Connect with us

Economy

The “Most Important Question” For Investors: Where Will Biden’s Trillions In Stimmys End Up?

“I’ve been buying crypto and stocks for a while now, but the stimmys helped pay some bills and I put the rest of them into investing.”

Published

on

Now that the $1.85 trillion Biden stimulus is officially being deployed with tens of millions of stimmy checks being sent out this weekend to household across the nation, BofA’s Jared Woodard writes that the “most important question” in for investors in 2021 is “what will US households do with their extra money as the economy fully reopens?” or in other words, where will all those stimmy checks go. And while the consensus is that the record “savings glut” will be spent, will the consensus be wrong again? Here, BofA sees two possible outcomes:

  • Big Spending: a sustained real-economy consumption boom, higher wages & services inflation; bullish for GDP, but bearish for stocks because of 1. Fear of Fed tightening and 2. “Mere Rotation”…recent market action shows it’s a zero-sum environment where pro-inflation trades are financed by selling down deflation assets (growth stocks, bonds, EM) as institutional cash levels are low;
  • Big Saving: after an initial surge of leisure & services spending, consumption reverts to trend as structural forces of stagnation reassert themselves; households keep cash directed to saving (cash, debt payments, financial assets), Fed fears subside; net bearish GDP given supreme expectations, but more bullish for markets.

For what it’s worth, Woodward notes that he previously already expressed some hesitation about the “Big Spending” view last month. To explore this further he looked at the distribution of cash among US households.

As of Q3 2020 (latest distributional data), the top 20% of households had $10.2tn in liquid assets. The next 20% had $2.3tn, and the bottom 0-60% combined had just $2.7tn. That includes checking accounts, CDs, and money market funds; it doesn’t include equities or bonds.

What about all o f the post-COVID stimulus, where did that go? From the end of 2019 through September 2020, liquid household assets rose $2.2tn. This number is what monetarists and inflation hedgers are so excited about. Clearly, spending $2tn rapidly into a $21tn economy would be a recipe for a big boom.

But again, and as we have shown every quarter when we discuss the household balance sheet (which just last week was reported to hit a record $130 trillion as of Dec 31, 2020) the data shows a very skewed situation. The top 20% saw their cash increase by $1.5tn since Covid hit vs. just $0.7tn for everyone else. The top 1% alone saw cash assets rise by nearly as much as the bottom 80% of the country combined. Updated through today, these numbers would reflect even more inequality, as many low-income households had to use their cash during the difficult winter to cover urgent spending needs.

As Woodard then politely puts in, “In a consumption-based economy like the US (70% of GDP), inequality isn’t just a topic for political debate, it’s a mathematical problem.”

Whether a given dollar gets spent or saved depends on who’s holding it. One Boston Fed study found that in normal circumstances the bottom 20% of households were likely to spend $0.97 of every dollar earned, while the top 20% spent just $0.48 of every extra dollar. In other words, if the goal is to boost economic activity, sending money to people who will just sit on it may not be very effective.

That’s why BofA believes that a glut of cash on the balance sheets of already-wealthy households is unlikely to boost inflation in a sustained way.

How they’ll spend it

So much for the theory, what about reality? Here, too, there is a problem as recent data confirms that households are still saving much more than usual, even as vaccine distribution accelerates:

  • Consumer credit use in January was a sharp disappointmentfalling $1.6bn vs. expectations of a +$12bn rise. Census Bureau data showed that, of households that received a stimulus check in the 1st half of February, 73% saved or paid down debt.

  • BofA aggregated credit and debit card data shows that, among people ages 73-92 (many of whom presumably are already vaccinated), spending on air travel jumped, but not on lodging (visiting family?), with only a small uptick in restaurant spending and no increase in brick-and-mortar retail.

To get a clearer picture, at the end of February Bank of America surveyed more than 3000 people about how they would use another stimulus check.

