• Home
  • About
  • Team
  • Contacts
  • Blog

Stupid FED Tricks

  1. Home
  2. Blog
  3. Stupid FED Tricks

Portfolio manager’s Letter March 2002

The conventional wisdom still reads that the policy of the Federal Reserve Board through out the 1990’s was a great success. While a year or two ago I would have been more than willing to agree with this assessment, recent events have raised many questions in my mind about the FED role in promoting the long bull market of the 1990’s and the jumbo bubble it gave birth to. What we all suspected before is now obvious, the longer the bull, the bigger the bubble, and the bigger the bubble the nastier the pop.

Greenspan has been basing monetary policy on an effort to control inflation in the prices of goods and services, and has been proclaimed a great Chairman because he was able to keep consumer prices in check while avoiding a recession for ten years. While this on the surface sounds like I great idea, it now looks naive. Too much money was flowing into the economy, because a high percentage to that money was being spent on capital spending, inflation never showed up in the consumer numbers.

The whole idea that we can hire some politicians to turn a knob here and change a little policy there, and presto, no more human grief, is not just naive it is dangerous, but that is what we are dealing with here. The notion that economic cycles are bad because they cause pain, and that we can fix this by adjusting a few monetary levers, has always been a foolish notion.

The FED’S Job is to maintain Monetary Discipline

In light of the damage to the economy caused by the equity bubble. It is time to question Greenspan’s assumptions. Bubbles are the result of too much money, and it is the Federal Reserve Board’s job is to maintain monetary discipline not provide us with a party that goes on for ever.

Perhaps, Chairman Greenspan was looking at the wrong indicators. Maybe instead of concentrating on consumer information and basic commodity price he should have been targeting the bubble.

Last Month the minutes of the 1996 FED meetings were released and they contain some fascinating stuff. An Article in the Wall Street Journal describes an ongoing exchange between Greenspan and Lawrence Lindsey, who was then, a FED Governor, and is now part of the bush administration. The minutes reveal that even as far back as May 1996 Lindsey was concerned with the potential for a Stock Market Bubble and suggested that the FED would do better to pop the bubble while it was still mostly froth.

Target the Bubble

“Mr. Lindsey argued that rising stock price could destabilize the economy … the investment boom and rising prices in the equity market have been feeding on one another.” (Remember he was writing this back in 1996, a full three years before Wall Street started passing out hundreds of millions to pre-teens, because they knew how to turn on a computer.)

It was, in fact, Mr. Lindsey’s prodding that brought Greenspan to issue his famous “irrational exuberance” warning in December of 1996. At the September meeting Mr. Lindsey warned that profit expectations were too high and not realistic, and argued that the fed should broaden its mission beyond monitoring prices of goods and services to target asset prices. “as in the United States in The twenties and Japan in the late 1980’s the case for a central bank ultimately to burst the bubble becomes overwhelming”.

While Greenspan seemed sympathetic to Lindsey’s warning he never did admit to the belief that the FED’ duties extended to bubble popping. In 1997 Lindsey left the FED and Greenspan continued to base FED policy on traditional measures of inflation such as the prices of goods and services.

It was Greenspan’s choice to restrict the FED’s responsibility to the role of fighting inflation, and to define inflation narrowly. As long as basic price levels were stable. He was not going to mess with the Stock market. This led to the following three mistakes;

Three Mistakes

It is time for the FED to play what if. In particular:

  1. What if there had been a recession in 1994 instead Al’s famous Soft Landing?
  2. What if the Fed had not come to the rescue of the stock market in October 1998?
  3. And to a lesser extent, because it was probably already too late by this time. What if the fed had not poured money into the system to ameliorate the year 2000 crisis that never happened.

Clearly the equity bubble was born in 1994. The soft landing that year established two ideas that at the time seemed fine at the time, but with a little historical perspective now begin to appear ridiculous, because they gave rise to all sorts of unintended consequences.

  1. The Business cycles are unnecessary, politically incorrect and therefore extinct.
  2. The Fed will mount its horse and ride to the rescue of the stock market when ever bad things start to happen.

For investors this seemed to take a lot of the risk out investing. At the same time for the corporate CEO in this economy, where there is never a recession, there is no penalty for borrowing to increase capacity. The company that spends all the money they can get their hands on, and expands as fast as it can always wins.

In my opinion, 1994 was the worst of the above mistakes, because it was the first. A recession and a bear market in 1994 would have at least delayed, and perhaps prevented the formation of the mentality that later sustained the bubble. The cost to our economy of a recession in 1994 would have been a faction of the damage eventually caused by the great equity bubble.

If the FED had allowed a recession in 1994, would that have prevented the currency crisis in 1998? Probably not, but it might have kept this crisis at a level that would not have required the Fed to pump cash into the system in late 1998. This action in 1998 was followed by a NASDAQ rally of 3500 points in 18 months, and the greatest speculative binge in this country’s history.

