Full width

In a blog post on 31st March I argued that MMT (Modern Monetary Theory) had been surreptitiously put into practice in the US. However, according to a quote from Lacy Hunt (Hoisington Investment Management) included by John Mauldin in a recent letter, what the Fed and the US government are doing doesn’t qualify as MMT.

According to Lacy Hunt: “For the Fed to engage in true MMT, a major regulatory change to the Federal Reserve Acts would be necessary: The Fed’s liabilities would need to be made legal tender. Having the Treasury sell securities directly to the Fed could do this; the Treasury’s deposits would be credited and then the Treasury would write checks against these deposits. In this case, the Fed would, in essence, write checks to pay the obligations of the Treasury. If this change is enacted, rising inflation would ensue and the entire international monetary system would be severely destabilized and the US banking system would be irrelevant.”

One problem with Lacy Hunt’s argument is that some of the Fed’s liabilities are already legal tender and have been for a very long time. I’m referring to the $1.9 trillion of “Currency in circulation” (physical notes and coins). This currency sits on the liability side of the Fed’s balance sheet. Also, the money that the US Treasury spends comes from the Treasury General Account, which also sits on the liability side of the Fed’s balance sheet.

Admittedly, the Fed currently does not buy Treasury debt directly. Instead, it acts through Primary Dealers (PDs). The PDs buy the debt from the government and the Fed buys the debt from the PDs. When this happens, new money is credited by the Fed to the commercial bank accounts of PDs and thus becomes a liability of the private banking system. At the same time, the private banks are ‘made whole’ by having new reserves added to their accounts at the Fed.

In other words, rather than money going directly from the Fed to the Treasury General Account (TGA), under the current way of doing things the money gets to the same place indirectly via PDs. This enables the commercial banking system to get its cut, but from both the government’s perspective and the money supply perspective there is no difference between the Fed directly buying government debt and the Fed using intermediaries (PDs) to do the buying.

Now, the Fed’s QE programs of 2008-2014 generated a lot less “price inflation” than many people feared. This was largely because the new money was injected into the financial markets (bonds and stocks) and only gradually trickled into the ‘real economy’. To some extent what happened over the past couple of months is similar, but with two significant differences.

One significant difference between the Fed’s recent actions and the QE of 2008-2014 is that for some of its new money and credit creation the Fed is bypassing the PDs. No regulatory change was needed for this to happen. Instead, as I explained in my earlier post, the Fed created Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs) that do the actual monetising of assets and the lending of new money into existence. In effect, new money is now being created by the Fed and sent directly to various non-bank entities, including municipalities, private businesses and bondholders.

The second significant difference is the crux of the issue and why the US now has MMT in all but name.

You see, the essence of MMT isn’t the mechanical process via which money gets to the government. The essence is the concept that the government is only limited in its money and debt creation by “inflation”. The idea is that until “inflation” becomes a problem, the government can create as much new money and debt as it wants as part of an effort to achieve full employment. A related idea is that government spending does not have to be financed by taxation.

Is there really any doubt that the US government no longer feels constrained in its creation of debt, the bulk of which is being purchased indirectly using new money created by the Fed? After all, in the space of less than two months the US federal government has blown-out its expected annual deficit from around $1T to around $4T and is talking about massive additional spending/borrowing increases to support the economy. Clearly, no senior politician from either of the main parties is giving any serious thought to how this debt will be repaid or the future implications of the deficit blow-out.

The bottom line is that the US doesn’t have MMT in law, but it does have MMT in fact.

Economics isn’t about money. Money is important because it facilitates the division of labour, but good economic theory applies with or without money. Economics is about how humans allocate scarce resources. This implies that trade-offs are critical to the good economist, because he/she understands that allocating scarce resources to satisfy one need in the present means that these resources will not be available to satisfy another need in the present or the future*. Right now, the entire world is dealing with a trade-off that has far-reaching consequences.

