Will politicians make common breath..? explains Neel Kashkari

Chaos Theory

• Debating a future of inflation vs. deflation is radically new territory for investors. The chaotic nature of the choice facing societies is whipsawing equity markets and dominating bottom-up factors.
• Equity investors seem to be pricing in a combination of outcomes, with the largest weighting going to a goldilocks, mild inflation scenario. But the market’s large daily swings reflect jumps back and forth as investors update the probabilities of very different destinations.

Once per quarter investment professionals from across PIMCO’s global offices gather in Newport Beach for our Economic Forum. These sessions have been the foundation of PIMCO’s investment process for years; we debate and update our short-term and long-term views for the global economy, and, from that, for individual asset classes, such as government bonds, corporate bonds, mortgages and stocks. Last month we gathered for our December Forum and the topic that dominated the discussion, as it has in recent quarters, was the fate of the euro. Will the eurozone break up? Will European governments impose extreme, deflationary austerity to control their deficits? Will the ECB monetize the region’s debts and risk inflation in order to preserve the common currency? 

This is a debate that has raged within PIMCO for quite a while. There is a wide range of opinions, each supported by relevant precedents and sound economic reasoning. Yet despite our intense focus, we don’t know the answer with certainty. 

Here in America we too face a similar question, though markets are not currently demanding an immediate answer. For the last few decades America has fueled its economic growth by borrowing and consuming, and, in doing so, has racked up large, unsustainable debt. Families that take on too much debt must eventually cut spending, either to pay back loans, or at least because banks stop lending them money. They are eventually forced into some combination of austerity and default. But countries with their own currencies have a choice: 1) austerity-induced deflation, or 2) print money and eventually trigger inflation, which makes their debts easier to pay off, while robbing creditors of the real return they were promised. Will we find the political will to cut spending? Or will we continue running large deficits? Will the Federal Reserve resume quantitative easing, in effect monetizing our debts? Will it unintentionally trigger inflation?

Listening to my colleagues make their arguments during the Forum, I was taken back to my days fifteen years ago when I was an engineering graduate student at the University of Illinois. You may wonder what a debate about the global economy has to do with engineering. It reminded me of one of my favorite classes: nonlinear systems – the study of natural and man-made systems that, at times, behave very oddly. Allow me to explain.

Most systems we interact with every day are linear: if you change an input to the system by a small amount, the output will also change by a small amount. Think about driving to work: if you leave your house 10 minutes early, you will usually arrive about 10 minutes early. If you turn up the flame on a stove a little, the pot of water will heat a little faster.

But some systems, under certain conditions, behave very differently. These systems are said to have “sensitive dependence on initial conditions” – very small changes of the inputs can lead to enormous variations of the output. Mathematicians have given these systems the label of being “chaotic” and experts in the field are called “chaoticians.” (The term “chaotician” always struck me as ridiculous. Could you imagine introducing yourself this way?) The weather is the best example of a real-life chaotic system. Predicting the weather beyond a few days is impossible because minor variations lead to large changes in the future. Go back to the driving example: if you leave 10 minutes late, rather than 10 minutes early, you might hit rush hour, and the extra 10 minutes ends up costing you an hour. Chaos theory describes the conditions under which a system changes from linear and smooth to highly nonlinear and violent, where minor changes to the inputs will lead to enormous variations of the output.

Western societies are facing a seemingly minor choice, but that choice will lead to vastly different endpoints for the global economy and for asset prices.

In a “normal” economic environment investors debate a narrow range of outcomes: will the U.S. grow by 2.8% or 3.2%? Will inflation remain at 2.0% or climb to 2.3%? Debating a future of inflation vs. deflation is radically new territory for investors. The chaotic nature of the choice facing societies is whipsawing equity markets and dominating bottom-up factors.

