Hi all, @Nick Correa and I are at it again with another "Breakdown" of my interview with Teddy Vallee. Since Teddy's views are nuanced, this is our longest episode yet, by a considerable margin.
Please enjoy!
Hi all, @Nick Correa and I are at it again with another "Breakdown" of my interview with Teddy Vallee. Since Teddy's views are nuanced, this is our longest episode yet, by a considerable margin.
Please enjoy!
In The Exchange you can ask and answer questions and share your experience with others!
hahaha the bloopers!
I think the best nugget I took away was the sentence at ~13:40 "im literally losing money so I mine as well take risk" im serious this is the type of speak I understand lol
thanks @Nick Correa and @Jack Farley
Here is the problem I have seeing real rates going up. I don't see the scenario where it is allowed to happen.
I don't see how inflation can be created without fiscal cooperation, and I don't see how the Fed doesn't support Fiscal to try to control inflation from getting out of hand to prevent a disorderly currency collapse and cause a worldwide panic.
They want to run inflation hot, but to do so, they need the spread between breakevens and nominal to increase in an orderly fashion. This is negative real yields without going negative nominal yields. But without fiscal help, they can't do it on their own.
Nominal yields going up doesn't help the Fed achieve their goals. And if Congress doesn't do their part, the bond market is going to do their job for them and take bond nominals negative to avoid the cascade failure of insolvency defaults that rising real yields will cause to anyone stuck in the wrong equities.
Not sure what I have wrong, but the one thing it seems that the Fed HAS to prevent is nominal yields from going up absent confirmed and massive inflation.
I think he puts too much weight into the reflation flows as if the market is actually getting the inflation call right. The market is just front running Congress IMO, which to this point doesn't seem as likely to go wild with the fiscal spending now that the election is over.
McConnell has no motivation to help Joe Biden prevent a market crash but politically has every reason in the world to want to ensure he takes the blame for the market just like he did during the first term of Obama. Even if they agree on the full $980 billion, it is less help than what was offered in March, and less help going to those who need it. As each round of fiscal does less dollar for dollar as M2 velocity continues to trend down, and this $980 billion will be a net reduction in fiscal support, which is disinflationary to deflationary. The crisis that would trigger would then force action, but the result would be lower real rates, not higher.
My thoughts as of now, YMMV.
Could you provide more thoughts on 4? I don't see why the Fed would continue to accommodate. If they did, they run the risk of losing control of inflation (not that they had control in the first place :P). Also, wouldn't bond prices still go up if Fed accommodates (yield down, price up)?
What about a scenario where inflation is running hot, to maintain control Fed would increase nominals, thereby keeping real rates negative?
@Darryl Chen
First of all, really well said. I really think you're dead on.
My one thought is I think in Teddy's interview he was specific about his time frame being 2-3 months for the trade. I think this might give enough time for a disinflationary wave and then of course back to crushing real rates. The flows stuff is above my pay grade though.
I dont believe the Fed can create inflation that is readable by CPI. Not without Congress' help. At best, they can inflate housing, education, and asset prices.
What they can do is inflate a debt bubble further if the commercial banks lend, but all that does is kick the can down the road and forces the fed to step in again later or see the whole thing collapse.
@Darryl Chen
Take a look at this article:
https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2020/04/how-the-fed-managed-the-treasury-yield-curve-in-the-1940s.html
In short, the same reason the Fed has changed its policy to explicitly wanting to run inflation hot and it's policy that it is independent WITHIN government, not independent FROM government. They are quoted as saying that they "aren't even thinking about thinking about raising rates."
If Congress tries to raise a whole bunch more cash by issuing debt, there won't be enough dollar demand to soak up the issuance without rates going up. You can decide for yourself if that is because people hate treasuries or because there is a dollar shortage outside the US. The Fed has pretty much already telegraphed that they will step in and maintain nominal rates.
The only way the Fed raises nominals is because breakeven rates are running away from them (inflation is accelerating faster than they are comfortable with). They will then probably move all of the government debt into short-term rates and let the long end blow out. I don't think they will have a choice otherwise. Buy financials if that happens, cause that yield curve is gonna be phat lol.
Well, I still love the girl from Bennington...