The trade-off is associated with the COVID-19 threat and has been portrayed as being between lives and money, but the correct way to view the trade-off is between lives today and lives in the future. Unfortunately, the people making the decisions regarding what should be done have neither the data nor the knowledge to properly analyse the trade-off.

For one thing, when decisions were made to implement widespread lock-downs these people clearly had no inkling of the short-term cost, in terms of illness and lives, of NOT locking down the economy. We know this because as recently as six weeks ago there were projections of millions of deaths in the US alone**, but the actual rates of death and serious illness have been vastly lower than projected. The experts who made these wildly inaccurate forecasts claim that the vastly lower death rates are due mainly to the lock-downs, but we know this isn’t true based on what happened in countries that didn’t implement draconian social distancing measures. For example, although Sweden, which was not forced into lock-down mode, has experienced a slightly higher rate of infection than its Scandinavian neighbours, its rate of COVID-19 infection is about the same as that of Germany, which is considered to have done a good job of containing the virus via strict social-distancing measures, and much lower than those of Spain, Italy, France and the US.

Even more importantly, the decision-makers are clueless about the long-term costs, in terms of lost lives and lowered living standards, that likely will result from the lock-downs. How could they not be clueless, because in order to make a reasonable assessment you must have a thorough understanding of history and good economic theory. As far as I can tell, not one of the health/medical officials or political leaders at the forefront of the COVID-19 decision-making process has this understanding.

Regarding the cost to human life stemming from locking down large sections of the economy, there is a lot of evidence that people who are poor and out of work are more likely to die than people who are financially comfortable. This is not only because the poorer people have access to lower-quality healthcare and food, but also because they are more prone to stress-related diseases and/or more likely to be subject to physical violence. In addition, a more immediate negative consequence of the lock-downs is that some people have been denied elective surgeries and others have decided not to seek immediate medical treatment for minor issues. This will lead to many deaths over the coming 12 months that would have been avoided with earlier medical intervention.

Note that I refer to GOOD economic theory above, because only a good economist is capable of comprehending the indirect, long-term and unintended consequences of a policy. A bad economist may well believe that shutting down the entire economy for 2+ months is akin to a very long weekend, and that everything will go back to normal soon after the shut-down ends — just like it does every Monday following the 2-day weekend shut-down. Larry Summers is a case in point.

The upshot is that people with power/authority are making decisions regarding a major trade-off between lives today and lives in the future while being in possession of insufficient information about one side and almost no information/knowledge about the other side of the trade-off.

*This is related to Frederic Bastiat’s Broken Window parable, in that what is immediately obvious is the benefit achieved by allocating the resource to satisfy one current need but what isn’t immediately obvious are the benefits that would have accrued if the resources had been allocated differently.

**The experts at Imperial College predicted 2.2M deaths in the US and 510K deaths in the UK.

[This blog post is an excerpt from a recent TSI commentary]

Last week, a highly paid (we assume) JP Morgan analyst opined:

“When it comes to market developments, we believe that the Fed’s action last Thursday represents a pivotal moment in this crisis. Powell’s statement included that “we will continue to use these powers forcefully, proactively, and aggressively until we are confident that we are solidly on the road to recovery” and probably the most important, historic statement, “We should make them whole. They did not cause this.” This crisis is different from any other in recent history in that it was not caused in any way by businesses or investors. Unhindered by moral hazard, the response of fiscal and monetary authorities is and will continue to be unprecedented, with the goal of essentially making everyone ‘whole.’ We believe the significance of this development is underestimated by markets, and this reinforces our view of a full asset price recovery, and equity markets reaching all-time highs next year, likely by H1. Investors with focus on negative upcoming earnings and economic developments are effectively ‘fighting the Fed,’ which was historically a losing proposition.”

Well, if moral hazard was the only thing that prevented the Fed from acting in the past to eliminate everyone’s losses, then why has the Fed never bothered to eliminate poverty? After all, not every poor person is in that situation due to having done something wrong. In particular, none of the children living in poverty are to blame for their predicament.

