It’s Inflation! Case Closed...

Inflation or deflation? I'm pretty sure just about everyone reading this has heard this debate in one form or another in recent weeks. Well which is it...? There are points to be made for either side of this debate and today we will hear a good friend of ours James McClung of Stock Shotz.tv, state his case for inflation. What do you think? Leave us a comment and let us know and be sure to stop by Stock Shotz for more on the great debate and interviews with some of the most respected names in the trading world.

===================================================================

We have been exploring the inflation vs. deflation debate on our show for several months and while we have heard compelling arguments on both sides---we believe that we are headed for a period of massive inflation. Will most be surprised? Yes. Most of you know that at Stock Shotz, we take a common sense approach to the markets. So as we explored this debate we did a little unsophisticated research to assist with our analysis. We started by heading down to the local grocery store to see if the price of a gallon of milk, which was marked up almost daily as the price of oil increased last summer, had gone down in the same proportion as had a barrel of oil. Answer--NO.
What? No, but what about the argument that we are in a period of deflation? Isn't the demand for milk so sparse that they are dropping the price with each gallon? Not hardly.

Continue reading "It’s Inflation! Case Closed..."

Inflation/Deflation Uncertainty

Our government continues to CRUSH the value of the dollar so I asked Adam Katz from PlusEV.ca to break down the current situation. I've read the article and it provides a great view of what's going on, how we got here, and the nuts and blots (his words not mine). So please enjoy the article and COMMENT as Adam Katz and I are looking forward to your thoughts!

==================================================================

I have received many emails over the past few months proclaiming that inflation is an obvious result of the current government intervention and that the dollar's days are numbered. As a nuts and bolts kinda guy, I like to step back and analyze the situation from point A to B, instead of staring at fancy charts which can usually be used to prove just about anything.

Before I get into the discussion, let me say that the focus of this article is timing more so than theory. To argue that we will never see inflation after the tricks central bankers have been pulling would simply make no sense. Yet, I was surprised last year to see some really good traders position themselves for an inflation trade in the middle of serious disinflation. After all, what the Fed was doing MUST have been inflationary! Right?

Firstly, what are the ingredients for credit expansion?

1)    Central banks expanding the money supply
2)    Banks lending that money out
3)    Credit worthy borrowers

Now we all know that we can place a big fat check mark next to (1), but what about the other ingredients? Putting money into the banks is easy; getting it into circulation is hard in a ‘fairly’ transparent system. Consider for a moment Zimbabwe, a country that has suffered unimaginable inflation. Do you think Robert Mugabe is subtle about expanding the money supply? He has the luxury of simply handing out money to his cronies and directly flooding the money supply. In countries like the U.S., such actions would be very difficult. China on the other hand can simply make large loans to government held businesses and thus expand the money supply.

The U.S. has been creative. For example, the AIG bailout after the Lehman collapse resulted in a transfer of government funds from AIG to large investment banks in the form of margin calls. When AIG’s credit rating was downgraded, they were forced to post margin with their counterparties. Yes this saved AIG, but it also saved those banks that were using AIG to hedge their risky trades with CDS contracts. The capital found its way into the banks, but never made it any further.

Now people are complaining. The stupid banks that made stupid loans have been bailed out. So why aren’t they lending? Why aren’t they making loans to borrowers who are not credit worthy? I hope my sarcasm wasn’t missed. To encourage banks to make bad loans is the most irresponsible thing that we can do. The point of the bailouts was to prevent financial collapse, not to continue the fundamentally flawed system.

Now we are seeing the economic follow through effects of both a credit and a housing bubble bursting. What is likely is that the credit worthiness of borrowers decreases and so will the banks willingness to make loans. Money won’t flood the markets – in the developed countries.
In the emerging markets, currency devaluation and sovereign defaults are alive and well. In fact, even Switzerland, the icon of monetary responsibility has engaged in devaluing their currency. If that’s not symbolic of the end of an era then I don’t know what is. My point is that the U.S. will continue to be a safe haven. As long as threats of further economic downside looms, the U.S. will continue to be perceived as the safest option – on a relative scale. Inflation will strike emerging markets long before it hits the U.S.

And when that happens, the U.S will be able to afford to allow their currency to weaken on an absolute basis because on a relative basis it will appear stronger than many of it’s peers. When risk appetite picks up, as it has done the past few days, the dollar will weaken. In the future, that pattern will coincide with the banks making more loans, and inflation will become a threat. However, that’s unlikely to happen any time soon, at least according to Meredith Whitney. She estimates that banks will cut $2.0 trillion of credit-card lines in 2009 and a total of $2.7 trillion will be cut by the end of 2010. That doesn’t bode well for inflation advocates, at least in the short term. This gives the Fed more than enough time to shrink the amount of funds that they have made available to banks and calls into question further asset price deflation over the coming 18 months.

