Fed, and Prices at the Pump
How does our government, which
is also bursting at the seams with debt, attempt to stop the
continuing erosion of the wealth effect? Right or wrong, they do
everything in their power to attempt to stop asset prices (homes,
stocks, etc.) from falling. As odd as it sounds, the policy makers
“solution” to the problems caused by excessive debt and credit is to
encourage more borrowing and more spending by lowering interest
rates, sending checks to us in the mail, and moving ever closer to
ownership in both our property and financial markets. When the Fed
puts taxpayers’ money behind Bear Sterns and the Congress moves
towards more and more loan guarantees, the American public is really
being forced into indirect ownership of these assets.
As the policy makers push more and more money into
the economy to boost asset prices, the law of unintended
consequences is raining on the bailout and money printing parade.
Unfortunately for debt burdened citizen, the new money being pumped
into the financial system is primarily flowing into commodities, not
residential real estate or stocks.

Click for Full-Size
Why did Friday’s bad employment report help push oil prices even
higher?
A sagging economy also
contributes to the deterioration of the wealth effect. The commodity
markets feel policy makers’ response to the weak employment report
will be to contemplate more fiscal stimuli while having an increased
aversion to raising interest rates. After the technology bubble
popped, easy monetary policies were able to maintain consumers’
feeling of wealth by fueling the residential real estate boom. The
easy money experiment may be nearing its end as the current
recipients of the newly created money (commodities) are now
contributing to the reverse wealth effect.
Are there fundamental forces behind oil’s recent move?
Yes. In many of the world’s
major oil fields it is becoming increasingly difficult and more
expensive to get oil out of the ground. Much of the world’s low
hanging fruit has already been snatched from the oil patch.
According to the Wall Street Journal, OPEC’s spare capacity is
“unusually thin – around 2 million barrels a day in a market of 86
million barrels a day – and much of that consists of a grade of
heavy, sour oil that’s less attractive to the market because it
yields fewer high-value products such as gasoline.” Additional
supply issues facing the U.S. include more OPEC oil being sold to
China, and declining U.S. imports from Mexico and Venezuela.
Are there speculative forces behind oil’s recent move?
Yes, but there are speculative
forces in every asset market. There are plenty of speculators
trading on every major stock exchange in the world. There is no
question the investment demand for oil and all commodities has
rapidly increased as prices have climbed. There are a couple of
issues that make me question the significance of the role of
speculation in the oil markets. First, one speculation argument says
diversified commodity index-based investments are artificially
driving up the price of oil. If this were such an important factor,
would not all commodities in these indexes have also benefited from
the increased demand? If so, would not all the commodities in these
indexes have seen price spikes? Well, they have not. Second, these
index investors never take physical delivery of the commodities.
Instead the indexes keep rolling over contracts. If speculation was
pushing prices significantly higher than what the fundamental market
demands, wouldn’t stockpiles of oil be building up? They are not. In
fact, oil stockpiles in the U.S. are well below the five-year
average.
Could oil have significant corrections even if it eventually
moves higher?
Yes. Commodities in
general have historically experienced some wild swings even in the
context of a long-term bull market.
Are home prices showing any real signs of stabilizing?
No. This is not good news for
the consumer, economy, and banks. According to the Wall Street
Journal, more than $200 billion of complex mortgage securities
called collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) have hit “events of
default,” which give some of their investors the right to force the
vehicles to liquidate their holdings of mortgage-backed securities
or swaps tied to them. The percentages of both subprime and prime
mortgages that are seriously delinquent are at record highs.
Delinquency rates and losses are also rising on construction loans,
some commercial loans, and other forms of consumer debt, such as
credit cards. This means access to mortgage credit will not
significantly improve anytime soon. More foreclosures are coming
which will only add more inventory to an already flooded market.
Is there any good news on the credit front?
Some. Banks have thus far been able to
raise capital from individual investors, pension funds, and
foreigners, who have helped them make some headway in terms of
repairing their balance sheets. While far from normal, the
conditions in the credit markets in general are better than they
were in March. If I were running a financial institution, I would
swallow my pride and quickly admit my mistakes and continue to raise
capital as fast as possible. Why? Because at some point, the odds
are good when the financial institutions go looking for new capital,
the response from the markets will be less than cooperative. Those
who attempt to raise capital late in the cycle, may find there is no
more capital available. If and when this happens, the credit crisis
will move to a second stage in terms of severity. The renewed
weakness in financial stocks (see chart below), will make raising
additional capital more difficult since recent equity investments
have not been profitable.
