Economies wont be able to recover from SHUTDOWN

by Gail Tverberg via ourfiniteworld.com

Citizens seem to be clamoring for shutdowns to prevent the spread of COVID-19. There is one major difficulty, however. Once an economy has been shut down, it is extremely difficult for the economy to recover back to the level it had reached previously. In fact, the longer the shutdown lasts, the more critical the problem is likely to be. China can shut down its economy for two weeks over the Chinese New Year, each year, without much damage. But, if the outage is longer and more widespread, damaging effects are likely.

A major reason why economies around the world will have difficulty restarting is because the world economy was in very poor shape before COVID-19 hit; shutting down major parts of the economy for a time leads to even more people with low wages or without any job. It will be very difficult and time-consuming to replace the failed businesses that provided these jobs.

When an outbreak of COVID-19 hit, epidemiologists recommended social distancing approaches that seemed to be helpful back in 1918-1919. The issue, however, is that the world economy has changed. Social distancing rules have a much more adverse impact on today’s economy than on the economy of 100 years ago.

Governments that wanted to push back found themselves up against a wall of citizen expectations. A common belief, even among economists, was that any shutdown would be short, and the recovery would be V-shaped. False information (really propaganda) published by China tended to reinforce the expectation that shutdowns could truly be helpful. But if we look at the real situation, Chinese workers are finding themselves newly laid off as they attempt to return to work. This is leading to protests in the Hubei area.

My analysis indicates that now, in 2020, the world economy cannot withstand long shutdowns. One very serious problem is the fact that the prices of many commodities (including oil, copper and lithium) will fall far too low for producers, leading to disruption in supplies. Broken supply chains can be expected to lead to the loss of many products previously available. Ultimately, the world economy may be headed for collapse.

In this post, I explain some of the reasons for my concerns.

[1] An economy is a self-organizing system that can grow only under the right conditions. Removing a large number of businesses and the corresponding jobs for an extended shutdown will clearly have a detrimental effect on the economy. 

Figure 1. Chart by author, using photo of building toy “Leonardo Sticks,” with notes showing a few types of elements the world economy.

An economy is a self-organizing networked system that grows, under the right circumstances. I have attempted to give an idea of how this happens in Figure 1. This is an image of a child’s building toy. The growth of an economy is somewhat like building a structure with many layers using such a toy.

The precise makeup of the economy is constantly changing. New businesses are formed, and new consumers grow up and take jobs. Governments enact laws, partly to collect taxes, and partly to ensure fair treatment of all. Consumers decide which products to buy based on a combination of factors, including their level of wages, the prices being charged for the available goods, the availability of debt, and the interest rate on that debt. Resources of various kinds are used in producing goods and services.

At the same time, some deletions are taking place. Big businesses buy smaller businesses; some customers die or move away. Products that become obsolete are discontinued. The inside of the dome becomes hollow from the deletions.

If a large number of businesses are closed for an extended period, this will have many adverse impacts on the economy:

  • Fewer goods and services, in total, will be made for the economy during the period of the shutdown.
  • Many workers will be laid off, either temporarily or permanently. Goods and services will suddenly be less affordable for these former workers. Many will fall behind on their rent and other obligations.
  • The laid off workers will be unable to pay much in taxes. In the US, state and local governments will need to cut back the size of their programs to match lower revenue because they cannot borrow to offset the deficit.
  • If fewer goods and services are made, demand for commodities will fall. This will push the prices of commodities, such as oil and copper, very low.
  • Commodity producers, airlines and the travel industry are likely to head toward permanent contraction, further adding to layoffs.
  • Broken supply lines become problems. For example:
    • A lack of parts from China has led to the closing of many automobile factories around the world.
    • There is not enough cargo capacity on airplanes because much cargo was carried on passenger flights previously, and passenger flights have been cut back.