I will leave you with the following basic economic concept: It is unexpected inflation, not expected inflation that causes havoc in the economy. With the current outlook of low or negative inflation for years to come, a sudden shift to high inflation would be devastating for the economy.

Adam Katz
www.PlusEV.ca

America Will Print As Much As It Takes

Today I'd like you to welcome Dr. Duru from Drduru.com. I've known the good Dr. for a while now and spending time on his site has really given me a great perspective on the markets. I contacted him and asked him if I could use his article from a few months ago as it's very timely. Please enjoy!

====================================================================

I originally wrote this two months ago, but I believe it is worth repeating in light of the Fed's historic actions on Tuesday.

"...the U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost. By increasing the number of U.S. dollars in circulation, or even by credibly threatening to do so, the U.S. government can also reduce the value of a dollar in terms of goods and services, which is equivalent to raising the prices in dollars of those goods and services. We conclude that, under a paper-money system, a determined government can always generate higher spending and hence positive inflation...If we do fall into deflation, however, we can take comfort that the logic of the printing press example must assert itself, and sufficient injections of money will ultimately always reverse a deflation." - Remarks by Governor Ben S. Bernanke Before the National Economists Club, Washington, D.C. on November 21, 2002: "Deflation: Making Sure "It" Doesn't Happen Here."

We should find it odd that we are in a deflationary-style panic when our Federal Reserve has a chairman in Ben Bernanke who is absolutely committed to printing as much money as it takes to prevent deflation. Then again, our Treasury has a leader in Hank Paulson who is a former CEO of Goldman Sachs...and that did not prevent the investment banking universe from completely blowing up.

An old high school friend of mine pointed me back to Bernanke's famous remarks from 2002 (thanks, Mitja!). It made for a fascinating read given the current financial crisis. (I am embarrassed to admit that I always thought Bernanke was the originator of the concept of dropping dollars from a helicopter, but it was actually economist Milton Friedman. Bernanke referred to Friedman's helicopter in this speech). In this 2002 speech, Bernanke explored several novel academic ideas that he now has a chance to test out in real time. Many of the creative ideas that the Federal Reserve has cooked up to battle our financial crisis seem to have had their genesis in Bernanke's scholarly endeavors. Bernanke could never have guessed what was in store when he warned his audience that "I should emphasize that my comments on this topic are necessarily speculative, as the modern Federal Reserve has never faced this situation nor has it pre-committed itself formally to any specific course of action should deflation arise."

Bernanke's hypothetical exploration was focused on the tools the Federal Reserve might wield when reducing the target for the federal funds rate to 0% failed to arrest a deflationary spiral. I think it is fair to say that the Federal Reserve is currently stretching policy remedies as far as they can go BEFORE being forced to drop interest rates this low. To date, dramatic rate cuts have only served as temporary and fleeting relief with no imminent prospect for solving the fundamental problems of a crisis in confidence. Soon after Bear Stearns failed, I am sure the Fed realized that rate cuts had become largely ineffective. Indeed, over the course of the last three scheduled Fed meetings, rates were held at 2% even as the credit markets continued to deteriorate. Last week's globally coordinated rate cut signals that the U.S. will not slip down the path to 0% interest rates alone. True to form, this unprecedented move did nothing to relieve the system's stress. The S&P 500 has so far fallen another 10% since then and credit markets have continued to worsen. At this point, I have to wonder whether the central bank authorities will even bother pushing rates all the way to zero.

What makes the current crisis so particularly difficult for the Fed is that some of the basic requirements of a functioning economy have been wiped away. Back in 2002, Bernanke noted that even after the deflationary shock of the burst tech bubble and 9/11, the fundamentals of the economy remained sound: "A particularly important protective factor in the current environment is the strength of our financial system: Despite the adverse shocks of the past year, our banking system remains healthy and well-regulated, and firm and household balance sheets are for the most part in good shape. A healthy, well capitalized banking system and smoothly functioning capital markets are an important line of defense against deflationary shocks." It of course turns out that the regulatory regime was NOT sufficient. Bernanke went on to note that "The Fed should and does use its regulatory and supervisory powers to ensure that the financial system will remain resilient if financial conditions change rapidly." Needless to say, the Federal Reserve is now struggling to keep up with the pace of change in financial conditions. The Fed has had to stretch and creatively interpret its legal powers in a desperate effort to keep up.

