|
After a couple weeks of volatility in the markets, many investors have begun
to ask themselves: "What's next?"
Will the market slide further? Will the economy be affected? Or are investors
panicing without reason, and is the market ready to resume its upward march?
A central focus within these questions - as always - is: "What will the Fed
do?"
Let's take the last question first.
Anyone who becomes Chairman of the Federal Reserve is very astute at understanding
power structures and who pulls what levers to help someone get to the top.
I am 100% sure that Ben Bernanke is aware that the next President of the United
States will be the person to decide whether he gets nominated to a second term
or not. According to the polls and common sense, that President is most likely
to be a Democrat and most likely to be Hilary Clinton.
Everyone on Wall Street expects the Fed to act very quickly to lower rates
to help the banking system. Before reaching such a conclusion, isn't it helpful
to ask: "Do you really think Hilary Clinton would mind a recession leading
up to her presidentail campaign?"
Plagued by the Iraq War AND a recession, would the Republicans have a chance?
Wouldn't she actually be very appreciative of a "responsible" Fed chairman
who helped induce a mild recession?
Another fact is history. Greenspan spent 18 years encouraging credit growth.
That credit growth expanded to ludicrous and dangerous proportions.
Recently, people with bad credit histories who could not qualify to rent a
house could easily qualify to buy it! With no money down. The next day after
bankruptcy, borrowers could get low interest rates and lots of money. Worse
still, many other loans had floating rates, which meant that if interest rates
rose (which they did) the homeowners were unlikely to be able to afford their
houses in 2 years time. Well, 2 years time is starting to be up for many of
these loans, and guess what? Default rates are skyrocketing! Interestingly,
late into his tenure, Greenspan actually spoke out in favor of floating rate
loans, encouraging more Americans to take them.
Like the dot-com bubble before it, this mortgage bubble is exposing a lot
of dubious assumptions and fraud. Given that the Federal Reserve lowered rates
to historically low levels during the beginning of this bubble (thereby encouraging
it) and neither did nor said anything to prevent it, there is clearly some
responsibility that lies in the hands of the Fed. For history's sake, Bernanke
does not want anything to do with this mess. He will want to be strong and
show that he is not easily persuaded into lowering rates just to bail out the
banks and mortgage brokers who acted irresponsibly. Bailing them out might
encourage even more irresponsible behaviour in the future and lead to an even
greater bubble.
So, because of the Clinton factor and the history factor, Bernanke might be
slower or at least more reluctant to come to the rescue than many market watchers
are expecting.
That said, once a President nominates the Fed Chairman for another term, the
nomination must be approved by Congress. If Bernanke sends the u.s. economy
into too deep a recession, he runs the risk of alientating the public to such
a degree that no Congressperson will be able to support his nomination.
Therefore, I expect the Fed to lower rates but in a very tempered fashion.
So, what does a tempered Fed mean for the financial world and the economy?
My conclusion is that the lending market will slow.
Banks have been selling CDOs and other CLOs and other fancy products to insurers,
pension funds, and foreign banks for the last several years. Those products
are now experiencing much higher rates of default than the banks led their
clients to believe. As a result, these clients are highly unlikely to accept
new products, even with lower interest rates. With the end of excessive lending,
look for the housing market to continue to decelerate, with most markets seeing
serious price declines. Look for the LBO market to dimiss and asset prices
to come down. Most important, look for any company that has lots of debt and
weak cash flow (a lot of the companies that have been LBOed) to be in serious
trouble. Look for the banks to use the lower interest rates from the Fed to
shore up their balance sheets and increase spreads.
But I do not think the banks will have the audacity or willing clients to
pass along the benefits of lower rates via newly-conceived "financially-innovative
products."
As a result, it is likely the U.S. economy will continue to slow. Without
the "juice" from excessive lending, consumers will pull back and consumer-oriented
companies geared towards U.S. consumers will experience less growth. The ripple
effects will be felt to some degree by many U.S. industries.
At the same time, the strong global economy should provide some level of relief.
With new consumers in India, China and myriad other parts of the world, other
countries may be able to compensate for slackening U.S. consumption.
Looked at from a different perspective, the U.S. might have to rely less on "financial
innovation" and more on good, old-fashioned manufacturing for its next stage
of growth.
If such a scenario unfolds as outlined above, the most important conclusion
for investors is: "Don't be leveraged!" For years, there has been a strong
benefit to being leveraged. Entire industries (private equity, mortgage brokers)
have grown out of this idea.
Now, the world might turn on its head. In both one's personal finances as
well as one's investments, less might be more. The sages of wall street seem
to have forgotten: "Less leverage means more upside in a downwardly moving
market." It's a concept that's very out of fashion.
But this time, by being unfashionable, by the end of the night you might be
the coolest kid at the party.
I like cool.
|