This week's market action serves as a vivid reminder of how dependent valuations are on central bank policies, and especially the aggressive provision of liquidity by the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank. The question for markets thus boils down to whether central banks will do more; and the issues these institutions face are extremely and increasingly complex.
The global sell-off started on Tuesday with the release of the minutes of the most recent FOMC meeting. They were read by many as signaling less eagerness on the part of the Fed to embark on yet another round of liquidity injections ("QE3"). Virtually every asset class promptly slumped, including bonds, commodities and equities -- a reflection of how liquidity, rather than fundamentals, partly underpins recent market strength.
The sell-off in risk assets accelerated on Wednesday as the European Central Bank also cautioned about expectations of yet more unusual policy activism on that side of the Atlantic. The disappointing Spanish government bond auction was also a problem, coming at a time of mounting market concern about the country's outlook.
This time around, however, German and U.S. government bonds decoupled reflecting the "flight to quality" trade -- out of risk assets and into what are regarded as safe heavens.
Against this background, it is natural that investor conversations center on whether central banks will renew their liquidity injection programs if markets continue to sell off. Some believe that the institutions have no choice but to do so. Others are less sure.
This uncertainty is not surprising. The analysis conducted here at PIMCO, including research for next week's presentation of the Homer Jones Memorial Lecture at the St. Louis Federal Reserve, confirms that central banks face extremely complicated policy challenges:
They are dealing with what Chairman Bernanke correctly called an "unusually uncertain outlook." They are forced to use blunt tools. They receive very little support from other government agencies. And their repeated interventions inevitably distort price signals, alter market functioning, and disrupt liquidity.
In sum, the critical trade-off in policymaking -- between benefits, costs and risks -- is becoming less attractive for central banks. Thus, recent signals of their hesitancy to do more, especially in light of improving economic data.
When push comes to shove, however, we suspect that central banks may ultimately resort yet again to their printing presses, especially if meaningful economic and financial weaknesses reappear. Remember, this is not about what central banks SHOULD do; rather, it concerns what they are LIKELY to do. And in being forced to inject liquidity into the global system, central banks would be driven not by positive motivations but, rather, negative ones.
In their hearts, central banks know that their policies cannot by themselves deliver the desired economic outcomes; and they are increasingly aware of the collateral damage associated with their unusual policy activism, as well as the unintended consequences. But they also feel that, for many reasons, they cannot be seen to stand on the sideline while politicians bicker, other agencies dither, and the economy stumbles.
The markets' obsession with central bank policies will not go away any time soon. Moreover, it will evolve over time to also include the question that holds the key to sustaining over time the bull market: whether central banks will be able to hand off the policy challenge -- either to a robust economy or to other institutions that have better tools yet, for a host of reasons, have preferred to remain on the sidelines until now?
Dr. Mohamed El-Erian is CEO and Co-CIO of PIMCO, the global investment manager. This post originally appeared at CNBC.com.
© 2012 CNBC.com
Anyone who has not 100% aware that we are now living in a centrally planned economy not so different from that of old Soviet Russia does not have a reality-based belief system.
I contend the root cause is deep, yet simple:
"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."
--Henry Ford
A little info never hurt, for "understanding" as Henry Ford calls it.
I have found the award-winning documentary film, "The Secret of Oz" to provide honest, eye-opening discussion of the root cause and (very importantly) solutions to our nation's problems. Precisely the info the "fat cat" 1% from Wall Street want the 99% Main Streeters to remain ignorant of.
The Secret of Oz: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swkq2E8mswI (Winner, Best Docu of 2010)
I've also found excellent further resources to open eyes are: (1) Ellen Hodgson Brown recent and popular book “Web of Debt”, (2) the earlier “Creature from Jekyll Island” by G. Edward Griffin, and (3) the book that first probed: “Secrets of the Federal Reserve” by Eustace Mullins. The third one's the true eye-opener...
The Oz film and Ellen Hodgson Brown are noteworthy in proposing solutions. Readers, please educate yourself.
More great info at http://www.monetary.org
Thank you, and Enjoy!
With the need to fund government spending running at 200 billion a month the Fed has no choice but to print more currency and thus devalue the dollar. The real test or should I say the breaking point is when this everyday inflation brakes consumption. With wages flat or still falling I believe we have already reach that inflection point. What will follow is austerity like that of Greece in the US and Europe, massive retrenchment, deflation, and another leg down before the politicians re-balance wealth and rewards for production.
Ah yes, Sir, you are very smart. Well informed. You write very well and are incisive in your observations. Your talents keep you employed.
My own take... considering I am none of the above...
Simply, there is nothing complex about greed. Extreme, yes. But nothing complicated about it at all.
The math can be done by any first year econ student. Even in the US.
The question is, can these other “institutions” with their “better tools” overcome the fundamental weaknesses which remain unaddressed. Perhaps, in the short run, but until there is hard-core financial regulation, which restores integrity to the markets, a sustained “bull market” recovery is a pipe dream. TARP, the recent blanket mortgage settlements and the foreclosure backlog are still hanging in the ether largely unresolved.
The Fed has been and is pretty much doing all it can to help the economy get going. Congress has done nothing useful for the economy since the original stimulus package.
