Re: Pension fund passive commodity strategies

(an interoffice email)

>
>   On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 4:05 PM, Pat wrote:
>
>   What about the continued allocation increases from non-end
>   users of commodities? From what I’ve read allocations by
>   pensions have gone higher even with the rising prices as well
>   as a whole host of new entrants (ETFs, HF’s, etc…) Are these
>   compounding the problem or are they the root of the
>   commodity price inflation?
>
>

passive commodities are part of the landscape for sure:

  1. put upward pressure on competitive commodity spot prices
  2. put downward pressure on the $
  3. add to gdp
  4. in general, help ‘monetize’ saudi crude price hikes
  5. put upward pressure on crude futures
  6. serves no public purpose

WSJ: Taul Paul chimes in

The FOMC take this very seriously:


Volcker’s Demarche

On the dollar, Mr. Volcker’s blunt talk of crisis is a welcome tonic to the devaluationist consensus that now dominates Washington. The world has been staging a run on the greenback, with damaging results if it continues. Mr. Volcker noted that when “concerns about recession are rife,” the central bank will be tempted to “subordinate the fundamental need to maintain a reliable currency” to the impulse to shore up a flagging economy. The danger is that you lose both battles, as the U.S. did in the 1970s, and wind up with stagflation.

The present climate, Mr. Volcker told his audience, reminded him of nothing so much as the early 1970s. Then as now, certain commodity prices were rising fast – he cited oil and soybeans as two examples. Then as now too, these were explained away as speculative price run-ups and not as a harbinger of a broader inflationary trend.

We all know how that ended, and Mr. Volcker knows better than anyone. He was the one who, at the end of that decade, had to step in and raise interest rates to punitive levels to break the back of that bout of inflation. With commodity prices spiking again – soybeans are $12 a bushel today compared to $7 a year ago – Mr. Volcker is warning the Fed not to let inflationary expectations become embedded once again.

ABC personal finance subcomponent

2008-04-09 ABC News Washington Post US Weekly Personal Finance Index

ABC personal finance subcomponent

Down but not out.

Weakness, but probably no recession as per Bernanke’s latest address before Congress.

Inflation ripping, as Fed staff raises it’s near term forecast.

The Fed ‘fights inflation’ with ‘slack’.

The Fed waiting for slack to be reduced before turning its attention to inflation is illogical at best.

Without the much anticipated further decline in home prices the Fed will find itself that much further ‘behind the inflation curve’.

The Fed needs the housing decline for its models to forecast inflation returning to comfort zones.

Re: Food prices (cont)

(a set of interoffice emails)

Sanjiv to me
9:10 AM Reply
See the riots in Haiti over food prices?

Mike to me
9:03 AM Reply
Much of it caused by financial intermediaries

YES, TO THE EXTENT THERE ARE EXCESS INVENTORIES.

BIOFUELS, TO THE EXTENT THE FOOD/ACREAGE HAS BEEN USED FOR FUEL

On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 9:02 AM, Brian wrote:

Did you see the news in the Philippines last night? The government is going to start increasing wages to help people deal with rising food and energy costs. Interesting approach toward combating inflation.

Yes, the mainstream calls that ‘monetizing’ the price increases. Given a shortage, giving people more funds doesn’t add to supply in the short run, and, (twist on Keynes coming) when it comes to food shortages in the short run we’re all dead.

Bloomberg: Europe inflation accelerates to 3.5%, sentiment drops

Europe Inflation Accelerates to 3.5%, Sentiment Drops

By Fergal O’Brien

(Bloomberg) European inflation accelerated to the fastest pace in almost 16 years, making it harder for the European Central Bank to cut interest rates as a global credit squeeze saps confidence among executives and consumers.

Consumer-price inflation in the euro area accelerated to 3.5 percent this month, the highest rate since June 1992, the European Union’s statistics office in Luxembourg said today. The euro rose after the publication of the figure, which was higher than economists had forecast. A separate report showed consumer and business confidence declined in March.

