货币周转率的作用
lix86free
| 货币周转率的作用 2010-03-12 作者：约翰-默登 货币周转率 我们的小岛国 GDP = (P) x (T) P=MV 周转率减慢 达拉斯，有关经济的思考 本周，我们来回顾一个非常重要的知识，即货币周转率。如果我们不理解基本知识，是很难明白全球经济目前所处的境地有多艰难的，更难知道我们将会前往何方。 在进入正题之前，我想先通知我的“对话”订户，我们已经发布了近期和两位对冲基金经理录制的对话，他们分别是达拉斯海曼顾问公司（Hayman Advisors）的凯尔-巴斯（ Kyle Bass）（还有他们的员工），以及伦敦资产管理公司的休-亨德利（ Hugh Hendry）。我们的谈话围绕于，我们大家一致认为哪个国家有可能成为下一个希腊，而且程度将远比希腊更严重。整个谈话过程令人着迷。 下周三，我们将公布与享有Stratfor 盛誉的乔治-弗里德曼（George Friedman）录制的一次对话，再下周三，将公布我与《这次不一样》的两位作者肯-罗戈夫博士（Dr. Ken Rogoff）和卡门-莱因哈特博士（Dr. Carmen Reinhart）刚刚录制完成的对话。 这里跟新读者介绍下，“与约翰-墨登对话”是我的一个收订服务。《前沿思考》通讯将永远是免费的，但我们创造了一个机会让您“旁听”我与我的一些朋友们进行的对话，其中有很多人是您已经认识的，还有一些将是您听完我们的对话之后希望认识的。基本上，我每月将会邀请一两位朋友来与我录制对话，就像平时在一起用餐或开会的时候，我们将会谈论时下的问题，你来我往，互谅互让，友好辩论。我想您会发现这样的对话很能发人深思，让您学到很多投资知识。 当前订户可以按129美元的超优惠价续订，我们也将给新订户提供同样的优惠价。欲了解详情，请访问：http://www.johnmauldin.com/newsletters2.html。点击“收订”键，就能参与“旁听”我和我的朋友们之间非常有趣的对话了。 货币周转率 美国联邦储备委员会和各州央行总的来说正在对经济体开展一次大规模的实验，在没有麻醉的情况下。他们正在测试欧文-费希尔（代表古典经济学派）、约翰-凯恩斯（凯恩斯学派）、路德维-冯-米塞斯（奥地利学派）和米尔顿-弗里德曼（货币主义学派）的理论。各州央行大部分都是凯恩斯主义者，有少部分是货币主义者。 在未来几年里，当持续了数十年的“债务大周期”到达终局之时，我们将会看到在债务、刺激、货币周转率和其它晦涩理论上，到底谁是对的。我有一些非常聪明的朋友说，这个周期还远没有接近终局，因为各州政府明显还在增加债务。我的观点是，这个债务大周期已经接近结束，我们需要认真思考终局会是什么状况。估计一段时间内不会好过。 下图显示了政府公债和私人债务的增长情况。
但此债务周期之结束涉及的不只是债务削减。 有很多概念是我们必须弄清楚的，包括货币周转率。现在，让我们来介绍“货币周转率”这个概念。基本上，这是一个货币单位花费出去的平均频率。假设一个非常小型的经济体内只包括你和我，货币供应总量为100美元。我持有这100美元，用之从你处购买100美元的鲜花。你又转过来用这100美元从我这购买书籍。我们在100美元货币供应量的基础上创造了200美元的“国内生产总值”。如果我们每个月都进行同量的交易，一年内我们将从那100美元的货币基数上创造出2,400美元的“国内生产总值”。 这表示，国内生产总值不只是货币供应量的作用，还是货币供应量在整个经济体内周转速度之快慢的作用。用方程式表示就是：P=MV，其中P是名义GDP（没有经过通胀调整），M是货币供应量，V是货币周转率。你可以通过用P除以M得到V。这是一个恒等方程式，在任何时候、任何地方（无论是希腊还是美国）都适用。 我们的小岛国 现在，让我们增加一点儿复杂度，不过刚开始不要太复杂。这是很基本的知识，如果有朋友抱怨我说得太过简单的话，烦请再看几页。假设一个岛屿经济体有10家企业，其货币供应总量为100万美元。如果每家企业每个季度大约做10万美元的业务量，那该岛的GDP将是400万美元（季度产值100万美元乘以4）。该经济体的货币周转率是4。 如果我们的企业的生产力提高了呢？我们引进各种有趣的金融工具、银行、新产能、电脑等等，现在每家企业每个月都能做10万美元的业务量。现在我们的GDP扩大到1200万美元，货币周转率为12。