Paul Krugman economics: Deny, deny, deny!

Quote from Tsing Tao:

Yes, but it's important to make the distinction that it's relative safety. It's like being the tallest midget. Equities are over valued. Euro debt is way too risky given the peripheral countries. Japan has gone where no man has gone before (but we will eventually). Commodities are in a bubble.

There is simply no asset class that offers the liquidity depth that Treasuries do.

Hell, the guys says all of this in the article. Even Gross at Pimco has said he buys treasuries, simply because everything else is "far worse".

This doesn't mean Quantitative Easing is a good thing, and your article is certainly not support for it. If anything, you are supporting my argument further. The Federal Reserve has distorted ALL asset classes with QE.
All safety is relative.

Anyway, even though the article is not support for QE, it does say,

""He also said the U.S. economy would have no growth without central bank action.

"It's pretty clear that the Bank of Japan, Bank of England, the ECB and the Federal Reserve have expanded their balance sheets by approximately 3.5 percent of GDP per year for the last four years - and if it weren't for that, you'd have negative GDP."
 
Quote from Tsing Tao:

. . . Japan has gone where no man has gone before (but we will eventually). Commodities are in a bubble. . . .

Speaking of Japan, check out this from January:

The Japanese government approved emergency stimulus spending of ¥10.3 trillion Friday, part of an aggressive push by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to kick-start growth in a long-moribund economy. . . .The package announced Friday amounts to one of the largest spending plans in Japanese history

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/12/b...llion-for-urgent-economic-stimulus.html?_r=1&
 
Quote from Ricter:

All safety is relative.

Anyway, even though the article is not support for QE, it does say,

""He also said the U.S. economy would have no growth without central bank action.

"It's pretty clear that the Bank of Japan, Bank of England, the ECB and the Federal Reserve have expanded their balance sheets by approximately 3.5 percent of GDP per year for the last four years - and if it weren't for that, you'd have negative GDP."

Apart from the irrelevant first sentence, nothing about the rest of that is false. Nor is it support for QE. He is right, that all of those economies would have no "growth" if it weren't for central banks.

If central banks let the economy alone to correct itself, we'd have negative periods of GDP, and then a cleansing of all the dead weight and the economy would be free to expand on it's own, sans all the overhanging debt burden. Instead, we'll continue trying to kick the can until it all comes crashing down around our heads. At that point we'll have negative GDP far worse, AND will have inflated our currency away. We'll have no emergency steps to take then, because we will have exhausted it all. Remember, math doesn't care.

And despite all these trillions, Euro GDP is negative and ours is barely positive as of the last reading. Gundlach gets this. You don't seem to, though.
 
Quote from Tsing Tao:

Apart from the irrelevant first sentence, nothing about the rest of that is false. Nor is it support for QE. He is right, that all of those economies would have no "growth" if it weren't for central banks.

If central banks let the economy alone to correct itself, we'd have negative periods of GDP, and then a cleansing of all the dead weight and the economy would be free to expand on it's own, sans all the overhanging debt burden. Instead, we'll continue trying to kick the can until it all comes crashing down around our heads. At that point we'll have negative GDP far worse, AND will have inflated our currency away. We'll have no emergency steps to take then, because we will have exhausted it all. Remember, math doesn't care.

And despite all these trillions, Euro GDP is negative and ours is barely positive as of the last reading. Gundlach gets this. You don't seem to, though.
The Laissez Fairey is back.
 
Quote from Ricter:

Exclusive: DoubleLine's Gundlach shifts gears, now buys U.S. bonds
By Jennifer Ablan
LOS ANGELES | Mon Mar 4, 2013 3:53pm EST

"(Reuters) - Jeffrey Gundlach, one of the world's leading bond fund managers, has reversed his once-bearish stance on government debt, saying he has bought "more long-term Treasuries in the last month" than in the last four years.

"Gundlach said he started buying benchmark 10-year U.S. Treasury notes in the last month after yields popped above 2 percent, because he sees value there relative to other asset classes, including stocks, which he said are "overbought."


"I bought more long-term Treasuries in the last month than I've bought in four years. I am a fan of Treasuries now. I wasn't a fan of Treasuries in July," said Gundlach, chief investment officer and chief executive officer of DoubleLine Capital.

"His Los Angeles firm manages $56 billion in assets.