And that’s with a strong euro keeping import prices lower than otherwise.

“This will surely dash any residual hopes of a near-term rate cut,” said Dario Perkins, an economist at ABN Amro in London. “With inflation this high, it would take a major deterioration in the real economy to prompt the ECB to lower interest rates this year.”

Yes.

March inflation was faster than the 3.3 percent median forecast of 36 economists in a Bloomberg News survey and the acceleration pushed the rate further above the ECB’s 2 percent ceiling, a target it hasn’t achieved in the last eight years.

The euro rose as high as $1.5834 after the inflation report and was up 0.1 percent to $1.5807 as of 12:15 p.m. in London.

High inflation = Strong currency???

That’s the current paradigm as markets trade as if interest rates are more important for currency pricing rather than purchasing power parity.

Still, there are signs the euro-area economy is so far weathering the U.S.-led slowdown. German and French business confidence climbed in March and unemployment in the euro region was a record low 7.1 percent in January.

Low unemployment scares the ECB a lot.

Plosser the hawk

Plosser, Dissenting Fed Voter, Says Price Stability Is Priority

By John Brinsley
March 28 (Bloomberg) — Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia President Charles Plosser, who voted against this month’s interest-rate cut, said keeping inflation in check is the “most effective” way of ensuring economic growth and job creation.

“Price stability is not only a worthwhile objective in its own right,” Plosser said in the text of a speech at a conference in Cape Town today. “It is also the most effective way monetary policy can contribute to economic conditions that foster the Federal Reserve’s other two objectives: maximum employment and moderate long-term interest rates.”

Plosser said today that keeping prices steady has to be the primary obligation of the central bank in order to ensure the economy runs as efficiently as possible. Price stability helps an economy’s ability “to achieve its maximum potential growth rate,” he said.

This is the mainstream macro economic position. (Not mine!)

It also addresses the dual mandate in the only logical manner the mainstream theory can address:

Low and stable inflation is the necessary condition for optimal growth and employment.

And they have volumes of maths to back it up.

In an effort to fend off a U.S. recession, Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and his colleagues have slashed the federal funds rate by 2 percentage points this year, the most aggressive easing in two decades, even as surging oil and food costs threaten to stoke inflation. Plosser and Dallas Fed President Richard Fisher opposed the March 18 decision to cut the Fed’s main lending rate by three-quarters of a percentage point to 2.25 percent.

“Stable prices also make it easier for households and businesses to make long-term plans and long-term commitments, since they will know what the long-term value of their money will be,” Plosser said. “Price stability helps a market economy allocate resources efficiently and operate at its peak level of productivity.”

The Fed has lowered its benchmark rate six times in as many months since the collapse of U.S. subprime mortgages started to infect markets around the world in August last year. The world’s biggest financial companies have posted at least $195 billion in writedowns and credit losses tied to American mortgage markets.

“There seems to be a view that monetary policy is the solution to most, if not all, economic ills,” Plosser said. “Not only is this not true, it is a dangerous misconception and runs the risk of setting up expectations that monetary policy can achieve objectives it cannot attain.”

Public misconceptions over what central banks can and cannot do have “risen considerably over the years.” Central banks must therefore effectively communicate their goals and limitations, Plosser said.

The mainstream position is that rather than add to demand to address near term weakness and risk elevating inflation expectations, the government should instead let the output gap (unemployment and excess capacity in general) rise and bring inflation down.

If it does add to demand in an attempt to keep the output gap low and inflation elevates, a much larger output gap will soon be required to reign in the accelerating inflation problem.

The dissenting votes reflect this mainstream view that appears to be playing out in the least desirable way.

Changing dynamics for the Fed

Cutting 75 basis points rather than the expected 100 basis points gave the Fed positive near term reinforcement from market participants:

  • Dollar went up
  • Food/fuel/commodities went down
  • Stocks did ok, including housing companies
  • Credit did ok

But it’s going to look to the Fed a bit like taking medicine: initial small doses have the desired effect, then things settle back, and it takes ever larger doses to keep moving the needle.

