« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

The Fed Gooses the Capital Markets

If you were watching capital markets closely yesterday, you saw a phenomenon that has rarely been seen before. I certainly never have. And it was linked to the Federal Reserve’s policy statement, released about 2:15pm Eastern time.

This was an extraordinary statement, containing several rarely-seen features. The first one, of course, was the commitment by the Fed to keep policy interest rates at or near zero until the middle of 2013. Never before to my knowledge has the Fed put a specific schedule on its interest-rate guidance. The expectation by market participants has been that the Fed would start raising rates as soon as economic conditions (notably unemployment) improved, and they could argue over the timing. Yesterday, that changed.

Any interest rate is the risk-adjusted sum of a series of shorter-term interest rates. When the Fed says that policy rates will be zero for the upcoming 24 months, they’re effectively telling the market that the interest rate on the two-year Treasury note is also zero.

That had an instant effect on the capital markets. It jacked the whole front-end of the yield curve down by nearly 30 basis points. The two-year note briefly traded at a record low yield of about 16.5 basis points. The 10-year note, which had been yielding about 2.30% at 2.15pm, suddenly zoomed upward in price, its yield plunging to an all-time low just above 2.03%.

All this happened in a matter of minutes. It was possibly the wildest move in rates that I’ve ever seen. And of course, the stock market followed rates lower, dumping about 350 Dow points in about 30 minutes.

What happened next was remarkable. About 2:45pm, rates suddenly reversed, and stocks came with them, leaping about 600 Dow points to close the session with solid gains. The two-year note finished the day yielding about 20 basis points, an all-time low, and the 10-year finished about 2.24%. After the close, talking heads rushed to explain the sudden reversal by saying that traders took half an hour to digest the Fed’s statements and decide that it was all good news after all.

I’m not buying that. You don’t really have time to think when the 10-year note is racing up to an all-time low yield. The shape of the tape yesterday afternoon just has the classic look of panic buying, followed by a panic reversal. It simply makes no economic sense for the 10-year yield to be near 2%. I also surmise (without direct evidence) that a lot of short covering went on in the final hour of stock trading yesterday.

Was it a “flash crash”? I doubt it. From what we know about flash crashes, they’re characterized by a withdrawal of liquidity as computer algorithms suddenly yank out their bids in market turbulence. But it looks to me that the rally in notes led the collapse in stocks. Lack of bids wasn’t the problem.

The other critically important aspect of the Fed’s announcement yesterday speaks to a new recognition that the problems faced by the US economy are structural in nature, rather than cyclical. This isn’t a garden-variety recession characterized by demand inadequacy, that can be alleviated with government stimulus spending. This is something different.

The Fed is silent on what the difference is. But if you’ve been reading me here at RedState for the past three years, you already know what I think: the consumer sector has to rebuild its personal balance sheets after the housing-bubble collapse. Individuals are trying to deleverage, a process that will reduce demand relative to trend for several years yet to come.

Deleveraging is secular, not caused by politics. But another major headwind in the economy comes from uncertainty among business people about future policy and regulations. It’s no exaggeration to say that the current Administration is the most anti-business in many years. Every time the President of the United States opens his mouth, he talks about raising taxes on business and capital. If you’re responsible for business investments and you have a pretty good idea that your future successes will be punished by higher taxes, wouldn’t you feel discouraged?

The bottom line is that structural changes in the global economy (including the still-huge problems in Europe) are needed to get things moving in the right direction again. A few hundred billion dollars in stupid stimulus spending isn’t going to do it. My interpretation is that the Fed is finally acknowledging this.

One more point, and this is something I’ve stressed repeatedly in private communications lately: we are NOT facing an imminent financial crisis in the manner of the disorders of 2007 and 2008. The liquidity impairments in interbank markets just aren’t there. The stock market in my view might yet have some way to fall, but we’re not at the edge of a meltdown. And the S&P debt downgrade is basically immaterial to the markets. But that’s a story for a different post.

