Macro and Credit - The Money Illusion

"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." -  Daniel J. Boorstin, American historian

Looking at the most recent print in US nonfarm payrolls in conjunction with stronger than expected 2.9% wage growth (AHE) in August, with US Annual core-CPI declining to 2.2% in August vs 2.4% expected, leading to a tentative rebound in gold prices, when it came to selecting our title analogy we decided to steer towards a reference to the seminal work done by Irving Fisher in 1928 in his book "The Money Illusion". In economics, the money illusion is also referred as price illusion. It is the tendency for people to think of currency in nominal, rather than real terms. In other words, the numerical/face value (nominal value) of money is mistaken for its purchasing power (real value) at a previous point in the general price level (in the past). The term "Money Illusion" was coined by maverick economist Irving Fisher in his book "Stabilizing the Dollar" though it was popularized by John Maynard Keynes in the early twentieth century. Irving Fisher was the first economist to produce what is now called "The Fisher equation" in financial mathematics and economics which estimates the relationship between nominal and real interest rates under inflation. The existence of money illusion is disputed by monetary economists who contend that people act rationally (i.e. think in real prices) with regard to their wealth. Eldar Shafir, Peter A. Diamond, and Amos Tversky (1997) have provided empirical evidence for the existence of the effect and it has been shown to affect behaviour in a variety of experimental and real-world situations in three main ways:

• Price stickiness. Money illusion has been proposed as one reason why nominal prices are slow to change even where inflation has caused real prices or costs to rise.
• Contracts and laws are not indexed to inflation as frequently as one would rationally expect.
• Social discourse, in formal media and more generally, reflects some confusion about real and nominal value.

Apparently "The Money Illusion" influences people's perceptions of outcomes. Experiments were conducted and have shown that people generally perceive an approximate 2% cut in nominal income with no change in monetary value as being unfair, but do see a 2% rise in nominal income as fair where there is 4% inflation, despite them being almost rational equivalents. This result is consistent with the "Myopic Loss Aversion theory" but this will probably be an interesting title for another post. The "Money Illusion" is indeed a cognitive bias which can vary depending on the "inflationary/deflationary" context. Numerous studies have documented a negative correlation between nominal yields and inflation. Modigliani and Cohn (1979) assumes that the valuations of the assets differ from their fundamental values because of two inflation-induced errors in judgment: the tendency to capitalise equity earnings at the nominal rate instead of at the real rate, and the inability to understand that, over time, the debts will devalue in real terms. What does it means? Simply that stock prices are overvalued during periods of low inflation. If indeed inflation accelerates, this will lead to some "repricing" and some reversion to the mean. For a bear market to ensue as we have repeated on numerous occasions on this very blog, you need inflation to "accelerate". Past history has shown, what matters is the "velocity" of the increase in the oil prices, given that a price appreciation greater than 100% to the "Real Price of Oil" has been a leading indicator for every US recession over the past 40 years. So, if QE could be seen as "deflationary" then QT could be seen as "inflationary". If the "money illusion" is "fading" and real wages starts accelerating, then the Fed will have no other choice but to pursue a more aggressive hiking pace. Of course if "inflation" is accelerating in conjunction with real wages, then again this will trigger "Bracket creep" being the process by which inflation pushes wages and salaries into higher tax brackets, leading to a fiscal drag situation for those who remember our post from January this year:

"Most progressive tax systems are not adjusted for inflation, as wages and salaries rise in nominal terms under the influence of inflation they become more highly taxed, even though in real terms the value of the wages and salaries has not increased at all. The net effect overall is that in real terms taxes rise unless the tax rates or brackets are adjusted to compensate. That simple." - source Macronomics, January 2018

Yet another illustration of the existence of the "Money illusion" we think but we ramble again...

In this week's conversation, we would like to look at rising inflation creating therefore a shift in the "Money illusion" and what it entails down the line from a liquidity perspective.

Synopsis:

• Macro and Credit - The Money illusion is fading
• Final charts - Always remember that liquidity is a coward

• Macro - The Money illusion is fading

As we indicated back in June 2015 in our conversation "The Third Punic War", bear markets for US equities generally coincide with a significant tick up in core inflation. Also in our January conversation "Bracket creep" we indicated the following:

"As pointed out by Christopher Cole from Artemis Capital in his must read note "Volatility and the Alchemy of Risk - Reflexivity in the Shadows of Black Monday 1987",  the rise of the Big Bad Wolf aka inflation was what started a liquidity fire in credit that spread to equities before the 1987 volatility explosion described. But flow wise, as we have pointed out in numerous conversations, the money is flowing "uphill" where all the "fun" is namely the bond market, not "downhill" to the "real economy" so far." - source Macronomics, January 2018

While the latest inflation figure for August is considered as a miss, the Fed has most recently appeared much more hawkish it seems. The big question therefore should be about the strength of inflation. Subdued real wage growth could be one of the reasons put forward for the surprise election of Donald Trump in the United States. The election could be marking a return of Main Street versus Wall Street which has experienced tremendous asset inflations thanks to low volatility and low "perceived" inflation. Yet it seems to us from a "macro" perspective that, indeed the "Money Illusion" is now fading on the back of "QT". 

Is inflation returning? On that subject we read with interest Wells Fargo Economics note from the 12th of September entitled "Inflation not as benign as first indicated by drop in PPI":

"Producer prices came in softer than expected in August, falling 0.1%. The miss stemmed largely from the volatile trade-services sector, which measures margins. The underlying trend in inflation continues to inch higher.

At the Margin

• PPI inflation unexpectedly slipped 0.1% in August. Goods prices were flat, but the miss came in large part from services, specifically a 0.9% drop in the volatile trade-services sector, which measures margins, not selling prices. Declining margins at machinery and equipment firms accounted for 80% of the decline in services this month and suggest producers may be struggling to pass on rising input costs related to recent tariffs.

Core Inflation Continues to Gradually Climb

• Our preferred measure of core inflation, which excludes food, energy and trade services, also came in a bit softer than expected –up 0.1%— as transportation & warehousing prices fell. The trend remains upward, however, with the “core-core” measure climbing to 2.9% over the past 12 months versus 1.9% the 12 months prior.
• Input prices eased a bit in August, but are still running ahead of final prices. Pressure on margins therefore looks to continue.