These adverse impacts become increasingly destabilizing for the economy, the longer the shutdowns go on. It is as if a huge number of deletions are made simultaneously in Figure 1. Temporary margins, such as storage of spare parts in warehouses, can provide only a temporary buffer. The remaining portions of the economy become less and less able to support themselves. If the economy was already in poor shape, the economy may collapse.

[2] The world economy was approaching resource limits even before the coronavirus epidemic appeared. This is not too different a situation than many earlier economies faced before they collapsed. Coronavirus pushes the world economy further toward collapse. 

Reaching resource limits is sometimes described as, “The population outgrew the carrying capacity of the land.” The group of people living in the area could not grow enough food and firewood using the resources available at the time (such as arable land, energy from the sun, draft animals, and technology of the day) for their expanding populations.

Collapses have been studied by many researchers. The book Secular Cycles by Peter Turchin and Sergey Nefedov analyze eight agricultural economies that collapsed. Figure 2 is a chart I prepared, based on my analysis of the economies described in that book:

Figure 2. Chart by author based on Turchin and Nefedov’s Secular Cycles.

Economies tend to grow for many years before the population becomes high enough that the carrying capacity of the land they occupy is approached. Once the carrying capacity is hit, they enter a stagflation stage, during which population and GDP growth slow. Growing debt becomes an issue, as do both wage and wealth disparity.

Eventually, a crisis period is reached. The problems of the stagflation period become worse (wage and wealth disparity; need for debt by those with inadequate income) during the crisis period. Changes tend to take place during the crisis period that lead to substantial drops in GDP and population. For example, we read about some economies entering into wars during the crisis period in the attempt to gain more land and other resources. We also read about economies being attacked from outside in their weakened state.

Also, during the crisis period, with the high level of wage and wealth disparity, it becomes increasingly difficult for governments to collect enough taxes. This problem can lead to governments being overthrown because of unhappiness with high taxes and wage disparity. In some cases, as in the 1991 collapse of the central government of the Soviet Union, the top level government simply collapses, leaving the next lower level of government.

Strangely enough, epidemics also seem to occur within collapse periods. The rising population leads to people living closer to each other, increasing the risk of transmission. People with low wages often find it increasingly difficult to eat an adequate diet. As a result, their immune systems easily succumb to new communicable diseases. Part of the collapse process is often the loss of a significant share of the population to a communicable disease.

Looking back at Figure 2, I believe that the current economic cycle started with the use of fossil fuels back in the 1800s. The world economy hit the stagflation period in the 1970s, when oil supply first became constrained. The Great Recession of 2008-2009 seems to be a marker for the beginning of the crisis period in the current cycle. If I am right in this assessment, the world economy is in the period in which we should expect crises, such as pandemics or wars, to occur.

The world was already pushing up against resource limits before all of the shutdowns took place. The shutdowns can be expected to push with world economy toward a more rapid decline in output per capita. They also appear to increase the likelihood that citizens will try to overthrow their governments, once the quarantine restrictions are removed.

[3] The carrying capacity of the world today is augmented by the world’s energy supply. A major issue since 2014 is that oil prices have been too low for oil producers. The coronavirus problem is pushing oil prices even lower yet.

Strangely enough, the world economy is facing a resource shortage problem, but it manifests itself as low commodity prices and excessive wage and wealth disparity.

Most economists have not figured out that economies are, in physics terms, dissipative structures. These are self-organizing systems that grow, at least for a time. Hurricanes (powered by energy from warm water) and ecosystems (powered by sunlight) are other examples of dissipative structures. Humans are dissipative structures, as well; we are powered by the energy content of foods. Economies require energy for all of the processes that we associate with generating GDP, such as refining metals and transporting goods. Electricity is a form of energy.

Energy can be used to work around shortages of almost any kind of resource. For example, if fresh water is a problem, energy products can be used to build desalination plants. If lack of phosphate rocks is an issue for adequate fertilization, energy products can be used to extract these rocks from less accessible locations. If pollution is a problem, fossil fuels can be used to build so-called renewable energy devices such as wind turbines and solar panels, to try to reduce future CO2 pollution.