And if you want an intensely contrarian market call, look at the 10-year note. No less recently than the last week of July, it was yielding over 3%. It’s had a simply incredible rally over the past two weeks. This rally might partially reverse over the next few weeks or months.

COMMENTS

  • romeg

    But that changes today. You make the complex understandable.

    Thanks for the analysis.

    • techsan

      I’ve been listening to Francis on RS for years….both here in print on RS but more helpfully in the Coffee and Markets podcast series. You can see a recent entry on the main RS page. If you want some real learnin’, listen daily to that. I’m an IT analyst by trade, but I’ve grown to understand markets at a whole new level largely by listening to the banter with Francis on Coffee and Markets.

      • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

        nt

  • dblagent007

    The Fed did not commit to keep interest rates low through mid-2013. This is what the Fed said:

    “The Committee currently anticipates that economic conditions … are likely to warrant exceptionally low levels for the federal funds rate at least through mid-2013.”

    Note the “currently anticipates” and “are likely” fudge language. Yes, the market took it as an unequivocal promise, but it wasn’t.

    As for the wild market swings, I’m not entirely sure what to make of them either. I think the late rally was based largely on misreading the Fed’s statement. This morning’s drop bears that out.

    On this one, I think Krugman got it right: “The Fed didn?t announce a new policy. And despite what some press reports said, it didn?t even commit to keeping rates low; all it did was say that if the economy stays weak, rates will stay low ? well, duh ? and that it might think about doing other stuff one of these days:”
    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/09/the-fed-states-the-obvious/

    • Francis Cianfrocca

      …that the late run-up yesterday was a panic reaction to panic buying of notes and bills, exacerbated by short covering.

      Rates are down SHARPLY this morning. We’re going to have an interesting auction of 10-year notes this afternoon. If the recent pattern holds, we’ll have a serious upside surprise relative to the market at 1pm. (By upside, I mean price, not yield.)

      You should be wary of anything Krugman says. ALL of his statements are tendentious, and it’s no secret that he wants far more fiscal expansion. For him to say that the Fed has changed policy would be to admit he’s been wrong.

      • dblagent007

        I’ve been thinking about shorting treasuries since yesterday afternoon. This is what makes me think that may be a bad idea. http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/rates-bonds/government-bonds/japan/
        We are becoming more and more like Japan all the time.

        As for Krugman, I agree to be wary. His thinking is very often flawed (I tend to agree more with Scott Sumner and David Beckworth). I just happen to agree with him about the Fed statement.

        • Francis Cianfrocca

          …then Treasury paper could be a buy. For a handful of reasons, I don’t think we’re going to be as bad as Japan, long-term. We ARE three years into a lost decade, just not as bad as theirs.

          But the 10-year yield is now 2.11. The bears could get squeezed. It’s potentially an attractive short, but an extremely dangerous one.

          The 30-year bond is a long way off its record low yield. But there’s significant question whether the cash price for the bond is real. The 30-year swap spread has long been negative, suggesting some structural liquidity problems in the cash market.

          • Doc Holliday

            and too chicken to buy gold. probably calpers types that don’t know what else to do.

          • http://www4.webng.com/rickbull/lostlucky/ rickbull

            it is currently at an all-time high, and unless things really go to hades in a handcart, there is no place for it to go except down.

            Disclosure: I am not E. F. Hutton, so don’t take this as gospel, but I have been watching the gold market for about 35 years now, and I personally don’t think it’s going to go much higher unless things get a lot worse than they are now.

          • acat

            Would even have been worthwhile back in 2008 or so, when it hit $600/oz.

            Mew

          • Doc Holliday

            I was facetiously commenting that big institutional buyers were scared and buying bonds out of fear. I don’t think treasuries will be rising too much in the future either. But at this point, who knows what is going to happen? All I know is that Obama has made many people afraid.

      • dblagent007

        I’ve been thinking about shorting treasuries since yesterday afternoon. This is what makes me think that may be a bad idea. http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/rates-bonds/government-bonds/japan/
        We are becoming more and more like Japan.

