All long-term rates fell again late last week. The benchmark
10-year T-note has broken below 4.2 percent, and an "origination fee"
will buy a 5.5 percent 30-year fixed-rate mortgage.
Bond traders are placing recession bets. Not (yet) in
expectation of a classic recession in which GDP growth would decline, but a "growth
recession" in which GDP growth might slip to 1 percent or 2 percent
annual, and the unemployment rate begins to increase. The rationale for a
recession bet is this win-win equation: either high energy prices and a
tightening Fed have already tipped over the economy, or a worsening inflation
problem will force a tighter Fed and tip-over at a later date.
Evidence. Last week's breakthrough bond rally started with
news of a steep drop in March orders for durable goods, and gained steam on
Thursday's news that first-quarter GDP had grown only 3.1 percent. That's
fabulous by European or Japanese standards, but not enough to support U.S. job
growth. Internal aspects of the report were worse: "final demand"
(purchases by business, government, and individuals) rose only 1.9 percent. The
excess of 3.1 percent production over 1.9 percent demand is sitting on shelves
and floors as unsold inventory, a disincentive to production in this quarter.
Second, the personal consumption expenditure deflator ("PCE"),
used to convert nominal GDP to after-inflation, jumped to an annual 2.2 percent
gain. The PCE is Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan's favorite, and the
acceptable band for its movement is 1.5 percent-2 percent; if PCE is in a
jailbreak, the Fed is coming no matter what collateral damage its
inflation-fighting may (will) do to the rest of the economy.
In the 1970s, the Fed tried stagflation (accidentally,
maybe): keep the economy going at the price of tolerating some inflation. The
reward: steadily increasing inflation and deferral of ultimately greater
economic sacrifice to remove it. Not this time. Donald Kohn (Fed governor, longtime
Fed staffer and key advisor to Greenspan, in the running for the Chairman's job)
concluded a speech two weeks ago this way: "We should not hesitate to
raise interest rates to contain inflation pressures just because it might set
off a retrenchment in housing prices,...nor should we hesitate to raise rates
because higher rates mean higher debt-servicing burdens for the current
account, the fiscal authority, or households."
Ow. If he won't hesitate for housing, or for the increased
cost of our foreign or national debt, or for Mom and Pop, presumably he won't
hesitate for the stock market, either.
The bond market's win-win, economic-slowdown equation is
correct. However, neither traders nor the Fed know which win will win; i.e.,
how tough the Fed will have to get. Some think the Fed will signal "tough-enough
soon" after its meeting on Tuesday, and stop tightening at 3.5 percent,
only three .25 percent moves away. I hope so, but I think there is surprising
strength in the economy just under the radar.
The obvious sign of strength: the housing market is as
healthy as ever. There are some signs of slowing in price-appreciation in
overheated markets, but a truly weakening economy would have showed up in
housing stats by now. Recession bets have cancelled any effect of a year of Fed
tightening on fixed-rate mortgages; tightening has removed silly prices for
ARMs, but the interest-only innovation has more than replaced the ARM loss.
Sneaky strength: tax withholdings from paychecks are running
2.5 percent to 6 percent above official wage growth, and the wage stats are
supported by the employment cost index. If wages are growing slowly, if at all,
and withholdings are way up, then there are a hell of a lot more people at work
than payroll stats show.
Given latent strength, and a mortgage market impervious to
Fed hikes in short-term rates, the hunch here is that the Fed will have to go
past 3.5 percent but the win-win bet will keep fixed rates under control.
Lou Barnes is a mortgage broker and nationally syndicated
columnist based in Boulder, Colo. He can be reached at [email protected].
***
What's your opinion? Send your Letter to the Editor to
[email protected].