The growth in energy consumption correlates quite well with the growth of the world economy. In fact, increases in energy consumption seem to precede growth in GDP, suggesting that it is energy consumption growth that allows the growth of GDP.

Figure 3. World GDP Growth versus Energy Consumption Growth, based on data of 2018 BP Statistical Review of World Energy and GDP data in 2010$ amounts, from the World Bank.

The thing that economists tend to miss is the fact that extracting enough fossil fuels (or commodities of any type) is a two-sided price problem. Prices must be both:

  1. High enough for companies extracting the resources to make an after tax profit.
  2. Low enough for consumers to afford finished goods made with these resources.

Most economists believe that an inadequate supply of energy products will be marked by high prices. In fact, the situation seems to be almost “upside down” in a networked economy. Inadequate energy supplies seem to be marked by excessive wage and wealth disparity. This wage and wealth disparity leads to commodity prices that are too low for producers. Current WTI oil prices are about $20 per barrel, for example (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Daily spot price of West Texas Intermediate oil, based on EIA data.

The low-price commodity price issue is really an affordability problem. The many people with low wages cannot afford goods such as cars, homes with heating and air conditioning, and vacation travel. In fact, they may even have difficulty affording food. Spending by rich people does not make up for the shortfall in spending by the poor because the rich tend to spend their wealth differently. They tend to buy services such as tax planning and expensive private college educations for their children. These services require proportionately less commodity use than goods purchased by the poor.

The problem of low commodity prices becomes especially acute in countries that produce commodities for export. Producers find it difficult to pay workers adequate wages to live on. Also, governments are not able to collect enough taxes for the services workers expect, such as public transit. The combination is likely to lead to protests by citizens whenever the opportunity arises. Once shutdowns end, these countries are especially in danger of having their governments overthrown.

[4] There are limits to what governments and central banks can fix. 

Governments can give citizens checks so that they have enough funds to buy groceries. This may, indeed, keep the price of food products high enough for food producers. There may still be problems with broken supply lines, so there may still be shortages of some products. For example, if there are eggs but no egg cartons, there may be no eggs for sale in grocery stores.

Central banks can act as buyers for many kinds of assets such as bonds and even shares of stock. In this way, they can perhaps keep stock market prices reasonably high. If enough gimmicks are used, perhaps they can even keep the prices of homes and farms reasonably high.

Central banks can also keep interest rates paid by governments low. In fact, interest rates can even be negative, especially for the short term. Businesses whose profitability has been reduced and workers who have been laid off are likely to discover that their credit ratings have been downgraded. This is likely to lead to higher interest costs for these borrowers, even if interest rates for the most creditworthy are kept low.

One area where governments and central banks seem to be fairly helpless is with respect to low prices for commodities used by industry, such as oil, natural gas, coal, copper and lithium. These commodities are traded internationally, so it is not just their own producers that need to be propped up; the market intervention needs to affect the entire world market.

One approach to raising world commodity prices would be to buy up large quantities of the commodities and store them somewhere. This is impractical, because no one has adequate storage for the huge quantities involved.

Another approach for raising world commodity prices would be to try to raise worldwide demand for finished goods and services. (Making more finished goods and services will use more commodities, and thus will tend to raise commodity prices.) To do this, checks would somehow need to go to the many poor people in the world, including those in India, Bangladesh and Nigeria, allowing these people to buy cars, homes, and other finished goods. Sending out checks only to people in one’s own economy would not be sufficient. It is unlikely that the US or the European Union would undertake a task such as this.

A major problem after many people have been out of work for a quite a while is the fact that many of these people will be behind on their regular payments, such as rent and car payments. They will be in no mood to buy a new vehicle or a new cell phone, simply because they have been offered a check that covers groceries and not much more. They will remain in a mode of cutting back on purchases, not adding more. Demand for most kinds of goods will remain low.