- source Wells Fargo

Additional escalation in the trade war would as we pointed out in various conversations put additional pressure on inflationary trends and on the US consumer we think. The question on everyone's mind is how are we shifting into a new inflationary state meaning that the "Money illusion" is finally fading?

On this subject we read with interest Bank of America Merrill Lynch's take from their Inflation Strategist note from the 13th of September entitled "Signs of life":

"The old normal shows signs of life

• Globalisation delivers a fall in price level masquerading as deflation. Both secular and cyclical deflation forces are fading.
• We update our long list of determinants of the low real rate era. Bernanke's "global savings glut" obviously has a place.

The three big picture inflation supports

Cyclical, secular and survivorship

We can be critical of the different ways output gaps are calculated, the numbers themselves and their usefulness as a single measure for encapsulating spare capacity in economies. Nevertheless, the reduction/elimination of slack that they signal, apart from being encouraging in its own right, should help towards resolving the question over how much of the “lowflation” experienced has been cyclical and how much secular.

Even when it comes to secular, long term trends, these shouldn’t necessarily be misconstrued as meaning a permanent shift to a new inflationary state. Whether it be the deflationary influence of globalization or the internet, to the extent that this means greater competition (so reduced pricing power), then it does perhaps reduce inflationary potential “permanently”.

However, in a shift from closed economies to open economies (globalization) or from weaker price discovery to stronger price discovery (the internet), a large part of the impact on prices is a one-off adjustment in the level not a permanent reduction in the inflation rate. It just looks like the latter because it doesn’t happen all at once. Inflation should firm if the pace of globalization slows.

Chart 2 suggests globalization is at least experiencing a pause. It shows the extraordinary shift in the openness of the global economy since the 60s but a leveling off in the trade share of GDP in recent years. And, as Governor Carney of the BoE has warned, “deglobalization” (an ugly word for an ugly concept) would threaten a meaningful build-up of inflation pressures.

Perhaps the last line of defense for inflation, as measured, is “survivorship bias”. If economies open up to trade with each other, production gravitates to their respective comparative advantages and (in principle) output is boosted and prices fall. In advanced economies, we have become used to falling goods prices. But, as Chart 3 illustrates simply, if goods prices fall and services prices rise steadily over time, then the overall inflation rate will rise because the index weighting for goods will fall, unless the relative price change prompts a consumption shift from services to goods.

Whether it be this “survivorship bias” or the tendency of economies to consume proportionately more services as they advance (and as their populations age), Chart 4 shows the mild but meaningful shift from goods to services in CPI baskets. 

We suggest that perceptions of r*, the neutral real policy rate consistent with growth at trend and inflation at target, have been framed by the experience of a prolonged period of economic slack and an even longer period of globalization. The impacts of both on inflation are probably fading and the real policy rate required to keep inflation pressures in check will likely rise gradually to a considerably higher level than currently priced.

Real rate drivers - the usual suspects

It is worth periodically rounding up the “usual suspects” cited as causes of the low real rate world we have been in. Here we list suggestions from a variety of sources and throw in a few of our own. We do not claim that it is exhaustive and readers would no doubt add and subtract from what we have below.

Thinking in terms of potential longer-dated real rates drivers – those shifting the supply and demand for savings and investment – it is perhaps useful to split them into those drivers that might have shifted the savings curve and those that might have shifted the investments curve.

Most items we list are self-explanatory and we do not want to go over well-trodden ground in a lot of detail before getting to our main contentions. However, some of the drivers we identify should actually be broken-down into arrays of sub-drivers. In particular, we suggest that there are many facets to the apparent change in capital/labour preference that has subdued capital investment, so we carve out a sublist for that driver.

Causes of investment curve shift to the left?

• The long shadow of the crisis – reduced expected real returns, greater uncertainty over those expected returns or greater risk aversion to that uncertainty
• A decline in innovation, reducing opportunities
• The cost of equity capital has fallen, but nothing like as much as the risk free rate.
• Falling prices of investment goods (and inelastic demand).
• Capital/labour substitution – replacing the former with the latter.

Causes of savings curve shift to the right?

• The “Global Savings Glut” (GSG), especially imported savings from reserve accumulators.
• Demographics – a falling dependency ratio. Workers can save more because they are supporting fewer dependents.
• Precautionary savings accumulated because of crisis.
• Rising inequality raising the average propensity to save."  - source Bank of America Merrill Lynch

We would like to add a couple of comments to the above  relating to the GSG theory put forward by former Fed president Ben Bernanke relating the reasons for the Great Financial Crisis (GFC). Once again we would like to quote our February 2016 conversation "The disappearance of MS München" on this subject:

"The "Savings Glut" view of economists such as Ben Bernanke and Paul Krugman needs to be vigorously rebuked. This incorrect view which was put forward to attempt to explain the Great Financial Crisis (GFC) by the main culprits was challenged by economists at the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), particularly in one paper by Claudio Borio entitled "The financial cycle and macroeconomics: What have we learnt?": 
"The core objection to this view is that it arguably conflates “financing” with “saving” –two notions that coincide only in non-monetary economies. Financing is a gross cash-flow concept, and denotes access to purchasing power in the form of an accepted settlement medium (money), including through borrowing. Saving, as defined in the national accounts, is simply income (output) not consumed. Expenditures require financing, not saving. The expression “wall of saving” is, in fact, misleading: saving is more like a “hole” in aggregate expenditures – the hole that makes room for investment to take place. … In fact, the link between saving and credit is very loose. For instance, we saw earlier that during financial booms the credit-to-GDP gap tends to rise substantially. This means that the net change in the credit stock exceeds income by a considerable margin, and hence saving by an even larger one, as saving is only a small portion of that income." - source BIS paper, December 2012

Their paper argues that it was unrestrained extensions of credit and the related creation of money that caused the problem which could have been avoided if interest rates had not been set too low for too long through a "wicksellian" approach dear to Charles Gave from Gavekal Research.