"Gundlach's views are a change in tune from July, when he correctly predicted that government bonds could be at a peak in price. Ten-year notes were then yielding 1.48 percent, within striking distance of the 1.44 percent level touched in the previous month, the lowest going back to the early 1800s, based on data gathered by Reuters.

"They looked cheap at a yield above 2 percent, compared to certain riskier assets, which had gone up in price over the last six months while Treasury prices fell," he said. "Also, owning 10-year Treasuries at yields above 2 percent provides an offset to credit risk we are taking elsewhere in the portfolio."

"So far, Gundlach's call is proving correct as 10-year Treasury bond yields dropped below 2 percent to yield 1.87 percent on Monday.

"The investor, who was dubbed by Barron's as the new "King of Bonds" two years ago, said he thinks the recent rally in stocks, which last week drove the Dow Jones industrial average within 75 points of its record close of 14,164.53, has gone too far.

"They are obviously overbought in the short term," he said.

"Gundlach, known for his contrarian investment views and opinions, also shorted Apple at $610 last year and predicted that the tech giant's stock would fall to $425. On Monday, Apple's stock was trading at around $423.

"He also said the U.S. economy would have no growth without central bank action.

"It's pretty clear that the Bank of Japan, Bank of England, the ECB and the Federal Reserve have expanded their balance sheets by approximately 3.5 percent of GDP per year for the last four years - and if it weren't for that, you'd have negative GDP."

"Gundlach's DoubleLine Total Return Fund returned 9.16 percent in 2012 — more than double than the benchmark Barclays U.S. Aggregate Bond Total Return USD index at 4.215 percent.

"Treasuries have outperformed riskier credit since the 10-year yield hit 2 percent. One way of illustrating this would be to look at the performance of the iShares Barclays 10- to 20-year exchange-traded fund (TLH.P), which tracks longer-dated Treasuries, against riskier junk bonds.

"Since 10-year yields popped above 2 percent in late January, it has outperformed the iShares iBoxx $HY ETF (HYG.P), a popular ETF focused on high-yield bonds. A strategy of buying the TLH and shorting the HYG would have gained 2.1 percent.

STILL SHORTING THE YEN

"Gundlach said he remains short the Japanese yen and long the Japanese stock market because he believes Japan will pursue aggressive currency debasement in its effort to stimulate the economy.

"They are going to debase the currency and people even want them to debase the currency," Gundlach said. "Their own country wants inflation.

"Can you imagine Barack Obama or Mitt Romney wandering around the United States, saying, ‘I'm going to inflate. I want to inflate. My policy is inflation.' They want to counter deflation, but they don't talk about it. The prime minister of Japan says, ‘I want to inflate' and people said ‘Yay,' so they're going to inflate. The yen is going down."

The yen, trading at 93 to the dollar, is "of course" headed toward 100.

"I think it is going to 200" yen to the dollar, he said.

"For its part, he said the Nikkei .N225, already at around 11,650, is on its way to 13,000.

"He first introduced his Japan idea in December.

"Aside from the Japanese yen, Gundlach is also avoiding European debt.

"I'm not interested in buying into the idea that central planners in Europe are really going to save the world," he said.

"I'm not going to be stuck holding the bag with Spanish bonds. I don't care if somebody makes money on it. It is just not for me. It is also not analyzable."

(Reporting by Jennifer Ablan; Editing by David Gaffen and Jan Paschal)


Buying long-term bonds today is very foolish. More likely he is unloading them, and pulling the old"Goldman Sach's" routine.
 
Quote from Tsing Tao:

This is about as close as you'll ever see to a Keynesian admitting they were wrong with their first assessment, so I'll take what I can get from someone like yourself.

True, we don't know the exact dollar amount of the printing. But we do know it is unprecedented and in the hundreds of billions, probably trillions. As for the value of the currency vis-a-vis others, do 10 or 20 year charts and see how that is working out. Don't be fooled by the dollar index, which heavily weights the Euro (a union which is in dire straights).