The Treasury has also joined the Fed in this mad dash, jumping from one proposal to the next. The latest switch features Paulson coming around to the idea of buying stakes in banks and putting the $700 billion "Troubled Asset Relief Program" on hold. This represents a complete turn-around from Paulson's earlier comments to the Senate Banking Committee on Sept. 23, 2008: "Some said we should just stick capital in the banks, take preferred stock in the banks. That’s what you do when you have failure. This is about success” (from the New York Times).

So, we face a lethal combination of never having experienced anything quite like the current financial crisis along with agents of governance who have been forced to make up rules and create solutions on the fly as we descend rapidly. Add to this wicked brew an intricate web of volatile global dependencies. We should not be surprised that the crisis of confidence remains so deeply entrenched.

Someday, we will achieve financial stabilization. When we get that relief, we will finally be able to focus on the future, a future in which we reconstruct our financial systems to prevent this kind of disaster from ever happening again. Perhaps we can even think through how to prevent the creative geniuses of financial engineering from dreaming up new pending disasters. In 2002, Bernanke recognized that the best approach to dealing with deflation is not allowing it to happen in the first place: "The basic prescription for preventing deflation is therefore straightforward, at least in principle: Use monetary and fiscal policy as needed to support aggregate spending, in a manner as nearly consistent as possible with full utilization of economic resources and low and stable inflation. In other words, the best way to get out of trouble is not to get into it in the first place." Today, this statement almost sounds naive given the tsunami of events that have overwhelmed our financial watchdogs. Today's basic prescription of prevention would have been to stop the growing bubbles in credit and in housing before their inevitable collapse triggered a perilous deflationary spiral.

Unfortunately, Bernanke's predecessor, Alan Greenspan, absolutely refused to acknowledge definitively that a housing bubble existed. By the time he expressed any concern, the housing bubble had already reached breathtaking levels of madness. Greenspan was also a big fan of complex derivatives and debt securitization because they supposedly were so effective in spreading risk around. Instead, they have been very effective in spreading the contagion of panic and collapse. Greenspan has recently tried to defend his legacy, and I have written critically of his defense. One of Greenspan's fundamental problems is that he under-appreciated just how extreme the bubble mentality can get. In an interview with the Financial Times, he admits that financial modeling has failed to account for "...the innate human responses that result in swings between euphoria and fear that repeat themselves generation after generation with little evidence of a learning curve." (This suggests that future generations will learn little from the fall-out of our latest bubbles just as this generation has learned precious little from past bubbles!)

Most importantly, Greenspan has long argued that there is nothing the Fed can or should do even if it could recognize a bubble. He repeated this claim in his interview with the Financial Times: "But if, as I strongly suspect, periods of euphoria are very difficult to suppress as they build, they will not collapse until the speculative fever breaks on its own." This philosophy may finally be changing. Back in May, the Wall street Journal reported that Bernanke has started research into methods for preventing bubbles. Until some solution is found, the main tool at the Federal Reserve's disposal will be to print as much currency as it takes to smooth over the pain from the collapse of bubbles...and thus sow the seeds of the next financial calamity.

I am not sure what magic moment will finally pull us out of this financial downward spiral. But I can look ahead to that day when we achieve stabilization in the financial markets and recognize all the massive amounts of liquidity sloshing through the system. Will the planet's central banks be able to withdraw these supports in time to avert massive inflation? I doubt it. I am skeptical because no one will be sure when the crisis is absolutely over. Caution will rule the day and supports will stay in place far longer than necessary just to make sure no risk remains of falling backward. By then, a lot of clever people will already be far down the path of devising new ways to put excess credit and liquidity to work. So, looking further (into an unknowable timetable), I want to be positioned for a day of surging reflation, and perhaps even rampant inflation. Famed commodity bull Jim Rogers suggested something similar when he made "inflammatory" remarks about future inflation risks on CNBC International on Thursday night (click here to watch). America is committed to printing as much money as it takes to prevent deflation. I am willing to bet that there is enough paper and ink in the world to make it so.

Be careful out there!

By  Dr. Duru
December 18, 2008

Here are TIPs to Protect Yourself from Future Inflation

Today's guest blogger is Tony D’Altorio, a regular contributor for oxburyresearch.com. Originally formed as an underground investment club, Oxbury Publishing is an investment think tank second to none. The research team is comprised of a wide variety of investment professionals - from equity analysts to futures floor traders – all independent thinkers and all capital market veterans.

==================================================================

This article is another in my series of articles about common mistakes that the average individual investor makes in their overall portfolio allocation. For these articles, I drew from the 20 years of experience I had at Charles Schwab in dealing with clients face-to-face and helping them meet their financial goals.

In previous articles, I wrote about two areas which were dramatically under-represented in most clients portfolios – commodities and international securities. There is a third area which I found to also be under-represented and that is fixed income investments. Many clients had little or no exposure to fixed income investments.

The most difficult task I believe for allocating funds to fixed income investments is to choose what type of bonds an investor should buy from the myriad of choices available. Obviously, an investor’s specific financial circumstances will dictate the final choices. In this article, I will choose an area of the fixed income world that I believe most investors should currently allocate funds toward.

TREASURY MARKET FANTASY

Right now the Treasury market is enjoying its own titillating little fantasy. It is the ultimate dream of everyone in the bond world. It is nirvana for bond market junkies. It is the D-word – deflation.

The media and financial authorities have fallen in love with the word deflation. The dim bulbs that appear on CNBC air are constantly talking about deflation. This fact alone sets off alarm bells in my head. When is the last time that the conventional wisdom as presented on CNBC ever came true? In fact, when is the first time?

I believe that all of this deflation talk is simply a way for the financial authorities to prepare the public for incredibly massive government spending over the next several years. It simply helps to justify even more massive government bailouts and spending programs. Look at the amount already spent on the “bailout” - nearly $8 trillion. I fully expect that figure to rise by tenfold or more.

I notice that CNBC conveniently seems to have forgotten about how the Treasury market crazies got it wrong in 2003. There was a huge deflation scare at that time too, although on a smaller scale than the current nuttiness. What followed that deflation scare? One of the most massive upward moves in history of the price of many commodities.

Right now, the Treasury market crazies have priced in massive deflation that will occur in the United States for the next decade or longer. They have also priced in corporate default rates of 21%! And this is in the face of massive printing of money and multi-trillion dollar annual deficits.

There is a major headwind that the Treasury market crazies will soon be facing. Over the next four years, 66% of America’s current $5.2 trillion of debt has to be rolled over. Who is going to buy all of this Monopoly paper?

Wall Street is expecting the suckers (foreigners) to buy it all. They seem to have forgotten that, thanks to Wall Street, these foreigners have major financial problems of their own. I strongly believe that most foreign investors’ funds will be spent in their home markets, buying their own bonds, and funding their own governments’ fiscal needs.

When this happens, the Federal Reserve will have to resort to cranking up the printing press to warp speed so that there is enough Monopoly money available to purchase the massive amount of Treasuries which will be issued. Can you say inflation?

MIS-PRICED ASSET - TIPS

In all of the Treasury market nuttiness, there are Treasury securities which have been completely mis-priced. These securities are Treasury Inflation Protected Securities or TIPS. The interest and principal on these securities are indexed to the U.S. Consumer Price Index or CPI.

TIPS have become mis-priced because liquidity has fled the TIPS market, just as liquidity has fled from the equity markets. After all, why would anyone want to own TIPS when everyone “knows” that deflation is here to stay and inflation is dead forever, right?

Wrong! For reasons stated earlier, I believe we will see a mass conflagration of the funds that are currently rushing into Treasury securities at zero or one per cent because of liquidity concerns. And once again, we will see that the conventional Wall Street wisdom will be proven incorrect.

I don’t believe we will ever see massive deflation in this country. I believe that the only possibility of  deflation in the US would be if we truly see 1930s conditions – where the US GDP collapsed by 50% in nominal terms and unemployment rates were at 25%  and corporate defaults were in the 15% range. Sorry, that scenario is not in the cards. What is much more likely is a return of inflation.

TIPS ETFs

An investor can buy an individual TIPS bond, but with the current lack of liquidity the spread between the bid and asked of such securities is unusually large. A better choice may be an ETF which invests in TIPS securities.

Currently, investors have two choices for TIPS ETFs. They are SPDR Barclays Capital TIPS ETF with the symbol IPE and the iShares Lehman TIPS Bond Fund with the symbol TIP.

Both ETFs have many similarities – both ETFs have very low expense fees, both ETFs are down between 7% and 8% for the year, and both ETFs also have a similar average duration of the TIPS bonds that they hold of approximately 7 ½ years.

The only difference seems to be that TIP trades with a higher daily average volume than does IPE and is therefore a bit more of a liquid security.

Due to the current mis-pricing I believe is occurring in the US Treasury market, both TIP and IPE are currently yielding in the 8% range. Keep in mind – this is an 8% yield that investors are receiving on a US Treasury security!

Investors are urged to jump on the bargains occurring currently with regard to the TIPS market. I believe that an immediate purchase of either IPE or TIP will be a wise choice.

Regards,

Tony D’Altorio
Analyst, Oxbury Research