|South Africa, La Jolla, Toronto and Maine|
The late and great Milton Friedman told us that inflation is always and
everywhere a monetary phenomenon. But there is an asterisk to his equation
that we need to examine, namely, the velocity of money. Sometimes a
fast-growing money supply is not as inflationary as you might think. Then
we will take quick looks at why the banking sector is in for more and
larger rounds of write-offs, as well as note that the housing industry is
in a hole but is gamely digging itself deeper. This week's letter will
require you to put your thinking cap on as we travel to a mythical island
to get an understanding of how the economy really works. There are a lot
of charts, so the letter may again print long, but the word length is
normal. And with no "but first," we jump right in.
When most of us think of the velocity of money, we think of how fast it
goes through our hands. I know at the Mauldin household, with seven kids,
it seems like something is always coming up. And with my oldest daughter
Tiffani getting married this summer (forget gas, you haven't seen
inflation until you start buying floral arrangements), more kids in
school, "Dad, I need a car," high energy costs, etc., the velocity, at
least in terms of how fast money seems to go out the door, seems faster
than normal. And what about my business? Travel costs are way, way up, and
as aggressive as we are on the budget, expenses seem to rise. About the
only way to deal with it is, as my old partner from the 1970's Don Moore
used to say, is to make it up with "excess profits," whatever those are.
Is the Money Supply Growing or Not?
But we are not talking about our personal budgetary woes, gentle reader.
Today we tackle an economic concept called the velocity of money and how
it affects the growth of the economy. But let's start with a few charts
showing the recent and high growth in the money supply that many are
alarmed about. The money supply is growing very slowly, alarmingly fast or
just about right, depending upon which monetary measure you use.
First, let's look at the adjusted monetary base, or plain old cash plus
bank reserves held at the Federal Reserve. That is the only part of the
money supply the Fed has any real direct control of. And it is not growing
that much (less than 2%!), and a lot of the cash goes overseas, never to
come back to the US. Also note that the growth in the monetary base has
been trending down until recently.
Next, let's look at MZM, or Money of Zero Maturity. Stated another way,
you can think of it as cash, whether in a bank, a money market fund or in
Now, remember, Friedman taught us that inflation is a monetary phenomenon.
If you increase the money supply too fast, you risk an unwanted rise in
inflation. If the money supply shrinks or grows too slowly, you could see
Note that MZM is growing at close to an 18% rate year over year. Also note
that less than three years ago MZM was growing close to zero. Since that
time inflation has increased. Therefore, one could make the case that the
Fed is causing inflation by allowing the money supply to increase too
rapidly. Case closed.
Or maybe not. More cash sometimes means that people and businesses are
taking less risk. The Fed cannot control what we do with our money, only
how much bank reserves it allows and how much cash it puts into the
Forecasting inflation from a money supply graph is very difficult. It used
to be a lot simpler, but in recent decades has been very unreliable, for
reasons we will look at in a moment. But it is much too simplistic to draw
a direct comparison to inflation and an arbitrary money supply measure.
If we look at a graph of M2, which includes time deposits, small
certificates of deposit, etc. we again see a rise in recent growth. M2 is
the measure of money supply that most economists use when they are
thinking about inflation. And we see that M2 is growing at a sprightly 7%
year over year. This is not all that high historically, but again it is up
significantly over the past few years. See the graph below. Note there
have been several times (as recently as 2000) when annual M2 growth was
I should note that M2 has been growing at 12% since the first of the year,
so there is an acceleration in growth, which some find a major concern. If
that pace were to continue, maybe we should worry, but M2 growth is quite
erratic from quarter to quarter. In any event, there is another factor we
need to consider besides the money supply.
The Velocity of Money
Now, let's introduce the concept of velocity of money. Basically, this is
speaking of the average frequency with which a unit of money is spent.
Let's assume a very small economy of just you and me, which has a money
supply of $100. I have the $100 and spend it to buy $100 of flowers from
you. You in turn spend $100 to buy books from me. We have created $200 of
our "gross domestic product" from a money supply of just $100. If we do
that transaction every month, we would have $2400 of "GDP" from our $100
So, what that means is that gross domestic product is a function of not
just the money supply but how fast the money supply moves through the
economy. Stated as an equation, it is P=MV, where P is the Nominal Gross
Domestic Product (not inflation adjusted here), M is the money supply and
V is the velocity of money. You can solve for V by dividing P by M.