但我们并没有增加货币供应量。再次，我们假定所有企业都是静态的。它们每月买卖的量是不变的。尚未有赢家和输家。 现在让我们加大复杂度。企业主们的两个小孩决定自己创业。利用从他们父辈那里学到的经验，他们立刻取得了成功，并开始自己每月做10万美元的业务量。GDP上升到1400万美元。为让每个人的总收入都保持在相同水平，货币周转率必须增加到14。 现在说到重要点了。如果货币周转率没有增加，那意味着（在我们简单的岛屿经济中），每家企业每月的买卖量要减少。记住，名义GDP是货币供应量乘以货币周转率的结果。如果货币周转率没有增加，并且货币供应量保持不变，GDP就必须保持不变。每家企业（现在共有12家）每年的业务量将从120万美元降到100万美元。物价下跌。 现在每家企业每月所做的业务量约为8万美元。岛屿经济体的总产量没变，但划分到更多家企业身上。对于每家企业来说，感觉就像是经济衰退一样。它们拥有的美元数量减少了，所以它们购买的东西少了，物价下跌了。因此，在该经济体中，当地央行认识到有必要增加货币供应量，以让货币需求量保持“中性”。 这是基本的供应与需求关系。如果玉米的需求量增加，其价格将会上升。如果国会决定取消乙醇补贴，玉米的需求量将会下降，其价格也将下降。 如果岛国央行将货币供应量增加太多，那将会出现过多货币追逐过少货物的现象，通货膨胀将会抬头。（记住，这是个非常简单的例子。我们假定每家企业的产量是静态的，而且都是以其最大的产能在运行）。 假设央行将货币供应量加倍到200万美元。如果货币周转率还是12，那GDP将会增长到2400万美元。那是件好事，不是吗？ 不是的，因为两家新企业只多生产了20%的物品。生产与价格之间是有联系的。现在每家企业每月都售出20万美元的货物，或是将它们之前的销售量加倍，它们会将换来的钱花在总量只增加了20%的货物与服务上。因而开始将它们需要的货物的价格推高，通货膨胀开始出现。想想上世纪70年代。 因此，我们神秘的银行决定只将货币供应量增加20%，这既可以促进经济增长，又能让物价保持不变。聪明。如果现实有那么简单就好了。 现在假定一共有1000万家企业，规模可大到像Exxon这样的大企业，也可以小到当地的干洗店，人口年均增长1％。每月，有数十万的新企业被创造出来，同时有上十万的企业破产。生产力随着时间的推移而不断提高，因此我们利用较少的昂贵资源可以生产出更多的“物品”。 现在，我们没有精确的办法来确定货币供应量的正确规模。其每年的增长速度肯定至少要跟得上经济、人口和生产力的增速，否则将会出现通货紧缩。但是如果货币供应量增长过快，又会导致通货膨胀。 那货币周转率呢？弗里德曼假定货币周转率不变，因此他说通货膨胀在任何时候任何地方都是货币供应量的作用。他大约是在1950年到1978年间完成他的开创性作品的，当时的确如此。但后来情况变了。 如果你假定周转率恒定，你会发现弗里德曼所说的与MV=PT这个等式是完全一致的。如果货币供应量增长过快，通货膨胀几乎是一定会发生。 让我们来看奥斯丁霍伊辛顿投资管理公司的莱西-亨特博士（我最喜欢的一位经济学家）给我发来的两张图表。首先来看过去108年的货币周转率。 注意在大萧条期间，货币周转率是下降的。1953年到1980年间的货币周转率几乎是过去100年中货币周转率的平均值。同时，在与莱西的一次对我写这个通讯帮助极大的对话中，他指出，货币周转率在跨度很长的时期内是具有均值回归性的。那表示，有人会期待货币周转率会随着时间的推移而回归到均值或平均线上。有人会说，我们应该使用二战后更现代的一些时期的均值，但即便这样，均值回归也意味着货币周转率（V）会减慢，V将会下行至均值线以下（修正过度）。无论你怎么看，V要下降这一点都是很明显的。在下面几段中，我们将从一个实际角度去看为什么是这样。不过先来看第一张图表。
现在让我们来看1959年以后的同一张图表，阴影部分代表经济衰退时期。注意在经济衰退期间（除了上世纪70年代以外），货币周转率都是下降的。美联储如何反应？他们试图通过增加货币供应量来抵消商业周期与衰退的影响。P=MV。如果货币周转率下降的话，那货币供应量就必须上升以让名义GDP有增长。美联储试图通过增加货币供应量来启动经济，让其恢复增长。