Taking a broader view, if it is possible for the central bank to make everyone “whole”, then why are some countries poor? These countries have central banks that are capable of doing what the Fed is now promising to do.

The problem, of course, is that the central bank cannot add real wealth to the economy. It cannot produce anything of real value. All it can do is conjure money and credit out of nothing, thus setting in motion countless exchanges of nothing for something and distorting the price signals upon which markets rely. This is a recipe for more poverty and generally lower living standards in the long term.

At some point during the second half of this year, the release of pent-up demand as restrictions are removed and people go back to work, combined with the flood of new money generated by the Fed, could make it seem as if there has been a ‘V’ bottom in the economy and that the entire recession lasted only about four months. This could enable the SPX to return to within 10% of its February-2020 all-time high before year-end. However, the price distortions that have been and will be caused by the effort to make everyone “whole” will prevent a sustainable recovery.

The deluge of new money will boost asset prices and the prices of life’s necessities, but many businesses that closed their doors during March of 2020 will never re-open and many people who lost their jobs will remain unemployed (and thus dependent upon government handouts). Also, many of the people who do end up with jobs will find that their real incomes have fallen, because there will be an excess supply of labour and the currency’s loss of purchasing power will be reflected to the greatest extent in the prices of things that are in relatively short supply. For the majority of people, therefore, the post-shutdown economy will never be as good as the pre-shutdown economy, not despite the Fed’s efforts but largely because of them.

In a blog post three weeks ago, I mentioned that in TSI commentaries over the past year I had been tracking the current performance of the gold mining sector (as represented by the HUI) with its performance during the mid-1980s (as represented by the Barrons Gold Mining Index – BGMI). The 1980s comparison predicted the big moves that have occurred since May of last year, including the Q1-2020 crash. I concluded the earlier post with the comment: “History informs us that after a crash comes a rebound and after a rebound there is usually a test of the crash low.”

Here is an update of the weekly chart that I have been showing at TSI for almost a year. The latest price shown for the HUI is last week’s close. The chart suggests that the obligatory post-crash rebound is almost complete and that the next move of consequence will be a decline to test the March low.

If a test of the March low occurs, it should be successful (it’s highly probable that the gold mining indices and ETFs made their bottoms for the year last month). However, with regard to future outcomes there is always more than one realistic possibility. For example, although the historical record suggests that a test of the March low will happen within the next two months, a more bullish short-term outcome is possible.

Parameters that could be used to indicate that a different short-term scenario was playing out have been mentioned at TSI, but at this stage I think the odds favour a test of the crash low for pretty much everything that has crashed, including the gold sector. Looking beyond the short-term, I expect that the major fundamental differences between the late-1980s and the present will assert themselves during the second half of this year and cause the current market for gold mining stocks to diverge (in a bullish way) from the 1980s path.

[This blog post is an excerpt from a recent commentary published at TSI]

Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), which isn’t modern and isn’t a theory (in the true meaning of the word), is now being put into practice in many countries, including the US. What’s happening isn’t being called MMT, but that’s what it is.

Under cover of the “coronacrisis”, we are now witnessing the introduction of MMT. Specifically, in an effort to alleviate the short-term pain associated with the economy-wide shut-downs that they are enforcing as part of history’s biggest ever over-reaction, governments are now promising to spend money as if they had access to an unlimited supply of the stuff. They can do this because with the help of the central bank they do have access to an unlimited supply of the stuff.

The US government and the Fed are leading the way and in doing so all lines that are supposed to separate these two organisations are being blurred or eliminated. To put it another way, the pretence that the Fed is independent of the government has been dropped.

First, there’s the $2 trillion “stimulus” package that was just signed into effect by President Trump. How could a government that supposedly had to limit the pace of its deficit spending suddenly decide to instantly triple its deficit? Where is the money coming from to do this? After all, nobody is talking about increasing taxes. On the contrary, there is talk of delaying and reducing taxes. Clearly, the plan is for the money to be created out of nothing by the Fed.