While we don’t know with certainty which path societies will choose, we can identify a few potential outcomes and make reasoned assessments of what they mean for the economy and for equities:

1. Austerity and deflation

Borrowing money to consume allows families and societies to live beyond their means – for a time. Once the debt accumulation has run its course, reality has to set back in. For a family that may mean getting rid of a second car, dining out less often or cuts which are far more painful. It necessarily means consuming less, and to the extent that consumption equates to standard of living, it likely also means a reduced living standard. Societies face a similar challenge. The U.S. and parts of Europe have enjoyed exaggerated living standards enabled by borrowing from our future. Now that creditors are warning us they won’t let this continue forever, governments may reach consensus to cut spending and/or increase taxes to bring budgets into balance. Whatever the mix, by definition this likely means lower economic growth and perhaps a lower level of overall economic activity until debts are worked off and real growth restored. Deflation runs the risk of creating a vicious cycle, where prices fall, causing wages to fall, causing spending to fall, causing prices to fall further. This is a lower risk for a growing population such as in the United States, whereas Japan continues to suffer from such stagnation today. Europe’s demographics are much worse than America’s. The outlook for equities in this environment is negative in the short run and potentially very negative in the long run if a deflationary cycle kicks off. Corporate earnings at some point must be linked to economic growth, and stock prices represent the present value of a future stream of earnings. In a deflationary environment cash will be king – because your purchasing power will increase by just sitting on the sidelines.

2. Explicit default
The scenario of governments not paying back their creditors is extremely unlikely for countries that have their own currencies. Why default on your debt, which would trigger a crisis of confidence in your economy, when you can simply print more money? Of course, unpredictable politics can make the unthinkable possible, as we came dangerously close to seeing this summer with Washington’s debt ceiling debacle. In Europe it is likely some smaller countries, such as Greece, will default on their debt. They simply have taken on more debt than their economies can reasonably hope to pay back. And they don’t have their own currency, so printing drachma is not an option. It is hard to imagine a scenario where an explicit default would be good for equities. Just how bad depends on the size of the country defaulting and the extent of the preparations put in place to minimize the damage. For example, if countries have capitalized their banks to withstand the losses from a Greek default and the ECB funds Italy and Spain so they are not at risk of contagion, the impact to equities should be more muted. An uncontrolled default, or a default of a larger country would be very bad for risk assets and could trigger a deflationary spiral described above.

3. Mild inflation
Mild inflation is the goldilocks scenario: central banks print money to help fund governments while they employ structural reforms to make their economies more competitive and generate long-term growth. Such structural reforms take time to produce results, often many years. Printing money provides governments with that time while, in theory, reducing the sacrifices citizens must make, and the inflation that usually follows makes the fixed debt stock easier to service, because prices (and hence taxes) increase. It often results in a falling currency, which makes exports more competitive. It is easy to see why countries with their own currencies usually choose inflation as the preferred response to overwhelming debt. Although creditors suffer because the purchasing power they were expecting has been reduced, society has to make fewer hard choices and can continue to enjoy its exaggerated standard of living until the pro-growth economic reforms come to the rescue. In a scenario of mild inflation, equities should do well. Prices are contained, the economy functions and corporate profits should continue increasing. Of course, if policymakers do not use this time to implement real economic reforms, which can still be painful for certain constituencies, mild inflation doesn’t solve anything. It just delays the necessary day of reckoning.

4. Runaway inflation
The danger of mild inflation is that it may not remain mild. Inflation is driven by expectations, the collective beliefs of what the future holds that reside in the minds of millions of people. If people expect prices to go up, they will demand higher wages so they can maintain their standard of living. This will increase the cost of labor, pushing the cost of goods higher. A vicious cycle of inflation can take hold as prices climb higher and higher. The U.S. suffered from double-digit inflation in the 1970s, and in an extreme case, Germany suffered from hyper-inflation following World War I. Runaway inflation is devastating because an economy loses its anchor. People are afraid to hold cash because their purchasing power drops rapidly and so they must hoard real assets. Interest rates soar causing investments to plummet. Central bankers are generally afraid of attempting to induce mild inflation for fear they may nudge expectations more than they hoped. Nudging the collective beliefs of millions of people is an inexact science. The Federal Reserve is cautiously experimenting with its expectations-nudging-arsenal with its recent communication innovations. Runaway inflation would be very bad for most risk assets and equities in particular because of the devastating affects on real economic growth and the increases in costs of production and of capital. A loss of faith in paper currencies would mean gold and real assets would likely be king.