  • 30% said they would mostly pay off debts, 25% said they would save it, and 9% said they would invest it. The bank groups all three of these as “saving” in a broad sense, since the payments stay within the financial system and don’t create demand for goods & services in the real economy. Only 36% of respondents said they would spend the money.
  • “Saving” plans were much higher than what history would suggest, in every category. Even among people making less than $30,000/year, 53% of people said they wouldn’t be spending the next round of stimulus.

When the BofA team then compared consumer plans for 2021 stimulus money with 2020 uses they reported, the financial category saw the largest increase (+1.7% to investing, +0.8% to debt payoffs, and just -0.2% to cash saving).

Needless to say, a rebound in spending (even dramatic in its scope) among high-income households won’t suffice. Why? Because leisure, restaurant, and related travel spending only accounted for 4% of GDP pre-COVID. And work-from-home lockdowns could mark a peak in higher-end consumer spending, as workers returning to offices have less time to shop online.

Sure, there are some caveats to this survey: maybe people don’t know their own spending patterns that well, or maybe plans will change as springtime hopes yield a mask-ripping summer. Even then, however, BofA’s Woodard notes that after a one-time surge of enthusiasm, if most savings are stuck with wealthy households unlikely to spend, and the bottom 80% devote their excess cash to debts, savings, and stocks anyway, it’s not clear who will be doing all the sustained, voracious consumption markets now are pricing in.

Why is all of this important?

Because as BofA explains, having priced in a dramatic rebound in inflation in coming months on the back of anticipated surges in spending, the market may be disappointed as the “fiscal liquidity trap” proves to have a far stronger gravity than most pundits and politicians expect. It would also mean that inflation – after an initial burst higher in mid-2021 – will collapse, and is why BofA expects that year-end core CPI will be just 1.7% as the upcoming June CPI spike fades. Here are some other reasons why Woodard believes that the market is in for a major disinflationary shock in the second half of 2021.

1. Supply disruptions are temporary. Supply-chain bottlenecks, semiconductor shortages, and manufacturing delays today are likely to be relieved as the labor force returns to work. High prints in manufacturing price indexes (e.g. ISM) largely reflect high commodity prices and therefore headline, not core inflation;

2. Structural job losses. Post-pandemic work-from-home could mean smaller rebounds in restaurants, in-person retail, and business travel. Progress on AI & automation could mean fewer industrial jobs to return to, especially at the low end. Before the pandemic, the Bureau of Labor Statistics projected the number of low-wage jobs to grow >5% over the next decade; now, there may be a net decline of 0.5%, bad news for 13% of low-wage workers still unemployed;

3. Union membership is near record lows, just 11% of the workforce today vs. 26% in 1953. Unions are politically almost homeless, with modern Democrats relying less on union votes and more on big tech donors; within the GOP, even “populist” senators haven’t endorsed the unionization vote at Amazon in Alabama.

4. Capex is coming. In the unlikely event wage growth does accelerate sharply at the low end, companies can accelerate R&D to prevent labor from gaining bargaining power. BofA expects corporate capex to rise 13% in 2021. Note that deflationary tech capex now accounts for nearly 30% of the S&P 500 total, a record high (Exhibit 13);

5. The baby bust. Already-plunging global birth rates accelerated lower: e.g. the Brookings Institution estimates 300,000 fewer babies born in the US this year because of the pandemic. Global central banks have called this one of the single greatest causes of lower GDP growth and falling interest rates.

* * *

Let’s assume BofA is right and spending on goods and services disappoints overwhelmingly. One potential implication is that there would be far more in stimmy checks going into the stock market. But how much?

Recall that one week ago DB’s Jim Reid asked just this, i.e., “How Much Money Will Biden’s New Stimulus Inject Into The Market“, and wrote that while rising yields are a threat to all risk assets, “it’s worth highlighting that a large amount of the upcoming US stimulus checks will probably find their way into equities.”

Then, like BofA, he referred to a survey conducted by DB’s chief equity strategist Binky Chadha polling online brokerage account users which suggested they would invest around 37% of future stimulus checks in the stock market (this is well above the 9% response from the similar BofA poll)This is a material force because as Reid notes, “behind the recent surge in retail investing is a younger, often new-to-investing and aggressive cohort not afraid to employ leverage.”

