Sorry!! The article you are trying to read is not available now.
Thank you very much;
you're only a step away from
downloading your reports.

Is the Fed's $85 Billion Per Month Enough?

By

Deflationary pressure is now quite high, and stock fragility means that the Fed's QE may not be enough to force reflation.

PrintPRINT
A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer.
-- Bruce Lee

Readers of my Buzz & Banter writings (subscription required) and Lead-Lag Reports know that I have been quite negative on equities since the end of January given the behavior of intermarket trends since then. Put simply, a deflation pulse has been beating beneath the surface, ignored by pundits who prefer to look at the Dow (INDEXDJX:.DJI) rather than inside it. The entire thesis has been that the Fed's $85 billion per month would force reflation, accelerate economic growth, and finally get us beyond the muddle through. In the face of continuous money printing, then, stocks are the only place to go.

However, nothing is confirming this thesis whatsoever. Ask yourself: Should bond yields be falling if the stock market is right? Should the dollar be firm? Should dividend sectors be leading? Should cyclical sectors be lagging? Should the yield curve be flattening? Nouveaux Bulls are pointing at the Dow, but Gray-Haired Bears are pointing toward everything else. It is as if everything is saying $85 billion/month is not enough. Put simply, those areas which, factor wise, are most sensitive to inflation are failing to outperform. While this may seem counterintuitive, it is not opinion. It is how price is factually acting.

There are two primary sources of inflationary pressure: demand pull and cost push. Demand pull inflation occurs through a pickup in jobs growth, higher consumer spending, and confidence in the economic outlook. Recent economic data indicates none of this is happening. So on that front, demand pull inflationary pressures are not there.

Cost push inflationary pressure comes from the commodity side. The idea there is that higher input prices cause higher final goods prices which force supply prices higher. That isn't there either. Take a look below at the price ratio of DB Commodities Tacking Index ETF (NYSEARCA:DBC) relative to the S&P 500 (NYSEARCA:SPY). As a reminder, a rising price ratio means the numerator/DBC is outperforming (up more/down less) the denominator/SPY. A falling ratio means the opposite.

Note that this is not just a gold (NYSEARCA:GLD) story. Commodities have gotten no love since QE-Infinity began. The relative collapse, one might argue, is bullish for stocks. This, however, assumes that the decline isn't due to deflation expectations rising. Our ATAC models used for managing our mutual fund and separate accounts continue to remain defensive, profiting from the deflation trade.

This is a highly fragile and deceptive environment. I championed the reflation theme last year when few else did and was highly bullish in 2012, the best year for stocks since 2009. The exact same methodology which led me to that conclusion is sending significant warning signs now. While the honey badger stock market may ultimately not correct, I prefer to wait for conditions to improve and actual reflation confirmation. What about you?


Twitter: @pensionpartners
No positions in stocks mentioned.

This writing is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an offer to sell, a solicitation to buy, or a recommendation regarding any securities transaction, or as an offer to provide advisory or other services by Pension Partners, LLC in any jurisdiction in which such offer, solicitation, purchase or sale would be unlawful under the securities laws of such jurisdiction. The information contained in this writing should not be construed as financial or investment advice on any subject matter. Pension Partners, LLC expressly disclaims all liability in respect to actions taken based on any or all of the information on this writing.

The information on this website solely reflects the analysis of or opinion about the performance of securities and financial markets by the writers whose articles appear on the site. The views expressed by the writers are not necessarily the views of Minyanville Media, Inc. or members of its management. Nothing contained on the website is intended to constitute a recommendation or advice addressed to an individual investor or category of investors to purchase, sell or hold any security, or to take any action with respect to the prospective movement of the securities markets or to solicit the purchase or sale of any security. Any investment decisions must be made by the reader either individually or in consultation with his or her investment professional. Minyanville writers and staff may trade or hold positions in securities that are discussed in articles appearing on the website. Writers of articles are required to disclose whether they have a position in any stock or fund discussed in an article, but are not permitted to disclose the size or direction of the position. Nothing on this website is intended to solicit business of any kind for a writer's business or fund. Minyanville management and staff as well as contributing writers will not respond to emails or other communications requesting investment advice.

Copyright 2011 Minyanville Media, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

PrintPRINT

Busy? Subscribe to our free newsletter!

Submit
 

WHAT'S POPULAR IN THE VILLE