Kudos to Goldman Sachs for knowing how to make money on the election

A friend forwarded this chart. Since the market is already pricing in a Clinton victory, shorting NJA (non-Japan Asia, in GS lingo, not "National Jousting Association" as the Acronym Finder says) is recommended. Shorting the Mexican peso is also indicated but with a lower level of potential gain. This trade would apply even if Trump lost the election. This reminds us that, in the world of the trading of financial instruments, there is no good or bad, no right or wrong, only opportunity. Investors should never forget this.

Question to US investors: How safe is it to be invested in the world's most expensive stock market?

It's probably not very safe.

(Click on graph for full story in the Wall Street Journal.)

Martin Feldstein among the faeries, reporting from a dreamworld.

Martin Feldstein says, “The US economy is in good shape.”

In this morning’s Wall Street Journal, Harvard professor Feldstein said, “The American economy is in good shape, better than critics think and financial investors fear. Incomes are rising, unemployment is falling, and industrial production is up sharply.” (p. A13)

I am glad to hear this because it echoes President Obama’s State of the Union assertions that “America right now has the strongest, most durable economy in the world,” and anyone saying America is in decline “is peddling fiction.”

The market problem is a market problem, according to Feldstein. Fed policy has pushed equities to artificially high levels; even after the recent decline, stocks are still 35% above normal.

He thinks the data showing that household income has stagnated is deceptive because it measures cash income. “The CBO explains that once corporate and government transfers are added to market incomes, and federal taxes are subtracted, the real income after transfers and federal taxes is up 49% between 1979 and 2010 for households in the lowest income quintile (with average total incomes of $31,000 in 2010). Real income is up 40% between 1979 and 2010 for households in the middle three quintiles (with average total incomes of $60,000) in 2010.”

These adjustments are interesting. Until a few years ago, the BLS when reporting on the number of Americans below the poverty line did not take into account government benefits. Today both numbers are available and you can choose between them depending on what point you wish to make. I noticed a couple of years ago, and wrote about it, that the average teacher in the local public schools with a master’s degree and 5-10 years of experience had about same effective income as a family of four on assistance. If the salary were $65,000, then about $20,000 comes off the top for health insurance (here the teacher pays half) and pension contribution (11% of gross income). Then we must subtract state and federal income taxes and NEA dues. On assistance, this teacher and his family could get subsidized housing, free healthcare, food stamps, and cash payments. In effect, he is no better off working, if we go by the numbers.

So why does he want to work? There are a number of reasons. He probably does not want to move his family to subsidized housing where he hears reports of frequent drug busts, shootings, assaults, and other crimes. He also likes being in a work environment where he is active, has interesting and dynamic colleagues, as well as other psychological rewards.

This is the point that Feldstein seems to miss. People don’t feel good about themselves if they are forced to depend on government programs. A good job is not an even trade for monetarily equivalent benefits. If you tell people in the latter group, or those who fear going there, that the economy is in good shape, they won’t believe you.

El-Erian fears doom, but hopes for the good enough

Mohammed El-Erian has just published a book, The Only Game in Town: Central Banks, Instability, and Avoiding the Next Collapse. He says the world economy is on a road heading for a "T junction," to use a British phrase. We must soon choose between the two roads. One leads to total destruction (depression, social disorder) and the other to some sort of survival. He assigns a 50% likelihood to each outcome. To achieve the latter somewhat better outcome, far-sighted, enlightened and public-spirited actions are required from our leaders. (It is unclear how he gets a 50% likelihood that this will happen. It's rather like Samuel Johnson's definition of a second marriage, "the triumph of hope over experience.")

As for the central banks, we have reached the point where a continuation of extraordinary measures (ZIRP, QE) is counterproductive, and even destructive. He goes so far as to say that apart from the emergency measures during the crisis, the central bank monetary manipulation experiment has not worked.

Yesterday my wife listened to El-Erian's hour-long interview on Tom Ashbrook's show "On Point" in the morning. She insisted I hear the replay in the evening, but I resisted as I was reading a book. I did, however, subsequently download and listen to the podcast. It is well worth hearing. It is anything but the party line.

The link: http://onpoint.wbur.org/2016/02/16/economic-market-crash-prediction


Yours truly,
Lincoln