Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

Bill Gross Discusses the "Tipping Point" For Bonds; Does He Miss the Boat?

Posted: 29 Jun 2013 10:23 AM PDT

Bill Gross did not see this major selloff in bonds coming. He discusses the setup in his recent Investment Outlook called The Tipping Point.

Much of the article is about how he almost tipped a ship while in the Navy. He uses the tipped ship metaphor to talk about the position in bonds.

Gross says "Markets just had too much risk, and in PIMCO's opinion, too much hope for a constant QE and for the growth that it would produce. In effect, the ship was top heavy with too little ballast. Guess I should have known, huh?"

That's water over the dam at this point so the question Gross asks now is "Well where does the ship go from here?"

Here is a snip of Gross' explanation.

Should you as a bond investor jump overboard and risk the cold money market Atlantic Ocean at near zero degrees? We don't think so – and not because we want to keep you on board – we just don't think so. Why not?

1) The Fed's forecast of the economy which prompted tapering panic is far too optimistic. If 7% unemployment is tapering's final port of call, we simply think that we're much further away than the Fed's compass would suggest. We argue for structural headwinds – demographic, globalization, and technology influences – that have had and will continue to have dampening effects on domestic and global growth. The Fed, we would argue, is too cyclically oriented, focusing substantially on housing prices and car sales. And speaking of housing, since mortgage rates have risen by 1½% in the last six months and the average monthly check for a new home buyer is up by 20–25% as well, then as I tweeted several weeks ago, "Mr. Chairman are you serious?" Growth will be negatively influenced.

2) Inflation, according to the Fed's own statistics is running close to a 1% pace. The Fed has told us that they "target," " target" 2% and for the next 1–2 years are willing to accept even 2½% until they reverse engines. Fed Governor Bullard of the St. Louis Fed was in our opinion correct where he dissented from the majority decision several weeks ago, citing the distant shores of 2%+ inflation and the seeming inability to even move in that direction.

3) Yields have adjusted by too much. While T.V. and the press focus on 10-year Treasuries at 2.55% as their guiding star, subjective stabs by yours truly or anyone else are difficult day to day. ... To my eye, Fed Funds will not increase until at least mid-2015 and even then subject to a consistently strong economy that produces 2%+ inflation. I wonder if we can get there in this decade to tell you the truth. But the beauty of this North Star Fed Funds sextant is that it can be rather directly observed in futures markets, either for Fed Funds or for Eurodollars, which are a close companion. Right now, Fed Funds futures markets are predicting a 75 basis point yield in 2015, and Eurodollars validating a similar conclusion. That would suggest a mispricing, despite the obvious caveat of professional observers that some of the 75 is a surcharge for potential volatility. In any case, if frontend curves are up to 50 basis points cheap, then intermediate curves – the 10-year Treasury – may be as much as 35 basis points too cheap. They belong in our opinion at 2.20% instead of 2.55%.

So there you have it, fellow passengers and paying clients. Don't jump ship now. We may have reached an inflection point of low Treasury, mortgage and corporate yields in late April, but this is overdone.

Emphasis by Bill Gross

A Tipping Point That Won't Tip

Gross' message is clearly "the ship has reached a tipping point but don't worry, the ship won't tip". Let's discuss each of Gross' three main points.

1) "The Fed's forecast is far too optimistic".

I certainly agree with Gross that the Fed (and almost everyone else) is overly optimistic.

But what if growth is not the Fed's only concern? What if the Fed is concerned about the bubbles it has blown in stocks and bonds? What if the Fed is concerned about renewed speculation in housing?

Perhaps that scenario far-fetched, perhaps not, but at least some Fed governors have those concerns.

2) "The Fed's inflation target is 2%"

OK, the Bernanke Fed has an inflation target of 2%. But Bernanke will soon be gone. Will the next Fed have the same target? Any target? Given that Janet Yellen is likely the next Fed Chairperson, it is likely but not a given.

And how does one measure inflation? Will the Fed ignore housing like it did between 2002 and 2007? Will it at all look at brewing bubbles?

3) "Yields have adjusted too much"

Have they? Let's assume that Gross is correct.

Gross emphasizes the yield on a 10-year note belongs at "2.20% instead of 2.55%".

Lovely! Let's once again assume Gross is right. The upside is 35 basis points. And what is the downside if Gross is wrong?

Is this what things have come to? That's it's necessary to speculate on a gain of 35 basis points because that is fair value? And where was Gross on "fair value" when the yield was 1.5%?

If it is correct to play for 35 basis points now, why was he in bonds when the yield was 70 basis points too low? Can you have this both ways?

And why is this suddenly a "3–5% for both stocks and bonds" when he tweeted "@PIMCO The secular 30-yr bull market in bonds likely ended 4/29/2013. PIMCO can help you navigate a likely lower return 2 - 3% future."

So, is this a 3-5% world or a 2-3% world?

Questions abound and answers are few.

I actually suspect Gross may have this correct, but what is the risk-reward if he is wrong? What if the bond revolt continues? What if the Fed has lost control? That's what Gross does not discuss, and that's where he missed the boat.

For further discussion, please see Calmer Waters for the Bond Market? Gold? Worst Over?

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

FHA Swamped By Defaults; Congressional Report Shows FHA Could Suffer Losses as High as $115 Billion; Shut Down Fannie, Freddie, FHA

Posted: 28 Jun 2013 11:21 PM PDT

An alleged "worst case scenario" shows the FHA could lose as much as $115 Billion. Since these worst case scenarios are always famously optimistic, the best course of action would be to shut the agency down.

I was quoted as saying just that by the Heartland in Congressional Report Raises Spectre of FHA Bailout.

The Federal Housing Administration's (FHA) losses over the next 30 years could be much higher than originally projected, according to the findings of a congressional committee. The dismal forecast has some bracing for another taxpayer-financed bailout.

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) is reporting that a worst-case scenario stress test conducted last year estimated the FHA could suffer losses as high as $115 billion. That forecast is significantly worse than the one reported by independent auditor Integrated Financial Engineering Inc., which projected losses of $65 billion for the 79-year old agency.

Swamped by Defaults

The primary cause of the FHA's troubles is the plague of underwater mortgages that has struck the housing sector in recent years. During the late housing bubble, the FHA lost market share as more private lenders sold "subprime" loans to home buyers. But with the collapse of the housing market in 2007-08, much of that business returned to the FHA. While the agency has played a major role in propping up home prices, it has also been overwhelmed by defaults.

John Ligon, senior policy analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation, writes:

The FHA has a core mission of providing targeted support to creditworthy low- and moderate-income, minority, and first-time homebuyers. The FHA cannot responsibly achieve these intended objectives when it is expanding its market share and competing with the conventional market for high-cost mortgage loans.

According to Ligon, the only way the FHA can avoid a bailout is to reduce its market share by lowering maximum loan limits to $325,000 over the next four years, raise credit requirements for borrowers, and institute "burden sharing" with loan originators by reducing insurance coverage from the current 100 percent to 50 percent by 2016.

While these reforms may improve FHA's balance sheet over the long term, they would also reduce market liquidity, which in turn could cause home prices to fall. Thus homeowners with little home equity now could find themselves underwater on their mortgages, which could trigger more defaults.

But it is precisely this apparent dilemma that government-sponsored enterprises like FHA have created with their meddling into the market that has some calling for a more radical approach.

'Shut Down Fannie, Freddie, FHA'

"I would shut down Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the FHA, HUD, and such similar programs and agencies," says Mike "Mish" Shedlock, a market analyst and host of the Web site Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis. "The more money government threw at housing, the less affordable housing became until the bubble popped."

He says numerous government agencies and programs "should be shut down and things would be far better off because government can never allocate money better than the free market."

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Economy News

29.6.13

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

No comments:

Post a Comment