What does this mean quantitatively? Here is Reid’s math:

“Given stimulus checks are currently penciled in at c.$405bn in Biden’s plan, that gives us a maximum of around $150bn that could go into US equities based on our survey. Obviously only a proportion of recipients have trading accounts, though. If we estimate this at around 20% (based on some historical assumptions), that would still provide around c.$30bn of firepower – and that’s before we talk about any possible boosts to 401k plans outside of trading accounts.”

Reid’s conclusion: “stimulus checks could accelerate the large inflows into US equities seen in recent months after many years of weak flow data. Will this be enough to offset any impact of higher yields? Expect this push/pull to continue for some time.”

Now add to this assessment, BofA’s skepticism which, if correct, would likely mean even more money being allocated toward risk assets, whether blue chips, meme stocks, cryptos or – the latest get rich quick rage – NFTs. This take is bolstered by a recent report from Bloomberg which similarly notes that while many cash-strapped families will use funds from the $1.9 trillion pandemic-relief bill to cover rent or past-due accounts, “another cohort may use the $1,400 payments to ignite the stock market’s next retail frenzy.”

“I probably will take about half of it to invest into stocks,” said Iyana Halley, a 28-year-old actor who recently appeared in NBC’s television drama “This Is Us.” The Los Angeles resident remains on the fence about which equities to buy, but has been keeping a close watch on social media and seeking guidance from a friend she trusts.

Actress Iyana Halley

“I want to see what will make the most sense, where I can get the most out of my money,” Halley said in an interview. “I’m still new to the stock-market world, so trying to figure stuff out.”

Traders are also hoping to figure it out as soon as possible, because the retail buying may come as soon as Monday once the stimulus checks received over the weekend are invested, giving the Nasdaq 100 Index new wind after it fell into a correction earlier this month amid a crash for some of the market’s most speculative names.

The checks “could offer a short-term ‘shot in the arm’ to a market that was otherwise looking run-down and vulnerable to a sell-off,” said Sam Stovall, the chief investment strategist at CFRA Research.

“Stimulus checks will almost certainly drive more retail buying,” said Eric Liu, co-founder of Vanda Research, a firm that tracks retail flows in the U.S. “The social media attention has remained strong.”

Tyler Hopkins, a 26-year-old computer technician for a school district an hour east of Los Angeles, spent about half of his two previous pandemic stimulus payments on stocks including GameStop Corp. and non-fungible tokens. He plans to buy more shares of retail favorites when the latest payment hits his bank account.

“I’ve been buying crypto and stocks for a while now, but the stimmys helped pay some bills and I put the rest of them into investing,” Hopkins said.

So while one can debate about the precision, one thing is clear: tens if not hundreds of billions from the latest Biden Bonanza will end up in the market. Yet for all the excitement that the stimulus payments are stirring up among younger traders looking to make a killing, some investment professionals have been wringing their hands. They worry that unsophisticated newbies buying stocks they heard about from memes or online forums like WallStreetBets could take already stretched valuations even higher.

“You could say it’s like gasoline on a fire,” said Kimberly Woody, a senior portfolio manager at GLOBALT Investments. It’s “participation from a lot of folks that really just don’t know what they’re doing.

To be sure, the latest investing spree will merely cap off a retail mania that has been raging for almost a year now. The gamification of investing and consumers seeking entertainment during pandemic lockdowns led to massive surges in stocks generally shunned by the long-term investor community, from companies like Gamestop, AMC Entertainment Holdings and headphone maker Koss Corp. Those bets helped spark massive rallies that featured dizzying bouts of volatility.

* * *

Not everyone will spend their stimmy chasing momentum in the latest meme stock however: Halley, the Los Angeles actor, is aware of how dicey it is taking a flyer on the fringes of the stock market, so she’s hedging her bets. She plans to spend the other half of her stimulus on acting classes.