Borio claims that the problem was that bank regulators did nothing to control the credit booms in the financial sector, which they could have done. We know how that ended before." - source Macronomics, February 2016

Indeed, conflating financing and savings is the main issue when it comes to the GSG theory. From a "Wicksellian" perspective, one would argue that low rates for too long leads to mis-allocation of capital. For instance if one looks at CAPEX expenditures in US High Yield since 1997, one can see in the chart below from Bank of America Merrill Lynch that prior to the onset of the GFC, capital raised through bond issuance went into more leverage thanks to a buying spree with Acquisitions/LBOs. Of course a feature of a late credit cycle does lead to seeing more LBOs and acquisitions:

- graphs source Bank of America Merrill Lynch

As we pointed out in our October 2017 long conversation relating  to inflation entitled "Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Wolf?", we had over-inflation of asset prices and too low inflation thanks to the "Money Illusion". The Fed, subdued inflation expectations and inflation with its various QE iterations. We indicated at the time:

"Credit cycles die because too much debt has been raised

When it comes to credit and in particular the credit cycle, the growth of private credit matters a lot. If indeed there are signs that the US consumer is getting "maxed out", then there is a chance the credit cycle will turn in earnest, because of too much debt being raised as well for the US consumer. But for now financial conditions are still fairly loose. For the credit music to stop, a return of the Big Bad Wolf aka inflation would end the rally still going strong towards eleven in true Spinal Tap fashion" - source Macronomics, October 2017

Financial conditions remain very loose and with the fiscal boost coming from the Trump administration, no wonder the Fed is becoming more hawkish. You have been warned. 

But returning to real rate drivers, Bank of America Merrill Lynch in their note highlight what has mattered most for the "Money illusion" to take place:

"What has mattered most?

Over the past ten years, bond market participants would almost certainly cite risk-free bond buying by central bank reserve accumulators and the duration extinguished by quantitative easing, mitigating the impact of heavy government bond supply as the crisis lifted debt/GDP levels.

However, real rates were already in long-term decline well before the crisis. Taking a longer time frame, a Bank of England Working Paper by Lukasz Rachel and Thomas D. Smith (No. 571, “Secular drivers of the global real interest rate”, December 2015) claimed to be able to account for 400 of the 450 basis point fall in long term real interest rates over the preceding thirty years.

Exhibit 1, clipped from their paper, suggests that the global savings glut has only had a small walk-on part in the unfolding real rate drama.

In their analysis, the big four drivers were: lower growth, demographics, an increase in the spreads between risk-free real rates and the real rates experienced in the real economy (including, for instance, the real cost of equity finance), and the falling relative price of capital. For this last to be a driver of lower real rates one must assume that demand for capital goods is price-inelastic.

They concluded that: “most of these forces look set to persist and some may even build further. This suggests that the global neutral rate may remain low and perhaps settle at (or slightly below) 1% in the medium to long run.” In their forecasts, they see demographics delivering most of this increase, as the Exhibit shows. Chart 6 shows how this relates to an end to the downtrend in the world dependency ratio, with upswings well underway in advanced economies.

Later, we will discuss the interaction between risk-aversion, driving the “spreads” component in the Exhibit, and the global savings glut, in order to contend that this can be a force for a bigger upward adjustment in real rates in the future.

The replacement of capital with labour has many aspects

As before, we will list what we see as potential causes of this phenomenon, rather than discuss them in any detail. They should be self-explanatory. We would also stress that the ordering should not be regarded as signalling an attempt to rank them in order of importance.

Drivers of the trend shift from capital to labour

• Increasing labour market flexibility
• A global “labour supply glut”, resulting from:

o A falling dependency ratio
o Globalisation
o A post-crisis workforce that needed to re-skill and price itself back
into work

• A change in firms’ perceived capital-labour risk/cost efficient frontier since the crisis
• Capital intensive goods production has been driven out of advanced economies (their comparative advantage being in services)
• Production reflects consumption. Advanced economies consume fewer goods and more (labour intensive) services
• As a result of the above, the modern advanced economy business is capital-light

Ben Bernanke memorably used the term “global savings glut” to describe excess savings circling the world in pursuit of a return. Admittedly, the world saving rate was a little higher in 2005 (when he coined the term) than now but the overall increase in the world savings rate over time has not been great, while that for the OECD has seen a gentle decline.

The glut that is generally understood to have exerted downward pressure on nominal and real yields refers to the savings recycled from surplus countries to deficit countries as large current account imbalances emerged.

However, there are reasons to be a little uncomfortable with that seemingly axiomatic received wisdom without further elaboration. To the extent that current account surpluses represent the excess savings of countries, there are equal and opposite savings shortfalls in current account deficit countries (notably the US and UK).

Conventional wisdom used to have it that countries with persistent current account deficits needed to pay higher prospective returns to attract and retain foreign capital. Investors have a natural preference for domestic assets, so need to be paid a premium for accepting foreign market risk. Therefore, without any change in global saving, an increase in imbalances would be expected to depress real yields in surplus economies but raise them in economies with savings shortfalls.

Conventional wisdom upended

If the above framework is accepted, then a mild increase in the global saving rate accompanied by the development of large global imbalances would have exerted a downward “income effect” on real yields but an upward “substitution effect” on real yields in economies on the negative side of the global imbalances identity. The net impact on real yields in the US (with the greatest need for imported savings) would have been ambiguous. What has upended this logic has been the change in the risk preferences of the exporters of savings.

When an economy is “self-sufficient” in savings, domestic savers have diverse risk appetites; they invest across the risk spectrum. And when an economy does have a savings shortfall but is financed by foreign private capital, risk appetite also tends to be diverse (FDI, equity portfolio acquisition, etc). Up until the late 90s, this was the norm.

So our contention is that the rise of the reserve accumulators, in pursuit of risk-free government paper, crowded-out risk appetite. The substitution effect became one of increasing risk-free investment appetite surpluses and risk-taking appetite shortfalls. Therefore the nature and sign of the substitution changed.

Chart 9 shows the IMF’s presentation of these global imbalances.