5. Miraculous growth
A list of potential solutions to our unsustainable debt load would be incomplete without including a high growth scenario. It is true there could be a major breakthrough in, for example, energy technology that spurs extraordinary economic growth, which would drive tax revenues higher and enable governments to pay down their debt without asking their citizens to give up their exaggerated living standards. In such a scenario, equity returns would likely be very strong, especially for the sector enjoying the innovation. The technology sector in the 1990s was an example. However, such a scenario today is low-probability. We invest based on what we think is likely to happen, rather than what we would like to happen. Policymakers can’t count on a growth miracle and neither can investors. And don’t forget the bumper tax revenues of the 1990s actually led to increased government spending in some cases when politicians wrongly assumed the increased tax revenues would last forever.

While the expected value of two equally possible outcomes, 0 and 1, is 0.5, there is zero chance the outcome will actually be 0.5. It will either be 0 or 1. Based on the level of the stock market today, with a price to earnings ratio of about 13x in the developed world and 11x in the emerging economies, equity investors seem to be pricing in a combination of these outcomes, with the largest weighting going to the goldilocks, mild inflation scenario. But the market’s large daily swings reflect jumps back and forth as investors update the probabilities of these very different destinations.

I believe societies will in the end choose inflation because it is the less painful option for the largest number of its citizens. I am hopeful central banks will be effective in preventing runaway inflation. But it is going to be a long, bumpy journey until the destination becomes clear. This equity market is best for long-term investors who can withstand extended volatility. Day traders beware: chaos is here to stay for the foreseeable future.

US Economic and result Calender: Will S&P breach 1274

Monday

Key earnings: Caterpillar, Kimberly-Clark, Eaton, VF Corp, Netflix, Amgen, Texas Instruments

Tuesday

Key earnings: Dupont, 3M, BP, Amazon, Delta Airlines, Deutsche Bank, UBS, UnderArmour, Xerox, Illinois Tool Works, UPS, U.S. Steel, Novartis, Peabody Energy, F5 Networks, Express Scripts, Quest Diagnostics, TD Ameritrade, Dreamworks

0900 a.m. S&P/Case-Shiller home prices

1000 a.m. Consumer confidence (Oct)

1000 a.m. FHFA home prices (Aug)

1000 a.m. Richmond Fed survey (Oct)

0100 p.m. $35 billion 2-year note auction

Wednesday

Some key earnings: Boeing, Allergan, American Electric Power, ConocoPhillips, JetBlue, GlaxoSmithKline, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, Medco Health, Northrop Grumman, Owens Corning, Sprint Nextel, WellPoint, Aflac, Norfolk Southern, Visa SAP

0830 a.m. Durable goods (Sept)

1000 a.m. new home sales (Sept)

0100 p.m. $35 billion 5-year note auction

Thursday

Some key earnings: Procter and Gamble, Exxon Mobil, AstraZeneca, Altria, Bristol-Myers, CMS Energy, Colgate-Palmolive, Barrick Gold, Raytheon, Royal Dutch Shell, Potash, Occidental Petroleum, Motorola Solutions, Royal Caribbean, Aetna, Motorola Mobility, NCR, Baidu, Advanced Micro, Banco Santander, Dow Chemical

0830 a.m. Weekly jobless claims

0830 a.m. GDP (3Q adv)

1000 a.m. Pending home sales (Aug)

1100 a.m. Kansas City Fed survey (Oct)

0100 p.m. $29 7-year notes auction

Friday

Some key earnings: Chevron, Merck, Aon, Biogen Idec, Constellation Energy, Rockwell Collins, Newmont Mining, Goodyear Tire, Interpublic, Whirlpool, Weyerhaeuser, Total, Femsa

0830 a.m. Personal income/spending (Sept)

0830 a.m. Employment cost index (3Q)

0955 a.m. Consumer sentiment (Oct final)  

Economic outlook : Ben Bernanke

Chairman Ben S. Bernanke

Economic Outlook and Recent Monetary Policy Actions

Before the Joint Economic Committee, U.S. Congress, Washington, D.C.