        As for Krugman, I agree to be wary. His thinking is very often flawed (I tend to agree more with Scott Sumner and David Beckworth). I just happen to agree with him about the Fed statement.

        PS: here is Scott Sumner’s explanation: http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=10386

      • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

        As one of the “unwashed” masses… I hear many of my colleagues all talking about moving a majority of their 401(k) mixed into bond funds because they all seem to think this is 2008 all over again, and the “secret” people keep pretending on about is that bond funds are the safe place… to me it seems counter-intuitive that people would find a falling rate on the 10 year note as a safe place unless they assume the stock market is going 2008 all over again.

        2 questions.

        1. Is it possible that some of the deleveraging among consumers in the market since 2008 is gun shy lower and middle class 401(k)ers that are simply contributing less per paycheck? Or by volume is that not enough to effect some of the slow growth in stocks in the period since?

        2. Can you explain to me why “grandpa’s wisdom” is to go to bonds, even when we’re over-extended and there are talks of QE3 (if needed) and the yield is dropping on bonds? Is there a hedging of bets as to which one will fall out first? (or does this question bare my exceeding ignorance on the situation to the point that you can’t answer?)

        Thanks in advance for explaining more…

        • Francis Cianfrocca

          The yield on a fixed-income security drops as the price rises. Everyone is trying to buy them, so the yield drops, and the conventional wisdom becomes that they’re the asset of choice.

          Owning a US Treasury security as an investment means that by definition you’re eschewing risk. That means your perspective on the economic outlook is so bad that you’re more concerned about capital preservation than yield.

          People who invest this way are saying that the US won’t recover economically any time soon. If they’re right, then the US Treasury position will probably produce very moderate gains.

          If the US does happen to recover, then a portfolio consisting of US Treasury debt will get SLAUGHTERED. As market yields rise, prices fall. And the effect is magnified the farther out on the yield curve you go.

          Is that helpful? Let me stress that this is explanation only, not investment advice. I can’t advise people without knowing them personally.

          To your first question: I happen to believe that the deleveraging by consumers is largely involuntary, and it results from the contraction in credit availability to consumers. The economic effect is the same, though.

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            I didn’t assume you could give investment advice in any capacity as a blogger…and I don’t see it that way… but that helps me understand from a economic perspective why so there’s so much tension between the several factors of what looks like the sky is falling, and why the masses act crazy when the sky is actually falling… whether perceived or real.

            I greatly appreciate you taking the time to explain it to me… I don’t think I could pay for the kind of economic insight that drives political issues that I get from reading your posts and listening to your Podcasts on Coffee and Markets… I’m a huge fan and have been since I first read your POSTs when I first joined Redstate in early 2008.

            Thank you for your time and efforts in covering so much ground.

    • baserunr

      It wasn’t the express or implied promise of low rates, so much as it was the defining of the TIMEFRAME. The Fed just doesn’t do that. And I agree with the observation that the rate is therefore telegraphed on Treasuries. There is a natural correlation between the two.

  • anjinconsulting

    but it appears to me trhat Bernanke is trying to reassure investors that he will do his best to ensure hyperinflation will not destroy the Treasury Note and yet not commit to anything specific.

    What I do understand is that Bernanke’s impication regarding the causes of this issue is contradictory to Captain Zero’s statements; specifically that the economic conditions will not be alleviated by additonal QE.

    It seems plausible that Bernanke is looking for an excuse to be replaced so he isnt at the helm when the economy comes crashing down.

    • wennejunk

      At least not as long as the credit bubble continues to deflate and consumers de-leverage.

      • Doc Holliday

        go to any supermarket and by a $1.00 lemon or $5.00 tiny box of nuts. The only reason the feds can deny inflation is the weak job market and the housing price collapse. But dollars are buying less and less, make no mistake.

        • Francis Cianfrocca

          I’ve been firmly convinced for four years that the primary pressure in the US economy is deflation, not inflation. But consumer prices continue to rise!

