On the eve of the REAL2015 Reshaping Real Estate Conference
in Brisbane, I was asked to engage in some of the economic foresight that
created a bit of a stir in 2006 and 2007 when I precisely discussed the
certainty of what is now known as the Global Financial Crisis or GFC. Subsequent to that, a dear friend called me
to inquire as to the timing of the next major market paroxysm and how one might
be prepared for that eventuality. I have
hesitated weighing in on this topic in InvertedAlchemy but given the U.S.
Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) actions of this past week, the iceberg is
now in full view and the helmsman is drunk.
The Federal Reserve erroneously states that its mandate is
to “foster maximum employment and price stability”. It continues to run its Ponzi auction of “reinvesting
principal payments from its holdings of agency debt and agency mortgage-backed
securities in agency mortgage-back securities and… rolling over maturing
Treasury securities at auction.” In what
they continue to describe as “accommodative policy” the FOMC has satiated the
wealth transfer mandate of their benefactors while placing the whole of the
U.S. (and by extension, the global) economy in irreparable harm. And my choice of words is precise in that the
architecture of the next GFC is much more precarious than the conditions leading
to the 2008 hiccup.
According to the data reviewed by the Committee prior to its
September 17, 2015 meeting, the consensus view of the Federal Reserve Bank
Presidents is that GDP is likely to hover around 2% for the foreseeable future
despite evidence that it’s probably between 1.8% and 2.0% in reality. Personal consumption expenditures or PCEs are
expected to lag GDP by 0.2%. And over
the next 4 years, the Presidents expect that their “firming” policy (in
contrast to accommodative) will land the federal funds rate at about 3.5% with
the largest spike expected in 2016.
But the seeds of the looming challenge were respectively
planted by Franklin D. Roosevelt in August 1937 and by Gerald Ford in September
1974. Roosevelt’s Old-Age, Survivors,
and Disability Insurance (OASDI or Social Security) and Ford’s Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) have placed the U.S. economy on a
collision course with a reality that Senator John L. McClellan (D-Arkansas)
would have found unimaginable in 1963 when, as a result of the Studebaker
Corporation’s default on pensions, he led the Senate’s investigation into
pension fund misuse. In 2009, the Office
of the Chief Actuary of the Social Security Administration reported that the
program had $15.1 trillion greater obligations than assets. Since 2010, Social Security’s costs have
exceeded its tax income and its non-interest income combined and are expected
to do so through 2024 “and beyond”. In
their Communication, the Board of Trustees have stated that the Disability
Insurance component of the OASDI will experience “fund depletion” in 2016 and
that the OASI funds will be depleted by 2035.
What this means is that in 2016, the program will be able to meet only
80% of its statutory obligations. In
other words, 60 million Americans will have 20% less to spend beginning
in 2016 while the FOMC expects spending to grow during the same period. Take 20% of a population and cut their purchasing
power by 20% (to say nothing of the increased tax that will be placed on
current wage-earners rising a gross 2.62% thereby wiping out the FOMC PCE
projection) and you’ve got a massive problem.
The FOMC and the Social Security teams don’t have the same crystal
balls. Not surprisingly, Social Security
wants full employment so that they can collect tax and fund themselves. The Fed wants unemployment below 6%. The trouble is that Social Security bases its
solvency estimates on employment numbers that don’t currently exist and are not
projected to exist thereby accelerating their insolvency. And it gets much worse.
Both the Social Security investment program and the ERISA
program are required to invest heavily in interest bearing securities backed “by
the full faith and credit of the United States Government”. With the FOMC’s decision to keep “accommodating”
low interest rates, this means that all the actuarial assumptions about investment
income necessary to meet fiduciary obligations in the future are entirely
wrong. And they’re not wrong by a
bit. They’re wrong by over 200%! The “real interest rate” from 1966 to 2007
averaged 2.8%. The real rate in 2014 was
0.4%. To make Social Security work in
the low cost (read fewer benefits) and high participation (read more workers
paying more for less benefits), they need a rate of 4.4% - only 1000x greater
than reality! And this same assumption
error plagues other investors as well.
