|
|||||
Global Macro Notes: Pondering the High Cost of Food
When fortunes are tied to the ballot box, this is what Washington wants. And it is what the Federal Reserve (with the help of China) appears to have delivered, for the investing classes at any rate: Unrelenting paper prosperity, in which an overall “crisis contained” attitude seeds complacency along with profits. In this world of levitating asset prices — never mind the possible correction brewing this week — what could derail the Fed’s “higher market mandate?” Is there any factor that could rudely intrude and kill the dream of perpetual paper gains? Well, there’s the rising cost of food, for one thing. (Energy too.)
Let’s get rolling with two quotes, the first from Greenlight Capital’s year-end letter:
And the second quote — while keeping the above in mind — is from our old friend Ludwig Von Mises:
One could further consider the Von Mises observation in light of feedback loops, stores of value, and Gresham’s law (as we did some weeks ago). When paper money becomes “bad,” there is little incentive to hold it relative to stores of value that are “good” (such as farmland). In Twelve Major Risks for 2011 we noted various possibilities of what could go wrong, one set of top down risks involving food inflation and civil unrest.
Get your 14-day Free Trial to the Live Feed
See our trading book in real-time. Trade setups, execution reports and real time market commentary. Claim your 14-day trial to the Mercenary Live Feed. But for the purpose of these notes, the food and energy question remains unique as a top down risk because it is potentially an internal creation — an undesired yet unavoidable side effect, born directly of a Fed-sponsored and Fed-engineered scenario. In sum, if we keep traipsing down the happy shiny non-withdrawn-stimulus path, we may reach a point where follow-on food and energy gains can no longer be civically tolerated from an end user standpoint. We note that this point would first be reached, and is in fact already being reached, in countries outside the United States. To those who wave off such pressures, a modest sampling of headlines:
China is clearly in the mix, with food costs at 40% of disposable income by various estimates. This is a real problem for a country with 20% of the global population, but only 6% of the farmable land (hat tip ZRH).
To clarify, we have never said that the dollar is a “zero,” though overzealous dollar bears have implied it (which is why we make a tongue in cheek reference here). Nor have we ever entertained the surprisingly popular idea that the U.S. can go full-on “bankrupt.” As the grain equation shows, the reason the U.S. cannot go bankrupt is not just because technical default is impossible, though it is – the U.S. can pay off its debts with a printing press – but also because of the positive side of the U.S. balance sheet, which includes being an agricultural powerhouse. In other words, we’ve got the food. Your currency doesn’t go to zero when the world has to eat. The Saudi Arabia of grain has some clout. And so if China one day said, “Hey – we’re going to sell all your bonds,” and Uncle Sam replied “Hey okay, we’re going to stop selling grain on world markets,” guess who would win that little game of chicken? The U.S. would have a monetization mess to deal with — and an inflationary or even quasi-hyperinflationary currency episode — but Americans would still have food to eat. Meanwhile the cost of grains on world markets would quadruple or quintuple in price (due to withdrawal of U.S. supply), leading to riots in Chinese streets and burning pitchforks in Beijing, as domestic food bills went from 40% to triple digits, consuming local incomes twice and thrice over. Such a scenario would never play out, of course, any more than a full-blown nuclear exchange would. (But then anything’s possible right?) Hypothetical point being though: When you are the world’s bread basket, you have a fairly strong negotiating position as far as debt extremes go. (This isn’t to say we are on the side of Keynesian free spenders who ignore the U.S. debt burden by the way. When it comes to the great debt debate we favor a hawkish stance, even though we recognize the technical truth behind the assertion that America “can’t go broke” and consider the more extreme dollar armageddon scenarios far fetched. We are fiscal hawks because America, though possessing unassailable balance sheet advantages at the core, can certainly damage its economy to further great and terrible degree, and invite destructive inflation in doing so, through needless piling on of more unproductive spending in Washington. And as for the austerity “threat,” politicians are great at giving lip service to austerity — a form of public pandering — but then spending like drunken sailors anyway.) ![]() But back to the food problem… It’s not just a global (i.e. non-U.S. domestic) issue, though it is very much that. Rising food costs, with unsustainable thresholds looming, are also a U.S. problem. And that’s why we think viewpoints like the following are, well, either deluded or just plain nuts. Via Bloomberg:
As a former Federal Reserve official, one would guess Mr. Behravesh also agrees with Ben Bernanke’s 60 Minutes assertion that he is “100% sure” inflation can be contained. (Just like subprime was contained. Right Ben?) “High commodity prices are the result of rising demand, not the cause of future economic weakness,” adds cheerful economist Michael Darda in the same piece. ““Over the last decade, commodity prices and the U.S. stock market have usually moved together.” This is a remarkably head-in-the-sand view in our humble opinion — never mind the amusing fact that “the last decade” has been one long unbroken chain of central bank manipulation, with Alan “The Maestro” Greenspan seamlessly passing the money-pumping baton to Bail ‘Em Out Ben. Anyone who references “the last decade” as a reassuring stretch of monetary policy history perhaps needs their head examined. Putting aside the poor non-first-worlders who spend close to half their incomes on foodstuffs, the supposed saving grace of the U.S. economy is that food and energy represent a much smaller portion of total incomes — so we can safely ignore their impact longer, as stagnating wages and chronic unemployment do a bang-up job of repressing “core” inflation statistics. This little fudge allows the Fed to continue embracing its fiction that paper-stimulative policies that help the top 30% of households are helpful to the broad economy on the whole, even as those same cost-of-living inflating, middle-class-destroying policies make life an ever harder grind for the bottom 70% (who have no equity assets to speak of, still have to drive to work — assuming they have jobs – and are likely to buy generic cereal in bulk and generally throw nickels around like manhole covers). Then too there is sector and industry fallout, as the Wall Street Journal notes:
In the Mercenary portfolios and the Live Feed we have been happy to ride the long side of this unrelenting bull rally through areas like fertilizer, global infrastructure, solar, and global manufacturing. But we have also been looking hard for areas in which to add short bias to our net exposure, and one place we have succeeded is in restaurants. The challenge of rising input costs has made the restaurant space one of the few areas of the market not levitated by speculative euphoria — and we will be adding more short exposure as price action further confirms. (Side note: Merrill Lynch recently put out an industry-touting “buy the dips” report on restaurants, but we believe they are a day late and a dollar short — no pun intended, as Mother Merill tends to get clients “long and wrong” at highly inopportune times.) Another factor working against the favor of restaurants – and broader retail at this point – is not just a steady rise in food costs but an increase in the price of fuel, another area of concern where the Fed Chairman absolves himself:
As the price of gasoline etc. hits consumers in the wallet and further increases transport costs, where are profit margins going to go? Where will reduced discretionary income flows go? To zoom back out to a broader scope, the problem with the recent bout of quiet euphoria as we see it stems from a couple of offhand points:
In sum, watch food prices… keep an eye on commodities in general… and keep Katastrophenhausse in mind as a counterweight to the “Bernanke Put.” The Fed will be eating crow in the end. JS p.s. Like this article? For more, visit our Knowledge Center!p.p.s. If you haven't already, check out the Mercenary Live Feed! ![]() Similar articles you might like:
More on this topic
(What's this?)
Food Prices: Here's the Real Story
(Money Morning, 5/4/12)
Agricultural Stocks: Fatten Up Your Portfolio on Food Price Inflation
(Money Morning, 4/19/12)
The Hunger Games: How Gold and Silver Will Save You From Soaring Food Prices
(the Underground Investor, 3/29/12)
Wading into the Pink Slime
(Venture Chronicles, 4/13/12)
|
|||||
|
Copyright © 2012 Mercenary Trader - All Rights Reserved |
|||||