Even more tellingly, there are the programs introduced by the Fed over the past two weeks. These are:

a) The Commercial Paper Funding Facility (CPFF), via which the Fed will buy commercial paper from issuers.

b) The Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility (MMLF), via which the Fed will lend to financial institutions secured by assets purchased by the financial institution from money market mutual funds.

c) The Main Street Business Lending Program (MSBLP), via which the Fed will lend directly to small and medium-size businesses.

d) The Primary Market Corporate Credit Facility (PMCCF), via which the Fed will buy corporate bonds from issuers.

e) The Secondary Market Corporate Credit Facility (SMCCF), via which the Fed will buy corporate bonds and bond ETFs in the secondary market.

f) The Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF), via which the Fed will support the issuance of asset-backed securities.

Now, the Fed isn’t supposed to do any of the above, but it is getting around the existing regulations by creating Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs) that will do the actual buying and lending. The US government will fund these SPVs with initial capital that the Fed will leverage 10:1. That is, for every dollar injected by the government into one of these SPVs, the Fed will create 10 new dollars via the traditional methods of fractional reserve banking.

The truly crazy thing is that the dollars that the government will inject into the Fed’s SPVs were previously created out of nothing when the Fed monetised Treasury securities. So, the Fed creates money out of nothing. This money then goes to the government. The government then deposits some of this money into the Fed’s new SPVs, and based on this injection of ‘capital’ the Fed creates a lot more money out of nothing.

The indirect costs, in terms of reduced productivity, higher unemployment and reduced living standards, of this money creation will be huge and long-lasting, but we’ll leave the discussion of these longer-term issues until after the immediate crisis has abated.

Our main point today is that the method of government funding appears to have changed in a permanent way. No longer will governments feel constrained by their abilities to tax the population and borrow from bond investors. From now on they will act like they have unrestricted access to a bottomless pool of money.

Inflation expectations have crashed along with the stock market and the oil price. This is evidenced by the following chart of the 10-Year Breakeven Inflation Rate, which indicates the average CPI that the market expects the government to report over the years ahead. Since the advent of the TIPS (Treasury Inflation Protected Securities) market in 2003, the Expected CPI was only below last Friday’s level of 0.50% during November-December of 2008 and January of 2009, that is, during the concluding months of the Global Financial Crisis.

The collapse in inflation expectations over the past several weeks does not indicate that “inflation” will be much lower in the future. On the contrary, beyond the short-term it greatly increases the risk of higher “inflation”.

Over the next few months the CPI will be lower than would have been the case in the absence of the coronavirus-related restrictions to economic activity and the plunge in the oil price, but by this time next year the CPI probably will be much higher due to the following:

1) Aggressive central bank reactions to the economic slowdown and the stock market plunge. These reactions will distort prices and hamper the economy, but to a man with nothing except a hammer every problem looks like a nail. To a central banker, every economic problem other than obvious “price inflation” looks like a reason to create more money and credit out of nothing. Also, to the central bankers of the world the recent rapid decline in inflation expectations is like a giant cattle prod pushing them in the direction of pro-inflation monetary policy.

2) In addition to aggressive monetary stimulus there will be aggressive fiscal stimulus. This would be the case anyway under such circumstances, but in the US the short-term stimulus from increased government spending will be more aggressive than usual due to this being an election year.

3) Once the coronavirus threat dissipates, there will be the natural release of pent-up demand.

4) The widespread shutting down of mines, production facilities and trade-related transportation will damage supply chains, in some cases permanently due to parts of ‘chain’ going bust, and ensure that it will take more time than usual for producers to respond to increased demand and rising prices.