Just look at gold. Or any commodity.
Tsing Tao. I have to respectfully disagree. We do not know the amount of printing at this point. It is incorrect to assume ahead of the completion of the QE operation how much net "printing" there will be. The expansion of the money base that accompanies the intial phase of the QE operation does not necessarily all end up as inflation and monetizing, because in the second phase of the operation the Fed will shrink its balance sheet and the money base will contract some. The money base of any country is never stagnant anyway. What is ultimately of interest is how much debt will end up being effectively monetized through inflation. We are never going to do the kind of "printing" that a country like Zimbabwe might do, where new money is created and used directly to pay debt. That's illegal in the U.S.

Secondly only a fool would guarantee the course the Fed has embarked on will work out well. I am only insisting that it is the right path to follow now, compared to the alternative path some of you want the Fed to follow. Those that want the Government to sharply curtail spending right now are wrong. I am convinced that the Keynesian approach that the Fed, Treasury, and administration have embarked on is the correct approach to bring the country out of recession, and I am optimistic that it will work if only those idiots who insist on following failed economic theory don't stand in the way. But will I guarantee that it will work? Of course not.

I've made it very clear that in my opinion the economic policies followed during the Reagan and Bush years were damaging to the country. (Thatcher Also did this with equally bad results.) These folks followed a misguided "supply side/ deregulation" approach to management of the economy. The success of deregulation requires equilibrium theory to hold true. Sadly for both the U.S. and Great Britain, equilibrium theory is wrong!!!

I do not know at this point how well the Fed policies will work in the end, and I certainly do not know if in the future, when it comes time to raise tax rates and interest or cut spending, the Congress will cooperate. But I do know this: equilibrium theory has been proven wrong, the supply siders have been proven wrong, and the de-regulators have been proven wrong. The Keynesians have not been proven wrong, not yet anyway.
 
Quote from budcampbell:

Buying long-term bonds today is very foolish. More likely he is unloading them, and pulling the old"Goldman Sach's" routine.
So you're saying he, Jeffrey Gundlach, was lying about buying "more long-term Treasuries in the last month" than in the last four years?
 
Quote from Ricter:

So you're saying he, Jeffrey Gundlach, was lying about buying "more long-term Treasuries in the last month" than in the last four years?


Hard to say for certain. Figuring out the liars from the straight-shooters is the trick, although sometimes it is obvious. Anyway, the Fed has distorted both the bond and equity markets, and there will be hell to pay, we just don't know when, imo.
 
Quote from piezoe:

Tsing Tao. I have to respectfully disagree. We do not know the amount of printing at this point. It is incorrect to assume ahead of the completion of the QE operation how much net "printing" there will be. The expansion of the money base that accompanies the intial phase of the QE operation does not necessarily all end up as inflation and monetizing, because in the second phase of the operation the Fed will shrink its balance sheet and the money base will contract some. The money base of any country is never stagnant anyway. What is ultimately of interest is how much debt will end up being effectively monetized through inflation. We are never going to do the kind of "printing" that a country like Zimbabwe might do, where new money is created and used directly to pay debt. That's illegal in the U.S.

Secondly only a fool would guarantee the course the Fed has embarked on will work out well. I am only insisting that it is the right path to follow now, compared to the alternative path some of you want the Fed to follow. Those that want the Government to sharply curtail spending right now are wrong. I am convinced that the Keynesian approach that the Fed, Treasury, and administration have embarked on is the correct approach to bring the country out of recession, and I am optimistic that it will work if only those idiots who insist on following failed economic theory don't stand in the way. But will I guarantee that it will work? Of course not.

I've made it very clear that in my opinion the economic policies followed during the Reagan and Bush years were damaging to the country. (Thatcher Also did this with equally bad results.) These folks followed a misguided "supply side/ deregulation" approach to management of the economy. The success of deregulation requires equilibrium theory to hold true. Sadly for both the U.S. and Great Britain, equilibrium theory is wrong!!!

I do not know at this point how well the Fed policies will work in the end, and I certainly do not know if in the future, when it comes time to raise tax rates and interest or cut spending, the Congress will cooperate. But I do know this: equilibrium theory has been proven wrong, the supply siders have been proven wrong, and the de-regulators have been proven wrong. The Keynesians have not been proven wrong, not yet anyway.

"I am only insisting that it is the right path to follow now, compared to the alternative path some of you want the Fed to follow." That sounds like relative safety to me.

Without looking up the strict definition of "equilibrium", couldn't I say that the equilibrium theorists are correct, but that no one is willing to endure the volatility of "letting Nature run its course"?
 
Back
Top