So now crude/food is moving back up, the USD is moving back down, stocks are doing ok, exports are booming, and the fiscal package is about to kick in.

For the Fed to keep moving the needle away from inflation it’s going to keep needing to not give markets all they are anticipating.

So with a 25 cut anticipated, they will realize they need to do no cut for a positive inflation response, and with no cut anticipated they need to hike, etc.

Credit markets will quickly get ahead of this and begin anticipating hikes.

The irony is higher rates will help support demand via the interest income channel.

And higher rates will support price increases via the cost channel.

Demand is being supported by increasing net fed spending and rising exports due to the reduced desires of non-residents to accumulate USD financial assets.

They no longer want to accumulate a net $60 billion a month of US financial assets (negative trade gap) due to the big 4 screaming fire in a crowded theater of previously content patrons:

  1. Paulsen calling CBs that buy USD currency manipulators
  2. Bush making it politically impossible for Muslim nations to further accumulate USD reserves
  3. Bernanke giving inflation a back seat to ‘market functioning’ via deep rate cuts into a triple supply shock
  4. Pension funds diversifying to passive commodity and non US equity strategies

FOMC

Karim Basta:

  1. Further cut to gwth outlook
  2. Financial conditions tighter and housing getting worse
  3. Inflation receives greater concern than prior statement
  4. Conclusion: downside risks predominant and ‘timely’ means another intermeeting cut on the table.

Agreed, further comments below:

Release Date: March 18, 2008

For immediate release

The Federal Open Market Committee decided today to lower its target for the federal funds rate 75 basis points to 2-1/4 percent.

Could have been 100 as anticipated by the markets. Fed shaded its cut to the low side of the priced in expectations.

Recent information indicates that the outlook for economic activity has weakened further. Growth in consumer spending has slowed

Implies there is still some growth, not negative yet.

and labor markets have softened.

Looking unrevised February payroll number, not the lower unemployment rate. In January they looked at the higher unemployment rate. Unemployment has subsequently gone from 5.0% to 4.9% to 4.8% (rounded).

Financial markets remain under considerable stress,

They went a long way to relieve stress over the weekend.

and the tightening of credit conditions and the deepening of the housing contraction are likely to weigh on economic growth over the next few quarters.

Housing starts were revised up, and other indicators indicate it may have bottomed.

Inflation has been elevated, and some indicators of inflation expectations have risen.

This was noted in several Fed intermeeting speeches.

The Committee expects inflation to moderate in coming quarters, reflecting a projected leveling-out of energy and other commodity prices and an easing of pressures on resource utilization.

They continue to make this projection even after being completely wrong for many meetings.

Still, uncertainty about the inflation outlook has increased.

That’s why – their forecasts have proven unreliable, and crude/food continues to rise as the USD continues to fall.

It will be necessary to continue to monitor inflation developments carefully.

Only ‘monitor’? No action planned.

Today’s policy action, combined with those taken earlier, including measures to foster market liquidity, should help to promote moderate growth over time and to mitigate the risks to economic activity. However, downside risks to growth remain. The Committee will act in a timely manner as needed to promote sustainable economic growth and price stability.

Intermeeting action is on the table, for both growth and price stability.

Voting for the FOMC monetary policy action were: Ben S. Bernanke, Chairman; Timothy F. Geithner, Vice Chairman; Donald L. Kohn; Randall S. Kroszner; Frederic S. Mishkin; Sandra Pianalto; Gary H. Stern; and Kevin M. Warsh. Voting against were Richard W. Fisher and Charles I. Plosser, who preferred less aggressive action at this meeting.

Wonder how much less aggressive?

In a related action, the Board of Governors unanimously approved a 75-basis-point decrease in the discount rate to 2-1/2 percent. In taking this action, the Board approved the requests submitted by the Boards of Directors of the Federal Reserve Banks of Boston, New York, and San Francisco.