Now, let's complicate our illustration just a bit, but not too much at
first. This is very basic, and for those of you who will complain that I
am being too simple, wait a few pages, please. Let's assume an island
economy with ten businesses and a money supply of $1,000,000. If each
business does approximately $100,000 of business a quarter, then the Gross
Domestic Product for the island would be $4,000,000 (4 times the
$1,000,000 quarterly production). The velocity of money in that economy is
But what if our businesses got more productive? We introduce all sorts of
interesting financial instruments, banking, new production capacity,
computers, etc., and now everyone is doing $100,000 per month. Now our GDP
is $12,000,000 and the velocity of money is 12. But we have not increased
the money supply. Again, we assume that all businesses are static. They
buy and sell the same amount every month. There are no winners and losers
as of yet.
Now let's complicate matters. Two of the kids of the owners of the
businesses decide to go into business for themselves. Having learned from
their parents, they immediately become successful and start doing $100,000
a month themselves. GDP potentially goes to $14,000,000. In order for
everyone to stay at the same level of gross income, the velocity of money
must increase to 14.
Now, this is important. If the
velocity of money does not increase, that means that (in our simple island
world) on average each business is now going to buy and sell less each
month. Remember, nominal GDP is money supply times velocity. If velocity
does not increase, GDP will stay the same. The average business (there are
now 12) goes from doing $1,200,000 a year down to $1,000,000.
Each business now is doing around $80,000 per month. Overall production is
the same, but divided up among more businesses. For each of the
businesses, it feels like a recession. They have fewer dollars so they buy
less and prices fall. So, in that world, the local central bank recognizes
that the money supply needs to grow at some rate in order to make the
demand for money "neutral."
It is basic supply and demand. If the demand for corn increases, the price
will go up. If Congress decides to remove the ethanol subsidy, the demand
for corn will go down as will the price.
If the central bank increases the money supply too much, you would have
too much money chasing too few goods and inflation would manifest its ugly
head. (Remember, this is a very simplistic example. We assume static
production from each business, running at full capacity.)
Let's say the central bank doubles the money supply to $2,000,000. If the
velocity of money is still 12, then the GDP would grow to $24,000,000.
That would be a good thing, wouldn't it?
No, because we only produce 20% more goods from the two new businesses.
There is a relationship between production and price. Each business would
now sell $200,000 per month or double their previous sales, which they
would spend on goods and services which only grew by 20%. They would start
to bid up the price of the goods they want and inflation sets in. Think of
So, our mythical bank decides to boost the money supply by only 20%, which
allows the economy to grow and prices to stay the same. Smart. And if only
it were that simple.
Let's assume 10 million businesses, from the size of Exxon down to the
local dry cleaners and a population which grows by 1% a year. Hundreds of
thousands of new businesses are being started every month and another
hundred thousand fail. Productivity over time increases, so that we are
producing more "stuff" with fewer costly resources.
Now, there is no exact way to determine the right size of the money
supply. It definitely needs to grow each year by at least the growth in
the size of the economy, new population and productivity or deflation will
appear. But if money supply grows too much then you would have inflation.
And what about the velocity of money? Friedman assumed the velocity of
money was constant. And it was from about 1950 until 1978 when he was
doing his seminal work. But then things changed. Let's look at two charts
sent to me by Dr. Lacy Hunt of Hoisington Investment Management in Austin,
and one of my favorite economists. First, let's look at the velocity of
money for the last 108 years.
Notice that the velocity of money fell during the Great Depression. And
from 1953 to 1980 the velocity of money was almost exactly the average for
the last 100 years. Also, Lacy pointed out in a conversation which helped
me immensely in writing this letter, that the velocity of money is mean
reverting over long periods of time. That means one would expect the
velocity of money to fall over time back to the mean or average. Some
would make the argument that we should use the mean from more modern times
since World War 2, but even then, mean reversion would mean a slowing of
the velocity of money (V) and mean reversion implies that V would go below
(over-correct) the mean. However you look at it, the clear implication is
that V is going to drop. In a few paragraphs, we will see why that is the
case from a practical standpoint. But let's look at the first chart.