With nearly 6 full years of interest rate manipulation, fiduciary
investors across the board are beyond the point of no return. There is no economic scenario in which you can
make up the lost ground of persistent interest rate manipulation at the scale
we’ve seen since the GFC. Making the
situation worse, the assets that are currently profligate on the balance sheets
of many pension funds are agency-real estate linked meaning that the investment
picture for pensioners is going to be far worse than imagined.
So long about the U.S. Presidential election next year, the
first pillar will actually fall. And,
for better or worse, there’s no getting out of this one. The market is going to lose a cylinder called
the Baby Boomer consumer. And given that
the U.S. economy is not growing at a rate to absorb wage increases or any other
off-setting economic driver, the age of entitlements is in for serious
accountability.
What does this mean to the global investor? Well, the answers are already being written
on a number of walls like King Belshazzar’s illustrious inscription in the Book
of Daniel. “Your days are numbered; you’ve
been weighed on the scales and are found wanting; and your kingdom is about to
be divided.” This time around, Medes and
Persians are not at the literal gate but the American consumer’s fate is not
enviable. Therefore, it’s reasonable to
carefully examine where discretionary spending is most vulnerable to senior
purchasing power reduction and begin by unwrapping these positions. More broadly, on the U.S. domestic front,
general interest-rate dependent sectors are likely going to suffer
disproportionately to other sectors.
But the real shift is something that I discussed at the
University of Notre Dame’s 10-Years Hence speech in the Spring of 2007. Then, I discussed the importance of drawing a
line from the Mediterranean eastward with one arc bending across the Indian
Ocean to India onwards to Indonesia, Australia and across to the South America
and another bending up through Persia and across China to Canada. The former line is the line of cooperation
and growth where real economic opportunity will transition in the diverse
fields of health, agriculture, materials, finance, logistics and technology
while the latter will be economies that have a much higher likelihood of achieving
self-sufficiency with minimal foreign dependency. And, with my 10 year projection a mere 1.5
years off, nearly each point in my 2007 speech has landed precisely where the
arc of my speech had projected. China is
not in crisis. China’s role on the
global stage is changing as it turns its economy inwards for its own
benefit. Economic ties between India,
Australia, Brazil, Chile and other Oceania states are growing and the
interdependency in these areas will be more noticeable in the coming
months.
Ironically, it was economic distress and global conflict
that stimulated President Roosevelt to create the octogenarian that is now on
life-support. It was global
manufacturing shifts that led to economic conditions stimulating President Ford
to enact legislation which is now coming off of its drunken mid-life
crisis. And while we’ve got some tough
sailing ahead with gross incompetence at the helm, then as now, we’ll develop a
new model that, with any luck, will not be based on actuarial models and
willful ignorance. Until then, there’s
turbulence ahead so buckle in!
x
Federal Reserve website: "The Congress established the statutory objectives for monetary policy--maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates--in the Federal Reserve Act."
ReplyDeletehttp://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/money_12848.htm
Is the Federal Reserve website wording correct?
If the wording on the Federal Reserve website isn't accurate, where/what is the correct wording?
(I note that "Maximum" employment, "stable" prices and "moderate" "long-term" interest rates are open to a wide range of interpretation--but I'd like to start by understanding the correct wording, particularly if what's represented by the institution itself is not accurate.)
David
ReplyDeleteThank you for this article.
I understand that it forecasts significant economic impacts due to the 20% income reduction for 60 million American retirees (and other investors) in 2016 and 2.6% gross increase in tax on wage earners.
You also refer to two global arcs of opportunity due to countries internal economic growth and interdependency.
What are the key impacts on financial (eg interest rates, liquidity), social (eg employment, immigration) realities for people living in Asia Pacific
How would you suggest families and businesses prepare and adapt to these changes so they are better placed to contribute to a sustainable, ever changing world.
Cheers
Phil Nyssen
David
ReplyDeleteThank you for this article.
I understand that it forecasts significant economic impacts due to the 20% income reduction for 60 million American retirees (and other investors) in 2016 and 2.6% gross increase in tax on wage earners.
You also refer to two global arcs of opportunity due to countries internal economic growth and interdependency.
What are the key impacts on financial (eg interest rates, liquidity), social (eg employment, immigration) realities for people living in Asia Pacific
How would you suggest families and businesses prepare and adapt to these changes so they are better placed to contribute to a sustainable, ever changing world.
Cheers
Phil Nyssen