This lack of demand will make it difficult for business to have enough sales to make it profitable to reopen at the level of output that they had previously. Thus, employment and sales are likely to remain depressed even after the economy seems to be reopening. China seems to be having this problem. The Wall Street Journal reports China Is Open for Business, but the Postcoronavirus Reboot Looks Slow and Rocky. It also reports, Another Shortage in China’s Virus-Hit Economy: Jobs for College Grads.

[5] There is a significant likelihood that the COVID-19 problem is not going away, even if economies can “bend the trend line” with respect to new cases.

Bending the trend line has to do with trying to keep hospitals and medical providers from being overwhelmed. It is likely to mean that herd immunity is built up slowly, making repeat outbreaks more likely. Thus, if social isolation is stopped, COVID-19 illnesses can be expected to revisit prior locations. We know that this has been an issue in the past. The Spanish Flu epidemic came in three waves, over the years 1918-1919. The second wave was the most deadly.

recent study by members of the Harvard School of Public Health says that the COVID-19 epidemic may appear in waves until into 2022. In fact, it could be back on a seasonal basis thereafter. It also indicates that more than one period of social distancing is likely to be required:

“A single period of social distancing will not be sufficient to prevent critical care capacities from being overwhelmed by the COVID-19 epidemic, because under any scenario considered it leaves enough of the population susceptible that a rebound in transmission after the end of the period will lead to an epidemic that exceeds this capacity.”

Thus, even if the COVID-19 problem seems to be fixed in a few weeks, it likely will be back again within a few months. With this level of uncertainty, businesses will not be willing to set up new operations. They will not hire many additional employees. The retired population will not run out and buy more tickets on cruise ships for next year. In fact, citizens are likely to continue to be worried about airplane flights being a place for transmitting illnesses, making the longer term prospects for the airline industry less optimistic.

Conclusion 

The economy was already near the edge before COVID-19 hit. Wage and wealth disparity were big problems. Local populations of many areas objected to immigrants, fearing that the added population would reduce job opportunities for people who already lived there, among other things. As a result, many areas were experiencing protests because of unhappiness with the current economic situation.

The shutdowns temporarily cut back the protests, but they certainly do not fix the underlying situations. Instead, the shutdowns add to the number of people with very low wages or no income at all. The shutdowns also reduce the total quantity of goods and services available to purchase, regardless of how much money is added to the system. Many people will end up poorer, in some real sense.

As soon as the shutdowns end, it will be obvious that the world economy is in worse condition than it was before the shutdown. The longer the shutdowns last, the worse shape the world economy will be in. Thus, when businesses are restarted, we can expect even more protests and more divisive politics. Some governments may be overthrown, or they may collapse without being pushed. I fear that the world economy will be further down the road toward overall collapse.

Opportunities in the covid 19 crude oil contango

What happens to the economics of oil when the global economy shuts down because of coronavirus? Harris Kupperman, CIO and president of Praetorian Capital, breaks down the chaos coronavirus has inserted into global oil markets and provides investors with an investment thesis based on the opportunity that chaos has created. In the context of the global shutdown, Kupperman reveals how the combination of the current oil futures contango, alltime highs in tanker charter rates, and the dearth of crude oil storage could lead to never-before-seen revenues and profits for the tanking companies. He walks viewers through the numbers, explains the underpinning economics of the oil markets, and provides time horizons and potential profit multiples for those looking to find opportunity through uncertain times. Released on March 26, 2020.

Link below

https://www.realvision.com/opportunity-in-the-covid-crude-oil-contango?utm_source=contributor&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=43916_HK_GH_CONT_W1_LINK

The New (Forced) Frugality

By Charles Hugh Smith

March 28th 2020

There are only two ways to survive a decline in income and net worth: slash expenses or default on debt.

In post-World War II America, the cultural zeitgeist viewed frugality as a choice: permanent economic growth and federal anti-poverty programs steadily reduced the number of people in deep economic hardship (i.e. forced frugality) and raised the living standards of those in hardship to the point that the majority of households could choose to be frugal or live large by borrowing money to enable additional spending. Either way, rising income and net worth would raise all ships, frugal and free-spending alike.

For everyone above the bottom 20%, frugality was viewed as a sliding scale of choice: if you couldn’t increase your income fast enough, then borrow whatever money you needed. If you chose to be frugal, in moderation (i.e. clipping coupons and shopping for the cheapest airline seats, etc.) this was viewed as admirable fiscal prudence; if pushed beyond moderation then it was dismissed as counter to the American spirit of everlasting expansion: tightwad is not an endearment.

Thus none of us immoderately frugal folks ever fit in. Our frugality raised eyebrows and drew derogatory exhortations from indebted free-spenders to “get out there and live a little,” i.e. blow hard-earned money on aspirational gewgaws or status-enhancing fripperies, including the oh-so-precious “experiences” that have now replaced gauche physical markers of status-climbing.

We are now entering a new era of forced frugality in which incomes and net worth stagnate or decline while the cost of living rises and borrowing is no longer frictionless.

To say that these changes will shock the system is putting it mildly. Here’s the key dynamic in forced frugality: income can drop precipitously without any ratcheting to slow the decline, but costs only ratchet higher, or decline by nearly imperceptible degrees; that is, costs are “sticky” and refuse to slide down as easily as income.

The second key dynamic in forced frugality is the tightening of lending and the rising cost of borrowed money. When lenders could assume that almost every household’s income would increase as a byproduct of ceaseless economic expansion, and assets such as stocks, bonds and houses would always increase in value (any spots of bother are temporary), then the odds of a nasty default (in which the borrower stiffs the lender–no monthly payments to you, Bucko)–were low.

But once incomes and asset valuations are more likely to fall than rise, the door to lending slams shut. Why would lenders extend loans to households and enterprises that are practically guaranteed to default? Any lender that self-destructive would soon be stripped of their capital and solvency.

The general assumption is that since central banks are buying bonds, interest rates for borrowers can only go down. This assumption is misguided. The base assumption of all lenders is that a very thin layer of borrowers will default. Once this layer thickens, it makes no sense to lend to everyone who can fog a mirror.

Unwary lenders are about to learn a very painful lesson about the creditworthiness of supposedly solvent middle-class households: since income isn’t “sticky,” households that had high credit scores for years can quite suddenly default on their loans once their incomes plummet.

As for the borrower’s assets, those too can plummet in value, leaving the lender with zero collateral or an asset for which there is no buyer, regardless of the appraised value.

The income/assets slope is greased while the cost slope is on a resistant ratchet. Income can slide down effortlessly while costs stubbornly refuse to fall.

The net result of this dynamic is forced frugality. For the first time in decades, households and enterprises cannot count on a resumption of growth in a few months and higher incomes and asset valuations.

To the dismay of living-large-on-debt households and enterprises, the only way to get more than you have now will be to save, save, save cash. Earning more from one’s labor will be difficult, as will reaping easy speculative gains from simply owning assets.

The debt-free frugal may be forgiven for indulging in a bit of schadenfreude toward those who scorned frugality in favor of living large in the moment. Now who’s living large? Not the extremely frugal, because squandering money gives them no pleasure, and they prefer the anti-status “status” of old cars and trucks, tools that have lasted decades and assets that look like everyone else’s except they’re debt-free.

As for income–those who control and invest their own capital and labor, the class I’ve long called mobile creatives–will have far more opportunities than those chained to the monoculture plantations of corporate cartels and government agencies squeezed by collapsing tax revenues.

A great many people who reckoned moderate frugality was more than enough will discover it no longer suffices. A great many other people who reckoned they were rich enough to spurn frugality will discover their income no longer covers their expenses and so expenses will have to be slashed and burned to the ground.