October 4, 2011

Chairman Casey, Vice Chairman Brady, and other members of the Committee, I appreciate this opportunity to discuss the economic outlook and recent monetary policy actions.
It has been three years since the beginning of the most intense phase of the financial crisis in the late summer and fall of 2008, and more than two years since the economic recovery began in June 2009. There have been some positive developments: The functioning of financial markets and the banking system in the United States has improved significantly. Manufacturing production in the United States has risen nearly 15 percent since its trough, driven substantially by growth in exports; indeed, the U.S. trade deficit has been notably lower recently than it was before the crisis, reflecting in part the improved competitiveness of U.S. goods and services. Business investment in equipment and software has continued to expand, and productivity gains in some industries have been impressive. Nevertheless, it is clear that, overall, the recovery from the crisis has been much less robust than we had hoped. Recent revisions of government economic data show the recession as having been even deeper, and the recovery weaker, than previously estimated; indeed, by the second quarter of this year--the latest quarter for which official estimates are available--aggregate output in the United States still had not returned to the level that it had attained before the crisis. Slow economic growth has in turn led to slow rates of increase in jobs and household incomes.
The pattern of sluggish growth was particularly evident in the first half of this year, with real gross domestic product (GDP) estimated to have increased at an average annual rate of less than 1 percent. Some of this weakness can be attributed to temporary factors. Notably, earlier this year, political unrest in the Middle East and North Africa, strong growth in emerging market economies, and other developments contributed to significant increases in the prices of oil and other commodities, which damped consumer purchasing power and spending; and the disaster in Japan disrupted global supply chains and production, particularly in the automobile industry. With commodity prices having come off their highs and manufacturers' problems with supply chains well along toward resolution, growth in the second half of the year seems likely to be more rapid than in the first half.
However, the incoming data suggest that other, more persistent factors also continue to restrain the pace of recovery. Consequently, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) now expects a somewhat slower pace of economic growth over coming quarters than it did at the time of the June meeting, when Committee participants most recently submitted economic forecasts.
Consumer behavior has both reflected and contributed to the slow pace of recovery. Households have been very cautious in their spending decisions, as declines in house prices and in the values of financial assets have reduced household wealth, and many families continue to struggle with high debt burdens or reduced access to credit. Probably the most significant factor depressing consumer confidence, however, has been the poor performance of the job market. Over the summer, private payrolls rose by only about 100,000 jobs per month on average--half of the rate posted earlier in the year.¹ Meanwhile, state and local governments have continued to shed jobs, as they have been doing for more than two years. With these weak gains in employment, the unemployment rate has held close to 9 percent since early this year. Moreover, recent indicators, including new claims for unemployment insurance and surveys of hiring plans, point to the likelihood of more sluggish job growth in the period ahead.
Other sectors of the economy are also contributing to the slower-than-expected rate of expansion. The housing sector has been a significant driver of recovery from most recessions in the United States since World War II. This time, however, a number of factors--including the overhang of distressed and foreclosed properties, tight credit conditions for builders and potential homebuyers, and the large number of "underwater" mortgages (on which homeowners owe more than their homes are worth)--have left the rate of new home construction at only about one-third of its average level in recent decades.
In the financial sphere, as I noted, banking and financial conditions in the United States have improved significantly since the depths of the crisis. Nonetheless, financial stresses persist. Credit remains tight for many households, small businesses, and residential and commercial builders, in part because weaker balance sheets and income prospects have increased the perceived credit risk of many potential borrowers. We have also recently seen bouts of elevated volatility and risk aversion in financial markets, partly in reaction to fiscal concerns both here and abroad. Domestically, the controversy during the summer regarding the raising of the federal debt ceiling and the downgrade of the U.S. long-term credit rating by one of the major rating agencies contributed to the financial turbulence that occurred around that time. Outside the United States, concerns about sovereign debt in Greece and other euro-zone countries, as well as about the sovereign debt exposures of the European banking system, have been a significant source of stress in global financial markets. European leaders are strongly committed to addressing these issues, but the need to obtain agreement among a large number of countries to put in place necessary backstops and to address the sources of the fiscal problems has slowed the process of finding solutions. It is difficult to judge how much these financial strains have affected U.S. economic activity thus far, but there seems little doubt that they have hurt household and business confidence, and that they pose ongoing risks to growth.