In Chart 10, we regroup and simplify the picture. By unifying European creditors and debtors (which appear above and below the zero line in the IMF layout) we change the outline of the picture a bit.

However, the main thing highlighted by Chart 10 is the surplus share recorded by China and the oil exporters up until the last few years. It’s a major oversimplification, obviously, but these are perhaps the most conspicuous reserve accumulators pursuing risk-free external assets.

But that era appears to be over, insofar as we accept IMF forecasts for the development of imbalances. The present and near future of imbalances looks simpler than the past – Europe will be financing the US.

The flows will be private capital, not public reserves, so have the potential to restore the old regime where a US savings shortfall delivers higher not lower risk-free real rates. This also suggests that even though the spread between US and Euro real rates has widened significantly, there’s more to come.

Was the equity risk premium a casualty of this risk appetite shift?

The BoE working paper discussed earlier discussed widening “spreads” as an important driver of low real rates. No doubt the crisis was a major contributor to a gapping wider in the equity risk premium and a shifting preference towards government bonds will reflect other things, like the aging of the average saver. However, we would suggest that if global imbalances have extinguished risk appetite in the way we have described, then this also played a big part in the late-90s bond-equity “correlation flip” shown in Chart 11 and the widening gap between bond and equity earnings yields.

In this context, the post-millennium US experience of debt-financed equity buybacks (widely pilloried as “short-termism” and “financial alchemy” looks, more objectively, to be a rational response to a dramatic increase in the relative cost of equity finance. It’s been about giving investors what they want.

New normal looking more like old normal than we thought

In this note we have discussed very big picture influences that are likely evolving very slowly. However, the underlying messages seem clear. A closing of the global output gap appears to be coinciding with a waning in the deflationary influence of globalisation, resulting in firming global inflation, or at least a higher r* to keep inflation in check. This would be aggravated if globalisation is actually in retreat.

That a global savings glut depressed risk-free real rates is universally accepted but perhaps the bigger global real yield depressant from global imbalances was the extinguishing of risk appetite – “bad” savings driving out “good” savings. The global imbalances are still with us but the composition is changing in a way that should restore risk appetite and lift US real yields, both outright and (especially) relative to European." - source Bank of America Merrill Lynch

We disagree on the above a GSG was not the reason risk-free rates were depressed, no offense to Bank of America Merrill Lynch but we would rather side with the wise wizards at the BIS than with the reckless wizards such as Ben Bernanke at the Fed and others.

Before we move on to our final charts regarding the "liquidity illusion", we would like to quote the wise words of Irving Fisher from his 1928 book:

"We may now summarize our findings
1. The problem of what to do about our unstable money is one of prime importance
2. It has been all but overlooked because of the Money Illusion
3. This Illusion is the more serious because every man finds it harder to free his mind of this Illusion as to the money of his own country than of foreign money.
4. This Money Illusion so distorts our view that commodities may seem to be rising or falling when they are substantially stationary, wages may seem to be rising when they are really falling, profits may seem to exist when they are really losses, interest may be believed to be rewarding thrift when no real interest exists, income may seem to be steady when it is unsteady, bond investments may seem to be safe when they are merely a speculation in gold. It makes a unit of weight appear to be a unit of value; it hides a chief cause of the so-called business cycle; it has enabled political financiers to employ unsound finance with burdens heavier but with complaints less than if sound finance had been employed; it has led to unjust blame of "profiteers" and of the "money lenders"; and above all it has held back stabilization by concealing the need of it.
5. The present fixity of weight of our dollar is a very poor substitute for a fixity of value or buying power.
6. By actual index number measurement our dollar rose nearly four fold and fell back to the starting point again between 1865 and 1920.
7. Most of the dollar's fluctuations were while the dollar was a gold dollar (1879-1922).
8. They were largely peace time fluctuations; most of them occurred while America was at peace (1879-1898, 1899-1917, and 1918-1922), and much of them when there were no important wars elsewhere (1879-1914 and 1918-1922).
9. These fluctuations through serious shrink into insignificance in comparison with the thousand-fold, million fold, billion-fold, and trillion-fold fluctuations in Europe.
10. The cause of a falling or rising dollar is monetary inflation or deflation and that , in practice, it is seldom or never necessary to specify that the inflation or deflation is merely relative since it is also absolute as well.
11. To go back to the cause of inflation or deflation, the extreme variability of money is chiefly man-made, due to governmental finance, especially war finance, as well as to banking policies and legislation; but also due in part to discoveries or exhaustion in gold mines, and changes in metallurgical art.
12. The tremendous fluctuations of money produce tremendous harm analogous to what would result if our physical yardstick were constantly stretching and shrinking but far greater

• a. because the money yardstick is used so much more generally
• b. because it is so much more used in time contracts, because stretching and shrinking are unseen.

13. This harm includes a constant robbery of Peter to pay Paul - amounting to sixty billion dollars in six years in the United States alone - a net loss to all Peters and Pauls taken together, confusion and uncertainty in all financial, commercial and industrial relations, constituting much what is called the business cycle, producing depression, bankruptcy, unemployment, labor discontent, strikes, lockouts, class feeling, perverted legislation, Bolshevism and violence. In short the harm is threefold: social injustice, discontent and inefficiency." - source Irving Fisher, The Money Illusion.

He also added that credit control must always be an important part of any program for stabilization. This is leading us to our final charts relating to the "liquidity illusion" in credit markets.

• Final charts - Always remember that liquidity is a coward

As a reminder, a liquidity crisis always lead to a financial crisis. That simple, unfortunately. In our February 2016 conversation "The disappearance of MS München" on this subject we quoted Dr Jochen Felsenheimer and Philip Gisdakis from their 2008 book Credit Crises:

"Asset price inflation in general, is not a phenomenon which is limited to one specific market but rather has a global impact. However, there are some specific developments in certain segments of the market, as specific segments are more vulnerable against overshooting than others. Therefore, a strong decline in asset prices effects on all risky asset classes due to the reduction of liquidity.
This is a very important finding, as it explains the mechanism behind a global crisis. Spillover effects are liquidity-driven and liquidity is a global phenomenon. Against the background of the ongoing integration of the financial markets, spillover effects are inescapable, even in the case there is no fundamental link between specific market segments. How can we explain decoupling between asset classes during financial crises? During the subprime turmoil in 2007, equity markets held up pretty well, although credit markets go hit hard." - source Credit Crises, published in 2008, authored by Dr Jochen Felsenheimer and Philip Gisdakis

Our final charts come from Bank of America Merrill Lynch's Credit Market Liquidity report from the 12th of September and highlights the "buy-side" versus the "sell-side" imbalance after the GFC and seems to be on every credit investors mind these days, rightly so:

"The ECB has been tapering its QE programme, and asset purchases will finish by the end of this year. Credit market liquidity is becoming more challenging with market participants seeing fewer bids when they need them. We think that when bond market liquidity becomes more challenging, the CDS market is the vehicle to manage risk. Bond trading frequencies have slowed down over the past years; trading volumes in the CDS market are rising rapidly, both in the index and the options market.
The “buy-side” vs. “sell-side” imbalance is the largest it has ever been. In a world of growing buy-side assets but lower street liquidity, sharp corrections are more common. Dealer inventories of corporate bonds are clearly way down on where they were in ’07, but banks also appear more nimble in managing their mark-to-market risks and overall exposures on their securities portfolios.

The CSPP has dominated the European credit market in recent years. The ECB has bought more than €167bn of euro-denominated corporate debt (and this is still growing, albeit slowly). The CSPP has been pivotal in improving the credit market’s strength and resilience. But we can see a shift in market liquidity for the worst in recent months amid rising markets volatility.

Liquidity has been challenging according to the findings of our analysis, and credit investors seem to think that it will deteriorate as the buyer of last resort withdraws and they will be the only buyers left in the market (chart 3).

With inflows drying up and possibly continuing to do so as the rates cycle between US and Europe pushes money out of the latter, liquidity will likely become more challenging (more here).

The trend of selling in secondary to participate on primary is the new norm as inflows have stopped. If macro deteriorates further and investors need to replenish their cash balances to cover weaker fund flows technicals, the bid for bonds would weaken more, we think. No wonder that the key concern for credit investors is that “market liquidity evaporates”; the August 2018 survey reading was the highest since H2 2015 heading into the February 2016 sell-off and amid HY market weakness (on the back of a flare-up in the Greek debt saga, EM risks and oil prices tanking).

Our liquidity indicator at the most distressed levels

Arguably it is difficult to quantify liquidity. So many metrics (bid/offer, turnover, volumes and trade counts), but none of these have the ability to measure “illiquidity aversion” and to what extent risk-aversion has dominated the market. We think the volatility market is providing unique and eye opening insight on the current state of the “illiquidity scare” for market participants.

In our Hold your breath for a bumpy ride note, we highlighted an interesting and rather unique phenomenon that recently emerged in the European credit index options market. Amid significant volatility during the Italian BTP sell-off, we have seen an increase in hedging demand. As a result implied vols have moved well above the levels justified by the underlying spread market. But not only that, as not only have vols underperformed (moved more than) the underlying market, but implied vol skews were heavily bid too, steepening to the highest levels we have seen historically (chart 4).

We think we could gain significant insight on risk aversion from examining the correlation between the forward moves of the implied vol skew (payer vs. receiver implied vol differential) vs. the preceded moves in the underlying implied vol market. In simple terms, the higher the correlation the stronger the need for tail hedging going forward post a vol shock in credit. Currently we find that the level of positive correlation (steepening of implied vol skew, post a rise in implied vols) is the highest we have ever seen, according to our data.

In our opinion this clearly reflects the high levels of risk aversion and illiquidity fear during the recent sell-off. It seems that investors hit the “panic” button harder than at any other time in history. A continuation of outflows, a weak macro and declining market liquidity could ultimately push too many investors to the exit." - source Bank of America Merrill Lynch

It seems that some credit investors are getting wary about the "liquidity illusion" in credit markets and some are already lining up for the exit as no one wants to really pick up the tab of the very large credit punch bowl offered by our "generous gamblers" aka our dear central bankers but we ramble again as we are not there yet and equities continue to surge oblivious to the on-going shift in the "Money Illusion". Oh well...

 “Liquidity is a backward-looking yardstick. If anything, it’s an indicator of potential risk, because in “liquid” markets traders forego trying to determine an asset’s underlying worth – - they trust, instead, on their supposed ability to exit.” - Roger Lowenstein, author of “When Genius Failed: The Rise and Fall of Long-Term Capital Management.” – “Corzine Forgot Lessons of Long-Term Capital“

Stay tuned ! 

Credit - Perpetual Motion

"Oh ye seekers after perpetual motion, how many vain chimeras have you pursued? Go and take your place with the alchemists." - Leonardo da Vinci, 1494

Looking at the continuous new highs registered by the Dow Jones, we reminder ourselves of the quest of many scientists for perpetual motion when choosing this week's title:

"Perpetual motion is motion that continues indefinitely without any external source of energy. This is impossible in practice because of friction and other sources of energy loss. A perpetual motion machine is a hypothetical machine that can do work indefinitely without an energy source. This kind of machine is impossible, as it would violate the first or second law of thermodynamics." - source Wikipedia

Given that by now it is fairly evident that the Fed's balance sheet extension has had a significant impact on the performance in risky assets in general and the S&P 500 in particular as displayed in the below graph from Société Générale's recent report entitled "20 charts to understand the fragile equilibrium of US financial markets" published on the 15th of July, we wonder if indeed our "omnipotent" central bankers do not think they have indeed surpassed Leonardo da Vinci and invented "perpetual motion" in financial markets:

But we reminded ourselves of Adam Smith's quote in relation to real "price" formation:

"Labour was the first price, the original purchase - money that was paid for all things. It was not by gold or by silver, but by labour, that all wealth of the world was originally purchased."

Despite the fact that successful perpetual motion devices are impossible in terms of the laws of physics, the pursuit of perpetual motion remains popular particularly in the US central banking space we think.

So we decided to "ramble" around the definition of perpetual motion in financial markets and the lack of "labor participation" in the current on-going Fed induced rally when carefully choosing our title and came up with this:

"The Fed's perpetual motion machine of the first kind produces "income" without the input of "labor". It thus violates the first law of "thermo economics": the law of conservation of labor." - Macronomics

In fact the Fed's conundrum can be seen in the lag in wage growth given nominal wages are only up 2% yoy whereas real wage growth remains at zero. Unless there is some acceleration in real wage growth which would counter the debt dynamics and make the marginal-utility-of-debt go positive again (so that the private sector can produce more than its interest payments), we cannot yet conclude that the US economy has indeed reached the escape velocity level.

If a country has 100% debt to GDP, it means that this country has roughly bought growth at a 2% rate for 50 years which is the case for France given the last time the books were balanced was 1974. 

In this week's conversation we will discuss around the risks of "hyper-deflation" happening as well as looking at the potential trajectory during the summer for US yields.

As we have argued in our conversation the "Molotov Cocktail":

When somebody has too much debt and cannot reimburse it, how do you bail him out? Obviously by restructuring his debts, which imply losses for his creditors.

But when one lends him more money in order for him to pay back what he owes, he is not bailing him out but rather pushing him in a bigger hole! The game until now has been to "print" more money and to add more debt on the shoulders on the indebted ones, to gain some time in the hope that growth will resume and reduce de facto the weight of the existing debt burden and the additional new debt issued to support the initial debt troubles.

This is a big misunderstanding of debt dynamics and its effects on the economy. When debt becomes too big, which it is now the case in many parts of Europe, the servicing drains all the available cash flows and reduces the growth potential."

Credit dynamic is based on Growth. No growth or weak growth can lead to defaults and asset deflation. We hate sounding like a broken record but: no credit, no loan growth, no loan growth, no economic growth and no reduction of aforementioned budget deficits and debt levels. 

What we are of course concern in this much vaunted "Perpetual Motion" infatuation in financial markets is that we are still sitting tightly in the deflationary camp. In fact we expected further yield compression on US Treasuries as discussed in our conversation "the Vortex Ring" back in May this year:

"The lack of "recovery" of the US economy has indeed been reflected in bond prices, which have had so far in 2014 in conjunction with gold posted the biggest returns and upset therefore most strategists' views of rising rates for 2014 (excluding us given we have been contrarian)." - Macronomics

In our conversation"The Coffin Corner" we indicated the following:

"We found most interesting that the "Coffin Corner" is also known as the "Q Corner" given that in our post "The Night of The Yield Hunter" we argued that what the great Irving Fisher told us in his book "The money illusion" was that what mattered most was the velocity of money as per the equation MV=PQ. Velocity is the real sign that your real economy is alive and well. While "Q" is the designation for dynamic pressure in our aeronautic analogy, Q in the equation is real GDP and seeing the US GDP print at 2.5% instead of 3%, we wonder if the central banks current angle of "attack" is not leading to a significant reduction in "economic" stability, as well as a decrease in control effectiveness as indicated by the lack of output from the credit transmission mechanism to the real economy."

So seeing the 1st quarter US GDP print shocker at -2.9% made us wonder about the control effectiveness of the Fed. We can relate to some of the interesting points developed by Shelby Henry Moore III in his Bell Curve Economics long post: 

"In a vicious feedback spiral, as the GDP shrinks, the private sector income shrinks and needs more debt (or government subsidies) to pay the interest on prior debt, but the additional government debt spending destroys more of the useful production and capital of the private sector. The only way to make the marginal-utility-of-debt go positive, is to decrease the debt load back to a level where the private sector can produce more than its interest payments. At this terminal phase, both increasing or decreasing M (debt), shrink the GDP, i.e. hyper-deflation." - Shelby Henry Moore III.

Of course this is why extended QE in the US and the launch of QE in Europe would be highly destructive we think and could potentially lead to "hyper-deflation". 

When it comes to deflationary pressures we have been tracking the events in the shipping industry with great interest and in particular the numerous prices increases in the Drewry Hong-Kong-Los Angeles Container Rates - graph source Bloomberg:

"Drewry publishes its weekly Hong Kong-Los Angeles 40-foot container rate benchmark on Wednesday mornings EST. The benchmark provides insight into the price to ship a container across one of the busiest trading lanes and is therefore used as a proxy for the market. It fluctuates with changes in liner supply-and-demand dynamics and rate surcharges." - source Bloomberg

Another shipping indicator we have been following is of course the Baltic Dry Index as oversupply of vessels keeps hire costs below break-even levels. The index dropped 29.4% on average in 2Q from 1Q and  is 69.8% lower than the 10-year historical 2Q average, yet is 8.8% higher than 2Q13 levels. Panamax vessels declined 40.1% on average sequentially, and were down 19.6% yoy in 2Q.- graph source Bloomberg:

"The Baltic Dry Index, which tracks the costs of moving dry bulk freight via 23 seaborne shipping routes, has averaged 32.5% higher yoy this year through July 16. The index is a barometer of the health of the dry-bulk industry, as well as the broader global economy. It has declined roughly 34.5% yoy and down 66.4% from the recent December peak. The index should begin to rebound as seasonal trends, such as grain exports out of South America, take hold." - source Bloomberg

For us shipping is a leading deflationary indicator as we have argued in March 2012: 

"He who rejects restructuring is the architect of default." - Macronomics.

As we have argued in our conversation  in September 2012 "Zemblanity" (being "The inexorable discovery of what we don't want to know"):

"By keeping interest low to promote investment, like the Fed is currently doing, full employment would therefore be "attainable". For Keynes, the velocity of money would move together with the level of economic activity (and the interest rate)."

 As a reminder:

Our core thought process relating to credit and economic growth is solely based around the very important concept namely the accounting principles of "stocks" versus "flows":
"We mentioned the problem of stocks and flows and the difference between the ECB and the Fed in our conversation "The European issue of circularity", given that while the Fed has been financing "stocks" (mortgages), while the ECB is financing "flows" (deficits). We do not know when European deficits will end, until a clear reduction of the deficits is seen, therefore the ECB liabilities will have to depreciate."

Credit growth is a stock variable and domestic demand is a flow variable. We always asked ourselves the following when it came to the Fed's policies:

"Does the end (lowering unemployment levels) justify the means (increasing M) or do the means justify the end (deflationary bust)?"

Back in our September 2012 conversation we came across this comment from a participant on a macro research forum from a prominent global research firm and we did find it very appropriate in relation to our past title analogy, namely "Zemblanity" and thought we had to share it at the time given we are at present discussing "Perpetual Motion" (which is impossible):

"Isn't QE3 in one sense a blow to the essence of America's prosperity, free markets and with that efficient capital allocation? Setting a target for unemployment rate by running the printing press sounds a lot like a planned economy. It might get us to the target (if not the drop in participation rate eventually will) but with that the economy risk be even more similar to Japan? Have we become so short sighted and spoiled that we can't face the hard facts of our previous reckless childish behavior? I can't think of any time in history when avoiding the truth ever was a sustainable choice. Only history will tell but FED, ECB, BOJ and BOE (soon BOC?) all being in the same boat makes you worried about unintended consequences.... I'm 100% long risk for the moment but long term I think this takes us further from a sustainable world."

And of course the credit "japonification" process has clearly been set in motion.

When it comes to our contrarian take on US yields since early January 2014 we argued the following in our conversation "Supervaluationism" back in May this year it comes from us agreeing with Antal Fekete's take from his paper "Bonds Defy Dire Forecasts but they are not defying logic":
"The behavior of the bond market has been consistent with Keynesianism. By his compassionate phrase “euthanasia of the rentier” Keynes meant the reduction of the rate of interest, to zero if need be, as part of the official monetary policy to deprive the coupon-clipping class of its “unearned” income. Perhaps it is not a waste of time to repeat my argument why, in following Keynes’ recipe, the Fed is acting contrary to purpose. While wanting to induce inflation, it induces deflation.

The main tenet of Keynesianism is that the government has the power to manipulate interest rates as it pleases, in order to keep unemployment in check. Keynes argued that the free market economy was unstable as it was open to the swings of irrational investor optimism or pessimism that would result in unpredictable and wild fluctuation of output, employment and prices. Wise politicians guided by brilliant economists − such as, first and foremost, himself  −  had to have the power “to prime the pump” (read: to pump up the money supply) as well as the power to “fine-tune” (read: to suppress) the rate of interest. They had to have these powers to induce the right amount of spending needed to put people to work, to entice entrepreneurs with ‘teaser interest rates’ to go ahead with projects they would otherwise hesitate to undertake. Above all, politicians had to have the power to unbalance the budget in order to be able to help themselves to unlimited funds to spend on public works, in case private enterprise still failed to come through with the money.

However, Keynes completely ignored the constraints of finance, including the elementary fact that ex nihilo nihil fit (nothing comes from nothing). In particular, he ignored the fact that there is obstruction to suppressing the rate of interest (namely, the rising of the bond price beyond all bounds) and, likewise, there is obstruction to suppressing the bond price (namely, the rising of the rate of interest beyond all bounds). Thus, then, while Keynes was hell-bent on impounding the “unearned” interest income of the “parasitic” rentiers with his left hand, he would inadvertently grant unprecedented capital gains to them in the form of exorbitant bond price with his right." - Antal Fekete

Capital gains in the form of exorbitant bond price? A game we have indeed played successfully given we have been learning a few tricks from our Keynesian magicians bankers as of late. We must confide we have indeed been playing this game and did in fact picked up some yield enticing junior financial subordinated bonds in late 2011 at a cash price of around 94.5, yielding around 14% at the time, to see the yield drop below 4%  these days and the cash price of our position rising by nearly 50% thanks to the generosity of our great "magicians" and given our observation of "Perpetual Motion" machine we decided at the time to buy this French Perpetual issue. We also suffered minimal volatility in the process as illustrated in the below Bloomberg graph:

Of course the main culprit behind our outsized gain is ZIRP (zero interest rate policy) given it has the effect of destroying capital. As the rate of interest is halved, the price of a long term bond is doubled.

Exorbitant government bond prices? The Core European bond market picture making new record lows such as the German bund 10 year yield at 1.14% and the French OAT 10 year at 1.56%, at the lowest level since 1746 - source Bloomberg:

"The continuing fall of interest rates in the 21st century, in the face of an unprecedented amount of Federal Reserve credit being created through bond purchases, is far from being illogical. Nor is the continuing bull market in bonds, now a third of a century old, is a conundrum to those of us who are not infected by the bug of Keynesianism. It is fully explained by the incentive to earn risk-free profits on a continuing basis, unconditionally offered to bond speculators by the policy of open market operations." - Antal Fekete, "Bonds Defy Dire Forecasts but they are not defying logic": 

In Europe of course, courtesy of our "Generous Gambler" aka Mario Draghi, ECB's president "whatever it takes" moment in July 2012 has indeed triggered the incentive to earn risk-free profits based on continuing "implicit" guarantees, a subject we discussed in our previous conversation last week.

Our dexterous "Generous Gambler" has indeed been highly successful in propelling Spanish bonds gains above Germany. But what our "Generous Gambler" ignores is that generally hyper-deflation can lead to a deflationary spiral in which a deflationary environment leads to lower production, lower wages and demand, and thus lower price levels, which is continuing in Europe as far as we can see from the latest economic data releases.

Moving back to the important notion of the difference between stocks and flows we do agree with Antal Fekete's take in May 2010 in his article "Hyperinflation or Hyperdeflation" being akin to a Black Hole and the possibility of capital being destroyed thanks to ZIRP (as it is mis-allocated towards speculative endeavors) hence the risk of pushing to far the "Perpetual Motion" experience:

"Obviously, you need a theory to explain what is happening other than the QTM. I have offered such a theory. I have called it the Black Hole of Zero Interest. When the Federal Reserve (the Fed) is pushing the rate of interest down to zero (insofar as it needs pushing), wholesale destruction of capital is taking place unobtrusively but none the less effectively. Deflation is the measure of wealth in the process of self-destruction -- wealth gone for good. The Fed is pouring oil on the fire as it is trying to push long-term rates down after it has succeeded in pushing short term rates to zero. It merely makes more wealth self-destruct, and it makes the pull of the Black Hole irresistible.

But why is it that the inordinate money creation by the Fed is having no lasting effect on prices? It is because the Fed can create all the money it wants, but it cannot command it to flow uphill. The new money flows downhill where the fun is: to the bond market. Bond speculators are having a field day. Their bets are on the house: if they lose, the losses will be picked up by the public purse. But why does the Fed under-write the losses of the bond speculators? What we see is a gigantic Ponzi scheme. The Treasury issues the bonds by the trillions, and promises huge risk-free profits to the bond speculators in order to induce them to buy. Most speculators believe that the Treasury is not bluffing and they buy. Some may believe that the Fed is falsecarding doubts and they sell. But every time they do they only see foregone profits. What we have here is a rare symbiotic relation between the government and the speculators." - Antal Fekete

Of course, what the ECB has done as well is tame the speculators and prevented so far a deeper adjustment in the European banking space leading to an outperformance of financial bonds versus equities. But, as we pointed out last week, the continuous need to raise capital for the European banking sector is facing more margin calls, meaning more need to raise capital and the need for more sovereign supports to avoid a depreciation of the liabilities. This infernal "Perpetual Motion" is no doubt delaying a very painful adjustment which could lead the European sector to produce more than what is need just to make the interest payments of the ever rising debt burden!

Therefore it appears to us that deflationary environment in Europe is continuing leading to lower production, lower wages and lower demand, and thus lower price levels.

Moving on the trajectory of US yields during this summer lull, we agree to a certain extent with Nomura's recent take on US treasuries in their note from the 18th of July entitled "Bonds over-reacting or forward looking?":

"Summers aren't the time to burn carry and be short duration - wait for the Fall

We started out the year with a strategic call for lower rates and that has largely run its course. However, we have constantly said that investors should not expect a v-shape rise in rates just because the rally in duration wasn't expected. We have been slowly shifting our trading profile, and for now we have a tactical play on this bond rally to carve out a low this summer versus it just having a one-touch feel to it, where most have been hoping the May dip of 2.4% on 10s, for a brief second, was the low for year; we don't.

As seen in Figure 1, the market participants have been fighting the urge of getting dragged into the air pocket created last year post taper was let out of the bag. However, the path of least resistance and our call until the September FOMC (where there is a risk for more hawkish news around exits and growth/rate expectations) is for 10s to go towards 2.35% and 30s towards 3.10% during the balance of the summer. 

August traditionally is a seasonally strong bond rallying month, and Q2 data excitement can burn out soon (where we are watching if next week's CPI flares out and if at the end of the month wage inflation take off or not). Meanwhile, although investors are not as short, mentally most investors want higher rates and there are some groups underinvested.

Lastly as we mention in our mid-year update, once rates start to normalize, given the lower fixed income supply projections in the second half, bond markets will be supported even as Fed exits, in our view. In Figure 2 we highlight that the Fed has obviously been the biggest buyer during QE; however, in the past other investors would come in and fill the void. 

Recently there has been a focus on China buying USTs and how that was probably another force driving rates lower. However, bank buying in the US has been just as equal of a force while Japan hasn‟t been buying as strongly lately. So that can all change if yields back up and actors like GPIF allocate abroad." - source Nomura

On a final note and as we posited at the beginning of our conversation unless there is an acceleration in real wage growth we cannot yet conclude that the US economy has indeed reached the escape velocity level given the economic "recovery" much vaunted has so far been much slower than expected. But if the economy accelerates and wages finally grow in real terms, the Fed would be forced to tighten more aggressively. As reported by Anna-Louise Jackson and Anthony Feld in their Bloomberg article from the 22nd of July entitled "Higher Wages Signaled by More U.S. Employees Quitting", the jury is indeed still out there when it comes to confirming the "escape velocity" of the US economy:
"More than 2.5 million U.S. workers resigned in May, a 15 percent increase from a year earlier, based on seasonally adjusted data from the Labor Department. These employees represent about 56 percent of total separations, the highest since November.

Such departures serve as a proxy for consumer confidence because people are more likely to quit when they have a new position secured or are convinced that another is readily available, said Nicholas Colas, chief market strategist at ConvergEx Group, an institutional equity-trading broker in New York. The most-recent quits data were “very positive,” which suggests sentiment finally has turned a corner, he said. The report is one that Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen has said she uses to judge the strength of the labor market.
The share of Americans who say business conditions are “good” minus the share who say they are “bad” turned positive in June for the first time since January 2008: 0.2 percentage points, up from minus 3.5 points in May, based on data from the Conference Board, a New York research group.
Feeling Emboldened 

“Consumer confidence has been the last piece to come back in this recovery,” Colas said. This suggests wages also could go up because as employees feel more emboldened to switch seats, their bosses may be willing to offer higher compensation in an effort to prevent such turnover, he said.
People working in the private sector could see stronger salary gains ahead, according to Bloomberg BNA’s Wage Trend Indicator, designed to predict and interpret compensation trends. This forward-looking index rose to 99.12 in the second quarter from 98.92 in the first, marking the third consecutive increase and highest level since March 2009.
Pay for these employees could increase more than 2 percent by year-end, according to Kathryn Kobe, an economist at Economic Consulting Services LLC in Washington, who helped develop and maintains the indicator. Wages rose 1.7 percent in the three months ended March 31, near a post-recession low of 1.3 percent,data from the Labor Department show." - source Bloomberg

What of course could derail this very "fragile" recovery is a renewed jump in gasoline prices. The latest US core CPI climbed 1.9 percent from June 2013, after a 2 percent increase in the prior 12-month period. Gasoline costs jumped 3.3 percent, their biggest gain since June 2013, accounting for two-thirds of the increase in total prices, today’s report showed, something to watch closely we think.

"I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people." - Isaac Newton

Stay tuned!