gordon_harding_100

Video – The new normal: the thin line between deflation and inflation

Last week Jim took part in an Asset.tv masterclass. The panel discussion was hosted by the BBC’s economics editor Stephanie Flanders with the main theme tackling one of the big conundrums of the past few years – whether we’re heading into an era of deflation or inflation and indeed whether central bankers really care about inflation anymore. The video also covers a range of related topics, such as the efficacy of QE, currency wars and the implications for markets if and when central banks begin their exit strategies.

To view the video you will need to enter your Asset.tv registered email address. This is required by Asset.tv as part of the broadcasting rights for this masterclass. If you do not have an Asset.tv email address you can register on the Asset.tv website and then return.

This entry was posted in inflation and tagged , , by . Bookmark the permalink.

Please note the content on this website is for Investment Professionals only and should be shared responsibly. No other persons should rely on the information contained within this website.

jim_leaviss_100

Do Central Banks tell us too much for our own good?

I read in The Times last week that the Shadow Monetary Policy Committee (a panel of economists and Bank of England alumni) thinks that the Bank of England should announce a freeze on UK rates for an extended period of time. The Federal Reserve also had this policy (now replaced by even more explicit guidance about the unemployment rate and inflation levels), as did the Bank of Canada. In the past few years the Fed has spent weeks debating its communications strategy. Elsewhere we get monthly press conferences (including in Trichet’s time as head of the ECB the use of the explicit codewords “strong vigilance” which meant “rates going up next month”). We also get Inflation Reports and Financial Stability Reports, fan charts and GDP forecasts from which market economists pronounce that the Bank’s two year ahead projection means no more QE just yet. I wonder though whether we’re being given too much information, and that in telling us exactly what they are going to do, central banks risk either a) having to not change their policy even if economic circumstances mean that they should (for example if economic growth comes back strongly yet they’ve promised to keep rates on hold for years), or b) lose face, credibility and trust with the market by going back on their promise. Each of these actions has a cost, and should lower an economy’s potential GDP rate.

Is the promise of low rates forever fuelling the return of those Four Horsemen of the Bondocalypse – CLOs, PIK notes, CCC rated high yield issuance, and mega – LBOs? Does it lead to complacency in investment? To schemes that can only survive if rates don’t ever rise? Is current central bank policy generating asset bubbles? And what are central bankers left with, without the ability to surprise and shock? Worse still, what if “low rates forever” has the opposite effect than intended? Does it say “doomed, we’re all doomed”? Perhaps central bankers should realise that keeping us guessing is their most powerful tool (OK maybe QE Infinity is their most powerful tool, but still).

The clip below is of Diego Maradona, scoring against England in the Mexico World Cup finals in 1986.

I was reminded of it when I picked up a copy of Steve Hodge’s autobiography The Man With Maradona’s Shirt in the sales. Maradona was fortunate enough to swap shirts with Nottingham Forest legend Hodge after that game. Anyway, back in 2005 Bank of England Governor gave a speech in which he said the most interesting thing a central banker ever said.

“The great Argentine footballer, Diego Maradona, is not usually associated with the theory of monetary policy. But his performance against England in the World Cup in Mexico City in June 1986 when he scored twice is a perfect illustration of my point. Maradona’s first “hand of God” goal was an exercise of the old “mystery and mystique” approach to central banking. His action was unexpected, time-inconsistent and against the rules. He was lucky to get away with it. His second goal, however, was an example of the power of expectations in the modern theory of interest rates. Maradona ran 60 yards from inside his own half beating five players before placing the ball in the English goal. The truly remarkable thing, however, is that, Maradona ran virtually in a straight line. How can you beat five players by running in a straight line? The answer is that the English defenders reacted to what they expected Maradona to do. Because they expected Maradona to move either left or right, he was able to go straight on. ”

If Maradona had put out a press release and a booklet explaining exactly what he was going to do, it could never have happened. But by keeping the England team guessing and by shifting his weight from left to right (the footballing equivalent of raised eyebrows) he scored the greatest goal of all time.

markus_peters_100

Jim’s video from Tokyo – cup noodles, lessons about QE from the Edo period, and the fiscal multiplier effect

