Cardboard Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 Ah... the guy woke-up! https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/04/powell-says-fed-will-be-patient-with-monetary-policy-as-they-watch-how-economy-does.html Cardboard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shalab Posted January 5, 2019 Author Share Posted January 5, 2019 Hope so - but looking at comments from others - it looks like the Fed may still raise rates Cleveland Fed: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/04/feds-mester-says-if-inflation-doesnt-rise-fed-could-stop-hikes.html "If we don't see inflation picking up and we see the labor market staying reasonably strong from where we are now, that may tell us we're not neutral." Cramer thinks Fed has outdated models and I tend to agree: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/04/cramer-fed-will-hike-rates-until-there-are-firing-and-layoffs.html CNBC's Jim Cramer argued Friday that the Federal Reserve's policies are severely outdated, and said the central bank won't stop its rate-hike policy until Americans suffer from "firings and layoffs." Ah... the guy woke-up! https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/04/powell-says-fed-will-be-patient-with-monetary-policy-as-they-watch-how-economy-does.html Cardboard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james22 Posted January 5, 2019 Share Posted January 5, 2019 I like Uncle John's take: 1. Greenspan, Bernanke, and, in particular, Yellen all gave the markets a “put” option—basically a third unofficial mandate to make sure that asset prices keep rising. Now, of course, that’s not the way they would express it, but that is, in fact, what they did. They created a series of bubbles, which spectacularly (and predictably) blew up, particularly screwing the little guys who didn’t know better and could least afford losses. We should not be where we are today, and we would not be here today, without their seriously screwing up Federal Reserve policy. 2. The Federal Reserve is running a two-variable experiment without the benefit of ever having run a one-variable experiment to determine what the results would be. It is decidedly the stupidest monetary policy mistake in a long line of Fed mistakes. What are the two variables? They are raising interest rates (albeit slowly) and aggressively reducing their balance sheet. I think many of the problems we see in the market are results of this combination. They should do one or the other, not both. 3. Powell and the Federal Open Market Committee listen to extremely smart PhDs from all the best schools with their fabulous multi-algorithmic models, which prove that you could raise rates and reduce the balance sheet at the same time with no problems. Bluntly, those smart people (many of whom are actually quite brilliant, and I’m sure they are nice people, and their kids and dogs love them) mistakenly trust models based on past performance, and even worse (much, unbelievably, really badly, worse, which I can’t emphasize enough!) on monetary theory that is clearly, evidently, badly, manifestly wrong. They have been using these models to forecast future market actions and the economy for decades, and they are about 0 for 300 in being right. It is statistically impossible to be that bad unless your models/assumptions are fundamentally flawed, which they are. Their underlying economic theories manifestly don’t work. https://www.mauldineconomics.com/frontlinethoughts/bear-markets-fed-mistakes-and-quick-shots-from-john%2Bmauldin+fed+uncle+john&client=safari&rls=en&hl=en&ct=clnk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wachtwoord Posted January 5, 2019 Share Posted January 5, 2019 I'm missing the option: "Interest rates should be set by the free market rather than a central bank." Edit: While reading all the posts saw rkbabang already made my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shalab Posted January 7, 2019 Author Share Posted January 7, 2019 Yes, ideally it is how it should be but it isn't. It is unlikely to change anytime soon. https://www.wsj.com/articles/fed-faces-a-fresh-test-engineering-a-soft-economic-landing-11546822609?mod=hp_lead_pos1 Here is another article on the motivation of the fed - they would like to push unemployment up without triggering a recession. Seems like a tough job when asset and commodity prices are dropping. As others have said, Fed seems to be having some outdated models. I'm missing the option: "Interest rates should be set by the free market rather than a central bank." Edit: While reading all the posts saw rkbabang already made my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimBowerman Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 I'm missing the option: "Interest rates should be set by the free market rather than a central bank." Edit: While reading all the posts saw rkbabang already made my point. I'm probably beating a dead horse at this point, but i'd just add that imo, the only way the market can truly set interest rates is if the money supply is also dictated by the market (i.e. private currencies). I get confused when people start claiming that the fed only started manipulating interest rates post 2008. The fed dictates the supply of base money, so they are always going to be setting (nominal) interest rates. The market has never truly set interest rates, and the market certainly didn't dictate interest rates before 2008. That said, on a personal level, I don't really care whether we have 0% inflation vs 2% inflation. Real gdp per capita grew about the same in the 1800s (0% inflation) as it did in the 1900s (3% inflation). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shalab Posted January 11, 2019 Author Share Posted January 11, 2019 Looks like there won't be a hike immediately: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/more-fed-officials-caution-needed-more-rate-hikes-153756790--business.html Hope so - but looking at comments from others - it looks like the Fed may still raise rates Cleveland Fed: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/04/feds-mester-says-if-inflation-doesnt-rise-fed-could-stop-hikes.html "If we don't see inflation picking up and we see the labor market staying reasonably strong from where we are now, that may tell us we're not neutral." Cramer thinks Fed has outdated models and I tend to agree: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/04/cramer-fed-will-hike-rates-until-there-are-firing-and-layoffs.html CNBC's Jim Cramer argued Friday that the Federal Reserve's policies are severely outdated, and said the central bank won't stop its rate-hike policy until Americans suffer from "firings and layoffs." Ah... the guy woke-up! https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/04/powell-says-fed-will-be-patient-with-monetary-policy-as-they-watch-how-economy-does.html Cardboard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shalab Posted January 22, 2019 Author Share Posted January 22, 2019 Yellen chimes in: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/14/yellen-says-very-possible-the-fed-has-enacted-its-last-rate-hike.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Hjorth Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 Apparently it has not seeped into Ms. Yellen's head yet that she's retired, so she is still yelling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spekulatius Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 Apparently it has not seeped into Ms. Yellen's head yet that she's retired, so she is still yelling. She is now in the speech circus and needs air time to keep her brand intact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wachtwoord Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 Apparently it has not seeped into Ms. Yellen's head yet that she's retired, so she is still yelling. She is now in the speech circus and needs air time to keep her brand intact. Isn't being allowed to give these overpriced speeches repayment for services rendered in her time at the FED (so content is a secondary concern)? That's how it works for ex presidents anyway ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shalab Posted January 27, 2019 Author Share Posted January 27, 2019 It looks like the fed chair goofed up big time - they are trying to undo the damage https://www.wsj.com/articles/white-house-adviser-says-fed-board-nominees-should-support-easy-money-policies-11548375931 https://www.wsj.com/articles/fed-officials-weigh-earlier-than-expected-end-to-bond-portfolio-runoff-11548412201 https://www.wsj.com/articles/feds-patience-buys-breathing-room-for-asian-economies-11548393287 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spekulatius Posted January 27, 2019 Share Posted January 27, 2019 It looks like the fed chair goofed up big time - they are trying to undo the damage https://www.wsj.com/articles/white-house-adviser-says-fed-board-nominees-should-support-easy-money-policies-11548375931 https://www.wsj.com/articles/fed-officials-weigh-earlier-than-expected-end-to-bond-portfolio-runoff-11548412201 https://www.wsj.com/articles/feds-patience-buys-breathing-room-for-asian-economies-11548393287 What damage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Hjorth Posted January 27, 2019 Share Posted January 27, 2019 What damage? Since shalab posted, I have had exactly the same line of thinking as Spekulatius. Maybe I'm more or less blind, but - for sure - I can't see it. I may be in need of a cane of the blind, though. The number of yellow rings here locally goes from one to three, as I understand things. I think two rings is for the user where the spouse/partner is still beautiful, despite it was so ages ago, while three rings is when you're blind. Right now, I'm spending time to counter my blindness by thinking about position sizing for the Big Four US banks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shalab Posted January 27, 2019 Author Share Posted January 27, 2019 May be not damage, they might have created an opportunity. I deployed a bunch of funds in December and got high quality names for low prices. First Powell said the rates are a long way from neutral when he didnt even know what neutral is: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/bond-markets-may-have-overreacted-to-powells-long-way-from-neutral-remark-economists-say-2018-10-04 Then he said a bunch of things that caused the market to nose dive https://finance.yahoo.com/news/powell-said-seems-troubling-markets-181403220.html Then in January he comes out and says he learned China is slowing down from Apple release. All along he has been saying that China is doing great and global economy is great. Then IMF comes out and lowers global growth forecasts. This guy is Fed Chair for crying out loud - even a casual person looking at newspapers (unless it is all fake news)can see what is going on. He should have more data and insights than an orangutan reading newspapers. What damage? Since shalab posted, I have had exactly the same line of thinking as Spekulatius. Maybe I'm more or less blind, but - for sure - I can't see it. I may be in need of a cane of the blind, though. The number of yellow rings here locally goes from one to three, as I understand things. I think two rings is for the user where the spouse/partner is still beautiful, despite it was so ages ago, while three rings is when you're blind. Right now, I'm spending time to counter my blindness by thinking about position sizing for the Big Four US banks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Hjorth Posted January 27, 2019 Share Posted January 27, 2019 Thank you, shalab, Your last post puts more shades on your line of thinking. [still : To me, nothing material changed here, so far.] Wikipedia : Flexibility (personality). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shalab Posted January 27, 2019 Author Share Posted January 27, 2019 Thank you John Hjorth I went through the bank data you shared - thank you for sharing. The bank share prices were lower at the end of 2018 compared to 2017 - the main reason being people are concerned about 2019. That to me would be one material change. Then there is the housing prices, lack of inflation and emerging market impact and overall less business activity. I am curious to know what would constitute material change from your perspective? Thank you, shalab, Your last post puts more shades on your line of thinking. [still : To me, nothing material changed here, so far.] Wikipedia : Flexibility (personality). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregmal Posted January 27, 2019 Share Posted January 27, 2019 I think it’s important to remember that the high majority of the time, material changes in asset prices can be caused by things that in hindsite are rather immaterial. Multiples can expand and contract on nothing other than sentiment. So doing ones best to understand all the different puzzle pieces and how they fit into the bigger picture is just as important, if not more so, than simply waiting for a material change. More often than not, material changes, once obvious, are already priced in. Real world examples would be obvious from looking at any number of story stocks. WPRT was one of the biggest examples I can think of. The company was a dud, but had a great story. For years the market ignored poor results and a management team that over promised and underdelivered, consistently. Returns were quite impressive. Then, out of nowhere really, market participants lost confidence in management, and then the company could do no right. It plummeted like 90% inside of a year without any real “material change”. Tesla IMO could be another one real soon. My point, WPRT was a shit company. The US economy is quite healthy. Fluctuations can occur, that are quite material in terms of impacting the value of ones investment, and driven by nothing but sentiment. It’s easier to swim with the current, rather than against it. One just needs to find the current. Who cares how long Jerome Powell needs to chase his own tail... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spekulatius Posted January 27, 2019 Share Posted January 27, 2019 Forget what they say, just see what they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shalab Posted January 27, 2019 Author Share Posted January 27, 2019 While I agree with you that US economy is healthy, Fed definitely has the power to damage it. The press did its job in pressuring them and it resulted in them leaking a story to WSJ about quantitative tightening. Wall street liked the leaked message on Friday. BTW - I believe Elon Musk/Tesla have added tremendous value to the US and also to the world. I have no opinion on Tesla as an investment but I met an investment manager that has met Musk and invested in Tesla. Their opinion - "don't bet against Elon Musk". ... My point, WPRT was a shit company. The US economy is quite healthy. Fluctuations can occur, that are quite material in terms of impacting the value of ones investment, and driven by nothing but sentiment. It’s easier to swim with the current, rather than against it. One just needs to find the current. Who cares how long Jerome Powell needs to chase his own tail... Amen Forget what they say, just see what they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shalab Posted January 29, 2019 Author Share Posted January 29, 2019 CBO expects rate hikes this year and economic growth of 2.3%. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/28/the-cbo-thinks-the-fed-is-going-to-raise-interest-rates-this-year-disagreeing-with-wall-street.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Hjorth Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 FOMC Press Conference January 30th 2019 at 2:30 PM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shalab Posted January 31, 2019 Author Share Posted January 31, 2019 Thanks - looks like the Fed did the right thing finally. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/30/fed-leaves-rates-unchanged.html I expect the USA GDP to be close to or cross 22 trillion at the end of 2019. Let us see how it goes. It was 20.66 trillion at the end of Q3. I expect it to hit ~21 trillion at the end of 2018. FOMC Press Conference January 30th 2019 at 2:30 PM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Hjorth Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 ... Let us see how it goes. ... Yes shalab, A least one element of all the noise generation as of yet eliminated - at least for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shalab Posted February 3, 2019 Author Share Posted February 3, 2019 Why FED made a U turn - WSJ: https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-the-fed-made-a-u-turn-perceived-risks-to-growth-shifted-11549108800?mod=hp_lista_pos2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now