If the Fed was targeting stock prices, which seems to be the case, then at least for the time being he was successful. So let’s review, in a situation where money is already dirt cheap but not lending is happening, the Federal Reserve decided to target stock prices (call it, asset prices in general to give it the benefit of the doubt) that are held by relatively few people. Hmmm.
Gold is close to an all time high and certainly at a 20 year high:
Meanwhile, the dollar is down, although not at it’s lowest point:
But it doesn’t matter where you look today, it seems like the reflation trade is back on, deflationists be damned. Except, the yield on the 10 year is going down. What gives?
This is the result of investors front-running the Fed purchases.
I hate sounding like a downer, and I hate that I keep beating the negativity drum, and I’m certainly not any perma-bear. But this is not sustainable, valuations are not where you’d expect for any long term decent return on investment, and any quantitatively driven excess returns will be met with a more serious downside impact that will show up in future returns, but more importantly show up in future standards of living. We will look back at this period with astonished incredulity at our own lack of foresight.
In 1999, a relatively few advisors and analysts were pointing out that valuations were unsustainable. Then we pointed out that accounting gimmicks, such as recognition of revenues, channel stuffing, etc. were unsustainable and only represented “borrowing” sales from the future. We now have the same two factors in play. In terms of the latter, we are borrowing from future consumption and GDP growth, but eventually we will need to pay it back. We see it on the macro and the micro level. Financial institutions are “borrowing” earnings from reserves, while on the macro front we are literally borrowing some GDP growth.
Could it be my own bias that is keeping me from fully participating in this rally? I’ve been examining whether my own stance has led me to a position that is difficult to back down from, and therefore all the analysis is skewed to confirm my hypothesis. The answer is – maybe. I say maybe because maybe we are in a new world, but I seriously doubt it. ZIRP might mean that stocks are undervalued, but I don’t think so. $600 Billion might stimulate job growth that will compensate for the cost of the program, but I doubt it. The Fed might be effective in reaching their goal of a weaker dollar, but I don’t have any faith that they can be effective in anything other than causing uncertainty. Japan’s currency might continuously get stronger, but I doubt it. China might grow endlessly and not have a real estate bubble, but, again, I don’t think so. No matter where I look at the underlying fundamentals and money flows, there are disconnects that will need to correct. Certainly, some big investors disagree with me, so it is not without hesitation that I take the other side of their trades. However, as a disciplined fact-based investor, I can’t allow myself to be dissuaded from the research – and for now, all signs point to trouble.
November 7, 2011 10:14 am | 