Adding the natural force of pent-up demand release to the unnatural forces of monetary/fiscal stimulus and supply disruptions resulting from forced shut-downs should mean that “inflation” will be materially higher a year from now than would have been the case in the absence of the Q1-2020 calamity. My prediction: During the first half of 2021 the official US CPI, which routinely understates the increase in the cost of living, will print above 4%.

In TSI commentaries since May-June last year I have been tracking the current performance of the gold mining sector with its performance during the mid-1980s. More specifically, I have been comparing the current HUI with the mid-1980s Barrons Gold Mining Index (BGMI). The chart that illustrates this model is displayed below.

The model predicted the rapid rise in the HUI during June-August of last year, the steep correction from a peak by early-September to an October-November low, the rise to a new multi-year high by January-2020 and the crash to a low in March-2020. The big predictions associated with this model are now in the past, which is why I can take the liberty of including it in a free blog post.

The main point I want to make with this post is that even though the present often looks very different from any previous time, the bulk of what happens in the financial markets has happened before. It’s often just a matter of finding the right historical comparison, which is always easier said than done. Also, valid comparisons with previous times always have limited lifespans. It’s possible, for example, that my comparison with the mid-1980s has almost reached the end of its useful life.

Knowledge of how markets have performed in the past, including the distant past (not just the preceding 10-20 years), is useful even if it doesn’t lead to a specific history-based model. For example, anyone with knowledge of market history knows that when the gold mining sector is stretched to the upside near the start of a general stock market crash, it always crashes with the broad market. As far as I know, there have been no exceptions.

History informs us that after a crash comes a rebound and after a rebound there is usually a test of the crash low.

[This blog post is a modified excerpt (with an updated chart) from a TSI commentary published one month ago]

Last July the gold/silver ratio came within 10% of its 50-year high, which was reached in 1991, and within 15% of its multi-century high, which was reached in the early 1940s. The following monthly chart from goldchartsrus.com shows that on a monthly closing basis the ratio has just made a new multi-decade high and is now within 10% of a 300-year high, meaning that silver has almost never been cheaper relative to gold than it is today.

One way to interpret the gold/silver ratio chart is that silver has huge upside potential relative to gold. I think this interpretation is correct, but there is a realistic chance that the ratio will make a new multi-century high (in effect, a new all-time high) before silver embarks on a major upward trend relative to gold.

This is not my preferred scenario, but a new all-time high in the gold/silver ratio could occur within the next 12 months due to a major deflation scare.

My current expectation is that over the bulk of this year there will be US dollar weakness and signs of increasing “inflation”, which is a financial/economic landscape that would favour silver over gold and pave the way for some mean reversion in the gold/silver ratio. However, if the stock market bubble were to burst, economic confidence probably would tank and there would be a panic towards ‘liquidity’. For the general public that would involve building-up cash, but for many large investors it would involve buying Treasury bonds and gold. Silver eventually would benefit from the strength in the gold market, but the silver market is not big enough and liquid enough to accommodate investors who are in a hurry to find a safe home for billions of dollars of wealth. Initially, therefore, the gold/silver ratio could rise sharply under such a scenario.

The scenario described above would lead to panic at the Fed, eventually resulting in the introduction of the most aggressive asset monetisation scheme to date. That’s the point when silver probably would commence a major catch-up move.

A 23rd February blog post by Sven Henrich hits a couple of nails on the head. Here’s an excerpt:

“…the virus…clearly has a short term effect, but rather the broader risk is the excess created by ultra-loose monetary policies that has pushed investors recklessly into asset prices at high valuations while leaving central bankers short of ammunition to deal with a real crisis. There was no real crisis last year, a slowdown yes, but central bankers weren’t even willing to risk that, instead they went all in on the slowdown. It is this lack of backbone and co-dependency on markets that has left the world with less stimulus options for when they may be really needed. Reckless.”