Click for Full-Size
Next Column |
How does the value of the U.S. dollar come into play?
When policy makers increase the supply
of dollars (monetary inflation) in the financial system, the dollar
becomes worth less in terms of purchasing power. It takes more
dollars to buy the same amount of gas (price inflation is the result
of monetary inflation). The dollar is being devalued via loose
monetary and fiscal policy.
Can’t the policy makers defend the dollar?
Yes, but the best way to defend the
dollar is to raise interest rates, which will in turn put more
pressure on the U.S. housing market, consumer, and economy. As both
the Fed and Treasury officials tried to do last week, releasing
statements which express concern about the dollar and inflation are
another way policy makers attempt to stem the dollar’s slide.
Unfortunately, the Fed and Treasury officials may be losing
credibility with the financial markets based on the lack of
sustained reaction to their strong dollar talk last week.

Click for Full-Size
Technical Analysis and Asset Class Outlook
As shown in the table below,
investments which provide some protection against price inflation
continue to dominate the CCM Asset Class Rankings, a proprietary
technical model which attempts to rank the relative attractiveness
of investment opportunities. Physical commodities continue to give
commodity stocks a run for the money. Timber, which is somewhat its
own animal, has also shown some recent encouraging activity. Keep in
mind, if timber prices are not attractive, the owners can continue
to let the trees grow while waiting for more attractive prices.
Broadly diversified and un-hedged global stock investments are less
attractive than more selective hedged approaches which contain fewer
positions and have exposure to fewer economic sectors. Precious
metals remain attractive, but need to show some more strength in
order to improve their outlook. U.S. bonds, not surprisingly, are
less attractive than foreign bonds which can provide some protection
against the ever-weakening U.S. dollar.
The Big Picture and Your Portfolio
U.S. policy makers’ fight to
sustain the wealth effect coupled with the debt burdens of the
federal government (budget deficits, Medicare, Social Security),
strongly favor fiscal and monetary policies which will continue to
increase (inflate) the number of U.S. dollars floating around the
globe. Monetary inflation leads to price inflation. In an attempt to
outrun the purchasing power drag of price inflation, investors are
turning increasingly towards commodities and non-U.S. dollar
denominated assets (foreign stocks and bonds). As a result, a
traditional portfolio of U.S. stocks and U.S. bonds may offer
disappointing real returns (after “price at the pump” inflation). In
terms of recent history, 1970 through 1981 offers the best, all be
it not perfect, comparison to what the future may hold for
investment returns. A review of volatile stock, bond, and commodity
prices from 1970 through 1981 is enough to get your heart racing.
Our challenge as investors will be to build portfolios with
acceptable levels of volatility that have exposure to inflation
hedging assets.
Chris Ciovacco
Ciovacco Capital Management
Chris Ciovacco is the Chief Investment Officer for Ciovacco
Capital Management, LLC. More on the web at
www.ciovaccocapital.com
All material presented herein is believed to be
reliable but we cannot attest to its accuracy. The information
contained herein (including historical prices or values) has been
obtained from sources that Ciovacco Capital Management (CCM)
considers to be reliable; however, CCM makes any representation as
to, or accepts any responsibility or liability for, the accuracy or
completeness of the information contained herein or any decision
made or action taken by you or any third party in reliance upon the
data. Some results are derived using historical estimations from
available data. Investment recommendations may change and readers
are urged to check with tax advisors before making any investment
decisions. Opinions expressed in these reports may change without
prior notice. This memorandum is based on information available to
the public. No representation is made that it is accurate or
complete. This memorandum is not an offer to buy or sell or a
solicitation of an offer to buy or sell the securities mentioned.
The investments discussed or recommended in this report may be
unsuitable for investors depending on their specific investment
objectives and financial position. Past performance is not
necessarily a guide to future performance. The price or value of the
investments to which this report relates, either directly or
indirectly, may fall or rise against the interest of investors. All
prices and yields contained in this report are subject to change
without notice. This information is based on hypothetical
assumptions and is intended for illustrative purposes only. PAST
PERFORMANCE DOES NOT GUARANTEE FUTURE RESULTS.
|