"Our Children and Grandchildren are not merely statistics towards which we can be indifferent" JFK
Showing posts with label Jeremy Grantham. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jeremy Grantham. Show all posts

Thursday, November 11, 2010

“The Fed has spent most of the last 15, 20 years manipulating the stock market" Jeremy Grantham (much watch video)

"It [the Federal Reserve] wants us to go
out there and buy stocks, which are
overpriced because bonds they have
manipulated into being even less attractive,"

Jeremy Grantham on CNBC
11/10/10
Investors should be mostly in cash, which gives them security as well as the option to take advantage of other investments if prices fall, fund manager Jeremy Grantham told CNBC Thursday.

"It [the Federal Reserve] wants us to go out there and buy stocks, which are overpriced because bonds they have manipulated into being even less attractive," said Grantham, who is chief investment strategist of Grantham Mayo Van Otterloo, a Boston-based asset management firm, and a respected voice in the financial world.

"So, we’re being forced to choose between two overpriced assets. That is not always a terrific choice to make because there is a third choice, and that is, 'don't play the game and hold money in cash.'

"And cash has what people don't appreciate fully. And that is its 'optionality.' In other words, if anything crashes and burns in value—say the U.S. stock market—if you have no resources, it doesn't help you. If the bond market crashes, and you have no resources, it doesn't help you. And what cash is is an available resource. It buys you the right to buy the U.S. market if the S and P drops from 1,220 today to 900, which is what we think is fair value."

Grantham, a strong critic of the Federal Reserve, thinks the central bank should stick to controlling the money flow. He’s against its stimulus efforts, including its recent announcement to try and boost the economy through $600 billion in quantitative easing (QE).

“The Fed has spent most of the last 15, 20 years manipulating the stock market, whenever they feel the economy needs a bit of a kick,” he added. “I think they know very well that what they do has no direct affect.”



Saturday, October 30, 2010

Fed's Hoenig: further easing would be dangerous! Are you listening Ben? Do you listen to anyone Ben?



Do You Listen to Anyone Ben Bernanke?


The Fed, both now and under Greenspan, expressed no concern with
the later stages of investment bubbles.
(Jeremy Grantham)

“Check writing in the trillions is not a bondholder’s friend; it is in fact
inflationary, and, if truth be told, somewhat of a Ponzi scheme..."
(Bill Gross)

The U.S. economy is a "fiscal train wreck" waiting to happen...further
quantitative  easing will have little effect on U.S. growth in 2011."  
(Nouriel Roubini )

"Quantitative easing is more likely to stimulate corporations to devour
each other than to create employment."
(George Soros)

"I expect the coming doses of quantitative easing will finally spark adverse
reactions, first in the dollar and later in the bond market. When a falling
dollar forces consumer prices and long-term interest rates to rise,
the Fed's actions will be rendered impotent."
(Peter Schiff)

"I tried to make clear that I regard that (QE-2) as the wrong way to go.
An excessive, permanent increase in money is, in my view,
an indirect manipulation of the exchange rate.”
(German Finance Minister at the Korean G 20)

In other words, by perpetuating an artificially low 10-year government
bond rate, the Fed may be delaying (even if very modestly, given the
modest impact of the action on long rates) the very fiscal policy action that
the nationmost needs, while doing little to boost an economy whose
principal problem is not high long-term interest rates.
( Peter Orzag)

Let's Try It One More Time Ben...Ben...Ben

Reporting by Jonathan Lynn
10/30/10

(Reuters) - Slight deflation is just as acceptable as low inflation, said a senior Federal Reserve official who has persistently dissented against Fed easy money policies, repeating that further easing would be dangerous.

Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank President Thomas Hoenig said the Fed should not have an inflation target but he would like to see an inflation rate of zero.

Prospects of very low inflation, and the resulting low nominal interest rates that give a central bank little room to cut rates sharply in a crisis, is misplaced as it does not allow monetary policy enough time to take effect, Hoenig said in an interview in Saturday's issue of Swiss daily Neue Zuercher Zeitung.

The interview with Hoenig, who has used all six of his votes in 2010 to dissent against the Fed's pledge to hold rates "exceptionally low" for "an extended period," was conducted on October 26 -- the same day that Hoenig warned in a speech that further easing could be dangerous.

The Fed is expected to approve a new round of "quantitative easing" -- essentially printing money by buying bonds -- at its next policy meeting on November 2/3 because many senior officials fear that low inflation could turn into deflation that would make it harder for companies and households to pay off their debts -- already a drag on the U.S. economy.

VOTE
Under the Fed's system of rotating voting positions for regional bank presidents, Hoenig has a vote on the policy-making federal open-market committee (FOMC) this year but not in 2011.

"A little deflation is no worse than a little inflation," Hoenig said in the interview, published in German.

The situation was not comparable with the Great Depression, when prices fell by 20 percent, which was just as bad as price increases of 20 percent, he said. "Wanting higher inflation is not the same as preventing strong deflation," Hoenig said.

A central bank should aim over time to hold prices stable, or at most tolerate very low inflation, and it was dangerous to argue that monetary policy could reduce unemployment without stoking inflation.

Hoenig said that quantitative easing had succeeded in kick-starting the financial markets but now it had diminishing returns and now that the crisis was over the Fed should allow markets to function normally and reduce its portfolio by allowing bonds it had purchased to mature.

Hoenig cited estimates that long-term rates would fall 25-30 basis points if the Fed embarked on a new round of large-scale quantitative easing.

The Fed had always been quick to pump money into the system in a crisis but slow to withdraw liquidity afterwards, he said. "Thus the Fed is risking higher inflation for a very small incremental benefit in the form of slightly lower long-term interest rates. I'm not prepared to run that risk," he said.

Hoenig recalled that the Fed had eased monetary policy sharply in 2003 as an insurance against deflation. "We paid a horrific premium for that if you look at the recent recession. I still believe that the costs of such a policy are higher than generally assumed," he said.

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Night of the Living Fed by Jeremy Grantham, Bernanke Expresses No Concern about Bubbles

I would force the Federal Reserve to swear off
manipulating asset prices 

Night of the Living Fed Report

If I were a benevolent dictator, I would strip the Fed of its obligation to worry about the economy and ask it to limit its meddling to attempting to manage infl ation. Better yet, I would limit its activities to making sure that the economy had a suitable amount of liquidity to function normally. Further, I would force it to swear off manipulating asset prices through artificially low rates and asymmetric promises of help in tough times – the Greenspan/Bernanke put.

To Summarize
It would be a better, simpler, and less dangerous world, although one much less exciting for us students of bubbles. Only by hammering away at its giant past mistakes as well as its dangerous current policy can we hope to generate enough awareness by 2014: Bernanke’s next scheduled reappointment hearing.

It seems certain that the Fed is aware that low rates and moral hazard encourage higher asset prices and increased speculation, and that higher asset prices have a beneficial short-term impact on the economy, mainly through the wealth effect. It is also probable that the Fed knows that the other direct effects of monetary policy on the economy are negligible.

The Fed, both now and under Greenspan, expressed no concern with the later stages of investment bubbles. This sets up a much-increased probability of bubbles forming and breaking, always dangerous events. Even as much of the rest of the world expresses concern with asset bubbles, Bernanke expresses none. (Yellen to the rescue?)

Lower rates always transfer wealth from retirees (debt owners) to corporations (debt for expansion, theoretically) and the financial industry. This time, there are more retirees and the pain is greater, and corporations are notably avoiding capital spending and, therefore, the benefits are reduced. It is likely that there is no net benefit to artificially low rates.