Your Government At ‘Work’

From today’s CBO report:

CBO estimates that the ACA will reduce the total number of hours worked, on net, by about 1.5 percent to 2.0 percent during the period from 2017 to 2024, almost entirely because workers will choose to supply less labor—given the new taxes and other incentives they will face and the financial benefits some will receive…

The reduction in CBO’s projections of hours worked represents a decline in the number of full-time-equivalent workers of about 2.0 million in 2017, rising to about 2.5 million in 2024.

From the White House’s response:

At the beginning of this year, we noted that as part of this new day in health care, Americans would no longer be trapped in a job just to provide coverage for their families, and would have the opportunity to pursue their dreams. This CBO report bears that out, and the Republican plan to repeal the ACA would strip those hard-working Americans of that opportunity.

Wait, so the idea all along was to persuade hard-working Americans to trade their jobs for a subsidized life of dreams and leisure? All that’s missing here is Bill Clinton asking what the meaning of the word “work” is.

This, people, is your government.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Your Government At ‘Work’

Explaining January’s Volatility in One Chart

In a month of disturbing images from troubled countries in all parts of the developing world, the biggest threat to the global economy may have been lurking in the shadows:

Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Fear the Stock Bubble, but Don’t Sweat the Emerging Market Crisis

We review a few of our recent opinions for context before getting to the main point of this post:

Is the U.S. stock market overvalued?

Absolutely. In “Bubble or Not, U.S. Stocks Are Priced to Deliver Dismal Long-Term Returns,” we argued that stocks are priced to barely outpace inflation, at best, and more likely to deliver negative real returns over the next 10 years.

Is the market due for an extended correction or consolidation?

Probably. Some of the annual outlooks published recently brought back memories of January 2007. The trendy theme at that time was the idea that stocks would float along on a sea of unlimited global liquidity. Bulls seemed to feed off each other and make ever more extreme predictions, not recognizing that “global liquidity” was another way of describing history’s largest-ever credit bubble. Fast forward to late 2013/early 2014, and bulls were again upgrading their outlooks just as financial excesses were becoming impossible to ignore. It stands to reason that recent volatility may have gotten their attention, especially while the Fed’s QE boost is gradually removed with two tapers done and seven to go (assuming no change in amounts).

It’s also worth noting that returns in the month of January tend to persist. As we discussed here, negative January performance suggests better than 50% odds of further consolidation.

Is the current emerging market crisis a game changer for U.S. stocks?

Unless this is the year that China’s credit markets collapse, our answer is “not so much.” There are a handful of developments that could trigger a full bear in the U.S., but these don’t include events in developing countries outside China. That would be highly unusual, as we’ll show below by looking at six emerging market crises that occurred during bull markets.

Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Fear the Stock Bubble, but Don’t Sweat the Emerging Market Crisis

Why Next Week May Be Pivotal: Introducing the ‘JAJO Effect’

While this month’s stock market performance hasn’t been kind to the so-called January effect, this is hardly big news.  Most analysts had already recognized that other months yielded better returns of late.

Take Burton Malkiel, author of A Random Walk Down Wall Street, who had this to say in 2003:

Suppose there is a truly dependable and exploitable January effect, that the stock market—especially stocks of small companies—will generate extraordinary returns during the first five days of January. What will investors do? They will buy on the last day of December and sell on January 5. But then investors find that the market rallied on the last day of December, and so they will need to begin to buy on the next-to-last day of December; and because there is so much “profit taking” on January 5, investors will have to sell on January 4 to take advantage of this effect. Thus, to beat the gun, investors will have to be buying earlier and earlier in December and selling earlier and earlier in January so that eventually the pattern will self-destruct. Any truly repetitive and exploitable pattern that can be discovered in the stock market and can be arbitraged away will self-destruct. Indeed, the January effect became undependable after it received considerable publicity.

True to Malkiel’s words, January is only the 8th best performing month (5th worst) for the S&P 500 (SPY) over the past 25 years. Small cap results over the same period aren’t much different – January ranks as the 7th best month for the Russell 2000 (IWM).

But what about other calendar effects?

We can appreciate Malkiel’s skepticism, but we’re not willing to reject all connections between investment markets and the calendar. There are other theories that aren’t as widely known or easily arbitraged as the January effect, which was first popularized way back in 1942. We’ll argue that one such theory may be more important than usual this year.

Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Tracking “Bubble Finance” Risks in a Single Chart

In his 712-page tour de force, The Great Deformation, David Stockman dissects America’s descent into the present era of “bubble finance.” He describes the housing bubble’s early stages as follows:

The American savings deficit was transparent after the turn of the century, but the Fed flat-out didn’t care. … Greenspan and his monetary central planners had a glib answer: do not be troubled, they admonished, the Chinese have volunteered to handle America’s savings function on an outsourced basis.