Last week Jim attended the annual meetings of the IMF and World Bank in Tokyo. For Bond Vigilantes, he took the camera along and documented his trip. Jim told me that the IMF and World Bank meetings, and even more the conversations and debates beyond the formal schedule, gave him some interesting food for thought. With the fiscal cliff arising and the UK’s failing experiment with austerity, Olivier Blanchard’s views around fiscal multiplier effects have been quite thought provoking. But not only has the conference helped shape his views, Tokyo itself has been inspiring. Much seems to be genuinely different, but at the same time there are many things that make you think Japan might be leading the way for the rest of the developed world.

Postscript: Anyone who was expecting further insights from Jim’s research trips into national sports will be disappointed. This time he didn’t bother to sight new football talent after his lack of success in Brazil. And he still prefers cricket over baseball…

This entry was posted in Countries and tagged , , by . Bookmark the permalink.

Please note the content on this website is for Investment Professionals only and should be shared responsibly. No other persons should rely on the information contained within this website.

richard_woolnough_100

Climate change – bzirc monetary policy

As investors we get used to living within certain recognised bounds. For example, it has been commonly assumed that interest rates cannot be sub-zero. There has been the odd historical quirk when we’ve seen negative rates (Switzerland in the 1970s), but that’s more for amusement than general investment consumption. However, there now appears to be the potential for a major investment climate change.

There are already plenty of bond markets now living in the sub zero ice age, such as Switzerland, Denmark, Germany, Finland and the Netherlands. In these cases, the existence of negative rates could be down to the desire to express a currency or re-denomination view (as Mike previously wrote), so may be seen as a by-product of external factors and not of domestic monetary policy. However, there is now the potential for G7 monetary policy to enter the previously unbelievable reality of official sub-zero rates.

Many G7 economies have implemented very low rates and quantitative easing for a number of years, yet still appear to be in the economic doldrums with high unemployment, low growth and limited fiscal room. It could now be time for a significant change in the investment text book as central banks experiment with rates below zero.

Theoretically, a negative interest rate sounds simple – you put £100 in the bank and you get £99 back a year later if the rate is -1%. A  rational investor would of course have the alternative of simply keeping their cash under the mattress and not suffering the negative rate, although the incentive to behave rationally would be limited by the administrative burden and security risk of holding cash.  The central bank could simply limit this activity by basically not printing enough cash. Therefore the vast majority of money would have to be held electronically and could therefore suffer a penal negative rate. Implementation of sub zero rates is possible.

From a central bank’s point of view this should be stimulative, as it would discourage saving and encourage consumption like any traditional interest rate cut. At the extreme you could create exceptionally low, zero, or even negative borrowing rates.

The challenges faced by central banks and governments are still there despite traditional and unconventional policy action. Maybe it will soon be time to use the conventional tool of cutting interest rates in an unconventional way by making them negative. The next step to be taken by the authorities might mean economies working in a below zero interest rate climate (bzirc monetary policy).

richard_woolnough_100

UK gilts – “Whoah we’re half way there, Whoah livin’ on a prayer…”

Last week the Bank of England announced a further round of quantitative easing of £50bn, bringing the total to £375bn. It is obvious that the MPC thinks that monetary policy is still not sufficiently loose to create the desired economic effect and hence further stimulus is needed.

We have written numerous times on QE. When we started scribing on this novel experiment we focused on why it needed to be done, and how it was meant to work (like walking on custard) and the bizarre effect this may have on the bond market.

One thing we did not focus on was the length of time monetary policy would have to be kept super accommodative, though we did expect it to be for an extended period of time (certainly until we begin to see a meaningful recovery in employment outcomes as outlined here).

Mervyn King appears surprised by the extent of the crisis. The MPC were slow in aggressively cutting rates after the onset of the credit crunch in 2007, but to his credit Mervyn and the UK authorities have been at the forefront of corrective action and have correctly realised the severity of the credit crisis. The MPC was correct to not interpret the inflation scare of 2008 or the economic rebound of 2009 as economic recovery. They have been spot on.

But how accurate is his current thinking?