Hubris or Naiveté

1998 was the second mistake, but in my mind not as bad as the first mistake, because the rally was now four years older and the any damage caused by a serious market correction or a recession, would have been much greater.

Both of the above responses by the FED where wildly popular at the time, and they where followed by a strong stock market, but by the end of 1998 the die was cast and the bubble was probably inevitable. The problem with easy money is that it promotes the growth of hubris. Hubris is a disease that a flicks corporate CEO’s but does most of its damage to the owners of the companies stock.

In October 1998 Greenspan had again intervened and rescued the market. Wall Street had become the slot-machine that always paid. The money was pouring into Wall Street from all over the world. Within a year Wall Street was passing out hundreds of millions to any CEO in the tech sector that had enough IQ to stick out his hand.

It is clearly not fair to blame the Federal Reserve Board of all the investor stupidity, accounting fraud and despicable acts of CEO’s that were “diversifying their holdings” while telling the public and their employees to buy their stock. This bubble was a capital spending bubble, not a consumer bubble, and a lot of the money that fed the bubble came from overseas.

If there was too much money in the system it was because the FED had defined inflation too narrowly and because they were reading only those indicators that measured activity in the consumer section. But if it is not the FED’s job to pop bubbles whose job is it?

Loose money creates bad behavior. As Mr. Lindsey said in the Quote above, look at 1929 and 1973 in this country and 1990 in Japan. The fact is every major economic disaster of the Twentieth Century was preceded by a prolonged period of easy money. Giving CEO’s access to money that has no cost is the functional equivalent of passing out cocaine in our high schools.

The Good accomplished by government tinkering at any level is often dwarfed by the grief inspired by the unintended consequences of that meddling, and Central banks are surely at the top of the list when it comes to stupid government tricks.

There is a gorgeous irony here. The function of a central bank is to help stabilize the economy, and this is exactly what Greenspan was trying to do. Yet as he created and appearance of stability and steady growth in the 1990’s his success with the economy was establishing a mind set in the equity markets that presented the nation with a level of speculation never seen before.

The attendant consequences of the popping of this bubble have now manifested themselves, Enron, the dot coms, Irridium, Golbal Star, Global Crossing, empty fat pipe and dark fiber – hundreds of billions of dollars spent on capacity that will never be used. And all the petty human behavior they represent.

It seems that as the more the FED tries to stabilize and nurture the economy, the more likely it is to inflict pain.

What Next?

Greenspan is no dummy. I think he will learn from his mistakes and acknowledge the FED’s responsibility for the past bubble and that the Federal Reserve will act in the future to prevent any repeat of the pattern of the nineties. I think that this will mean that while Larry Lindsey lost the battle in 1996, he will have won the war.

I also think that from now on the FED will have to broaden its mission from controlling prices of goods and services, to include the targeting of equity bubbles. It will also mean that bull markets in the near future will not last very long.

03/01/2002



Leave a Reply Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.


Comment


Name

Email

Url


Blog Archive

2020

  • The Stock Market

2019

  • Behavioral Investing

2018

  • Trumped
  • Warren Buffett vs Wall Street
  • Globalism, 1982-2000 Bull Market

2017

  • Volatility Underlying Calm Market
  • What’s new with CB&I?
  • Passive Investing
  • Economic Cycles
  • Current Stock Market 2017 Comment

2016

  • Global Plastics Summit Highlights
  • Value Investing vs Index Investing
  • How to Play an Index Bubble
  • Successful Investors
  • Is the Market Overvalued?
  • Operating Earnings
  • Article by investment manager in Bay Hill Living
  • Building Foundation

2015

  • 3G Culture – Dream Big
  • Myopic Loss Aversion
  • CBI Nuclear Energy
  • St Joe Company
  • What’s in a Word? Plastics.
  • Are Bonds Safer Than Stocks?

2014

  • Chicago Bridge and Iron
  • CAMEX 2014
  • Global Economy October 2014
  • Fluor Corporation
  • Interesting Quotes from Daily Journal Annual Meeting
  • The Daily Journal Annual Meeting
  • Albemarle Corporation
  • Triumph Group
  • The American Energy Revolution
  • Singapore

2013

  • St Joe Company Update
  • Hedge Fund Managers
  • Triumph Group Inc.
  • Bitter Brew
  • An Antifragile Portfolio

2012

  • Leucadia National Corporation
  • This Time it is Different
  • Successful traders psychology
  • St Joe Company
  • Learning from Pain

2011

  • Long Cycles – Part II
  • Long Cycle
  • Nasty Month for Market
  • Make a Buck with Fortescue Metals Group
  • Berkshire Hathaway Look Through Earnings
  • St Joe Company Inc
  • Successful Investment Management
  • A Look Into Latin American Market
  • The Mother of all Quarters
  • 2010 Investment year results