It seems pretty clear that our Federal Reserve has taken the attitude that it will do everything it can to jumpstart the economy and get it growing strongly, again, full well knowing that less monetary stimulus and more fiscal stimulus would have been more effective. I can almost 'hear' the collective brain of the Fed saying, "You, Congress, should be handling this problem with fiscal measures, but since you won't, we have to try to do what we can with monetary policy, as crude and ineffective as that will be."
See the post above (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/mikealex/central-bank-liquidity-markets_b_1405765_146614326.html) for further info, all fact-based.
Thanks, and Enjoy.
Monetary stimulus creates inflation in certain markets, which cannot predicted. The Fed engaged in money printing and treasury buying and hoped it would revive the housing bubble. It should be obvious to everyone that the money went into commodities and stocks. In commodities it was very concentrated in those which have little price elasticity, ie: grains, sugar, precious metals, energy, water.
Monetary stimulus has not made us wealthier, because while prices have risen, wages have stagnated. Real wages are down. Real purchasing power is down. Rents are way way up even though housing prices have fallen, because quite frankly, people don't want to own a home anymore when they don't know if they will have a job in 2 years, or whether or not they will have to relocated to make a living.
Fiscal stimulus is bad because it takes real wealth out of the economy. More spending = more taxes. It is as simple as that. More borrowing = more deferred taxes.
And what do we get? We get resource being allocated in the wrong sectors of the economy. Capital doesn't go to productive activities, instead the government doles it out to "too big to fail" corporations, those who lobby the most, and to failed energy projects.
To say this is not the largest wealth confiscation in history is an understatement.
It is easy to make all sorts of bailouts when you can print your own currency.
Without their generous backing banks would never dare take such insane (and highly profitable) risks. In this regard the central banks also greatly contribute to the growing wealth inequality.
There is a reason Rothschild once said: "Give me control over a nation's currency and I don't care who makes the laws". As long as we leave the control of our money in the hands of a few central bankers (whose economic wisdom is questionable at best), the money will flow in one direction only: upwards.
The Fed needs to be reformed or replaced.
The monetary policy of the Fed is clearly a band-aid on the unjury, since Congress can't get its act together to perform proper surgery.
You are blaming the wrong outfit.
The Secret of Oz: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swkq2E8mswI (Winner, Best Docu of 2010)
Thanks, and Enjoy.
You start by saying the truth.
Yes Markets are DEPENDENT on Central Banks to provide easy money !
I say that WALL Street wants FEDERAL PROGRAMs to HELP them sustain growth !
in other words WALL St. wants WELFARE STATE for themselves.
Let us call a Spade a Spade !
Same people should also be JUST and realize that PEOPLE in MAIN street also needs WELFARE.
Actually MAIN st Welfare = Wall street welfare
Was it at the Homer Jones Memorial Lecture that the fallout of derivatives was presented before an unbelieving Lawrence Summers and Tim Geithner by an unknown, wearied economist? Then I will look forward to prescient statements from the upcoming meeting.
"THE SECRET OF OZ - Bill Still
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swkq2E8mswI
LIFE, INC. - Douglas Rushkoff
http://vimeo.com/4655092
Your comment implies we are in a global economy. I think this is our major problem as it has become more so global. I can watch any movie I want from any country with an informed flow of data controls without having to go through a pay service. We are facing a global readjustment to our costs of living. There will be no chaos. There will just be a lowering or complete forgiving of debt. However, I must stop here to keep in the spirit of the subject sans Titanic.
Rushkoff's theory on the banks and people-created money was real cool and relevant. Thanks for the links, Mark Twain.
you have one side of the story, but rest assured , they will invent something to save the world !
now they are just being HAMLET ........TO SAVE the world or NOT to SAVE ??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HTkEBIoxBA&feature=player_embedded#!
The hope of the Fed, I presume, is that this money that would have been used to purchase US bonds to fund the ONGOING OPERATION OF GOVERNMENT will instead be used for capital purchases and improvements. Instead, it would seem that the extra money is going into the casino that is equities (the stock market) as well as fueling rampant speculation in commodities (especially oil) and even an ever-increasing maze of credit default swaps that can allow default by a relatively small economy to suck out the liquidity on a world-wide basis!
Instead of shoring up the economy as I believe is the intent of QE, it seems to be creating an ever more unstable house of cards!
The biggest problem I see with the QE as it is being done is where that money is going. If this stimulus took money and put it directly into the pockets of the working class, it would be directly stimulative, because they would spend it (increased demand).
Unfortunately, where it is going when the Fed buys back bonds is into the pockets of the former owners of those bonds, which means the 1%. This is much, much les stimulative, because they will sit on that cash, until they see a sustained uptick in demand. Maybe a little will dribble out in anticipation of better times, but a lot of it will just sit there. (Note the $2T sitting on the sidelines in our economy right now, not getting invested in expansion - this will add to that pile.)
I am convinced that the Fed fully understands this, but is going ahead, anyway, with an attempt to fix our economic ills with monetary policy, because our Congress won't get off its butt and fix them fiscally. It's a sort of 'lesser of evils' approach, and it is clear to me that the Fed is fully aware of that, from everything they have said over the last several years.
You need to understand that macroeconomics is not that simple.