The Governor is not one to pre-commit. However he did say something recently that shows how he feels about the potential long term outlook for rates. At the latest Treasury Select Committee he repeated that at this point in time – and he has said it at every committee meeting – that he believes we are not yet half way through the crisis.

“When this crisis began in 2007-2008, most people including ourselves did not believe that we would still be right in the thick of it, in the middle of it, quite this late. All the way through, I’ve said to this committee that I don’t think we are yet half-way through – I’ve always said that and I’m still saying it.” Mervyn King, June 26, 2012.

From the chart below we can see that BoE base rate has been set at 0.5% since March 2009, and over £325bn has been pumped into the financial system through QE. If we are not yet half-way through this crisis, then this implies that rates will stay at these levels for at least another 3 years to 2015, and a further round of £375bn of QE is potentially on the agenda.

If this interpretation of the outlook turns out to be correct then these very low levels of short and long term gilt yields begin to look more logical to gilt investors. And we can assume that the UK won’t recover fully until the US and Europe does as well, which means that ultra low yields on Treasuries and Bunds may also make sense.

Monetary policy is living on the edge, and if Mervyn King were to do a turn at a city karaoke machine, then the bar could well be ringing out to this Bon Jovi classic…

“Whoah we’re half way there, Whoah livin’ on a prayer…”

Naturally, his audience of gilt investors – despite the ultra low yield they are currently receiving – will sing back “We got to hold on to what we’ve got”.

jamestomlins_100

High Yield Default Rates Finally Starting to Rise

Default rates for high yield bonds have started to rise from a low level over the past few months. The trailing last 12 month default rate for Global High Yield was 2.7% in April, having bottomed out at 1.8% in October 2011 according to data from Bank of America Merrill Lynch.  This in itself is not unexpected as default rates were running at historically low levels, helped by very loose monetary policy, markets that were willing to refinance many companies and some positive underlying earnings growth.

High Yield Default Rate Starting to Increase...How far default rates will rise from henceforth is the real question. Some of the elements that helped keep default rates low over the past 2 years are unsustainable or unrepeatable. For instance the huge fiscal easing from many of the G8 economies that spurred a lot of the bounce back in 2009 is not an option available to many governments today. Likewise, underlying earnings growth in today’s world of austerity and uncertainty is much harder to come by. Finally, whilst the credit markets are willing to finance good businesses with sensible balance sheets, it’s far more discriminating when it comes to businesses that are struggling to grow or have too much debt.

The bottom line is that we think the next few years will be a tough environment for highly leveraged issuers and that in the absence of a dramatic pick up in growth or a very dramatic policy response (full Eurozone QE and Eurobonds anyone?), bearing in mind the huge range of potential outcomes in the European economy, our best guess is that default rates in the European high yield market will average 6% per annum for the next five years.

One area of the market which could see a marked impact is the short dated or short duration high yield strategy. This type of strategy has performed very well in the past few years in terms of providing reasonable returns but with much lower volatility than conventional high yield strategies. The benefit of a low default rate over the past 2 years has been a key element of this performance. However, as the number of defaults starts to increase, this following wind will disappear and the scope to deliver similar levels of risk adjusted returns becomes much harder.  At the end of the day, your downside risk in a default is the same if you hold a 2 year bond or a 10 year bond.

The good news is that valuations in the broader high yield markets already compensate you for a default rate of a little over 8% p.a. over the next 5 years, so there is already a lot of bad news in todays’ prices. There are also many ways to mitigate the risks of default when taking on high yield risk (active stock selection, sticking to defensive industries and focusing on regions that have healthier economies for instance). Nevertheless, as default rates start to rise, we think investors need to tread with a degree of caution.

This entry was posted in bond categories, ratings and tagged , by . Bookmark the permalink.

Please note the content on this website is for Investment Professionals only and should be shared responsibly. No other persons should rely on the information contained within this website.

matt_russell_100

MPC Minutes – Rate hike becoming ever more likely

This morning, with the release of the MPC’s latest minutes, we discovered that a further member of the committee voted for a rate hike at the last meeting. Spencer Dale voted for an increase in the base rate of 25 basis points. That now leaves the votes: 3 to tighten, 5 to stay on hold and 1 to further loosen monetary policy (Adam Posen is still calling for more QE). The general tone of the minutes feels to me as though the committee in general is getting more hawkish and it’s becoming more likely that the base rate will be increased before too long.