Another factor likely to weigh on the U.S. recovery is the increasing drag being exerted by the government sector. Notably, state and local governments continue to tighten their belts by cutting spending and employment in the face of ongoing budgetary pressures, while the future course of federal fiscal policies remains quite uncertain.
To be sure, fiscal policymakers face a complex situation. I would submit that, in setting tax and spending policies for now and the future, policymakers should consider at least four key objectives. One crucial objective is to achieve long-run fiscal sustainability. The federal budget is clearly not on a sustainable path at present. The Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, formed as part of the Budget Control Act, is charged with achieving $1.5 trillion in additional deficit reduction over the next 10 years on top of the spending caps enacted this summer. Accomplishing that goal would be a substantial step; however, more will be needed to achieve fiscal sustainability.
A second important objective is to avoid fiscal actions that could impede the ongoing economic recovery. These first two objectives are certainly not incompatible, as putting in place a credible plan for reducing future deficits over the longer term does not preclude attending to the implications of fiscal choices for the recovery in the near term. Third, fiscal policy should aim to promote long-term growth and economic opportunity. As a nation, we need to think carefully about how federal spending priorities and the design of the tax code affect the productivity and vitality of our economy in the longer term. Fourth, there is evident need to improve the process for making long-term budget decisions, to create greater predictability and clarity, while avoiding disruptions to the financial markets and the economy. In sum, the nation faces difficult and fundamental fiscal choices, which cannot be safely or responsibly postponed.
Returning to the discussion of the economic outlook, let me turn now to the prospects for inflation. Prices of many commodities, notably oil, increased sharply earlier this year, as I noted, leading to higher retail gasoline and food prices. In addition, producers of other goods and services were able to pass through some of their higher input costs to their customers. Separately, the global supply disruptions associated with the disaster in Japan put upward pressure on prices of motor vehicles. As a result of these influences, inflation picked up during the first half of this year; over that period, the price index for personal consumption expenditures rose at an annual rate of about 3-1/2 percent, compared with an average of less than 1-1/2 percent over the preceding two years.
As the FOMC anticipated, however, inflation has begun to moderate as these transitory influences wane. In particular, the prices of oil and many other commodities have either leveled off or have come down from their highs, and the step-up in automobile production has started to reduce pressures on the prices of cars and light trucks. Importantly, the higher rate of inflation experienced so far this year does not appear to have become ingrained in the economy. Longer-term inflation expectations have remained stable according to surveys of households and economic forecasters, and the five-year-forward measure of inflation compensation derived from yields on nominal and inflation-protected Treasury securities suggests that inflation expectations among investors may have moved lower recently. In addition to the stability of longer-term inflation expectations, the substantial amount of resource slack in U.S. labor and product markets should continue to restrain inflationary pressures.
In view of the deterioration in the economic outlook over the summer and the subdued inflation picture over the medium run, the FOMC has taken several steps recently to provide additional policy accommodation. At the August meeting, the Committee provided greater clarity about its outlook for the level of short-term interest rates by noting that economic conditions were likely to warrant exceptionally low levels for the federal funds rate at least through mid-2013. And at our meeting in September, the Committee announced that it intends to increase the average maturity of the securities in the Federal Reserve's portfolio. Specifically, it intends to purchase, by the end of June 2012, $400 billion of Treasury securities with remaining maturities of 6 years to 30 years and to sell an equal amount of Treasury securities with remaining maturities of 3 years or less, leaving the size of our balance sheet approximately unchanged. This maturity extension program should put downward pressure on longer-term interest rates and help make broader financial conditions more supportive of economic growth than they would otherwise have been.
The Committee also announced in September that it will begin reinvesting principal payments on its holdings of agency debt and agency mortgage-backed securities in agency mortgage-backed securities rather than in longer-term Treasury securities. By helping to support mortgage markets, this action too should contribute to a stronger economic recovery. The Committee will continue to closely monitor economic developments and is prepared to take further action as appropriate to promote a stronger economic recovery in a context of price stability.
Monetary policy can be a powerful tool, but it is not a panacea for the problems currently faced by the U.S. economy. Fostering healthy growth and job creation is a shared responsibility of all economic policymakers, in close cooperation with the private sector. Fiscal policy is of critical importance, as I have noted today, but a wide range of other policies--pertaining to labor markets, housing, trade, taxation, and regulation, for example--also have important roles to play. For our part, we at the Federal Reserve will continue to work to help create an environment that provides the greatest possible economic opportunity for all Americans.