“I think with stocks or any kind of investment, it’s always going to be a risk,” she said, much to the amazement of financial professionals many of whom realize something Halley does not: the stock market is the final bubble, the one that is now “too big to fail”, and whatever happens the Fed can never let it burst…

Continue Reading
Comments

Economy

McMaken: The Fed’s Inflation Is Behind the Supply-Chain Mess

… the idea that supply chain problems are “driving inflation” gets the causation backward.

Published

on

It seems supporters of the Biden Administration finally settled on a narrative they like for explaining away supply chain shortages.

Here’s the administration’s talking point: the US economy is rolling along so well that Americans are demanding huge amounts of goods. That’s overwhelming the supply chain and causing the back-ups roiling America’s ports and logistic infrastructure.

For example, Transportation Secretary Buttigieg this month declared “Demand is up … because income is up, because the president has successfully guided this economy out of the teeth of a terrifying recession.”

Similarly, White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki told reporters supply chain problems are occurring because “people have more money … their wages are up…“we’ve seen an economic recovery that is underway…”

This position has been mocked by a number of conservative politicians—including Senator Ted Cruz—and commentators who find this to be an absurd assumption.

Yet, the administrator’s defenders aren’t totally wrong. As Mihai Macovei showed earlier this month, the global volume of trade  and shipping volume in 2021 have actually exceeded pre-pandemic numbers. For example, in the port of Los Angeles, “loaded imports” and “total imports” for the 2020-2021 fiscal year (ending June 30, 2021) were both up when compared to the same period of the 2018-2019 fiscal year.

In other words, it’s not as if nothing’s moving through these ports. In fact, more is moving through them than ever before. That suggests demand is indeed higher.

But why is it higher? It some ways, it’s true that, as Psaki says, people have more money. 

But that’s where the veracity and usefulness of Biden’s defenders end in explaining the problem. 

Much of the answer can be found in monetary inflation. Obviously, Joe Biden hasn’t “successfully guided the economy” through anything, but it is accurate to say that people have more money in a nominal sense. Wages are up nominally. After all, if we look at the immense amount of new money created over the past 18 months, we should absolutely expect people to have more money sloshing around. But this also means a lot more pressure on the logistical infrastructure as people buy up more consumer goods.

In other words, the idea that supply chain problems are “driving inflation” gets the causation backward. It’s money-supply inflation that’s causing much of the supply chain’s problems.  Not the other way around. 

After all, since February 2020, M2 has increased from $15.2 trillion to $20.9 trillion in September 2021. That’s an increase of 35 percent. Yes, some of that has been kept within the banking system through the Fed’s payment of interest on reserves, but a lot of it clearly has entered the “real economy” through stimulus payments, unemployment insurance, and federal deficit spending in general.

Originally, the public was saving a lot of that stimulus and bailout money, with the personal savings rate hitting historic highs of over 25 percent. But this past summer the savings rate collapsed again, and as of September is back under eight percent. The public is now flooding the economy with its former savings.

The American appetite for spending on consumer goods hasn’t gone away. Yet, there are many reasons to suspect this spending spree is unsupported by actual economic activity, and in a phenomenon of monetary inflation.

For example, today’s tsunami of spending raises questions when we consider there are still about five million fewer people working in the American economy than was the case in early 2020. That means fewer people being paid wages. Without monetary inflation, an economy with millions of fewer workers suggests there should be less spending.

Additionally, spending increases when the public suspects that inflation is going to increase. That is, if there is perception the value of money will decline, the demand for money will decline also. As Ludwig von Mises noted: “once public opinion is convinced … the prices of all commodities and services will not cease to rise, everybody becomes eager to buy as much as possible and to restrict his cash holding to a minimum size.”

That means more spending. This phenomenon is already clear in home prices and grocery prices. The public may suspect rising prices are here to stay. Meanwhile, the Consumer Price Index—a very limited measure of goods-price inflation—is nonetheless near a 35-year high.  That means now’s a good time to spend.