One of the factors that the members of the MPC consider when making their judgments is inflation expectations. It seems pretty logical that if people expect inflation to be higher in the future, inflation will be higher – if you expect inflation to be 5% then when it comes to your annual pay review you will be looking for a 5% increase in your salary to maintain your standard of living. To meet this demand for higher wages companies will increase prices, inflation ticks up…….and so on. Well, at least that’s the theory. I’ve put this chart together to show how accurate inflation expectations have been at predicting what inflation actually turned out to be. I’ve taken data from a couple of surveys that ask participants what they think inflation will be in a year’s time and moved it on a year to show how their predictions matched up with reality.

 

I think the period from 2008 to 2010 demonstrates the problem with these surveys nicely. In late 2008 inflation was as high as 5%, at that point when asked what they thought it would be in a year’s time the median response was roughly the same level. Inflation was actually around 1% a year on.

As you have seen, since the financial crisis,  expectations have not been a particularly good indicator of future inflation, therefore the recent talk of heightened expectations should have little, if any, bearing on the committee’s decision whether to hike rates. Let’s put them to one side for now.

The elevated level of inflation we are currently experiencing is being fed not by demand for higher wages, but by higher raw material/import costs. Monetary policy is a powerful tool but I think we’re fooling ourselves if we think that the Bank of England has any control over the price of oil for instance. Clearly they could hike rates to strengthen the pound,  but in the process this would hamper our exporters – not a great way to stimulate a much needed domestic recovery.

Since the inflation pressure is coming from the supply side, increasing rates would, in my opinion, inflict even more pain on the British consumer. Whether the cost of goods (inflation) rises, or you increase the cost of the money used to buy those goods (interest rates), the outcome is the same – demand falls. I totally buy the argument for not letting inflation get away from us, but the risks on the downside to putting up rates in the short term far outweigh those to the upside, and should only be countenanced if wage pressures begin to emerge.

richard_woolnough_100

QE (Quite Enough?) Update & Competition Winner

Earlier today the Bank of England announced that along with keeping the bank rate at 0.5% it is to increase the QE program by a further £25bn over the next 3 months. Whilst an increase was somewhat expected by the market gilts have sold off, the yield on the 3 3/4 2019 rose to 4% earlier as it seems to have expected a larger commitment. Even though we had a GDP print of -0.4% recently it seems the Bank is laying the groundwork for stepping away from the bond purchases. Considering they have bought back £175bn worth of gilts since March and now they are planning to do £25bn over the next 3 months it definitely feels like they are turning down the dial. By my basic calculations the rate of increase has reduced by roughly 70% (originally they were buying £25bn per month and now that has fallen to £8bn per month). Hopefully this reduction will strike the right balance between helping the economy get back on its feet and allowing the Bank to hit its inflation target. We should get further colour on their thinking when the quarterly inflation report is released on the 11th.

We had a number of correct entries to our QE prediction competition so in the interest of fairness we have drawn a name out of a hat. The winner is Peter Lowe at Smith & Williamson. Congratulations and we hope you enjoy the book.

matt_russell_100

QE (Quite Enough?) Update & Competition Winner

Earlier today the Bank of England announced that along with keeping the bank rate at 0.5% it is to increase the QE program by a further £25bn over the next 3 months. Whilst an increase was somewhat expected by the market gilts have sold off, the yield on the 3 3/4 2019 rose to 4% earlier as it seems to have expected a larger commitment. Even though we had a GDP print of -0.4% recently it seems the Bank is laying the groundwork for stepping away from the bond purchases. Considering they have bought back £175bn worth of gilts since March and now they are planning to do £25bn over the next 3 months it definitely feels like they are turning down the dial. By my basic calculations the rate of increase has reduced by roughly 70% (originally they were buying £25bn per month and now that has fallen to £8bn per month). Hopefully this reduction will strike the right balance between helping the economy get back on its feet and allowing the Bank to hit its inflation target. We should get further colour on their thinking when the quarterly inflation report is released on the 11th.