And many frugal people who did the best they could with limited income will find that even extreme frugality can’t fix a decline in income.

An economy-wide reckoning of what’s essential is just starting. Netflix subscription? Gym membership? Fast food takeout a couple times a week? No, no and no. A thousand no’s as there are only two ways to survive a decline in income and net worth: slash expenses or default on debt. Both are toxic to “growth” in spending and debt.

https://www.oftwominds.com/blog.html

Four Baskets For Four Quadrants by Louis-Vincent Gave

As they survey the shattered remnants of the past decade’s bull market, investors are inevitably asking: what happens next? Not next week, and not next month, but what happens for the coming years? Specifically, did this bear market mark the end of an era and, in time, the start of a new one? Or do we still live in a MAGA (Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon) era?

In a recent paper, Charles* argued that the Covid-19 outbreak is paving the way for a universal basic income funded by MMT (aka the magic money tree) and that these two profound changes will upend the investment environment. This view leads me back to the most trusty Gavekal framework for linking the macro environment to the investment landscape, namely the Four Quadrants.

For the past 30 years or so, the world has basically alternated between disinflationary booms and busts, which makes inherent sense as the dominant force of capitalism is deflation. Every entrepreneur, everywhere around the world, is always trying to produce more with less. And in a disinflationary world, asset allocation is a breeze: one needs to own government bonds (to hedge the risk of a deflationary bust) and equities (to participate in any deflationary boom). And best yet: in a disinflationary world, not only do bonds and equities both have the wind at their back, but the two main asset classes have in bad times been negatively correlated. So, happiness all around.

read more

In Conversation with me

E

i gave an interview to Ventura Securities and thought about sharing it with you all

Nobody knows what the world is going to look like after the Corona episode ends. However, as capital markets are forward looking, investors need to stay ahead of time in analysing the investment climate and taking informed decisions. During such phases, experience comes into play.

For the benefit of our readers and the entire investor community, we recently interacted with one of India’s best fund managers and mutual fund CIOs, Mr Ritesh Jain. We highly appreciate him sharing his thoughts at this time of uncertainty.

In his investing career of over 20 years, he assumed senior roles which includes CIO—BNP Paribas Mutual Fund and Tata Mutual Fund—wherein he managed USD 1.2 billion and USD 6.0 billion, respectively.

Amongst many national and international awards he won as a fund manager, CRISIL CNBC TV18 Award, Business World Debt fund manager of the year award in 2011 and Lipper Best Bond Fund of the year (4 years in a row) are noteworthy.

A blogger himself (http://worldoutofwhack.com/), Mr Jain is now a trend watcher and global macro investor. His mantra is to Make sense out of chaos.

We share with you here his candid perspectives and hope it enables you to take well informed decisions after doing your own analysis.

read more

Got gold?

By Global Macro Monitor

The Fed’s effective nationalization of the financial markets in the past week has spiked gold prices.  It does appear the first phase of the bear market and bursting of  multiple asset bubble is almost complete.  Phase 1, an initial massive deleveraging, brought gold down 15 percent from its recent high before the big spike over the past two days as the Fed announced it will print “whatever it takes.”

Gold is now our highest conviction trade and fully expect the 1704 recent high to be taken out very soon, clearing the way to take out the September 2011 all-time high at 1920.80, which is only 15.6 percent higher.  A chip shot on the gold yardage card.

What We’re Watching

There are two things we are focused on like a laser.

Bond Auctions

We are watching the Treasury auctions with the 5-year and 7-year note to scheduled to take place in the next two days.  The budget deficit is exploding higher and the Treasury near-term funding requirements are growing exponentially.  How much the markets are willing to finance and how much will the Fed be forced to monetize will determine the slope of gold’s trajectory.

Our back of the envelope estimate with both the decline in tax revenues and increase in spending will put the effective budget deficit well north of $4.5 trillion for the year, which is almost a 25 percent increase in the federal debt held by the public.   We may not see that number due to window dressing, however.

We don’t know but suspect the Fed will have to directly credit the Treasury’s operating cash held at the Federal Reserve but not sure if the law allows it, which will have to be changed.   Risking a series ugly auctions would strike another blow to confidence.

Dollar 

Trouble with the auctions and accelerated down move in the dollar index below 88.23 will fuel gold’s rally and signal a bigger problem.  The dollar index spiked 8.81 percent during the recent collapse and has started to sell off after the Fed’ big announcement to print “whatever it takes” earlier in this week.  Watch this space.

MMT is finally about to get its big test.  We are open to be converted and do hope they are right.

Stop losses über alles.   As always, we reserve the right to wrong.

read more

Time To Buy Stuff…

By Kuppy March 23rd

It’s said that you want to buy when others are fearful. It sure seems that investors are currently losing their minds. Look, I get it, there’s a virus and there’s a good chance that a lot of us will get it. There’s conflicting data about the overall mortality rate which makes it all worse; especially as its origins in China are terrifying. All sorts of businesses are shuttering operations while the Federal Government seems hopelessly incompetent at fighting this thing. Meanwhile, local governments have created a dysfunctional patchwork of mandatory quarantines and arbitrary rules which will harm businesses and do little to fight the virus as people who don’t follow the quarantines will keep infecting those staying indoors (Full Disclosure: I’ve been staying home, eating my canned tuna and whiskey rations). It’s a complete mess and it is almost certain that economic conditions will get worse before they get better. I get all of that, in fact, it’s been pounded into my head every few minutes by just about everyone I know—which means they all get it as well. At some point, this gets priced in.

The Russell 2000 is now down 40% in a month and is currently at 2013 levels. How is it not getting priced in?

Various companies that I track are down by more than half since the start of the year and many are down by more than 80%. The selling is indiscriminate and it is clear that many large funds are getting liquidated. To me, this all spells opportunity. Sure, you won’t get the low tick, but if you aren’t buying stock down here, you’re simply doing it all wrong.

Investing is about looking forward a few years into a business’s future and figuring out if you’re getting a bargain. I promise you, for most companies, the next quarter or two will be awful. Who cares? I’m buying the next 5 years of earnings. Why do I care about the next two quarters if I get the subsequent 18 quarters at a MASSIVE discount?

Why am I so sure that the next 18 quarters will be so strong? Behind the scenes, all sorts of crazy schemes to prop up the economy are getting worked out. Lobbyists are calling in favors from their favorite congressmen. These things take time and right now, they can’t do much as we’re all told to stay indoors and stop spending. I promise you, by the fall, they’ll be rolling out a scheme a day as we head into the election.

Meanwhile, the big bazookas are owned by the Federal Reserve. Every day last week, friends looked at the tape and told me that QE doesn’t work on a virus. Of course, it doesn’t. You can’t solve a pandemic by printing money. You’re stupid if you thought that. However, the money is now out there. Eventually it will find its way into financial assets—it always does. My friends keep telling me the Fed shot its gun and is out of bullets. Are you kidding me? They own the bullet factory. They’ll come back in a few days with a bigger gun. The history of investing since 2008 is that the Fed will keep throwing solutions at the market and eventually, they’ll find the right combination of tools to arrest the market’s decline—then the market will take off as all that liquidity is out there, looking for a home. The Fed is in the bubble-blowing business. They’ll figure this one out and create a bubble to dwarf all others.

But Kuppy; isn’t the economy going to be in tatters all summer?

Who cares? Venezuela’s economy is in chaos and their market has gone vertical (they don’t have toilet paper either). If you print enough money and target it at the stock market, assets values will increase, regardless of economic conditions.

Who says you need a functioning economy to have a bull market?

But Kuppy; how do you know it won’t go lower first?

I don’t know anything. I know that I’m buying businesses at a fraction of fair value because people have panic sold them. I see no solvency risk in my holdings and I accept the fact that they may drop a lot more first. I also know that once this thing turns, it’s going to be too hard to get on-board the freight train because I’m not the sort of guy who buys something that’s up 10% on the day and we’re going to be up 10% a day for weeks at a time.

But Kuppy; isn’t fiscal stimulus slow because it takes a long time to permit infrastructure programs?

Who said anything about infrastructure? That doesn’t get anyone’s votes. They’re going to do something akin to giving everyone a $5,000 Visa debit card with an October 1 expiration date.

I’ve now heard every reason not to be long. I haven’t seen palpable fear like this in ages. Everyone is sure that half the population will get this thing and a million people will die. Let’s say that is unfortunately the eventual outcome. In 2019, 2.8 million Americans died and the vast majority of them died from pre-existing conditions. Guess what the number one marker for mortality with COVID is? Pre-existing conditions. If 1 million Americans die, the vast majority of those individuals will be those who were likely to die at a different time from their pre-existing conditions. Now, I don’t mean to belittle death and suffering. Rather, I want to say that if the worst-case outcome occurs, I don’t think we’ll be more than a few hundred thousand deaths off trend-line in terms of overall mortality in America—COVID-19 probably won’t even be a 1-sigma event. It’s horribly unfortunate if it’s you, but it won’t change the economic situation here in America.

The only thing that can change the economy is government induced chaos. I suspect that we’ll get a few more weeks of that, but as a result, the rate of infection will slow and go negative—just like in every other country where they’ve eventually figured out how to “flatten the curve.” Then people will go on with their lives, right as the stimulus programs kick in. The ensuing recovery will lead to the biggest bull market run of my career. Now, you can be in the fetal position or you can front-run that. I don’t know what date the market bottoms, no one does. However, I’m pretty damn sure that once it gets going, you’re going to want to be at maximum exposure. I’ve spent the past few days buying stocks. I have the most exposure that I’ve had in years. A month ago, I wrote to warn you to take something off. Now is time to buy everything you always wanted to own, but for a fraction of the cost in January.

I’m not saying to be reckless; make sure the debt is termed out, make sure there’s plenty of excess liquidity, make sure your companies can make it through a lower for longer scenario. However, you don’t get bargains like this during a benign environment. You have to take on a bit of event risk.

I’m buying. My main theme is that deflation is dead—get long inflation. Remember, in investing, your only edge is your ability to cycle capital into something cheaper and take advantage of someone getting liquidated. If you have positions that have done well (bonds for instance), you really ought to be cycling into companies that are down a bunch. If you can’t figure out what to own, just buy gold–Powell intends to launch it to Pluto.

On a final note, I’m by no means saying you need to go “all-in” here. In fact, going “all-in” is what gets people into trouble. What I am saying is that this is the time to be buying, not selling. I took some off a few weeks ago and I put it to work in the past few trading sessions. I was a bit early, but I don’t regret it. As they turn on the fire hose of liquidity, we’re going to have one epic bull market in risk assets. I want exposure to that.

The last time I had a similar message to “buy shares,” was at the lows in 2018. I was about a week early, but the market subsequently rallied 40% over the next year. Back then, we didn’t know where the Fed stood on interest rates. Now we know they’ll do “whatever it takes” to prop up the market. In fact, every day we learn of a different alphabet soup of acronyms designed to prop up the market. I feel pretty confident that they’ll dramatically overshoot the mark this time. It’s time to buy shares, accepting that I may be a bit early once again. I intend to ignore the incredible volatility over the next few weeks and remain confident that a tidal wave of liquidity is coming behind me. The bull market of the second half of 2020 will stun people. I intend to ride it.

Disclosure: Funds that I control are long a whole lotta exposure including gold

If you enjoyed this post, subscribe for more at http://adventuresincapitalism.com