Yes, central banks present a vastly greater threat to the economy than the coronavirus. Unfortunately, however, there never will be a vaccine that could immunise the economy from the effects of interest rate manipulation. Also, Sven is wrong when he writes that central bankers are short of ammunition and when he implies that stimulus options of the central planning kind will be needed at some point in the future. These options are always counter-productive and therefore never needed.

Central banks are a long way from being short of ammunition, because there effectively is no limit to the amount of money they can create. They can monetise (purchase with money created out of nothing) pretty much anything. At the moment they generally have restricted themselves to the monetisation of their own government’s debt, but they could expand their bond-buying to encompass investment-grade corporate debt and, if that wasn’t deemed sufficient, high-yield (junk) debt. They also could monetise equities, perhaps beginning with ETFs and working their way down to individual stocks. If they wanted, with a change of some arbitrary rules they could even monetise commercial and residential real estate.

It could be argued that “inflation” (in the popular sense the word: an increase in the so-called general price level) limits the amount of new money that central banks can create, in that after “inflation” starts being perceived as a major threat the central bank will come under irresistible political pressure to tighten the monetary reins. This is one of the tenets of the idiocy known as Modern Monetary Theory, or MMT for short. According to MMT, the government should be able to create out of thin air whatever money it needs, with the “inflation” rate being the only limitation. However, in some developed countries, including the US, many people already are having trouble making ends meet due to the rising cost of living, and yet the central bank claims that the “inflation” rate is too low and senior politicians agree.

As well as distorting price signals and thus getting in the way of economic progress, when the central bank makes long-term additions to its balance sheet it is, in effect, surreptitiously nationalising part of the economy. For example, the Bank of Japan (BOJ) already has nationalised Japan’s government bond market and is well on its way towards nationalising the market for ETFs (the BOJ owns about 80% of all ETF shares listed in Japan).

The creeping nationalisation of markets is something that is rarely, if ever, mentioned during discussions of current and potential monetary stimulus, but it’s a big problem that looks set to get even bigger.

[This blog post is a modified excerpt from a recent TSI commentary]

The main purpose of the GDP growth numbers and most other economic statistics reported by China’s government is to tell the story that the central committee of the Communist Party wants to tell. In other words, the economic numbers form part of the State’s propaganda.

For example, during the first decade of this century the Party’s objective was to show that the economy was performing in spectacular fashion, so the reported GDP growth numbers were almost never below 8% and regularly above 10%. In more recent years the overriding concern has been to paint a picture of stability and sustainable progress, which has involved reporting consistent GDP growth in the 6%-7% range. Refer to the following chart for more detail. Amazingly, most Western analysts accept these figures as if they were accurate reflections of reality, partly, we suspect, because there is no way to prove that what’s being reported is bogus.

Once in a while, however, something happens that shines a light on the meaninglessness of the official numbers. An example was the claim by China’s government that its economy was still growing at an annualised pace of more than 6% during the worst point of the 2007-2009 global recession. Another example very likely will be the quarterly GDP growth that China’s government reports for the first quarter of this year.

The consensus view in the financial news media appears to be that due to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, China’s GDP growth rate in Q1-2020 will slide from 6%+ to ‘only’ 4%-5%. The reality, however, is that China’s economy could not be growing at the moment. Large sections of the country have been essentially put in lock-down mode, and many factories, restaurants, shops and other businesses have been temporarily closed. Tourism has ground to a halt, home sales have collapsed by 90% and vehicle sales are expected to fall by 50%-80% from the same period last year. In some large Chinese cities, including Shanghai, the government has directed state property owners not to collect rent from small- and medium-sized businesses during February and March.

Other examples of the virus’s dampening effect on economic activity are included in articles published on 13th February at the South China Morning (SCMP) and Caixin. According to the SCMP article:

“Recruitment site Zhaopin said this week that around 10 per cent of firms they surveyed were “on the verge of death”, with around 30 per cent planning job cuts and another 30 per cent saying they could not pay their employees on time.”

Along similar lines, the Caixin article notes:

“Even before the outbreak, many small businesses were already grappling with shrinking sales as China’s economy logged some of its slowest growth in decades. With business now at a standstill during the outbreak, many are facing existential liquidity crises. Large numbers say they are having difficulties just paying salaries, adding they can only survive for a matter of months using their current resources, even if Beijing provides support.”

It should be obvious to anyone with at least rudimentary knowledge of the world that China’s economy is contracting right now. Therefore, if the government reports GDP growth of 4%+ for the first quarter of this year it will be a tacit admission that the official numbers are totally fictitious. By the same token, to retain any semblance of credibility China’s government will have to admit that its economy shrank during the first quarter of this year.

That’s why China’s next quarterly GDP number will be a test.

In a TSI commentary last November I wrote about adjustments I was making to my stock selection process. These adjustments weren’t due to issues with any individual stock(s) or the performance of any individual stock-market sector. In particular, the poor performance of the average junior gold-mining stock during 2019′s gold rally wasn’t the primary driver of my decision to make some changes, although it was the proverbial “last straw”. The primary basis for my adjustment was evidence that the investing landscape had changed in a permanent, or at least a semi-permanent, way.

Long-term changes in the investing landscape happen from time to time, that is, the future is not always a simple extrapolation of the past. This occurs not because of a change in human nature (human nature never changes), but because of a change in the monetary system. For example, the investment strategy that involved shifting from equities to bonds when the stock market’s average dividend yield dropped below the average yield on investment-grade bonds worked without fail for generations prior to the mid-1950s, but from the mid-1950s onward it didn’t work. The reason this ‘fail safe’ approach to asset allocation stopped working was the increasing propensity/ability of central banks to inflate the money supply.

As part of their attempts to encourage more borrowing and consumption, over the past few years the major central banks manipulated interest rates down to unprecedented levels. Ten years ago very few people thought that negative nominal interest rates were possible, but in 2019 we reached the point where 1) a substantial portion of the developed-world’s government debt was trading with a negative yield to maturity, 2) some corporate bonds had negative yields to maturity, and 3) banks in some European countries were offering mortgages with negative interest rates.

Due to the draconian efforts of central banks to promote more spending and borrowing, it’s possible that the public is now effectively ‘tapped out’. This would explain why the quantity of margin debt collapsed over the past 18 months relative to the size of the US stock market, something that NEVER happened before with the S&P500 in a long-term bullish trend and regularly making new all-time highs. Also, it would explain why the average small-cap stock (as represented by the Russell2000) is trading at a 16-year low relative to the average large-cap stock (as represented by the S&P500).

Linked to the relatively poor performance of the average small-cap stock is the increasing popularity of passive investing via indexes and ETFs. Over the past several years there has been a general decline in the amount of active, value-oriented stock selection and a general rise in the use of ETFs. This has caused the stocks that are significant components of popular ETFs to outperform the stocks that are not subject to meaningful ETF-related demand, regardless of relative value. There is no reason to expect this trend to end anytime soon. On the contrary, the general shift away from individual stock selection and towards the use of ETFs appears to be accelerating.

At this stage I’m not making dramatic changes to my stock selection approach. I will continue to follow speculative small-cap stocks, but my selection process will be more risk averse and I will reduce the potential tracking error during intermediate-term rallies in mining stocks by putting more emphasis on ETFs and mutual funds. Also, when making future speculative mining-stock selections I will pay greater heed to the attractiveness of the assets to large mining companies. The reason is that regardless of the public’s willingness to speculate, large mining companies will always be under pressure to replace their depleted reserves and add new reserves. The easiest way for large companies to do this is to buy small companies that have discovered mineral deposits of sufficient size and quality.

In summary, as a result of unprecedented manipulation of money and interest rates it’s possible that some of the investing/speculating strategies that worked reliably in the past will not work for the foreseeable future. I think it makes sense to adapt accordingly.