We had a number of correct entries to our QE prediction competition so in the interest of fairness we have drawn a name out of a hat. The winner is Peter Lowe at Smith & Williamson. Congratulations and we hope you enjoy the book.

ben_lord_100

Does deflation always result in a low and flat yield curve?

We’ve had a huge rally in risky assets since we wrote a comment about Turning Japanese almost a year ago, and while diminished, the risk of a ‘lost decade’ is still very real. I thought it would be worth another look. Now I am not out to compare and contrast the prevailing conditions that led to deflation and QE between Japan and the UK, but what I want to do is ask whether deflation, which led to QE in both countries, necessarily means stubbornly low and flat government bond yield curves, as it did in Japan?

As a brief reminder, the Japanese experience began with the property and equity bubble bursting in 1989, followed by weak growth and deflation through most of the 1990s.  As people know, the Japanese response was much slower that what we’ve seen. The Bank of Japan (BoJ) hiked rates to 6% half a year before the economy entered recession in March 1991, and cut incrementally towards zero over the next 4 years, well into the country’s contraction.  The BoJ waited almost 3 years after entering deflation before beginning QE.  And, as a comparison, the Bank of England has bought back a bigger percentage of the gilt market in only six months than the BoJ did at any   stage, and has approval to do even more.

As we have discussed in previous blogs, deflation is a dire scenario for central bankers and policymakers, destroying the efficacy of monetary policy. But when the deflationary psychology sets in to an economy and its agents, it could also have horrific consequences for the economy through consumer spending (which represents about 70% of our economy’s output), as people cease spending. Why would we buy a new fridge, say, today, if we know that in 1 year’s time it will be cheaper? It is really with these fears in mind that authorities in the US and UK in particular have reacted so quickly and substantially, and why we are repeatedly told they would "rather do too much, than too little".

Looking at the difference between 10 and 2 year government bond yields in the UK and Japan when QE started, we can clearly see that the UK curve is substantially steeper than Japan’s yield curve. This suggests that the markets are as yet not expecting the curve to flatten a la Japan. Why might this be? Well, firstly, it may be because unlike Japan, the Bank of England has been quick to react to deflation and has been aggressive in its response. So the markets have perhaps interpreted the level of stimulus as being sufficient to stave off anything like a lost decade of growth due to a fall in aggregate demand leading to a deflationary spiral. In other words, QE may have done enough to reignite inflation.

However, I think a significant reason is to do with the constitution of the two markets, namely the proportion of government borrowings owned by foreign investors. In Japan at the time of QE, approximately 3.4% of JGBs were held by foreigners. This is a sharp contrast to the government bond markets the US and UK.  Today, 36% of outstanding gilts are owned by foreigners. This is a huge difference, and it adds to my hunch that deflation, even if it were to persist in the UK, would not necessitate very low and flat yield curves. With only 3.4% of JGBs owned by overseas investors, Japan could proceed with an inflationary stimulus programme and not worry about an exodus of foreign demand for their bonds, or about an influential foreign buyer network demanding higher JGB yields for the (perceived rising) risks.

Japan could print money, thereby putting negative pressure on the Yen without overdue concern about not being able to borrow the requisite funds. Contrastingly, the US and UK are constrained in regards to inflating out of a large debt burden and devaluing the currency, since foreign owners fleeing government bonds would put huge upwards pressure on government bond yields. This is a big issue for the US at the moment, with China owning over $800bn of US Treasuries (see here for full list).

Painful adjustments undoubtedly lie ahead as government expenditure is cut, as taxes rise, and as the nation’s balance sheet is rationalised and delevered. And if this is done sufficiently and appropriately, there is no reason foreign holders will flee the currency or the government bond markets. And we actually take our hats off to the authorities for recognising the dangers of a deflationary spiral that could so easily come from the complete shut-down of the credit mechanism in an economy. Now for the second, and every bit as important part: withdrawing the stimulus at the right time so as to avoid hyperinflation and a collapsing currency.

Page 1 of 212