So instead of addressing the growing deformations of the American economy after the dot-com crash, the Fed chose to repeat the same failed trick; that is, it once again cranked up the printing presses with the intent of driving down interest rates and thereby reviving speculative carry trades in stocks and other risk assets.

Needless to say, it succeeded wildly in this wrong-headed game plan: by pushing interest rates down to the lunatic 1 percent level during 2003-2004, the Fed sent a powerful message to Wall Street that the Greenspan Put was alive and well, and that the carry trades now offered the plumpest spreads in modern history. Under the Fed’s renewed exercise in bubble finance, asset prices could be expected to rumble upward, whereas overnight funding costs would remain at rock bottom.

That is exactly what happened and the equity bubble was quickly reborn. After hitting bottom at about 840 in February 2003, the S&P 500 took off like a rocket in response to virtually free (1 percent) money available to fund leveraged speculation. One year later the index was up 36 percent, and from there it continued to steadily rise in response to reported GDP and profit growth, albeit “growth” that would eventually be revealed as largely an artifact of the housing and consumer credit boom which flowed from the very same money-printing policies which were reflating the equity markets.

In hindsight, it’s hard to refute Stockman’s perspective on the Fed’s role in the housing bubble. But that won’t stop some from trying, and especially the many academic economists beholden to the Fed. Research papers have stealthily danced around the Fed’s culpability for our crappy economy, as we discussed here.

More importantly, if Stockman is right about bubble finance, there’s more mayhem to come. Consider that denying failure and persisting with the same strategy are two sides of the same coin. Just as investors avoid the pain of admitting mistakes by holding onto losing positions, Fed officials who claim to have done little wrong are also more committed than ever to propping up asset markets with cheap money.

For those concerned about another policy failure, a key question is:  “As of today, where do we stand with respect to bubbles and bubble finance?”

We’ll compare two indicators that may help with an answer:

Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Tracking “Bubble Finance” Risks in a Single Chart

This “Non-traditional” Valuation Measure Carries 3 Messages about U.S. Stocks

[S]tock prices have risen pretty robustly. But I think that if you look at traditional valuation measures, the kind of things that we monitor, akin to price-equity ratios, you would not see stock prices in territory that suggests bubble-like conditions.

– Janet Yellen, responding to a question in November’s nomination hearing

We offered our take on stock valuation several times last year, while arguing that traditional price-to-earnings multiples (P/Es) are almost useless during periods of heavy policy stimulus. We’ll take a different direction here, by suggesting a “fix” for an entirely different problem with traditional P/Es. Our analysis reveals three messages about current stock prices.

Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on This “Non-traditional” Valuation Measure Carries 3 Messages about U.S. Stocks

2013 Most Viewed Posts

Although CYNICONOMICS isn’t quite a year old, we’ll join the bloggers who report their most viewed posts at the end of the calendar year. We added up our page views here and on two other sites that publish our articles and report our stats: Zero Hedge and Seeking Alpha. Here’s the top 10:

Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on 2013 Most Viewed Posts

Happy New Year!

Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Happy New Year!

3 Leftovers from Wednesday’s FOMC Meeting

Here are a few moments from Wednesday’s FOMC press conference that stuck in our heads, all from Ben Bernanke’s comments in his last Q&A as Fed chair:

Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on 3 Leftovers from Wednesday’s FOMC Meeting

“Pot Calling the Kettle Black” Classic: Fed Researchers Slam Dishonest Economists

pot calling kettle black

An economist recently recommended that I read a paper by three Fed researchers titled: “Why Did So Many People Make So Many Ex Post Bad Decisions? The Causes of the Foreclosure Crisis.” It was presented at a major conference last year and made the rounds again in the economics blogosphere this year with generally positive reviews. It seems to have been influential.

The authors – Christopher Foote, Kristopher Gerardi and Paul Willen – argue that the financial crisis was caused by over-optimistic expectations for house prices, while other factors such as distorted incentives for bankers played only minor roles or no roles at all. In other words, it was a bubble just like the Dutch tulip mania of the 1630s or South Sea bubble of the early 1700s, and had nothing to do with modern financial practices.

Then the authors make absolutely sure of their work being well-received by those who matter. The financial crisis is surely a touchy subject at the Fed, where the biggest PR challenge is “bubble blowing” criticism from those of us who aren’t on the payroll (directly or indirectly). But Foote, Gerardi and Willen are, of course, on the payroll. They tell us there’s little else that can be said about the origins of the crisis, because any “honest economist” will admit to not understanding bubbles.

Here’s their story:

Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment