Stan Druckenmiller: "I Basically Have a Large Bet on Economic Growth"

Duquesne Family Office founder Stan Druckenmiller appeared on CNBC today to give his thoughts on the markets and election. 

He noted that after the election a lot of regulation will be taken out of the system which should help get things going.  Other changes like tax reform, especially reducing the corporate tax rate encouraged him as he was "quite optimistic" on the economy.

Druckenmiller said that, "I have a large bet on economic growth ... I'm short bonds globally ... I'm short bunds, I'm short Italian bonds, I'm short US bonds.  I like sectors of the equity market that respond to growth, value, and materials, not things like staples and traditional growth stocks." 

He also added he likes the US dollar, with an emphasis against the euro.  And he has dumped his gold long (he actually sold during the night of the election).  He noted the reasons he previously owned it for 'might be ending.'

Druckenmiller also added, "If it wasn't for the messy conflict of rates rising with the stronger economic growth through fiscal policy, I would think there's so much low hanging fruit in terms of deregulation and tax reform, we could get a jolt of 4 percent growth for about 18 months."

That said, he's also cautious that interest rates rising could push that down to high 2, low 3 percent growth.  "I think the market is going to force this.  The market is going to push them to raise interest rates if my hopeful scenario turns out to be right."

He added that monetary policy essentially helped get Donald Trump elected as it caused a 'massive reallocation' of wealth from the middle class to the rich.

"Dr. Copper: have you seem him lately?  It's been rising.  Interest rates have been at stupid levels, they've been held down... they're like beach balls under water."

Embedded below are some of the videos from Druckenmiller's interview on CNBC

Video 1




Video 2

Bruce Richards' Wall Street Week Interview on Credit, Greece & More

Anthony Scaramucci and Gary Kaminsky's Wall Street Week has continued its streak of impressive guests and this week interviewed Bruce Richards of Marathon Asset Management.

Marathon focuses on global credit and manages around $12.5 billion. He thinks US equity markets are looking at 3-5% returns going forward given the vast run up over the past few years.  Overall, he says "it's a difficult time to invest."

However, he sees some opportunities in Europe as quantitative easing is just getting started over there and economies are growing and banks are well healed.

He also sees some good plays in emerging markets in debt in Brazil, Argentina, Mexico and others.  Additionally, he's involved in Puerto Rico via playing the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA).

Richards also talked about position sizing, noting that 5% is their max, as they favor diversification and typically build 1-2% position sizes.

Embedded below is the Wall Street Week video with Bruce Richards:




And in this web extra video clip, they sit down with Bruce Richards again to give an updated look at Greece given all the activity there:



For more great interviews, head to Carl Icahn on Wall Street Week as well as Jim Chanos on Wall Street Week.

David Tepper: Beginning of the End of the Bond Market Bubble

Bloomberg today featured an interesting comment from Appaloosa Management's David Tepper.  The hedge fund manager basically said that the ECB decision means the "beginning of the end" of the bond market bubble.

And while he didn't specifically reveal his positioning, host Stephanie Ruhle says that Tepper expressed that's he's pretty adamant about his statement and so it's pretty easy to guess his positioning based upon that (short bonds).

Embedded below is the video of Tepper's full quote via Bloomberg:

Bill Gross' Latest Investment Outlook: Rational Temperance

It's been a while since we've checked in on what the bond king Bill Gross is up to over at PIMCO, so below is his latest investment outlook entitled 'Rational Temperance'.

In it, he touches on how investors are stretching for yield and that "corporate credit and high yield bonds are somewhat exuberantly and irrationally priced.  Spreads are tight, corporate profit margins are at record paeks with room to fall, and the economy is still fragile.  Still that doesn't mean you should vacate your portfolio of them.  It just implies that recent double-digit returns are unlikely to be replicated."

Oaktree Capital's Howard Marks also recently commented on high yield bonds in his latest memo.

Gross then goes on to say that, "the conclusion would be that where high yield prices go, stock markets follow, or vice versa.  Narrow yield spreads in high yield credit markets appear to be accompanied by 'narrow' equity risk premiums in the market for stocks, which is another way of saying that the course of future equity returns may not resemble its recent exuberant past."

Basically, the whole theme of Gross' piece "Rational Temperance" is him saying that investors should lower their return expectations.

Embedded below is Bill Gross' latest PIMCO investment outlook:




You can download a .pdf copy here.

Jeff Gundlach: Investors Should Hold Cash

DoubleLine Capital's CEO Jeff Gundlach recently appeared on Bloomberg to talk about how to invest in this environment and claimed that "investors should be holding cash."  Below are some excerpts from his interview as well as the video.

He noted that risk assets have diminishing returns and that he didn't see much value in the US stock market and said to act cautiously in the US bond market.


On how to trade this environment:

"I think that investors should be looking for lower prices on most risk assets in these developed countries with the exception of Japan... investors should be looking for the potential inflationary consequences of all this money printing exercise and the place to look for that is Japan."


On whether investors should get more disciplined and look at fundamentals:

"The fundamentals are always important but it does get trumped by policy decisions when policy decisions are so radical as has been the case in recent years…There seems to be diminishing returns on the various rounds of quantitative easing. It's almost like a half-life of a radioactive particle. The first quantitative easing brought 50%, the second brought a little more than half of that, the third half again, the fourth less than half again. It just seems that the idea of a Pavlovian reaction when you see quantitative easing that you should go out and buy risk assets--it has worked four times, but it doesn't seem like you are getting much bang for your buck any more…I would point out that gold, for example, hasn't done much of anything in the last couple of rounds of quantitative easing. It seems that the fundamentals are starting to exert themselves more powerfully against the backdrop of endless quantitative easing, so it's possible that the market support is close to finding its limit. This is why I think that investors should be holding cash and buying risk assets at lower prices once the fundamentals assert themselves."


On where to put money now:

"You've got to survive with virtually no return if that's the way you look at things. I actually recommend that for many investors. I think the small amount of money that you might make by trying to push it here as we get closer and closer to the end game where this thing might tail out--the amount of money you might make will be dwarfed by the amount of money you might lose when things reprice lower. Put it another way, if you just stay in cash and earn a small return or stay in a low risk investment and earn a middling single digit return--the money you might be able to make as we move into late 2013 or early 2014 with repricing, the amount of money you might make if you are able to deploy the money at that point will make all the difference. People always want investments to go up like a line…That's just not reality. You make 80% of your money in 20% of the time in investing and you have to be patient…I see some values in some of these foreign markets. I don't see a lot of value in the U.S. stock market and I think you have to play it safe in the U.S. bond market with funds that are really dedicated to having low volatility." 


Embedded below is the video of Gundlach's interview with Bloomberg TV:

Ten Reasons To Buy Bonds

Earlier this morning we presented the first quarter investor letter from Broyhill Asset Management's Affinity hedge fund where we highlighted their contrarian bet on long-term treasuries. In a time when seemingly everyone is betting on inflation, Broyhill has taken a converse stance and thinks caution is warranted. They anticipate an acceleration away from risk assets and into fixed income. They recently posted up the rationale behind this position on their blog View from the Blue Ridge and we wanted to highlight the key takeaways from their deflationary wager. Thus, we continue our impromptu inflation versus deflation debate as we earlier cataloged how hedge fund manager Kyle Bass sees inflation & currency devaluation in store around the globe.

Believe it or not, Broyhill had previously been short treasuries and covered in March. They've since gone long and see the 10 year treasury as an effective hedge against deflation. They have been buying here and will continue to do so on any weakness. Investors wishing to jump on this seemingly contrarian bet can buy exchange traded fund IEF for 10 year treasuries, or TLT for 30 year treasuries if you wanted a longer duration. This investment of course is in stark contrast to the myriad of other hedge funds that have been shorting long-term treasuries. Hedge fund Broyhill's rationale for owning bonds is refreshingly presented with various research found via the financial blogosphere. You can of course keep up with Broyhill's latest thoughts on their blog, View from the Blue Ridge.

Before getting into the ten reasons, we'll first start with their chart of 10 year treasury yields that has been in a decisive downtrend for the better part of two decades. Various crisis events over the past twenty years have caused momentary spikes in treasury yields, only to later resume the trend of decreasing yields.

(click to enlarge)

And now, without further ado, here are Ten Reasons to Buy Bonds:

1. "Core inflation historically falls after the end of a recession. In the 11 recessions from 1950 through July 2009, the end of recession was followed by declining inflation, with CPI bottoming on average, about 29 months after the recession ended. Longer term inflation concerns are warranted, but there are more immediate threats in front of us."


2. "With core inflation declining and nominal economic growth rates weak in the aftermath of financial crisis, bond yields should trend lower in coming quarters. Investors looking to purchase long-term inflation hedges, should see more attractive entry points in the period ahead. Be patient."


3. "The average long term Treasury rate since 1870 is 4.3% and the average annual CPI is 2.1%. If inflation trends toward zero (before moving much higher later in the decade), then long term bond yields could naturally fall toward 2%."


4. "A near term deflationary environment bodes very well for long term bonds. Long term Treasury rates dropped from 3.6% in 1929 to 1.9% in 1941. Interest rates in Japan fell from 5.7% in 1989 to 1.1% in 2008 while the Nikkei dropped 77.2% over the entire period."


5. "The most common argument from Bond Bears is higher levels of debt must lead to higher yields. The reality is that the economic cycle still dominates intermediate swings in bond prices – a growing list of leading indicators are pointing to slowing economic growth ahead."


6. "The velocity of money is falling at the same time money growth has come to an abrupt stop. Monetary policy is effectively pushing on a string."


7. "Nearly 80% of money managers in Barron’s Big Money Poll say they are bearish on Treasuries. When everyone agrees that rates are headed higher, something else is bound to happen." As we here at Market Folly had posted up earlier, hedge funds had a record short position in 10 year treasuries, as illustrated below by Societe Generale:

(click to enlarge)

8. "Similarly, retail investors are once again, near their highest allocation to equities at the market’s highs. I believe some call this Predictably Irrational. The last time bullish sentiment was this high was back in December 2007 when the S&P 500 was trading at 1500!" Bespoke Investment Group had in the past put out a graphic showcasing extreme levels of bullish sentiment found below:

(click to enlarge)

Additionally, Pragmatic Capitalist charted out a survey of asset allocations that highlighted how everyone and their dog had moved out of cash and into stocks:

(click to enlarge)

9. "Greek default and contagion risks across the Eurozone periphery. Cascading disruptions throughout the European banking system. This risk will not go away anytime soon. News will get worse before it gets better. Think back to how subprime was “contained” or how the Bear Stearns rescue marked the “panic lows” for the markets. Greece is a pebble in the Euro Pond. The ripples it causes will ultimately be very messy."


10. "Read number nine again."


Specifically regarding the recent implications of Greek default, we want to highlight that just this morning we posted how Kyle Bass' hedge fund Hayman Advisors is very concerned about currency devaluation and inflation around the globe. There's an interesting dynamic here because while Broyhill thinks the events in Greece will cause investors to 'flock to safety' in bonds, Hayman Advisors believes these sovereign defaults will only lead to inflation. The difference between these two stances is that Broyhill's position is based on a near-term reactionary move by investors while Hayman's thesis is centered on a theoretical long-term consequence.

An intriguing and well thought out set of reasons for a wager on bonds from Chris Pavese at Broyhill. They've definitely made a contrarian wager here and until yields on the 10 year treasury break out of that multi-decade downtrend, you can't really argue with their position in the near-term. Only time will tell whether we ultimately have inflation or deflation. But that certainly hasn't stopped hedge funds and investors from placing bets in the mean time.

Overall though, we've seen the vast majority of hedgies anticipating inflation. Howard Marks of Oaktree Capital laid out ways to play inflation. East Coast Asset Management came to the same conclusion of an inflationary stance in their deflation-reflation continuum research. And again as we noted this morning, Kyle Bass is now anticipating currency devaluation around the globe.

However, we do make note of a few select firms that are notably bullish on bonds and reside in the deflationista camp, including Hugh Hendry of the Eclectica Fund. Indeed, this is what makes markets great: a never-ending difference of opinion. Perhaps a compromise of views would be deflation in the short-term followed by longer-term inflation. We'll have to wait and see. For a primer on how to position portfolios for either outcome, head to our previous post on investment scenarios for inflation versus deflation.

PIMCO's Bill Gross Favors Quality Credit Spread Over Duration Extension (April 2010 Commentary)

Today we wanted to highlight the latest investment outlook from PIMCO's bond vigilante himself, Bill Gross. In his past March commentary, Gross focused on corporate versus sovereign bonds. His April commentary is entitled 'Rocking-Horse Winner' and it centers on American capitalism and how it is driven by printing, lending and borrowing money in order to make more money. Gross immediately notes that we face an environment with lower growth due to headwinds in deleveraging, deglobalization, and reregulation. Gross of course recently landed on Forbes' billionaire list, joining many prestigious investment managers.

The crux of Gross' message this time around comes later in his insight where he writes,

"The reason is complicated, but at its core very simple. As a November IMF staff position note aptly pointed out, high fiscal deficits and higher outstanding debt lead to higher real interest rates and ultimately higher inflation, both trends which are bond market unfriendly. In the U.S. in addition to the 10% of GDP deficits and a growing stock of outstanding debt, an investor must be concerned with future unfunded entitlement commitments which portfolio managers almost always neglect, viewing them as so far off in the future that they don’t matter. Yet should it concern an investor in 30-year Treasuries that the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the present value of unfunded future social insurance expenditures (Social Security and Medicare primarily) was $46 trillion as of 2009, a sum four times its current outstanding debt? Of course it should, and that may be a primary reason why 30-year bonds yield 4.6% whereas 2-year debt with the same guarantee yields less than 1%. The trend promises to get worse, not better."

Elaborating further on his thoughts, it's clear that Gross favors quality credit spread over duration. He argues that investment strategies should start to position themselves on the front-end of various yield curves that are subject to successful reflation. He specifically highlights the US and Brazil here. He also recommends positioning on the long end of curves that can survive debt deflation (namely Germany and most of the solid European nations).

Lastly, Bill Gross notes that, "Spreads in appropriate sovereign and corporate credits are a better bet as long as global contagion is contained. If not, a rush to the safety of Treasury Bills lies ahead." You can directly download Bill Gross' entire April 2010 investment outlook via .pdf here.

Interesting thoughts as always from PIMCO's bond vigilante and we'll continue to check in with him each month. You can also check out his March commentary as well as our compilation of investment insight from various gurus.

PIMCO's Bill Gross On Corporate Versus Sovereign Bonds: March Commentary

Bill Gross is out with his latest commentary from PIMCO. In his March 2010 investment outlook entitled 'Don't Care', Gross focuses on the lack of global aggregate demand and how we got into this whole situation. The first part of his commentary doesn't really focus on markets, but rather on social situations. It is still comical (and shockingly somewhat true) and eventually ties into his market discussion, providing a decent analogy. Previously, we've also posted Gross' previous outlook as well as his thoughts on why the market is up so much from the lows.

Given Gross' natural focus on all things fixed income, he comments on how sovereign bonds have been hit hard and as of late have even been surrounded with more negativity than corporate debt. With the recent wave of default concern, it's intriguing that the roles of these types of bonds have flipped. Previously, sovereign bonds were considered safer than corporates. Nowadays, investors are re-considering and some corporates now look safer than some sovereigns. In terms of recommendations, he likes strong sovereign bonds including Germany and Canada.

Gross writes,

"It is interesting to observe that over the past few months when investors have begun to question the ability of governments to exit the debt crisis by “creating more debt,” that increases in bond market yields have been confined almost exclusively to Treasury/Gilt-type securities, and long maturities at that. There has even been a developing debate in the press (and here at PIMCO) as to whether a highly-rated corporation could ever consistently trade at lower yields compared to its home country’s debt. I suspect not, but the narrowing in spreads since late November solicits an interesting proposition: Government bailouts and guarantees such as those evidenced and envisioned in Dubai and Greece, as well as those for the last 18 months with banks and large industrial corporations across the globe, suggest a more homogeneous “unicredit” type of bond market. If core sovereigns such as the U.S., Germany, U.K., and Japan “absorb” more and more credit risk, then the credit spreads and yields of these sovereigns should look more and more like the markets that they guarantee. The Kings, in other words, in the process of increasingly shedding their clothes, begin to look more and more like their subjects. Kings and serfs begin to share the same castle.

This metaphor doesn’t really answer the critical question of whether a debt crisis can be cured by issuing more debt. The answer remains: It depends – on initial debt levels and whether or not private economies can be reinvigorated. But it does suggest the likely direction of sovereign yields IF global policymakers are successful with their rescue efforts: Sovereign yields will narrow in spreads compared to other high-quality alternatives. In other words, sovereign yields will become more credit like. When sovereign issues become more credit-like, as evidenced in Greece, Spain, Portugal, and a host of others, they move closer in yield to the corporate and Agency debt that supposedly rank lower in the hierarchy. That process of course can be accomplished in two ways: high-quality non-sovereigns move down to lower levels or governments move up. The answer to which one depends significantly on future inflation, the aftermath of quantitative easing programs, and the vigor of the private economy going forward. But the contamination of sovereign credit space with past and future bailouts is a leveler, a homogenizer, a negative for those sovereigns that fail to exert necessary discipline. Only if global economies stumble and revisit the recessionary depths of a year ago should the process reverse direction and place Treasuries, Gilts, et al. back in the driver’s seat."


To read the rest of Bill Gross' commentary, directly download it via .pdf here.

For more investment insight from market gurus, check out Warren Buffett's annual letter as well as Eddie Lampert's annual letter. Additionally, make sure to check out our past coverage of a ton of very insightful commentary from hedge funds.

Jeremy Siegel: 2010 Good For Stocks, Bad For Bonds

Wharton finance professor Jeremy Siegel last month sat down for an interview in the Knowledge @ Wharton newsletter. The talk delves into his view on the markets for 2010 and he believes it will be a good year for equities and a bad year for bonds. He also believes interest rates will go up. Once investors get over their initial fear and realize that such an increase would mean the economy is recovering, Siegel thinks we could see 10% equity returns.

His pessimism on bonds is due to risk premium dissipating, interest rates rising (causing bonds to lose value) and he does not like any long-term bonds in 2010. However, he did like corporate bonds and 'risky corporates' a little bit as well. This is not the first time we've seen this overall stance as Bank of America was out saying to overweight stocks and underweight bonds.

Below you'll find Siegel's thoughts and his market outlook for 2010:



You can download the .pdf here.

Siegel also recently sat down with Bloomberg to talk about the recent pullback in the markets. Here's the video:



Siegel definitely feels stocks are the superior choice to bonds for this year. With that in mind, head to the list of top stocks held by hedge funds for a few ideas (or crowded trades if you look at it that way).
For more outlook and insight regarding the markets for this year, head to the ten investment themes for 2010.

Bill Gross' Market Outlook February 2010 (PIMCO)

Next up, we have Bill Gross' February 2010 market outlook. Today is 'wisdom Wednesday' (pardon the lame name) here at Market Folly as we have plenty of interesting reads to share with you and earlier posted Bill Gates' 2010 annual letter. Moving on, Bill Gross of course is PIMCO's bond vigilante and in the past we had covered his thoughts on why the market is up so much from the lows.

His latest commentary entitled, "The Ring of Fire" focuses on how investors should invest in 'less levered countries'. In terms of identifying such countries, Gross says to look for a growing consumer sector, low national debt levels, a savings oriented economy, and high reserves. He advises investors to find countries like Brazil and China, but ones that are less bubble-prone. Specifically, he points out to avoid the UK as their high debt coupled with possible currency devaluation presents high risk. Among countries that are already developed, Gross favors Canada and Germany. His latest piece comes after his January commentary where he examined the Federal Reserve's exit strategy.

Embedded below you'll find the February 2010 market outlook from PIMCO's bond bandit Bill Gross:




Also, you can download the .pdf here.

For more insight, check out Bill Gross' January commentary, as well as his thoughts on how he was betting on deflation.

PIMCO's Bill Gross: January Outlook

Earlier this morning, we had a guest post that highlighted Bill Gross' simple explanation as to why the market is up so much from the lows. Now, we're shifting our focus to Bill Gross' monthly outlook. In his January 2010 note entitled 'Let's Get Fisical", the PIMCO bond vigilante delves into fiscal affairs. Here are some of his thoughts:

"Explaining the current state of global fiscal affairs is often confusing – it’s much like Robert Palmer’s 1980s classic song where he laments that “She’s so fine, there’s no telling where the money went!” Where government spending has gone is not always clear, but one thing is certain: public debt is soaring and most of it has come from G7 countries intent on stimulating their respective economies. Over the past two years their sovereign debt has climbed by roughly 20% of respective GDPs, yet that is not the full story. Some of governments’ mystery money showed up in sovereign budgets funded by debt sold to investors, but more of it showed up on central bank balance sheets as a result of check writing that required no money at all. The latter was 2009’s global innovation known as “quantitative easing,” where central banks and fiscal agents bought Treasuries, Gilts, and Euroland corporate “covered” bonds approaching two trillion dollars. It was the least understood, most surreptitious government bailout of all, far exceeding the U.S. TARP in magnitude. In the process, as shown in Chart 1, the Fed and the Bank of England (BOE) alone expanded their balance sheets (bought and guaranteed bonds) up to depressionary 1930s levels of nearly 20% of GDP. Theoretically, this could go on for some time, but the check writing is ultimately inflationary and central bankers don’t like to get saddled with collateral such as 30-year mortgages that reduce their maneuverability and represent potential maturity mismatches if interest rates go up. So if something can’t keep going, it stops – to paraphrase Herbert Stein – and 2010 will likely witness an attempted exit by the Fed at the end of March, and perhaps even the BOE later in the year.

Here’s the problem that the U.S. Fed’s “exit” poses in simple English: Our fiscal 2009 deficit totaled nearly 12% of GDP and required over $1.5 trillion of new debt to finance it. The Chinese bought a little ($100 billion) of that, other sovereign wealth funds bought some more, but as shown in Chart 2, foreign investors as a group bought only 20% of the total – perhaps $300 billion or so. The balance over the past 12 months was substantially purchased by the Federal Reserve. Of course they purchased more 30-year Agency mortgages than Treasuries, but PIMCO and others sold them those mortgages and bought – you guessed it – Treasuries with the proceeds. The conclusion of this fairytale is that the government got to run up a 1.5 trillion dollar deficit, didn’t have to sell much of it to private investors, and lived happily ever – ever – well, not ever after, but certainly in 2009. Now, however, the Fed tells us that they’re “fed up,” or that they think the economy is strong enough for them to gracefully “exit,” or that they’re confident that private investors are capable of absorbing the balance. Not likely. Various studies by the IMF, the Fed itself, and one in particular by Thomas Laubach, a former Fed economist, suggest that increases in budget deficits ultimately have interest rate consequences and that those countries with the highest current and projected deficits as a percentage of GDP will suffer the highest increases – perhaps as much as 25 basis points per 1% increase in projected deficits five years forward. If that calculation is anywhere close to reality, investors can guesstimate the potential consequences by using impartial IMF projections for major G7 country deficits as shown in Chart 3.

Using 2007 as a starting point and 2014 as a near-term destination, the IMF numbers show that the U.S., Japan, and U.K. will experience “structural” deficit increases of 4-5% of GDP over that period of time, whereas Germany will move in the other direction. Germany, in fact, has just passed a constitutional amendment mandating budget balance by 2016. If these trends persist, the simple conclusion is that interest rates will rise on a relative basis in the U.S., U.K., and Japan compared to Germany over the next several years and that the increase could approximate 100 basis points or more. Some of those increases may already have started to show up – the last few months alone have witnessed 50 basis points of differential between German Bunds and U.S. Treasuries/U.K. Gilts, but there is likely more to come.

The fact is that investors, much like national citizens, need to be vigilant and there has been a decided lack of vigilance in recent years from both camps in the U.S. While we may not have much of a vote between political parties, in the investment world we do have a choice of airlines and some of those national planes may have elevated their bond and other asset markets on the wings of central bank check writing over the past 12 months. Downdrafts and discipline lie ahead for governments and investor portfolios alike. While my own Pollyannish advocacy of “check-free” elections may be quixotic, the shifting of private investment dollars to more fiscally responsible government bond markets may make for a very real outcome in 2010 and beyond. Additionally, if exit strategies proceed as planned, all U.S. and U.K. asset markets may suffer from the absence of the near $2 trillion of government checks written in 2009. It seems no coincidence that stocks, high yield bonds, and other risk assets have thrived since early March, just as this “juice” was being squeezed into financial markets. If so, then most “carry” trades in credit, duration, and currency space may be at risk in the first half of 2010 as the markets readjust to the absence of their “sugar daddy.” There’s no tellin’ where the money went? Not exactly, but it’s left a suspicious trail. Market returns may not be “so fine” in 2010.

William Gross
Managing Director"

You can download Bill Gross' January outlook via .pdf here. So, it seems the focus is now on exit strategies as the Fed *will* have to exit at some point and Gross has shifted to a more cautious approach. This stems from his earlier thoughts on why the market is up so much from the lows. The government has been feeding the markets, and eventually the hand that feeds will disappear.

As we posted on Twitter a while back, "PIMCO's Total Return fund essentially IS the bond market now, $186 billion AUM in Bill Gross' fund now; insane." So, at the very least, it's worth noting his thoughts and what he's up to. We pointed out a while back that Gross was betting on deflation by buying long-term treasuries. Also, we had posted Gross' December outlook as well for those who missed it. Interesting stuff and we'll continue to cover the bond vigilante's thoughts each month.

Why The Stock Market Is Up Over 70% From Its March 2009 Low

The following is a guest post from FirstAdopter.com, a site covering investing and consumer technology news:

-----

There’s a lot of conspiracy theories out there about how the government is manipulating the stock market upwards (I’m looking at you Zero Hedge) by buying stock futures, etc. However a light bulb went off in my head after I read this Time magazine interview with Pimco’s Bill Gross on how simple the explanation is.

But secondly, there’s a ripple affect. Just speaking about Pimco’s general portfolio strategy, we’ve sold our agency mortgage securities, Fannie and Freddie, in the billions to the willing check of the Fed. They’re buying a trillion dollars of them, or have over the past 9-12 months, and so we sold them a lot of ours. Now, what did we do with the money? We bought Treasuries, we bought corporate bonds, and so the bond markets in general have benefited, as have stocks because this available money effectively flows through the capital markets. So it’s a trillion-and-a-half dollar check that won’t be there as the Fed withdraws from the market. How that affects the markets, I just don’t know. I’m not eagerly anticipating the answer, but I think it holds some surprises in 2010, not just in mortgage securities but stocks as well.

So basically Bill Gross, the largest fund manager in the world, explains it to us. The Fed has been buying $1.5 trillion worth of securities from financial firms at unnatural supply/demand and some would say inflated prices, who then use this big pile of money they get from selling to the Fed to buy other stuff like corporate bonds and stocks. This is $1.5 trillion that did not exist before. It is printed money that is flowing through the financial capital markets lifting all boats. A simple explanation for the markets’ rise.

To prove this let’s look at the timing of Fed mortgage backed security buy program announcements. In 2008 the SP500 bottomed on November 21st, 2008. I remember things being very scary then. The Fed then announced their first $500 billion mortgage backed security (MBS) buy program on November 25th, 2008 (Link). The market then rallied 25%+ off the low and topped on January 6th, 2009.

The market then tanked again and bottomed on March 6th, 2009. I remember things being even scarier then. The Fed decided to add $750 billion to the MBS buy program to the original $500 billion and $300 billion of long-term Treasuries for a total over $1.5 trillion of buying power on March 18th, 2009 (Link). In time this $1.5 trillion of printed money worked its way through the system, hence the amazing 70%+ rally.

The lesson is the next time the Fed announces another $500 billion+ capital markets buy program buy the market hand-over-fist, although I doubt this will happen anytime soon given the political climate. And the $1.5 trillion of securities that the Fed bought? Here’s what Bill Gross says about that.

They won’t sell — it’s a near impossibility to unload what they’ve purchased over the past 12 months.

-----


The above was a guest post from FirstAdopter.com.

PIMCO's Bill Gross: Investment Outlook December 2009

Entitled 'Anything but 0.01%,' here's the latest market commentary from bond vigilante Bill Gross of PIMCO. His December 2009 missive focuses on where to put your money in an environment where re-risking seems to be back in vogue as cash on the sidelines attempts to find positive returns to make up for potential losses a year ago. He seems to draw attention to the fact that the risk of bubbles is also on the rise.

As we posted on Twitter a while back, "PIMCO's Total Return fund essentially IS the bond market now, $186 billion AUM in Bill Gross' fund now; insane." So, at the very least, it's worth noting his thoughts and what he's up to. And we pointed out somewhat recently that Gross is betting on deflation by buying long-term treasuries. We've also covered some of his past commentary as well for those who might have missed it.

Below is PIMCO's market commentary from Bill Gross for the month of December 2009:

"

I'm not so much concerned
about the return on my money
as the return of my money.
- Will Rogers, 1933

Toothpicked, straw-hatted Will Rogers was a journalists’ dream, combining common sense with a sense of humor that could trump any newsman of his day, an era that was characterized more by its hopeless and helpless ennui, than its promise for a better tomorrow. During the Great Depression, just breaking even by stuffing your money in a mattress was considered to be a triumph of conservative investment. Likewise, during the past 18 months there have been similar “Will Rogers” moments. Perhaps remarkably, during the week surrounding the Lehman crisis in September of 2008, yours truly frantically called my wife Sue to empty our two local bank accounts into apparently safer Treasury bills. I was not the only PIMCO professional to do so. Preserving principal as opposed to making it grow was the priority of the day – digging a foxhole instead of charging enemy lines seemed paramount.

My how things have changed! With the global financial system apparently stabilized, returns “on” your money are back in vogue, and conservative investors who perhaps appropriately donned a Will Rogers mask nary a fortmonth ago are suddenly waking up to the opportunity cost of 0% cash versus appreciated assets at renewed double-digit annual rates. That 0% yield is not a joke. Almost all money market accounts – totaling over $4 trillion dollars, shown in Chart 1 – yield close to nothing, so close to nothing that I mistakenly did a double take when reviewing my monthly portfolio statement. “Yield on cash,” read the buried line on page 15 of the report, “.01%.”

Well now, I say to myself, this is very interesting from a number of different angles. If I was hoping to double my money, it would take approximately 6,932 years to get there at that rate! Somehow, that wouldn’t satisfy even Will Rogers, who might be choking on his toothpick or at least eating his straw hat in amazement. Secondly, being a savvy professional investor and all, I knew that money market funds actually earned 20 basis points or so on my money, but in this case were allocating a paltry one basis point to me. The words of the Beatles’ “Taxman” immediately popped into mind: “That’s one for you, nineteen for me – TAXMAN!” Ah yes, but in this case it was the Fed and Wall Street that were passing the collection plate. Whether it was really “God’s work,” as Goldman’s Lloyd Blankfein asserted, I wasn’t quite sure. If there was a “temple” in the vicinity I was thinking that God should be driving the moneychangers out as opposed to inviting them in for a pep talk.

Ah, but this is not a vindictive diatribe, although to me, money changers resemble Mammon more than archangels, and they all make too much money, including PIMCO. My point is to recognize, and to hope that you recognize, that an effective zero percent interest rate, as a price for hiding in a foxhole, is prohibitive. Like the American doughboys near France’s future Maginot line in WWI – slumping day after day in a muddy, rat-infested pit – when the battalion commander finally blew his whistle to charge the enemy lines, it probably was accompanied by some sense of relief; anything, anything but this! Anything but .01%!

Recently, approximately $20 billion a week has been exiting those payless, seemingly godless funds in search of a higher-yielding Nirvana. Yet, as Will Rogers knew, and Lehman Brothers demonstrated to another generation, the pain of the foxhole can immediately transition to the dodging of real bullets on the investment battlefield. Moving out on the risk asset spectrum has worked wonders since March of this year, but it comes with the risk of principal loss – failing to receive the return of your money. When viewed from 30,000 feet, there is even a systemic risk that new asset bubbles are in the formative stages – perhaps because of the .01%. Gold at $1,130 an ounce, global equity markets up 60-70% from their 2009 lows, a cascading dollar now 15% lower against a basket of global currencies just 12 months ago, oil at 80 bucks, mortgage rates at 4% thanks to a $1 trillion dollar credit card from the Fed; the list goes on. The legitimate question of the day is, “Is a 0% funds rate creating the next financial bubble, and if so, will the Fed and other central banks raise rates proactively – even in the face of double-digit unemployment?” As Chicago Fed President Charles Evans said in a recent speech, “This notion is often described as an imperative to ‘lean against a bubble,’ meaning that a central bank should act to lower asset prices that by historical standards seem unusually high.”

Yet even if the Fed and others are becoming sensitized to the dangers of up as opposed to exclusively down asset prices, it would seem that now is not the time to be affirming their bipolarity. Asset price rebounds (aside from the historic highs in gold) have followed even more dramatic slumps. A 60% rise in the stock market does not compensate for a 60% decline. Strangely enough, investors are still out 36% of their money once this down elevator/up elevator example plays out. And the simple analysis is that the private sector has still not taken the baton from government policymakers: There has been no public/private sector handoff. Bank lending is still contracting in the U.S. and weak in most other G-10 countries. Unemployment is still rising and approaching historic (ex-Depression) cyclical peaks.

Raise interest rates with 15 million jobless and 25 million part-time working Americans? All because gold is above $1,100? You must be joking or smoking – something. We will need another 12 months of 4-5% nominal GDP growth before Bernanke and company dare lift their heads out of the 0% foxhole – mini-bubbles or not. Instead, the heavy lifting or the charging of enemy lines in the case of this metaphor will likely be done by other central banks – already in Australia and Norway. In addition, and importantly, China may abandon its dollar peg within six months’ time and with it, its own easy monetary policy that has fostered more significant mini-bubbles of lending and asset appreciation on the Chinese mainland. With renewed upward appreciation of the yuan may come potentially volatile global asset price reactions to the downside – higher Treasury yields, and lower stock prices – which the Fed must surely be leery of before making any upward move, of its own, and before moving on, let me state the obvious, but often forgotten bold-face fact: The Fed is trying to reflate the U.S. economy. The process of reflation involves lowering short-term rates to such a painful level that investors are forced or enticed to term out their short-term cash into higher-risk bonds or stocks. Once your cash has recapitalized and revitalized corporate America and homeowners, well, then the Fed will start to be concerned about inflation – not until. To date that transition is incomplete, mainly because mortgage refinancing and the purchase of new homes is being thwarted by significant changes in down payment requirements. The Treasury as well, has a significant average life extension of its own debt to foist on investors before the Fed can raise short-term Fed Funds.

OK, so where does that leave you, the individual investor, the small saver who is paying the price of the .01%? Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Do you buy the investment grade bond market with its average yield of 3.75% (less than 3% after upfront fees and annual expenses at most run-of-the-mill bond funds)? Do you buy high yield bonds at 8% and assume the risk of default bullets whizzing at you? Or 2% yielding stocks that have already appreciated 65% from the recent bottom, which according to some estimates are now well above their long-term PE average on a cyclically adjusted basis? Two suggestions. First, as emphasized in prior Investment Outlooks, the New Normal is likely to be a significantly lower-returning world. Diminished growth, deleveraging, and increased government involvement will temper profits and their eventual distribution to investors in the form of dividends and interest. As banks, auto companies and other corporate models become more regulated and therefore more like utilities and less like Boardwalk and Park Place, they will return less.

Which brings up the second point. If companies are going to move toward a utility model, why suffer the transformational revaluation risk of equities with such a low 2% dividend return? Granted, Warren Buffet went all-in with the Burlington Northern, but in doing so he admitted it was a 100-year bet with a modest potential return. Still, Warren had to do something with his money; the .01% was eating a hole in his pocket too. Let me tell you what I’m doing. I don’t have the long-term investment objectives of Berkshire Hathaway, so I’m sort of closer to an average investor in that regard. If that’s the case, I figure, why not just buy utilities if that’s what the future American capitalistic model is likely to resemble. Pricewise, they’re only halfway between their 2007 peaks and 2008 lows – 25% off the top, 25% from the bottom. Their growth in earnings should mimic the U.S. economy as they always have, and most importantly they yield 5-6% not .01%! In a low growth environment, it seems to me that a company’s stock should yield more than its less risky debt, and many utilities provide just that opportunity. Utilities and even quasi-utility telecommunication companies now yield between 5 and 6%, whereas their 10- and 30-year bond yield less and at a higher tax rate to you the investor.

So come on you frustrated Will Rogers lookalikes. Join the wimp who pulled his money out of the bank just 14 months ago. Look at your monthly statement, zero in on that .01% yield and say to yourself, “I’m as mad as hell, and I’m just not going to take this anymore!” You can’t buy the Burlington Northern – Warren Buffett has scooped that up – and most other choices offer tempting returns, but potential bullets as well. Buy some utilities. It may not be as much fun as running a railroad, but at least you’ll know who to call if the lights go out.

William H. Gross
Managing Director"

You can also download the commentary in .pdf form here.

Bill Gross September 2009 Commentary (PIMCO)

Here's the latest commentary from PIMCO's bond boss, Bill Gross. He entitles it, "On the 'course' to a new normal." In addition to the text below, you can also download it in .pdf version here.

---

From PIMCO:

Analyzing why people play golf is like exploring the intricacies of string theory – there are so many permutations lacking scientific observation that physicists or golfers can pretty darn well say anything they like and the explanation might stick. When it comes to whacking that little white ball, the possibilities are nearly endless: People play to relax, to be with friends, to get close to Mother Nature, to enhance business connections, to compete and excel. Gosh, I don’t know, the Zen explanation for why we play golf could even resemble the old saw about climbing a mountain: People golf because it’s there. Whatever the reason, it is the most frustrating, damnable game ever conceived – alternately elevating and depressing you within the span of mere minutes. I love golf. No, I hate it.

Personally, the reason that golf draws me to its intricate web of psychological entrapment is epitomized by a simple six-inch trophy: a chartreuse ball resting on top of its ebony base, preening on a bookshelf in the family room at our desert home. Its inscription reads, “Hole in one, March 15^th, 1990, 14^th hole Desert Course, 155 yards.” Well and good, I suppose – the ace of my life – except it wasn’t. It was the ace of my wife. Above the inscription rests the name Sue – not Bill – Gross. It was a great shot but it wasn’t my shot, and I guess therein lies the explanation for why I continue to tee it up.

Actually, two years ago I did tee it up in the sweltering 105° June heat of the Palm Springs desert. No one, of course, was crazy enough to be with me including my “ace” role model wife who was sipping a cool lemonade in the comfort of our air-conditioned home. Now, there is an “unwritten” rule in golf that in order to be official, a hole-in-one has to be witnessed, and that you have to play a full 18 holes. Otherwise, I suppose, you could stand on the tee with a bucket of balls and hit hundreds or thousands until one of the little guys went in – whatever. The fact is, on this particular day, I was playing only one ball, but I was alone, and – good God! – it went in! The trophy with ebony base and spanking white Titleist ball would read: “Hole in one, June 7^th, 2007, 17^th hole, Mountain Course, 139 yards.” Or was it? Does a falling tree make a sound in the middle of a forest if no one’s there? Is a hole-in-one a hole-in-one if no one else saw it? I say emphatically – yes! That damn ball went in and later that day Sue agreed with me (although she had a funny look in her eye – especially since she didn’t know a thing about the rules of golf). No one else though. No one else agrees with me. Not a soul. I suspect they’re jealous and, in fact, I’ve seen a few of them hitting buckets of balls at dusk from that very same tee when they think nobody’s looking. I’m watching, though, which brings up a funny question. If they sunk one, would theirs be a hole-in-one because I was a witness? Like I said – a damnable game.

“Is a hole-in-one a hole-in-one” may not strike you as the most critical question of the hour, and I would readily agree. “Will we have a New Normal global economy (and investment market)?” would probably usurp it on even Tiger Woods’s top ten list. This “new” vs. “old” normal dichotomy was perhaps best contrasted by Barton Biggs, as I heard him on Bloomberg Radio in early 2009, when he said he was a “child of the bull market.” I thought that was a brilliant phrase, and Barton is a brilliant phrase-maker. He went on to say though, that his point was that for as long as he’s been in the business – and that’s a long time – it has paid to buy the dips, because markets, economies, profits, and assets always rebounded and went to higher levels. That is not only the way that he learned it, but that is the way, basically, that capitalism is supposed to work. Economies grow, profits grow, just like children do. I think that’s why he said he was a child of the bull market, not just because he had experienced it for so long, but also because economic growth and higher asset prices are almost invariably a natural evolution, much like the maturation of a person. That’s how people grow, and so I think Barton was saying that capitalism just grows that way too.

Well, the surprise is that there’s been a significant break in that growth pattern, because of delevering, deglobalization, and reregulation. All of those three in combination, to us at PIMCO, means that if you are a child of the bull market, it’s time to grow up and become a chastened adult; it’s time to recognize that things have changed and that they will continue to change for the next – yes, the next 10 years and maybe even the next 20 years. We are heading into what we call the New Normal, which is a period of time in which economies grow very slowly as opposed to growing like weeds, the way children do; in which profits are relatively static; in which the government plays a significant role in terms of deficits and reregulation and control of the economy; in which the consumer stops shopping until he drops and begins, as they do in Japan (to be a little ghoulish), starts saving to the grave.

This focus on the DDRs – delevering, deglobalization, and reregulation – may be conceptually understandable, but nevertheless still a little hard to get one’s arms around. Why would they necessarily lead to a new, slower growth normal? A little easier to grasp might be the following approach, which feeds off the same concept, but which extends it a little further by suggesting that DD and R lead to a number of broken business or economic models that may forever change the world we once knew and make even Barton Biggs a chastened adult. They are as follows:

1. American-style capitalism and the making of paper instead of things. Inherent in the “great moderation” of the past 25 years was the acceptance of a sort of reverse mercantilism. America would consume, then print paper assets and debt in order to pay for it. Developing (and many developed) countries would make things, and accept America’s securities in return. This game is over, and unless developing countries (China, Brazil) step up and generate a consumer ethic of their own, the world will grow at a slower pace.
   
2. Private vs. public-driven growth. The invisible hand of free enterprise is being replaced by the visible fist of government, a temporarily necessary, but (if permanent) damnable condition itself in terms of future growth and profits. The once successful “shadow banking system” is being regulated and delevered. Perhaps a fabled “110-pound weakling” may be an exaggeration of where our financial system is headed, but rest assured it will not be looking like Charles Atlas anytime soon. Prepare to have sand kicked in your face, if you believe you are a “child of the bull market!”
   
3. Global economic leadership. It’s premature to award the 21st century to the Chinese as opposed to the United States, but if the last six months have been any example, China is sort of lookin’ like Muhammad Ali standing over Sonny Liston in 1964 yelling, “Get up, you big ugly bear!” Not only has China spent three times the amount of money (relative to GDP) to revive its economy, but it has managed to grow at a “near normal” 8% pace vs. our “big R” recessionary numbers. Its equity market, while volatile and lightly regulated, has almost doubled in twelve months, making ours look like that ugly bear instead of a raging bull.
   
4. United States housing and employment. Old normal housing models in the U.S. encouraged home ownership, eventually peaking at 69% of households as shown in Chart 1. Subsidized and tax-deductible mortgage interest rates as well as a “see no evil – speak no evil” regulatory response to government Agencies FNMA and FHLMC promoted a long-term housing boom and now a significant housing bust. Housing cannot lead us out of this big R recession no matter what the recent Case-Shiller home price numbers may suggest. The model has been broken if only because homeownership is declining, not rising, sinking to perhaps a New Normal level of 65% as opposed to 69% of American households.
   
   Similarly, the financialization of assets via the shadow banking system led to an American era of consumerism because debt was available, interest rates were low, and the livin’ became easy. Savings rates plunged from 10% to -1%, as many (if not most) assumed there was no reason to save – the second mortgage would pay for everything. Now things have perhaps irreversibly changed. Savings rates are headed up, consumer spending growth rates moving down. Get ready for the New Normal.

I could go on, reintroducing the negatives of an aging boomer society not just in the U.S., but worldwide. Increased health care may be GDP positive, but it’s only a plus from a “broken window” point of view. Far better to have a younger, healthier society than to spend trillions fixing up an aging, increasingly overweight and diabetic one. Same thing goes for energy. Far easier and more profitable to pump oil out of the Yates Field in Texas or even Prudhoe Bay than to spend trillions on a new “green” society. Our world, and the world’s world, is changing significantly, leading to slower growth accompanied by a redefined public/private partnership.

The investment implications of this New Normal evolution cannot easily be modeled econometrically, quantitatively, or statistically. The applicable word in New Normal is, of course, “new.” The successful investor during this transition will be one with common sense and importantly the powers of intuition, observation, and the willingness to accept uncertain outcomes. As of now, PIMCO observes that the highest probabilities favor the following strategic conclusions:

1. Global policy rates will remain low for extended periods of time.
2. The extent and duration of quantitative easing, term financing and fiscal stimulation efforts are keys to future investment returns across a multitude of asset categories, both domestically and globally.
3. Investors should continue to anticipate and, if necessary, shake hands with government policies, utilizing leverage and/or guarantees to their benefit.
4. Asia and Asian-connected economies (Australia, Brazil) will dominate future global growth.
5. The dollar is vulnerable on a long-term basis.

Like playing in an Open Championship, future golfers/investors need to play conservatively and avoid critical mistakes. An “even par” scorecard (plus some hard earned alpha) may be enough to hoist the trophy in a New Normal world. Holes-in-one? Maybe if you’re lucky. But make sure someone’s watching, and that their eyes are focused on the New Normal. As for golf, even Sue, my only supporter, has asked me to move my ball, on its own ebony base, away from her more authentic and perhaps the still solitary ace made by Gross family golfers. What a damnable condition.

William H. Gross
Managing Director

---

Make sure to also check out Bill Gross' August commentary as well if you're interested.

Jim Rogers on Long Term Bonds

"I was shorting the long bond in October and in November but I had to cover. I plan to sell them short again along the line. Bonds are the last bubble, its clearly a bubble. Everybody is pumping bonds like crazy." - Jim Rogers

Repeatedly, Rogers has said he is looking to buy Agriculture, to short U.S. long-term bonds, to short the US Dollar after its rise fully secedes, and to buy Japanese Yen. (See our rationale behind shorting long-dated treasuries)