          What is really happening in America is that the aggregate productivity of the economy is being spread over more people. This is an inevitable result of the entitlement funding gap. It’s simply a requirement that life will get harder to afford for the middle class, since the society as a whole has committed to ensure middle-class status to retirees. Whether this happens through higher consumer prices or through extensive job losses, the aggregate impact is still deflation (or stagflation, if you prefer) rather than inflation.

          Eventually (over perhaps a generation) I believe the middle class in America will largely disappear. We’ll go back to the two-class society we had before WW2.

          • Doc Holliday

            that sounds like Saudi Arabia, I would not want that. But if you are right, some might be surprised who ends up in which class. I know where I live, there are a hell of a lot of “blue collar” types making a mint off of white collar types. people who could not make a thin dime if they lost their job. The blue collar guys will do anything for a buck, and they charge a steep price.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            remain high and have been for years and it is a major factor in inflation.

        • snowshooze

          In the inflation rate, gas doesn’t count, food doesn’t count…
          I am not sure what does.

        • wennejunk

          Otherwise, he’s a disciple of he who shall not be named on foreign policy, elimination of the Fed,etc.

          http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/08/yes-virginia-us-back-in-deflation.html

          Symptoms of Deflation:

          Falling Credit Marked-to-Market
          Falling Treasury Yields
          Falling Home Prices
          Rising Corporate Bond Yields
          Rising Dollar
          Falling Commodity Prices
          Falling Consumer Prices
          Rising Unemployment
          Negative GDP
          Falling Stock Market
          Spiking Base Money Supply
          Banks Hoarding Cash
          Rising Savings Rate
          Purchasing Power of Gold Rises
          Rising Number of Bank Failures

  • streetwise

    I keep thinking that the bottom line of all this Fed rate and money manipulation is to transfer wealth from normal people (i.e. savers) to the government in the form of rock-bottom interest rates to finance its reckless spending and distribution of economic goodies.

    Also, the low rates and easy credit (for the connected) is facilitating market volatility as the “smart money” pursues and then profits from new asset bubbles, then profits again as when the smart money shorts them.

    Am I being unfair?

    • Francis Cianfrocca

      The bottom line of Fed policy is to transfer wealth (in real terms) from individuals and businesses to BANKS. Not to the government. The government doesn’t care about wealth. In the first place, they print their own money, and in the second place, private sector wealth is accounted for as a liability to the Treasury. (Similarly, to the Fed, dollar currency is a liability.)

      I’m not a historian, but I think you’d have a very difficult time finding even one example of a past deflation that didn’t feature widespread bank failures. In the US, we saved essentially all of ours, and are recapitalizing them through real wealth transfers.

      It’s a very, very strange situation. And I guarantee it’ll make the history books. We just don’t yet know if for good or for ill.

      Hope things are going well for you, streetwise.

      • Ausonius

        The government as a theoretical entity perhaps “doesn’t care about wealth,” but we know for sure that wealth indeed obsess MAObama and the Left.

        On record as not wanting “to waste a crisis,” one could postulate some sort of emergency measure allowing the nationalization of banks, and the transfer of their wealth, to the government, not unlike the government take-over of GM and Chrysler.

        But perhaps I give too much credit to the TelePrompter In Chief.

      • streetwise

        The feds are keeping us alive to serve the ships of JP Morgan, B of A, Citi, and the other usual suspects, if I can paphrase from Ben Hur!

      • Common_Cents

        Both in tandem feasting on freedoms and wealth of the citizens.

  • averagevoterdotcom

    values is the mothership in the inflation v deflation analysis.
    not really discussed due to so many owner continuing to pay debt service based on old and false values.
    ie – how many lemons equals a halved mortgage payment, assuming mortgage is fresh, old shelter unplugged?
    answer – a lot

    therefore, mega deflation in housing into the future, countered somewhat by inflation in commodities and consumer goods.

    • acat

      It’s just going to suck a lot in the meantime.

      Mew