OIL/Euro Sink, rating firms leaked, FED's Twist

OIL and Euro sink at the close of the Quarter 


 The New York Federal Reserve Bank of New York said Friday that it would begin Treasury purchases and sales on Monday as part of the program dubbed "Operation Twist" announced by policy makers earlier this month. 
The Fed will buy long-term debt on Monday, Tuesday and Friday and inflation-linked debt on Wednesday. 
It will sell one-year debt on Thursday, the Fed said on its schedule posted on its web site














Rating Firms the Leaking Jar..?


In a report issued Friday on the performance of the big ratings firms, the Securities and Exchange Commission said that despite changes to their operations, it still "identified concerns" at all of them. Among the problems, the SEC said, are "apparent failures in some instances to follow ratings methodologies and procedures [and] to make timely and accurate disclosures. It also criticized the firms for not being able to "establish effective internal control structures for the rating process and to adequately manage conflicts of interest." SEC staff looked at 10 of the biggest operators in the industry, including Fitch, Moody's and Standard & Poor's.


US Economy in recession .


The U.S. economy is headed for a new recession that government intervention cannot prevent, the Economic Cycle Research Institute said Friday. "Cyclical weakness is spreading widely from economic indicator to indicator in telltale recessionary fashion," ECRI said in a published report. The ECRI's Weekly Leading Index (WLI) growth indicator, reported Friday, showed economic growth at negative 7.2% for the week ended Sept. 23, continuing a trend that began in August. U.S. economic strength has been declining since May, according to the WLI.

US Manufacturing will Save the Economy.? S&P Answer

Growth In The U.S. Manufacturing Sector Won't Lead The U.S. Economy Out Of The Doldrums

Although the U.S. economic recovery has been weak, it's been enough to stoke demand for manufacturers. Operating results among these issuers have rebounded sharply since the economy hit a trough in 2009. As a result, manufacturers have been able to improve credit measures, build up cash balances, and issue debt in the credit markets when they need to refinance. As a result, Standard & Poor's Ratings Services has upgraded many U.S. capital goods, automotive, and auto supplier companies since 2009 and maintains mostly stable outlooks on them.

Still, we don't believe this progress in the manufacturing sector portends much improvement in the domestic economic recovery. Manufacturing represents a much smaller share of economic activity and jobs than it did in decades past. Since mid-2009, it has accounted for about 9% of total U.S. nonfarm payrolls, down from more than 16% in 1990. Domestic hiring in the manufacturing sector has been modest, and we don't expect it to pick up significantly in the next year or two, particularly given the increasingly mixed economic indicators of the past several months.

Overview

• The U.S. manufacturing sector has rebounded since the 2008 to 2009 recession, but any growth is unlikely to propel a broader domestic economic recovery.
• Companies have gotten most or all of the benefits from previous cost-cutting efforts, and manufacturing jobs lost during the recession aren't likely to return any time soon.
• Our base case economic forecast projects slow but still-positive growth; however, another downturn is increasingly possible and would hurt credit quality in the sector.

We believe sales growth will slow for most U.S. manufacturers while the economic recovery remains weak. Profitability is solid for most companies, often at prerecession or even record levels. However, maintaining this rate of sales growth will become increasingly difficult as companies face year-over-year comparisons with the more normalized activity levels of late 2010 through 2011. In addition to improved demand, manufacturers have benefited from the heavy restructuring they carried out in 2008 and 2009--primarily layoffs--that lowered costs. Further improvements in profitability may be difficult to generate due to higher commodity costs (e.g., those for steel and rubber). Greater price competition if markets slow significantly would also hurt profitability.

Manufacturing Will Follow The U.S. Economy, Not The Other Way Around

In our view, U.S. manufacturers remain more likely to benefit from an economic recovery than fuel one. We see the health of U.S. manufacturing companies reflecting the state of the broader economy, although certain sector-specific conditions also come into play. Economic risks have increased lately. In the U.S., unemployment remains high–-and we don't see manufacturers doing much to change that–-while GDP growth remains sluggish. We believe companies are being cautious about hiring because the outlook for demand is very uncertain. However, good profitability and a base economic forecast that still anticipates slow growth are supporting the sector's credit quality for now.

Standard and Poor's