Now, let's look at the same chart since 1959 but with shaded gray areas
which show us the times the economy is in recession. Note that (with one
exception in the 1970s) velocity drops during a recession. What is the Fed
response? An offsetting increase in the money supply to try and overcome
the effects of the business cycle and the recession. P=MV. If velocity
falls then money supply must rise for nominal GDP to grow. The Fed
attempts to jump start the economy back into growth by increasing the
In this chart, Lacy assumes we are already in recession (gray bar at far
right). The black line is his projection of velocity in the near future.
If you can't read the print at the bottom of the chart, he assumes that
GDP is $14.17 trillion, M2 is $7.6 trillion and therefore Velocity is
1.85, down from almost 1.95 just a few years ago. If velocity reverts to
or below the mean, it could easily drop 10% from here. We will explore why
this could happen in a minute.
But let's go back to our equation, P=MV. If velocity slows by 10% (which
it well should) then money supply (M) would have to rise by 10% just to
maintain a static economy. But that assumes you do not have 1% population
growth, 2% (or thereabouts) productivity growth, a target inflation of 2%,
which means M (money supply) needs to grow about 5% a year even if V was
constant. And that is not particularly stimulative, given that we are in
Bottom line? Expect money supply growth well north of 7% annually for the
next few years. Is that enough? Too much? About right? We won't know for a
long time. This will allow arm chair economists (and that is most of us)
to sit back and Monday morning quarterback for many years.
A Slowdown in Velocity
Now, why is the velocity of money slowing down? Notice the real rise in V
from 1990 through about 1997. Growth in M2 (see the above chart) was
falling during most of that period, yet the economy was growing. That
means that velocity had to rise faster than normal. Why? Primarily because
of the financial innovations introduced in the early 90's like
securitizations, CDOs, etc. It is financial innovation that spurs above
trend growth in velocity.
And now we are watching the Great Unwind of financial innovations, as they
went to excess and caused a credit crisis. In principle, a CDO or subprime
asset backed security should be a good thing. And in the beginning they
were. But then standards got loose, greed kicked in and Wall Street began
to game the system. End of game.
What drove velocity to new highs is no longer part of the equation. Its
absence is slowing things down. If the money supply did not rise
significantly to offset that slowdown in velocity the economy would
already be in a much deeper recession.
While the Fed does not have control over M2, when they lower interest
rates, it is supposed to make us want to take on more risk, borrow money
and boost the economy. So, they have an indirect influence.
I expect the Fed to cut another 25 basis points next week, and to give us
a statement that will look neutral, with a nod toward difficult economic
conditions. The latest Beige Book from the Fed was simply dreadful, so you
can bet the governors will have a deteriorating economy in mind. Given the
25 plus year low in consumer confidence, they have little choice.
But the difference another 50 basis point cut (over the next few meetings)
would make is not all that much. A 2% rate is already low. That would make
the real rate (after inflation) negative. In one sense, 2% today is lower
in real (inflation adjusted) terms than the 1% that Greenspan took it to.
Back then inflation was just above 1%. We will have a negative real
interest rate after this next cut. Depending upon which inflation measure
you use (and there are a few with some wide differences), it could be as
much as 2% negative. Now that is REAL stimulus.
And since we are on asides, let me predict that the official GDP for the
first quarter will not be negative. You watch and see if the PCE deflator
is below 3%. Call me cynical, but it would not surprise me, even as CPI is
over 4%. Also, watch GDP get revised to negative next year.
If You Are in a Hole, Stop Digging
I often listen to CNBC when I am driving to work (if I am not on the
phone). I am amazed how often I hear (or read) about the bottom of the
housing market. Often we hear that the stock market is predicting the
bottom. I wonder if any of these cheerleaders actually looks at the
relevant statistics. Again, let's do some basic arithmetic so that even an
analyst can understand.
Yesterday we found out that new home sales are running at an annual rate
of 526,000, the lowest number in almost two decades. The supply of new
homes, in terms of the amount of time it would take to work through the
inventory available for sale was 8.4 months last October. It is now an
even 11 months. (source for data: www.weldononline.com)
How many homes did the home building industry start building last month?
Housing starts were running at an annual rate of 947,000. Permits for new
homes was 927,000. That means the industry is building over 400,000 more
homes than they are selling. Add in a million or so foreclosures. Kill the
subprime market. Really make it hard to get a loan securitized for
anything but government backed mortgages.
Home construction is going to drop precipitously before the inventory of
new homes is worked through. Those who are predicting a rebound this
quarter are simply not paying attention to the basic math. New home prices
are down 13.3% year over year. They are going much lower. Margins are
going to get squeezed. Now maybe the market is pricing all this in. But I
think there are better places to gamble than the home builders.
And More Write-offs to Come
And speaking of gambling, a few quick thoughts on the write-offs that we are
seeing in the banking industry. We have just seen the beginning of woes. We
are nowhere near close to the end, for three reasons. First, the estimated
amount of write-offs from the subprime crisis is now approaching $1 trillion
(courtesy of the IMF). We have seen (maybe) write-offs of about $250 billion.
Where is the other $750 billion?
Now, some of it - maybe even most of it - is in insurance companies, pension
funds and sovereign wealth funds. It will be years before we can even estimate
how much. There will be no press releases from the Central Bank of China
saying they are writing off $15 billion. Which pension fund investment
committee will announce their losses? We will only "see" it in lower
But a lot is still in the banking system, having yet to be downgraded by the
Secondly, the problems are spreading from subprime. Bill King called my
attention to this note from Housingwire.com. Quote (emphasis mine):
"Moody's Investors Service issued more Alt-A downgrades on Thursday morning,
this time taking a heavy hand to 32 different Aaa-rated tranches from 10
different Alt-A deals. Many of the downgrades even pushed former Aaa's into
non-investment grade categories - a stunning descent for top-rated Alt-A
mortgage bonds that underscores two key points.
"First, defaults are obviously accelerating. Second, many Alt-A deals were
issued with less in the way of overcollateralization - which, in plain
English, means that these deals will start to see downgrades sooner, compared
to the relative stress that a typical subprime RMBS deal can withstand before
the hits start coming at the Aaa level.
"The rating agency placed an additional 254
Aaa-rated Alt-A classes on negative ratings watch Wednesday."
Clearly the default disease is moving up into Alt-A loans. Do you think any
bank has written these loans off yet? There are more write-offs coming from
the mortgage space. It is not unrealistic that we could see as much (in total)
as we have already seen.
Third, we are in a recession. That means all sorts of business loans,
commercial real estate, credit cards, student loans, car loans and so on are
yet to default. Defaults on such loans are a lagging indicator. Those
write-offs occur closer to the end of the recession than the beginning and we
have not seen much of them yet. We will. Expect banks to continue to post ever
larger reserves for losses.
All in all, we are nowhere close to the bottom of the credit crisis. The cycle
of large write-downs and then going to the market for more capital is going to
continue for some time, perhaps longer than a year. Anyone who is putting
money in the financial stocks is gambling, not investing.
South Africa, La Jolla, Toronto and Maine
Next Saturday I leave for South Africa. I am not looking forward to a 14 hour
flight in coach, but I always enjoy South Africa. (South African Airways
executives take note: I will be glad to testify to the comforts of first class
for an upgrade!) I am there about ten days and then head back, going back to
La Jolla for a quick trip to meet with my partners at Altegris and Thomas
Fischer of Jyske Bank.
Tiffani committed me to a speech in Toronto mid-June, and in late July I will
go to Maine to go fishing with my youngest son at David Kotok's annual fishing
fest sometimes called the Shadow Fed.
Then the big event. Tiffani is getting married on 08-08-08. It is going to be
quite the production. Every table is its own work of art. The cake will look
like an old sculpture with vines all around it. Of course, everything has its
own significance. And the photography that has already been done is way over
As noted above, I am flabbergasted at the cost of flowers. And fireworks? In
downtown Dallas? I have three other daughters, who I am sure will all be
watching and taking notes. Guess it is good I have no plans to retire in the
next 20 years. It seems Dad is going to be working and traveling for a long
The twins are coming down this weekend, so all seven kids will be around. I am
looking forward to it. And the Rangers are playing outside my window, trying
to keep from losing 8 straight. They have already set the team record for
worst April, and there are six games to go. And the Mavericks are down to New
Orleans. Isn't it time for some Dallas Cowboy football?
Have a great week, and remember times with family and friends go by fast, so
enjoy all that velocity while you can.
Your watching the velocity of life pick up speed analyst,
Copyright 2008 John Mauldin. All Rights Reserved
If you would like to reproduce any of John Mauldin's E-Letters you must
include the source of your quote and an email address
(John@FrontlineThoughts.com) Please write to info@FrontlineThoughts.com
and inform us of any reproductions. Please include where and when the
copy will be reproduced.
John Mauldin is the President of Millennium Wave Advisors, LLC (MWA)
which is an investment advisory firm registered with multiple states.
John Mauldin is a registered representative of Millennium Wave
Securities, LLC, (MWS) an NASD registered broker-dealer. MWS is also a
Commodity Pool Operator (CPO) and a Commodity Trading Advisor (CTA)
registered with the CFTC, as well as an Introducing Broker (IB).
Millennium Wave Investments is a dba of MWA LLC and MWS LLC. All
material presented herein is believed to be reliable but we cannot
attest to its accuracy. Investment recommendations may change and
readers are urged to check with their investment counselors before
making any investment decisions.
Opinions expressed in these reports may change without prior
notice. John Mauldin and/or the staffs at Millennium Wave Advisors, LLC
may or may not have investments in any funds cited above.
Note: The generic Accredited Investor E-letters are
not an offering for any investment. It represents only the opinions of
John Mauldin and Millennium Wave Investments. It is intended solely for
accredited investors who have registered with Millennium Wave
Investments and Altegris Investments at www.accreditedinvestor.ws
or directly related websites and have been so registered for no less
than 30 days. The Accredited Investor E-Letter is provided on a
confidential basis, and subscribers to the Accredited Investor E-Letter
are not to send this letter to anyone other than their professional
investment counselors. Investors should discuss any investment with
their personal investment counsel. John Mauldin is the President of
Millennium Wave Advisors, LLC (MWA), which is an investment advisory
firm registered with multiple states. John Mauldin is a registered
representative of Millennium Wave Securities, LLC, (MWS), an FINRA
registered broker-dealer. MWS is also a Commodity Pool Operator (CPO)
and a Commodity Trading Advisor (CTA) registered with the CFTC, as well
as an Introducing Broker (IB). Millennium Wave Investments is a dba of
MWA LLC and MWS LLC. Millennium Wave Investments cooperates in the
consulting on and marketing of private investment offerings with other
independent firms such as Altegris Investments; Absolute Return
Partners, LLP; Pro-Hedge Funds; EFG Capital International Corp; and
Plexus Asset Management. Funds recommended by Mauldin may pay a portion
of their fees to these independent firms, who will share 1/3 of those
fees with MWS and thus with Mauldin. Any views expressed herein are
provided for information purposes only and should not be construed in
any way as an offer, an endorsement, or inducement to invest with any
CTA, fund, or program mentioned here or elsewhere. Before seeking any
advisor's services or making an investment in a fund, investors must
read and examine thoroughly the respective disclosure document or
offering memorandum. Since these firms and Mauldin receive fees from
the funds they recommend/market, they only recommend/market products
with which they have been able to negotiate fee arrangements.
PAST RESULTS ARE NOT INDICATIVE OF FUTURE RESULTS. THERE IS RISK OF
LOSS AS WELL AS THE OPPORTUNITY FOR GAIN WHEN INVESTING IN MANAGED
FUNDS. WHEN CONSIDERING ALTERNATIVE INVESTMENTS, INCLUDING HEDGE FUNDS,
YOU SHOULD CONSIDER VARIOUS RISKS INCLUDING THE FACT THAT SOME
PRODUCTS: OFTEN ENGAGE IN LEVERAGING AND OTHER SPECULATIVE INVESTMENT
PRACTICES THAT MAY INCREASE THE RISK OF INVESTMENT LOSS, CAN BE
ILLIQUID, ARE NOT REQUIRED TO PROVIDE PERIODIC PRICING OR VALUATION
INFORMATION TO INVESTORS, MAY INVOLVE COMPLEX TAX STRUCTURES AND DELAYS
IN DISTRIBUTING IMPORTANT TAX INFORMATION, ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE SAME
REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AS MUTUAL FUNDS, OFTEN CHARGE HIGH FEES, AND IN
MANY CASES THE UNDERLYING INVESTMENTS ARE NOT TRANSPARENT AND ARE KNOWN
ONLY TO THE INVESTMENT MANAGER.