With 2020’s panic-induced saving subsiding, people are now wondering if their savings produce any returns. But ordinary savers are surely now remembering that the interest returns from savings right now are next to nothing. Thanks to the central bank’s ultra-low interest rate policy, we live in a  yield-starved world. That’s OK for hedge funders who can participate in carry trades and other high-yield forms of investment. But for regular people they’re stuck with interest rates that don’t keep up with price inflation. So it makes more sense to spend dollars rather than save them. 

So, Biden’s people are correct in a certain sense that people have “more money” and that “demand is up.” With federal spending hitting historic highs—and half of it is deficit spending that’s being monetized—we should expect people to have “more money.” This is just what we would expect in an inflationary environment. We should expect demand for everything (but money) to be up. 

The question, however, is how much of this windfall will continue in real, inflation-adjusted terms. It’s too early to tell, although we can also see that inflation-adjusted median earnings collapsed 6.3 percent, year over year, during the second quarter of 2021. We can see that real GDP growth has dramatically slowed.

But at least as far as the third quarter is concerned, it’s fairly clear the US was—and likely still is—in the midst of an inflationary boom. But how long will it last?

Continue Reading

Economy

There Are Still Over 14 Million Americans On Some Form Of Government Dole

… we remind readers of the gaping chasm between those still claiming some form of pandemic-related unemployment benefit and the record number of job openings in America currently…

Published

on

Initial jobless claims hovered at post-COVID-lockdown lows but were disappointing at 373k – well above the 200k-ish norms of pre-COVID

Source: Bloomberg

Notably, California and Virginia ‘estimated’ their jobless claims last week and Pennsylvania continues to swing wildly from week to week…

But, while the picture is improving overall, we should still remember that there are over 14 million Americans still on some of government dole…

Source: Bloomberg

We do note that 460k Americans dropped off the pandemic emergency aid rolls…

Finally, we remind readers of the gaping chasm between those still claiming some form of pandemic-related unemployment benefit and the record number of job openings in America currently…

Source: Bloomberg

Tick-tock on those benefits.

Continue Reading

Economy

The Fed in a Box Part 2: They Cannot End Quantitative Easing

If inflation doesn’t slow in the coming months, the Fed may be forced to step in.

Published

on

Kurtis Garbutt/Flickr
  1. If the Fed tapers QE, it may reveal waning appetite for long-term treasuries
  2. The Treasury may have used its cash balance reserve to anchor inflation expectations
  3. If inflation persists, the Fed may have to increase rather than decrease QE

Note: By definition, inflation is an expansion of the money supply. In this article, inflation will be used interchangeably with rising prices (usually as a result of money supply expansion)

Introduction

When the economy was shut down in March 2020, the government responded with massive fiscal and monetary support. The fiscal stimulus totaled $4T+ in relief packages. All of this spending was paid for with debt issued by the Treasury. The Treasury mostly issued short-term debt. With rates being held at zero by the Fed, and strong demand for short-term debt, it made sense to quickly raise cash using Treasury Bills as interest-free loans.

The Fed monetary policy was two fold, slash short-term rates to zero and inject $1.5 trillion into the long-term debt treasury market. The effect was to bring down interest rates across the entire yield curve. After the initial debt binge, QE went on auto-pilot, with the central bank buying about $80B a month in long-term debt (plus another $40B in Mortgage debt). Over the last year, the Treasury has continued to issue long-term debt, averaging more than the $80B the Fed has been buying. This has caused long-term rates to rise.

All of this fiscal and monetary stimulus is not without cost. Historically this type of activity almost always leads to higher inflation. The Fed may have recently indicated it wants higher inflation, but this is not true. This stance simply provides cover for them to not act in the face of rising prices. To actually fight inflation, the Fed would have to increase short-term rates above the rate of inflation. Part 1 of this series went into detail about how US short-term debt has doubled from $2.5T to $4.5T. This makes even small changes in short-term rates an immediate risk to the federal government, not to mention the much higher rates needed in a true inflation fight.

In theory, the Fed could leave short-term rates at 0% while ending QE and even shrinking its balance sheet. This would push long-term rates up to combat inflation. In the short/medium term the Treasury can mathematically handle higher long-term rates because it takes time for the higher rates to work their way through long-term debt. See the chart below that shows how the last tightening cycle worked its way through the average interest rate across debt instrument. Specifically, look at Notes compared to Bills. The average weighted interest rate on Bills moved very quickly where the rate on Notes barely had time to increase before rates dropped again.

Source – Treasurydirect.gov

Although the Treasury could handle rising long-term rates (even if the economy and mortgage market cannot), the Fed has another problem. Rising long-term rates send an important message: rising inflation expectations. While inflation is first and foremost a result of monetary policy, higher inflation expectations quickly exacerbate the problem. This is why the Fed has been messaging they are OK with higher inflation and also why they have been pounding the table that inflation is transitory. They need to keep inflation expectations low! If inflation expectations were to rise, especially at this critical juncture, it would be game over for the Fed, as they would have to raise short-term rates (devastating the Treasury and economy) in order to save the dollar and squash inflation.

With the economy opening up in March of this year, things were getting very precarious as inflation was rapidly rising along with surging long-term rates. Remember that rising long-term rates indicate rising inflation expectations. This could cause transitory inflation to be much less transitory.

In summer 2020, the Treasury issued enough debt to build up a significant cash reserve. In response to rising long-term rates in Q1 2021, it appears the Treasury strategically used its cash reserves to slow down the issuance of long-term debt. With total short-term debt outstanding already so high, the cash balance gave the Treasury ammunition to decrease debt issuance just as a $1.9T stimulus bill was passed and inflation was set to explode higher. This would have been perfect timing to support the Feds narrative that inflation is transitory to keep expectations from snowballing out of control.

If inflation doesn’t slow in the coming months, the Fed may be forced to step in. With the Treasury poised to issue more debt, it can no longer rely on its one-time use of excess cash reserves. This will put more pressure on the Fed to clamp down long-term rates by increasing rather than decreasing QE. Yes, the Fed may decide to print more money (leading to higher prices) to fight rising inflation expectations (higher long-term interest rates).

Understanding recent fiscal and monetary maneuvers

Last year, when the pandemic hit, the US Government started spending trillions of dollars. Massive spending plans were approved in the name of stimulus and COVID relief. Because the government does not have much money on hand, and taxes cannot quickly be raised, the Treasury issued trillions in debt. The markets can easily absorb short-term US Treasury Bills, so when the Fed abruptly cut rates to 0%, the Treasury responded by issuing short-term debt to the tune of $2.4T from March to June 2020. See figure 1 below.

Source – Treasurydirect.gov

In tandem, the Fed bought up trillions of dollars in US Debt, but the Fed was buying on the long end of the curve while the Treasury was issuing debt on the short end. This caused long-term rates to collapse. The Fed purchased enough long-term debt to absorb more than a year’s worth of long-term debt issuance. The chart below shows how the month over month and cumulative change in the Feds balance sheet compared to the Treasury Debt Issuance of long-term notes and bonds.

Source – Treasurydirect.gov

This action by the Fed had a massive impact on long-term rates. The chart below shows the difference between the two bars above, specifically the difference in Fed Buying and Treasury issuance of long-term debt for each individual month since Jan 2020. These values are not cumulative. The right Y-Axis shows the month-end interest rate of the 10-year bond. Looking at this chart shows something extremely clear: When the Fed buying exceeds debt issuance, rates are flat or falling; however when long-term debt issuance surpasses the Fed’s buying, rates rise.

Source – Treasurydirect.gov

The impact of the Fed can first be seen as interest rates fell from 1.5% to .6% during the initial buying spree. After the initial burst, the Fed put QE on auto-pilot, buying “only” $80B a month in long-term Treasuries. However, because the Treasury was issuing more than $80B a month as depicted by the positive bars starting in June 2020, interest rates started rising.

This trend started to accelerate in November of 2020, as long-term debt issuance was outpacing Fed Buying by around $200B. Things really started to escalate in the first quarter of 2021 as Treasury Debt issuance surpassed Fed buying by $286B in March right as interest rates were crossing above 1.7%.

Then, suddenly, long-term debt issuance started falling in April and was almost even with Fed buying in May. This consequently led to a fall in long-term rates, which are now hovering back around 1.5%. How did this happen just as Biden was pushing through a $1.9 stimulus package? Unlike 2020, when short-term debt issuance was used to plug the gap, Figure 1 above shows that short-term debt issuance was actually turning negative (blue bars).

What gives?

One look at the Treasury Cash Balance sheet in the chart below tells almost the entire story. This was first highlighted by a SchiffGold article published June 16. The chart below shows a massive surge in cash reserves by the treasury last year. Since March of this year, the cash balance has plummeted by over $1T.

Source – Treasurydirect.gov

Inflation Expectations

Why such a massive and sudden drawdown in the cash balance? In truth, there could be lots of reasons, but it does seem extremely sudden. One would think the Treasury, led by Yellen, would be very deliberate and thoughtful about how to use up $1T+ in dry powder. For the past 3 months, the Fed has been shouting from the rooftops that inflation is transitory. At the June FOMC press conference, Powell stood up and explained how long-term inflation expectations remain well-anchored. A proxy for inflation expectations is long-term interest rates.

Had interest rates continued to rise similar to the recent trajectory (climbing from .8% in Nov to 1.7% in March), this would have been a difficult narrative to push. The Fed needs inflation expectations to remain in check or else inflation will be anything but transitory. Thus, the perfect time for the Treasury to pause issuance of long-term debt would be April-June 2021 just as the economy is re-opening and the Fed is forecasting inflation to be at its worst before coming back down.

While this is speculation, it would be a very strategic move from both Powell and Yellen. Regardless of the intention though, the problem is that the Treasury has now spent its large cash balance. It could return to the short-term debt market, but the outstanding balance is still sitting above $4T (see part 1). It needs to be converting that short-term debt to long-term debt while long-term interest rates are still low and the Fed is still buying. But the Fed is simply not buying enough at $80B to convert all that debt!

If inflation persists beyond a few months, then interest rates are going to rise in a hurry as the market demands higher rates. Adding fuel to the fire will be the Treasury debt issuance overwhelming the $80B Fed buying as it did from November to March.

Then what?

Who is absorbing the long-term debt to keep interest rates from returning to the upward trajectory from Aug 2020 – Mar 2021?

International creditors have had little appetite for US Debt lately. The chart below shows the total outstanding debt held by foreign governments. In the past 15 months, while the Treasury has issued over $4T in new debt, the net amount bought by foreign governments is close to zero.

Source – https://ticdata.treasury.gov/Publish/mfh.txt

To zoom into the exact amount of change since the massive debt issuance, see the chart below. In total, foreign creditors have absorbed $120 billion of $6T+ or less than 2% of total issuance!

Source – https://ticdata.treasury.gov/Publish/mfh.txt

How are rates going to stay low if the Fed keeps the treasury buying cap at $80B? The Treasury will have to issue more than $80B in long-term debt to continue funding all the massive spending. If inflation expectations stay low, maybe the market will have enough firepower to ingest some of the new debt, but not all of it. With the Fed planning to begin tapering at the end of the year, someone will need to fill the $80 billion void. This does not even take into account the possibility of shrinking the Fed balance sheet, which should be considered impossible at this point.

The chart of the international holders above brings to mind the image of the Wiley Coyote running off a cliff. With 10-year interest rates hovering near 1.5%, one could argue there is strong demand for long-term Treasury debt. Unfortunately, foreign creditors have turned off their debt purchases. It took decades for them to accumulate ~$7T in Treasury debt. The Fed alone has accumulated more than half that (~$4.5T) over the last decade. The Fed is making the market seem strong, but as shown above, there might be nothing but air if they were to exit the market. With a thumb on the scale, no one is getting an accurate reading of true demand for US long-term debt.

Source – Warner Brothers

What about short-term debt markets?

As highlighted several times, the demand for short-term debt seems to remain very strong. This makes sense as T-Bills mature in less than a year, so these investments are perceived as nearly risk-free. In fact, it could be argued that the recent Treasury Bill issuance hiatus (Figure 1 – blue bars turning negative) could be causing stress in the Reverse Repo market. The chart below shows the current Reverse Repo market. Based on past quarter-end data, it’s very possible that Reverse Repos could exceed $1.5T by this coming Wednesday, June 30, before coming back down.

Source – https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RRPONTSYD

Many articles have been written to explain this phenomenon, without providing exact clarity on what’s actually going on. The current understanding seems to be that the banks are awash with cash – so much cash, they are hitting the limits in terms of how much cash they can hold on balance overnight. This is cash that should be invested on behalf of money market funds. But with so much cash in the system, if it were to all be invested in short-term debt instruments, it could drive rates negative. To avoid negative rates, the Fed is lending banks assets on its balance sheet overnight in exchange for cash. It is critical to avoid negative rates to insure money market funds never experience a loss and result in breaking the buck.

Maybe this is a leap too far, but it seems another solution to the Fed reverse repurchase activity could be for the Treasury to issue more short-term debt. So, why has the Treasury been drawing down its cash balance and letting short-term debt mature when there seems to be strong demand in the market? The Treasury must recognize the risk of having too much debt in short-term instruments and is trying to lengthen the duration of its debt outstanding. Unfortunately, this abundance of cash in the repo market is in search of low-risk short-term debt so will not provide demand for long-term debt.

If this is the case, it has created quite the pickle for the Treasury. By issuing too much short-term debt, the Treasury is by default putting pressure on the Fed to not raise short-term interest rates. However, by issuing too much long-term debt, the Treasury is by default putting pressure on the Fed to maintain or even increase quantitative easing. To reiterate, this is why it is imperative the market believes inflation is transitory. The Treasury cannot stop issuing debt, which leaves the Fed unable to raise rates or taper QE without wreaking havoc in the bond market. Additionally, if the Fed has to fight inflation, then it’s not just the Treasury facing its Wiley Coyote moment, but the entire US economy.

Wrapping up

With the economy reopening, the Treasury deployed its cash balance at the most opportune time, unless of course inflation numbers continue to increase (which based on all the data, anecdotal evidence, and liquidity in the repo market seems like a strong possibility). Unfortunately for the Fed, the Treasury will have to begin re-issuing debt again. Will it lean towards short-term debt hoping the Fed keeps interest rates low, or long-term debt hoping the Fed will expand QE?

But Fed may be constrained either way because it has its own problem. Powell must be praying that inflation readings come in low AND job numbers disappoint. If both don’t occur, then tough questions will be asked to justify more stimulus. Yellen and Powell may be best buds, but simple coordination will not be enough. They will need magic and luck to keep the course steady heading into 2H 2021 and 2022.

If the Fed is lucky enough to get low inflation readings out of its rigged CPI, it may provide cover to begin tapering. Rising long-term rates won’t have the same compounding effect on inflation expectations in a “low” inflation environment. Unfortunately, long-term rates will not be tenable over the medium term as the government has to finance more and more debt. As the market this year has indicated, when issuance surpasses Fed buying, rates have gone up. So what happens to rates when the Fed leaves the market entirely? Presumably, they go up a lot. How high will the Fed let rates go before re-entering?

Just because something is inevitable (US Debt spiral) does not make it imminent; however, the next six months of data may shine a bright light on all the irresponsibility over the last 12 years if inflation proves not so transitory. Chances are, the only thing transitory will be “talking about talking about” tapering.

US Debt interactive charts and graphs can always be found on the Exploring Finance dashboard: https://exploringfinance.shinyapps.io/USDebt/

Continue Reading