[This blog post is an excerpt from a TSI commentary published on 26th January 2020]

Given the extent to which the US stock market is stretched in both momentum and sentiment terms, there doesn’t have to be a news-related catalyst for a significant correction. However, the mainstream financial press tries to link every move in the stock market to the current news. If a correction began last week or gets underway this week it’s likely that many fingers of blame will point to the Wuhan virus.

The situation is ‘fluid’, but at last count 13 Chinese cities had been placed under full or partial lockdown in an effort to prevent the virus from spreading. Furthermore, the number of countries with confirmed cases of the virus is growing.

In terms of global economic impact we think that the Wuhan virus will prove to be a minor issue, but if the number of confirmed cases continues to rise then many market participants could sell first and ask questions later. Based on what happened with similar viruses in the past, the number of confirmed cases might not peak until March.

Blame for a correction also could be directed towards the Fed, largely due to a misunderstanding of the Fed’s “repo market” operations.

The net amount of ‘liquidity’ provided by the Fed to the repo market has declined over the past couple of weeks, but not because the Fed has stopped supporting this market. The money provided to the repo market is a very short-term loan that often matures within one day, so the amount of repo money provided by the Fed will reduce over time unless the Fed adds new money (makes new loans) at a rapid pace. For example, the Fed ‘pumped’ (loaned) $74 billion into the repo market last Thursday, but there was a net decline of $10 billion on the day due to the expiration of $84 billion of previous loans.

Also worth mentioning is that the amount of money provided by the Fed to the repo market cannot exceed the demand for short-term loans in this market.

We assume that the Fed intends to withdraw from the repo market over the coming months, with the very short-term money it provides via this market steadily being replaced by the semi-permanent money it adds via the asset monetisation program — the program that we aren’t supposed to call QE, even though it is mechanically identical to QE — introduced last October. If this happens it will result in a large decline in the “Repurchase Agreements” line on the Fed’s balance sheet and could result in a small decline in the total size of the Fed’s balance sheet, but it won’t be a sign that the Fed is tightening or even becoming less easy.

To further explain, note that even though many commentators lump the Fed’s repo market support program together with the Fed’s asset monetisation program to arrive at a total amount of new Fed-generated monetary inflation, the two programs are very different and should not be combined. The reason is that despite “repo” being short for repurchase, repo operations do not involve asset purchases per se. When the Fed does a “repo” it lends money (that it creates out of nothing) to a borrower and receives collateral, usually in the form of a Treasury security or a Mortgage-Backed Security (MBS), to secure the loan. When the loan is repaid, which happens one or fourteen days later depending on whether it’s an overnight loan or a term loan, the money is returned to the Fed (and is immediately extinguished) and the collateral is returned to the borrower.

Any monetary inflation caused by the Fed’s repo operations is therefore self-extinguishing within a very short time (1-14 days). However, monetary inflation caused by the Fed’s asset monetisation program could be permanent. The reason is that although the debt securities (T-Bills) purchased by the Fed with new money will mature within a few months, the Fed has said that it will re-invest (rather than extinguish) the proceeds received when the securities mature.

The upshot is that even if the total size of the Fed’s balance sheet reduces as the repo support program winds down, as long as the Fed is adding ‘permanent’ money via its asset monetisation program it is acting in an inflationary manner. Consequently, it will not be reasonable to blame a near-term stock market downturn on the Fed becoming tighter or less easy.

Just to be clear, the Fed is at least partly responsible for the fact that the stock market rose in a virtual straight line from mid-October through to 23rd January. However, the Fed is not responsible for the market pulling back from an overbought/overbullish extreme.

The crux of the matter is that regardless of the fundamentals, large and liquid markets don’t go up or down in straight lines for long. There are always corrections. Surely we don’t have to rack our brains in an effort to come up with a fundamental reason for a correction when some short-term sentiment and momentum indicators are stretched to historic extremes. It’s more of a challenge to explain why a correction didn’t happen sooner.