2010

  • Fault Lines
  • US Market 2010
  • Berkshire Hathaway Third Quarter 2010
  • The Stock Market 2010
  • Berkshire Hathaway Second Quarter 2010
  • Berkshire Hathaway Performance
  • Long Term Greedy
  • Goldman Sachs
  • Berkadia and Leucadia
  • USG corporation
  • Berkshire Hathaway 2009 2010
  • Why Capitalism Works

2009

  • The Lords of Finance
  • The $44 Billion Dollar Train Set
  • Berkshire Hathaway 3rd Quarter 2009
  • Career Risk for Investment Manager
  • Berkshire Hathaway financial statements
  • Berkshire Hathaway Preferred Stock
  • Moral Hazard
  • Credit Default Swap
  • The Shadow Banking System
  • Learning Things the Hard Way
  • Our C-System
  • 2008 Investment results

2008

  • Investment Risk
  • Bear Markets
  • Generational Events
  • Orange sheets – Money is doing better
  • Inflation Not The Problem
  • Tipping Point
  • Long Term Capital Management
  • Financial Insurance
  • Western Refining Inc
  • Berkshire Hathaway Year To Date
  • Berkshire Hathaway Cash Flow
  • 2007 investment results

2007

  • Investment results 4th Quarter 2007
  • Greenspan on Inflation
  • Berkshire Hathaway Third Quarter 2007
  • Berkshire Hathaway Operating income 2007
  • Berkshire Hathaway Hedge Fund
  • Leveraged Buyouts
  • Stability Unstable
  • Weak Dollar
  • Berkshire Hathaway Chairman’s Letter
  • Steel Dynamics
  • Breakwater Resources
  • 2006 Investment year results

2006

  • New Investment Stocks
  • Equitas
  • Berkshire Hathaway Third Quarter 2006
  • Hurricane Synergy
  • Berkshire Hathaway Second Quarter 2006
  • Fat Pitch
  • Perfectly Obvious
  • Berkshire Hathaway Growth Rate
  • Berkshire Hathaway First Quarter 2006
  • Berkshire Hathaway Annual Report 2006
  • Inflation Is
  • 2005 Investment year results

2005

  • Exogenous Events
  • The Easy Money
  • Look-Through Earnings
  • High-Risk Mortgages
  • Unintended Consequences
  • Rydex Ursa Fund
  • Warren Buffett Premium
  • Private Equity
  • Latticework Mental Models
  • Buffett’s Lackluster Performance
  • 2004 Investment year results
  • Professor Smith’s Second Bubble

2004

  • Hedging Currency Disaster
  • Risk Assessment
  • Too Many Bears
  • The Chinese Century?
  • Patterned Irrationality
  • Timber
  • Costco’s Cash
  • Physics Envy by Charlie Munger
  • Asset Allocation Berkshire Hathaway
  • The Balance of Payments
  • 2003 Investment year results

2003

  • Hedge Funds
  • The trade deficit is not debt
  • Secular Bear Market
  • Which Index Funds?
  • A Different Drummer
  • Costco’s Float
  • The Power of Float
  • Berkshire Hathaway Annual Meeting 2003
  • Psychology of Human Misjudgment
  • Sitting on the Sidelines
  • Berkshire Hathaway intrinsic value
  • 2002 Investment year results

2002

  • Insurance company Moats
  • Bond Bubble
  • Berkshire Hathaway Cash Flow 2002
  • Behavioral Economics
  • The Bear Market 2002
  • Greenspan Put
  • Second Quarter Cash Flow at Berkshire Hathaway
  • Berkshire Hathaway Annual Meeting 2002
  • Red Wire – Green Wire
  • Stupid FED Tricks
  • The Bottom Line
  • 2001 Investment year results

2001

  • Don’t Fight the FED
  • Buy and Hold? – It all Depends
  • Ben Laden and Berkshire Hathaway
  • The Dinosaurs Dance
  • Costco Moat
  • Bubble Watching
  • Sit on your Ass investing
  • Berkshire Hathaway Annual Meeting 2001
  • Carnival Cruise Lines
  • 450000 Square Ft Furniture Store
  • Lunch Money Indicators – Annual report
  • Other People’s Money

2000

  • Bear Tracks
  • Build It and Money Will Come
  • Efficient Stock Market
  • Style Drift
  • Lunch Money Indicators – Options
  • Identifying Problems
  • Small Retail Stocks
  • Charlie Munger comments
  • Big Al and the Bubble Machine
  • Berkshire Hathaway Cheap
  • Index Funds
  • 16 rules for investment success
Make an appointment or contact us by phone: +1 (689) 246 49 49
© 1999 - 2022 Losch Management Company
Support by Global AGM