Burned by Bonds

Austrian economists can get forecasts wrong, occasionally. Many were wrong about inflation when the Fed stuffed its balance sheet with junk bonds. Inflation has remained asleep except in asset markets. That wrong forecast gave some of us a jaundiced outlook for bonds. The reasoning went that higher inflation and a greater demand for loans would force interest rates higher in 2014, and when interest rates rise the price of bonds fall. Also, the Fed was trying to go sober after multiple shots of QE. So I stayed away from bonds this year because the fall in value would erase all of the benefits from the interest earned. As a result I missed out on a great opportunity.

While most of the world was fixated on the choppy stock market, bonds were as stealthy as 007 while soaring. The October 20 Wall Street Journal (page C1) reported that the Wasatch-Hoisington U.S. Treasury Fund earned 28% for investors this year. Lacy Hunt, the fund’s chief economist, said, “I don’t think the Fed is going to raise rates. All they can do is hold rates here for longer and longer time periods.”

So where did Austrians go wrong? First, they didn’t take Hayek and Mises seriously when they warned against assuming the quantity theory of money works mechanically.  The monetarist Milton Friedman influenced too many Austrian economists. The quantity theory states that increases in the money supply will lead to consumer price inflation. That is always true, ceteris paribus, but things are never ceteris, let alone parabus. Many things can break the link between increases in the money supply and prices. Most importantly, we should temper our expectations of the quantity theory with the subjective theory of value. As Mises wrote, people may not always respond to increases in the money supply in the same way. That is the principle of subjectivism applied to money, something Mises is most famous for.

BIS Pushes ABCT Draws Fire

ABCT investing offers financial advise derived from the Austrian business-cycle theory, so to be confident in that advise investors need to be confident in the theory. The most visible institution promoting the theory today is the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). The BIS is the central bank for central banks based in Basel, Switzerland. Just as the Fed in the US coordinates the exchange of funds for commercial banks, the BIS acts as a clearinghouse that coordinates the international transfer of funds between the central banks of nations. 

Claudio Borio and William White of the BIS have used the ABCT for years to analyze events and create policy. Recently, the bank created a minor storm in the world of economics and central bank policy with the release of its 84th annual report. The report asserts that the loose monetary policies of the world's central banks as well as fiscal policies of governments have failed and continuation of those policies will prove harmful. Mainstream economists trashed the report. Martin Wolf of the Financial Times descended to juvenile language. Gavyn Davies, also of the FT,  wrote of the report,

The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) caused a splash last weekend with an annual report that spelled out in detail why it disagrees with central elements of the strategy currently being adopted by its members, the major national central banks. On Wednesday, Fed Chair Janet Yellen mounted a strident defence of that strategy in her speech on “Monetary Policy and Financial Stability”. She could have been speaking for any of the major four central banks, all of which are adopting basically the same approach.

Led by the Fed Investing Advice

If you have followed this blog, or read Financial Bull Riding, you’ll know that the stock market tends to follow the business cycle and Fed monetary policy determines the business cycle for the most part. So I was very interested to read this title: "Voices: SteveKrawick, on Asset Allocation Guided by Fed Policy." Krawick wrote

 “There are four phases in a Fed cycle. Today we're in the fourth and final phase of the cycle that began around 2008. This phase is marked by an accommodating Fed, which means low interest rates. Historically, in this environment, consumer discretionary stocks and financials have outperformed S&P benchmarks and their peer sectors. So, during this cycle, we have our clients overweight in that sector and underweight in others like industrials, materials, and technologies, which tend to underperform under current conditions.”

Stock market forecast Q3 2014

Here is the latest forecast of the S&P 500 average for the fourth quarter this year. The market made a head fake lower last year so it may turn around again depending on how well profits for the first quarter of this year turn out. But from the looks of things we have probably hit the high for this year and maybe for the bull market. This is a good time to think about gold and silver or possibly emerging markets since they have fallen so low.

Debt Alert

The S&P 500 set a new record high today, April 2, 2014, which should make investors nervous. Here's a chart from my book Financial Bull Riding showing the close relationship between margin debt on the New York stock exchange and the S&P 500 through 2011. The data are monthly averages.

Size Matters

Size matters in investing as much as in other human endeavors. Bigger is better for most activities; Goliath usually defeats David. But financial economists have known for decades that small is the new big: investing in smaller firms increases investor returns a great deal over investing in the Blue Chips. Eugene Fama had to add firm size and value investing, to the Capital Asset Pricing Model to make it work. 

Recently the journal of the American Association of Individual Investors carried an article in its January issue on the subject of firm size, “Exploiting the Relative Outperformance of Small-Cap Stocks” by John B. Davenport, Ph.D., and M. Fred Meissner. The conclusions are striking:

• Small caps outperformed large caps 51% of the time between 1926 and 2012, but realized a cumulative excess return of 253%.

• Investors have higher probabilities of capturing small-cap excess returns in times of economic expansion immediately following recessionary periods.

• Small-cap sectors realize higher returns than large-cap stocks when the large-cap sectors are in favor.

Stockholders Rule

To the novice investor, the stock market and the real economy of the production of goods and services never meet. That is certainly to the mainstream economist for whom the stock market is a casino. But according to the great Austrian economist Ludwig Lachmann, the structure of production and the structure of a portfolio of securities are closely related:  “To understand how the two spheres of action interact is to understand how a market economy works.”[1] I guess that’s why mainstream economists don’t understand how a market economy works. 

Here are excerpts from Lachmann’s Capital and Its Structure on how the stock market directs the real economy through cash flows determined by capital gains and losses:

Slate Article Pays No Dividends

Slate magazine's business and economics correspondent, Matthew Yglesias, advertises his ignorance of investing in his latest rant against dividends: Dividends are Evil. Concerning GE and AT&T's increase in their dividends, Yglesias wrote,

The only problem is that dividends are terrible. Bad for the economy, bad for business, and surprisingly unfavorable to investors. A barbarous relic of a less financially sophisticated era, they’re also indelibly coated with misleading rhetoric that perpetuates sloppy thinking about business, profits, and investment.

 Yglesias then tells what companies should do:

 The impatient move that would benefit the economy would be for a cash-rich firm with an already high share price to invest. Hire more people and do more stuff, upgrade the training of your existing workforce, reward your better employees with raises and bonuses so they don’t go elsewhere, cut prices to build customer loyalty. That’s how profits lead to rising incomes, and how rising incomes lead to demand for the stuff businesses sell.  

Of course, the left does not understand what business is for. Businesses don't exist to "benefit the economy." They exist to make profits for their owners, the people who have invested their savings in the company. No one invests one's savings without the expectation of a decent return in the form of profits. Profits are to business owners what interest is to lenders: profits are repayment of the opportunity costs of giving up the use of one's money.

S&P 500 Headed Up!

Here is the update to my forecast of the S&P500: