The Austrian economists anticipated the present crisis. Should we listen to them when it comes to their predictions about what comes next? In one voice they are saying we will experience inflation unlike we’ve seen in the USA in over 100 years. Inflation is defined as the increase in the supply of money and credit. We are certainly experiencing an increase in the supply of money at present. But the draw-down of credit is counter-acting the monetary inflation and we are hovering in inflationary stasis at present.

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke said the same thing on February 18th:

Some observers have expressed the concern that, by expanding its balance sheet, the Federal Reserve will ultimately stoke inflation. The Fed’s lending activities have indeed resulted in a large increase in the reserves held by banks and thus in the narrowest definition of the money supply, the monetary base. However, banks are choosing to leave the great bulk of their excess reserves idle, in most cases on deposit with the Fed. Consequently, the rates of growth of broader monetary aggregates, such as M1 and M2, have been much lower than that of the monetary base. At this point, with global economic activity weak and commodity prices at low levels, we see little risk of unacceptably high inflation in the near term; indeed, we expect inflation to be quite low for some time.

He acknowledged that they are inflating. But he threw a red herring into the mix by talking about weak economic activity and low commodity prices (Heh, except gold, right Ben?) trying to infer that they are somehow the cause of inflation. No, they are the result of inflation. Next, he went into how they will correct their inflation:

However, at some point, when credit markets and the economy have begun to recover, the Federal Reserve will have to moderate growth in the money supply and begin to raise the federal funds rate. To reduce policy accommodation, the Fed will have to unwind some of its credit-easing programs and allow its balance sheet to shrink. … However, the principal factor determining the timing and pace of that process will be the Federal Reserve’s assessment of the condition of credit markets and the prospects for the economy.

Bernanke recognized that the plane is in a nosedive and at the last minute he plans to push on the stick and go airborne again. I hope it is not a cloudy day when he has to judge how far the plane is from the ground. He wrapped up his thoughts on inflation and how to avoid it:

As we consider new programs or the expansion of old ones, the Federal Reserve will carefully weigh the implications for the exit strategy. And we will take all necessary actions to ensure that the unwinding of our programs is accomplished smoothly and in a timely way, consistent with meeting our obligation to foster maximum employment and price stability.

What do *you* think the chances are that the Fed will get all of the necessary actions right? Have they gotten the necessary actions right up to this point? Let us examine a scenario where they are not able to get it right and we do indeed experience undesirable inflation, which I will define to be anything above 5% annually.

How might the various asset classes be affected in times of inflation? To answer this question, I utilized Simba ‘s spreadsheet for back-testing portfolios (which I imported into Google Spreadsheets) to do a correlation between CPI (Consumer Price Index, the government’s official inflation number) and various stock fund, bond fund, and gold returns. The data in the spreadsheet uses annual returns of Vanguard index funds along with the yearly closing price of gold from the years 1971 – 2008.  The spreadsheet already calculated the cross-correlation between each of the mutual funds and it lists the annual CPI index. So it was very easy to drop the CPI into one of the mutual fund slots and instantly see the correlation between every asset class and inflation. Here are the results, sorted by correlation:

The table shows those asset classes that were most closely correlated with the CPI at the top. Note in the third column that a value of 1 would mean the asset is perfectly correlated, -1 would mean perfectly correlated inversely (it went down exactly as CPI went up), and 0 means there was no correlation: it was random.

So we see that those assets that were most highly correlated with CPI were T-bills, gold, long-term government bonds (inversely), short-term Treasuries, and commodities.  Everything else was below 0.25 correlation. Interestingly, micro cap stocks were totally uncorrelated with inflation.

So how did a portfolio of those assets perform during the years 1973-1981 in which CPI was 8.7, 12.3, 6.9, 4.9, 6.7, 9, 13.3, 12.5, and 8.9%?

I constructed a portfolio along the lines of the Harry Browne Permanent Portfolio (HBPP invests 25% each into total US stock market, long-term bonds, money market, and gold) but I added some small cap value, micro cap, and eliminated the long-term bond fund. I then back-tested that portfolio during those inflation years. Here is the portfolio what I came up with:

The Inflation Portfolio:

VISVX (Small Cap Value) 15%
BRSIX (Micro Cap) 15%
PCRIX (Commodities) 10%
VMPXX (Money Market) 45%
Gold 15%

The "Inflation Portfolio" had a CAGR (Compound Annual Growth Rate) of 15.5% and a risk (as measured by standard deviation) of 10.5%. Plotting that on a chart, here’s what it looks like compared with some other portfolios and the assets themselves:

The chart shows plots for various portfolios during those inflation years. The plot point directly above HBPP simply substituted BRSIX for VTSMX in the HBPP. The major components of the Inflation Portfolio are also plotted separately showing how volatile gold and BRSIX were themselves. When tempered together with VMPXX, the risk came down considerably while retaining significant returns. You can see all of the rest of the details in the Google spreadsheet that I created for this scenario and you can test out other hypotheses yourself.

The Inflation Portfolio worked from 1973 through 1981. If we see inflation return, would it work again? Some folks are discussing these findings at the Bogleheads forum if you want to chime in.

Please note this is not a recommendation to invest your net worth in the Inflation Portfolio!

In a previous posting , I calculated the 12 month rolling returns for all IFA portfolios.

That posting is in error (that I do not believe was my fault). I have corrected it. It turns out that Feb 1, 2008 thru Jan 31, 2009 was not the worst 12-month rolling period, but it did come close.

I’ll be watching to see what happens at the end of this month.

Here is the corrected chart.

Barrons continues their analysis of Jim Cramer’s Mad Money stock recommendations. Bottom line is that their analysis confirms what I learned by experience back in 2006: Cramer’s stock picks are worse than just buying and holding index funds. They actually suggest that buying short-term in-the-money puts on Jim’s recommendations can make you money. They say, "Those bets could earn over 25% in a month, Chen concludes, at the expense of Cramer’s fans." Hmmmm, maybe I’ll try that.

[Update: Corrected the image. Note that the Bogle portfolio is corrected in the Google Spreadsheet - to some extent.]

I have copied Simba’s Backtest Portfolio spreadsheet from the Bogleheads forum into a Google Spreadsheet that you can use to back test a portfolio of Vanguard mutual funds and compare their performance from 1972 – 2008 to the IFA Index Portfolios. Combine the funds any way you like and compare them against IFA’s twenty portfolios. I included the "returns" for gold there for your convenience.

This graph from that spreadsheet shows the plots of a few others including the Coffeehouse portfolio, Harry Browne’s Permanent Portfolio, Scott Burns’ Four Square portfolio, and a couple of others along with IFA’s portfolios (they follow a nice line). Unfortunately, Google spreadsheets doesn’t do labeling very well on the data points. I would have liked each point to be colored and have a legend identifying those colors. Anyway, remember you want to be at a point at the top left on this graph. The line that is formed is called "The Efficient Frontier" beyond which it is difficult if not impossible to achieve. The strong correlation between returns and risk is evident.  However, it is easy to be bottom right!

If you want to play with the spreadsheet yourself, feel free to bring it up. You’ll need a Google account. Leave the years to be 1972 – 2008 in order for the comparisons to be valid. Here’s the link:

https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pOjc3ot10vgs0eml-DJZKcw&newcopy

But wait, there’s more!

IFA is now allowing you to submit your past financial statements to them so that they can compare you’re portfolio’s performance against their index portfolios. Go their web site at ifa.com to learn more. Here are some comparisons they have already performed.

I just remembered a web site that was a Tool many many shows ago. This tool will help you benchmark your portfolio or to test out a new portfolio. It will allow you to compare it against another benchmark and it will calculate returns, standard deviations, and also Sharpe ratios.

The web site is http://www.icarra.com

Get over there and create an account and try it out. They have really made some nice improvements since I last used it.

Here’s an easy to digest journey through the 12 Step Program for Active Investors. The 12 steps span four videos. Be sure to watch all four!

FOR BEST RESULTS, AFTER YOU CLICK PLAY, CLICK THE ARROW BUTTON IN THE BOTTOM RIGHT THEN SELECT "HQ" TO GET EVERY OUNCE OF INDEXING JOY FROM THESE VIDEOS!!!

Steps 1-3

Steps 4-6

Steps 7-9

Steps 10-12

This was a lot of fun to put together. I used Keynote and then exported the show to iMovie to render the video. Images and diagrams are from ifa.com. For backtested performance information go to ifabt.com.

At the end of October 2008 we experienced the worst 12-month rolling period for stocks in 50 years. Then at the end of November we outdid that.  Now at the end of January 2009 we have a new low for a 12-month rolling period in many indexes and portfolios. We came close to the worst rolling 12 months again, but did not pass it.

The following table is taken from ifa.com, combining the returns for 11 months from 1 Feb 08 through 31 Dec 08 and the 1 month return for Jan 09.

Here is the corrected table.

Previous table, wrong:

Source: http://www.ifa.com/portfolios/PortReturnCalc/index.aspx and http://www.ifa.com/portfolios/

First look at this…

Then look at this…

Returns in the stock market are randomly distributed over time.

Let’s say we suddenly start doing everything right according to the Austrian economics playbook. We go on the gold standard and abolish the Federal Reserve. We drastically cut back federal government spending, including all bailouts. We pull back from all overseas engagements. Would it work? Meaning, would we end up more prosperous in the long term than if we stay the current course?

First, can you imagine the immediate shock the the economy? Could anyone really process all of these changes at once, including all of the second-order effects and how they would impact your particular situation? Shocking if done instantaneously. Even shocking if done over the span of one year. But big deal. Get over it. We can be shocked and still survive, right?

Yeah, if the USA were a closed system I think we would be just fine. We would trade our gold for the farmer’s corn. Farmers would trade gold for tractors. Tractor builders would trade gold for houses. On and on. We would employ all the former government workers as road builders. New banks would arise in cities eager to lend us some gold for capital projects. We would do just fine here in the USA.

It is the fact that the USA is not a closed system that complicates the issue. See, in this process we trade dollars for gold. Each dollar is worth 1/900 oz of gold (let’s say). Bring in your pieces of paper, your Federal Reserve Notes, to the bank and they will give you gold coins or a receipt for 100%-reserve gold coin storage.

So now we all have gold in our pockets. And we want to buy a giant LCD TV. With what exactly and from where? Dollars? Ha, they’re gone now. A TV made in the USA? Yeah, right. You gotta give up some gold to some other country. So we load up our Wal-Marts, our Dollar Trees, and our shopping malls with stuff that we trade away our gold for. That represents an outflow of gold from USA. To keep the system in balance, don’t we need a corresponding inflow of gold? Otherwise someday we completely run out of gold, right? Can’t just print more gold can we?

It is the same scenario with any government that is left over. How are they going to pay out Social Security in gold? How are they going to send thousands of troops overseas and build billion-dollar airplanes and pay people to read newspapers in fancy offices? Since they don’t have a gold mine to readily tap into, they either have to take away your gold, or have to borrow gold from China, or they have to stop spending gold. The first option quickly reaches either a point of diminishing returns or reaches a point of torches and pitchforks. The third option is their option of last resort. Which leaves us with the USA borrowing gold from China. Which is kind of making my head spin trying to think of how we are going to come up with the gold to not only pay that back but also to pay the interest.

But maybe that is the point. We would have to figure out some way of getting gold from other countries. We would have to actually make or do things that they want. For example, we could trade our tractors and our corn for their gold. We could build houses for them. We could even help build their roads. Either that or we build our own LCD TVs and stock our Wal-Marts and Dollar Trees ourselves. Shocking isn’t it? Economics does work.

As I ponder this scenario, I realize just how fortunate and prosperous we in the USA have been these past few decades. Being able to "manufacture gold out of thin air," that is, print dollars to trade to foreigners. We are so lucky that they want our fiat dollars. Because that guy reading the newspaper really isn’t a very good road builder.

Read an article by Michael S. Rozeff today in which he describes his approach to investing. The article was called "The Opportunistic Investor ."  He says that a year ago he published two articles on buying a diversified portfolio and holding it. That portfolio is down 34 percent. Better than most. He says he actually did not invest according to his advice in that column. Instead, he was in cash.

He goes on to say that buy and hold is not the right approach. And I think the reason might have to do with the notion of "Austrian Investing," though he does not use those words.  Here is what he does say about buy and hold:

The problem with that approach was and is government. Government alters currency values, and this alters the value of different kinds of investments. Government creates booms and busts, and that alters investment values. The presence of government forces us to speculate.

Then he goes on to talk about how we need to find value and buy it, be it stocks, real estate, or even timber.

I am on the hunt for more information about Austrian Investing. They’ve been right about the economy, maybe they would be right about investing too.

Oh, and BTW: Mish does a pretty good destruction of Peter Schiff’s approach to Austrian Investing. Good read.

With the stock market down some 40% last year, many people are asking, "Where did the money go?" Sure there are some stock market losers. But remember the winners, those who sold their stocks in October 2007? They got their money. Remember also that for every share of stock sold, there was a share of that stock bought. But Fannie Mae used to trade for $80 a share and is now just pennies a share. Is the money just totally gone? Where did that market capitalization go? Furthermore, we need to push deeper, past the issues of money and valuations and ask, "Have we really lost wealth?" The answer may surprise. We will get to that last question in a moment. But first, let’s follow the money.

Where did the money go?

The USA Today ran a story that read, "$2 trillion wiped out of retirement funds " so far in 2008. Really? Two trillion dollars is wiped out? Lost? This is a fascinating notion. You wake up one day and wealth is suddenly gone. Vanished. Like some ice cube that has melted on a hot street. Here one moment and gone the next. As we shall see, the ice cube metaphor may be even better than it first appears. Stocks have melted.

The NPR Planet Money podcast a few weeks ago sought to answer the question "What is money?" and recently asked "Where did the money go?" To help us visualize the "loss" of money, they acted out a little skit with three market participants. At the start of the skit it was noted that among them the sum total of money was $400. Russ had $200, Alex had $200, and Lois had a house. (It was a little green Monopoly game piece house.) Russ Roberts (of EconTalk fame) decided he wanted a house. So he offered Lois $200 for hers and she accepted. Russ has the house, Lois has $200. Some time passed and then Russ wanted to sell his house. Alex was the only one who made an offer and it was for $100. Russ took the offer but was obviously unhappy about "losing" $100. At the end of the skit, Alex owned the house and $100, Lois had $200, and Russ had $100. The sum total of money was $400. Therefore, the net amount of money remained unchanged although some of the market participants had varying emotions about their transactions.

Lois was happy to receive the $200 for her house because she said she had originally purchased the house for $100. But she said that she still had to live somewhere and would now have to go and buy another house. Russ was obviously unhappy because he has $100 less than when he started. And still no house. Alex was probably the happiest because he has a nice house and still has $100 of his original $200 remaining. But with the net amount of money remaining the same, they didn’t really ask the question, "Why did the house only get an offer of $100?"  Why not a $300 offer? Don’t house prices continuously rise and never fall?  It was a fun exercise to walk through, but it still left me unsatisfied. What’s behind the rise and fall of prices? Let’s try to figure that out. But instead of houses, let’s switch over and talk about gold for a moment.

Gold and the Market

Gold is different than houses. We can’t live in gold. Instead, gold is money. Ancient money. Gold would still be money today if the governments would stop prohibiting it from being money. Consider these characteristics of money: money must be marketable, easily transportable, relatively scarce, relatively imperishable, easy to store, easily divisible, and uniform in quality. Gold meets all of these characteristics and has been used as money by default through the ages. Ironically the dollar, the world’s reserve currency, doesn’t meet all of these characteristics. It misses the scarcity test.

So let’s trade two things: dollars and gold. It used to be that a dollar represented a fixed amount of gold, but today we can trade one for the other at different amounts. If you have dollars and I have a one ounce gold coin, you can make me an offer to trade some of your dollars for my coin. I can accept or refuse. If you offer me $200, I will refuse. If you offer me $2000 I will accept. Somewhere in between these two ranges we may reach an agreement (or we may not). The more people there are around to offer bids and ask for bids, the greater the chance that someone can reach an agreement on a fair trade. As an example, say your bid for my gold coin is $600 but Troy bids $800. You may consider increasing your bid to $850 in light of his bid. But before you do, Bill next to me accepts Troy’s $800 bid for his coin. You witness that and decide to limit your bid to me to $800 also. Why pay more, right? Or if you are really trying to game me, you may hold your bid at $600 thinking that no one else is around now that will bid something higher.

This is the workings of the market. Bidding and asking is how we reach agreed-upon prices. This is why stock prices are what they are: dynamic. It is a continuous mixture of people wanting to sell at the highest asking price and people wanting to buy at the lowest bid price. But they know they are competing with other sellers and buyers for those same shares.

Motivated Sellers

Competition is the heart of the market. It is the heart of the gold market and the heart of the real estate market and the heart of the stock market and even the heart of the currency market.

In the NPR skit, Alex was able to buy the house from Russ for only $100 because there were no other offers higher and Russ really wanted to sell. A motivated seller they say. Perhaps he needed to move because of a job relocation. There are motivated sellers in all markets just as there are motivated buyers. Are there more motivated sellers than motivated buyers? Prices will fall as bids dry up. Prices will fall as the number of offers rise and the amount asked for sinks. Are there more motivated buyers? Prices will rise as bidders compete. Prices will rise as owners hold tight.

Presently in our global stock markets our global real estate markets and our global commodity markets we have not just a boatload of motivated sellers but a whole fleet of cruise ships full of motivated sellers. We have banks, brokers, hedge funds rushing for the exits at the same time, needing to sell just to get the dollars to pay off debts and client redemptions. We even have investors motivated to sell simply because they see so many other motivated sellers selling.

As naturally happens when motivated sellers outnumber motivated buyers, prices drop. We might call this an asking war , the opposite of a bidding war. Sellers lowering their asking prices in the face of other low asking prices. Asking prices for stocks go lower. Asking prices for houses go lower. Asking prices for copper goes lower. But motivation in a particular market is only part of the story. We need to also consider motivation across markets. I may want to sell my house not because of physical reasons but because of economic reasons. Perhaps I want to trade house wealth for stock wealth. I may prefer at present to rent and hold 10,000 shares of an index fund rather than owning a house. I probably will not find the exact trade I’m looking for; that is, someone to offer to trade me their 10,000 shares for my house. Instead, I’ll have to trade through money. I sell the house for dollars and then sell the dollars for the index funds.

But the net amount of money in the system doesn’t change as a result of motivations. The buyer gets to keep the net amount that the seller loses out on. Alex has the $100 instead of Russ. When prices kept going up, did anyone ask, "Where did that money come from?" Not likely. We don’t care how we got it. Yet we darn sure want to know how we lost it. But both answers are the same. The net amount of money remains constant among the total pool of buyers and sellers.

[Note that I am for purposes of this discussion ignoring the effect of fractional reserve banking and the creation of money when lent and the destruction of money when a loan is paid back. This effect is indeed serious and makes an enormous impact to the economy as a whole.]

Lost Wealth?

Now we know where the money went. It is still there. Not a satisfying answer to owners of stock mutual funds in their 401K plans who say, "Oh great, more motivated sellers means any bids I seek for my shares will be lower if I were to try to sell today." Penny’s 401K plan may have a cost basis of $100,000. And last year when she checked the bids on her portfolio it may have fetched nearly $300,000. But based upon recent offers, it may only receive bids for $150,000. That seems like lost wealth to Penny. Is it?

It depends. It might not be lost wealth to Penny. We need to look at what Penny would have wished to trade her shares of stock for? A house? If so, Penny is in luck because houses she liked that used to fetch $300,000 bids are now asking only $150,000. So Penny’s 401K plan would buy the same amount of house even though its dollar value has fallen in half. Similarly, Penny may have wished to use her 401K to travel or to eat or to pay her gas bill. Dollar values for each of these things may have fallen, but their values may have stayed relatively close to the value of her stocks over that time.

We are living in a world where bids for practically every asset are lower in comparison to bids for dollars. Many motivated sellers of stuff, many motivated buyers of dollars.

So the problem is the thing we are using as money, which itself is becoming more "valuable." The banks, brokerages, and hedge funds that need to get dollars are not just motivated sellers of stocks and commodities, but they are also motivated buyers of dollars. There are lots of motivated dollar buyers. Prices of dollars rise. Everything else seems more expensive compared to dollars as a result.

But we the investing public with 401K plans are typically not motivated buyers of dollars. We are more typically motivated buyers of the things that dollars buy. Food, travel, cars, shelter, heat, etc. When we trade one of these for the other, we might expect roughly the same item-for-item transaction this year as we did last year. The thing in the middle is what has changed: the money. The demand for the dollar by banks, brokers, and hedge funds has skewed the monetary valuations of both the things that we need to sell and the things that we want to buy. But in the end, it might possibly be that our wealth remains somewhat unchanged just like the amount of money remains unchanged among buyers and sellers.