and by the way the 10 year is higher than befor the fed meeting.... havn´t heard much of this in the msm.....and of course stocks have given nothing back from their gains..... here is a good take from mike larson http://tinyurl.com/yshwbb
besten dank mr. hussman. unbedingt das ganze in voller länger lesen und es dann mal mit den äusserungen in den medien und von wall street vergleichen.
und ganz nebenbei ist die renidte der 10jährigen höher als vor der fed sitzung... habe das noch nirgends gelesen.....selbstverständlich haben aktien nichts ihrer gewinne eingebüßt.... bitte dazu auch den link oben lesen.
for now. it has has worked...... :-)
bis jetzt ist es aufgegangen.... :-)
Given continuing inflation pressures and an otherwise unambiguous tightening bias, whatever room the Fed left open for policy change was clearly to allow flexibility in the event that the housing market deteriorates profoundly. A Fed cut is likely to be put into practice only under conditions that nobody would wish on this economy.
Let's revisit the changes in the statement from January's wording to March. First, its comments relating to the housing market:
- January: “Recent indicators have suggested somewhat firmer economic growth, and some tentative signs of stabilization have appeared in the housing markets.”
- March: “Recent indicators have been mixed and the adjustment in the housing sector is ongoing.”
Some observers were relieved that the FOMC didn't utter words like “sub-prime,” “delinquencies” or “foreclosures.” Far be it from the Fed to fuel that fire. An “ongoing adjustment” sounds better – sort of healthy, like massage therapy.
If the clarity of the Fed's continuing tightening bias is muddled by the rose-coloring of Wall Street's glasses, consider the following:
- January: “Readings on core inflation have improved modestly in recent months”
- March: “Recent readings on core inflation have been somewhat elevated.”
Both statements then attempt to maintain the Fed's credibility by asserting that those pressures “seem likely to moderate over time,” but also indicate that “the high level of resource utilization has the potential to sustain those pressures.”
Next, the Fed actually takes pains to re-affirm its tightening bias:
- January: “The Committee judges that some inflation risks remain.”
- March: “In these circumstances, the Committee's predominant policy concern remains the risk that inflation will fail to moderate as expected.”
“Predominant policy concern” - that's not a bias? From January to March, the Fed's language indicated more concern about inflation, not less.
The difficulty is that the Fed can't act on these concerns because the economic situation has started to decay as well. As I noted last week, the economy has its head in the freezer and its feet in the oven, and Wall Street wants to call the temperature “just right.”
Essentially, the Fed now has to allow for bad things to happen in both directions – continuing risks on the inflation side, and an “ongoing adjustment” in housing and the mortgage market. Remember, the most recent problems have focused on adjustable-rate mortgages (though all classes of mortgages are showing increased delinquencies and foreclosures). Despite its inflation concerns, the last thing the Fed wants to do is talk about “additional firming” in the interest rates to which those ARMs are tied.
It also has to allow some flexibility to become a “lender of the last resort” in case the foreclosures start to accelerate.
- January: “The extent and timing of any additional firming that may be needed to address these risks will depend on the evolution of the outlook…”
- March: “Future policy adjustments will depend on the evolution of the outlook…”
This is not a Fed that's “signaling prospects for a rate cut later this year” as Wall Street evidently concluded, but rather a Fed that's caught between a rock and a hard place, and knows it.
In short, despite persistent inflation pressures, the Fed can't easily raise rates further because that might add to the instability in the housing sector. So it has to manage inflation expectations verbally, while also backing away from its preferred inflation targets and accepting higher ones instead.
And that's exactly what Fed Governor Frederic Mishkin did on Friday night at a speech in San Francisco. He noted that getting inflation into the “comfort zone” of 1-2% could involve higher interest rates and “considerable output and employment losses.” So instead, the Fed is relying on the public's expectation that inflation will remain “anchored” around 2%. Mishkin noted “I am less optimistic about the prospects for core PCE inflation to move much below 2% in the absence of a determined effort by monetary policy,” adding that “a substantial further decline in inflation would require a shift in expectations, and such a shift could be difficult and time-consuming to bring about.”
Do those sound like remarks from a Fed that's eager to ease monetary policy?
Though my view remains that Fed actions are largely irrelevant to the volume of lending activity, there's no question that they have a psychological effect. Currently, my impression is that Wall Street has largely misinterpreted the Fed's language, and that its interpretation will be subject to an “ongoing adjustment” in the weeks ahead.
In any event, our investment position is driven not by expectations of future Fed actions, but by the prevailing condition of valuations and market action.