在该图中，莱西假定我们已经处在衰退中了（最右边的灰色柱子）。黑色线条是莱西对周转率在不久将来的变动趋势的预测。如果你看不清图表下方的文字，我在这里顺便解释一下，他假定GDP是14.5万亿美元，M2是8.2万亿美元，因此货币周转率是1.7，几年前是将近1.97。如果周转率回归到均值线上或以下，它很容易会从1.7的水平再降10％。我们稍后将探讨为什么会这样。 P=MV 不过让我们回到等式：P=MV。如果货币周转率减慢10％，那要保持经济稳定，货币供应量（M）就必须上升10％。但如果我们假定人口增长率为1％、生产力增长率约为2％、目标通胀率为2%，那么，即使V保持不变，M（货币供应量）每年将需要增长5％左右。但这并没有什么刺激作用，因为经济正处在衰退当中。 底线？我们可以预期未来几年中每年的货币供应增长率将远远超过7％，或至少央行努力达到这个目标。那够吗？还是太多了？还是刚刚好？我们很长时间内都没法知道。这可以让扶手椅派经济学家们（属多数人）靠在椅子上发表很多年的事后诸葛亮见识了。 货币周转率减慢 现在，为什么货币周转率减慢了呢？注意V在1990到大约1997年间的实际上升。在同期间的大多时候，M2的增长（见上图）是呈下降趋势的，然而经济却仍有增长。这表示，周转率必须上升得比正常情况下要快。为什么？主要是因为九十年代初推出的诸如证券化、担保债务凭证（CDO）等等金融创新工具，货币周转率才有大幅上升的。是金融创新刺激了货币周转率的超趋势增长。 现在，那些金融创新工具正被大规模解开，因为它们走得太极端了，导致了信用危机。原则上说，CDO或次级资产担保证券应该是个好东西。而在最初时它们的确是好东西。但后来，由于标准放松和人们的贪婪，华尔街开始对整个体系玩起花招来。玩完。 如今，将周转率推至新高的金融创新已不再是等式的一部分。它的消失导致增长减慢。如果没有货币供应量的大幅上升来抵消周转率的减慢的话，经济可能早已陷入更为深重的衰退之中，如果还不至于萧条的话。虽然美联储对M2没有控制，但他们若采取减息措施应该会促使我们想去承担更多风险，借更多钱，从而推进经济发展。因此，他们对M2有间接影响。 现在，我们来看美联储的政策难题。他们已经给经济注入了大量的货币（流动性）。通常情况下，银行会将这笔钱贷出去，（通过部分准备金银行，潜在的9倍系数）增加周转率和总货币供应量。在过去，美联储增加的货币供应量越多，银行就会向外贷款越多。 但年至今日，银行贷款总额仍在以平均每年15%的速率下降。如果该趋势停止会怎样？ 美国的企业如今手头上持有的资金量是过去54年以来最高的。他们的生产率提高了。在过去三个季度里，由于他们在修复资产负债表，他们的负责股权比率总共下降了25%左右。上个季度，资本开支总额按年率计算跃升了18%。如果说我们尚未到达就业率上升的拐点，那我们现在已经接近了（虽然我们每月确实至少需要10万个工作岗位来供应人口的增长）。因此，股市多头们都很振奋，我们每周都突破新趋势高点。 虽然本季度的增长估计没有上季度的强劲，但对于一个失业率高达10%的经济体来说，这已经很好了。如果你是美联储理事，你必须担心事情会意外提早发生转变。如果企业决定使用它们的现金来扩大投资的话，怎么办？ 最后一张图显示去年底货币周转率有小幅上扬。如果这是真的，怎么办？ 如果我们已脱离困境，会怎样？美联储将不得不抽回他们已经注入经济的资金，除非他们想看到通货膨胀。的确，这是一些美联储理事正在辩论的事情。他们现在想加息，或至少在示意他们很快将会这么做。注意美联储官员们最近的很多发言都跟债市确保说，他们知道存在的问题，并且他们有所有需要的工具来抑制通胀（和利率）升高。 虽然有迹象表明经济可能会加快增长，但这种复苏是非常奇怪的。这就是我所说的“统计上的复苏”。 让我们来看来自Gluskin Sheff资产管理公司大卫-罗森伯格的下面这段陈述： *有超过500万住房业主拖欠住房贷款； 哇！现在有18%的个人收入都来自美国政府（也称为纳税人，当前和未来的）。 如果你过早拿走“潘趣酒杯”，你可能会扼杀掉一个严重依赖刺激性开支的非常不稳固的复苏，而刺激性开支在今年下半年将会迅速消失。此外，税赋到2011年极有可能会升高这个事实（可能是有史以来幅度最大的）更增加了美联储状况的复杂性，将会对经济增长造成严重阻碍。 我认为，美联储在2010年整年以及至少到2011年以后都将会保持观望态度，因为他们想看看同时增税与减少刺激性开支会带来什么效果。下周，我们将一起来探讨增税可能会对2011年的经济产生什么影响。请继续关注。 最后，请大家帮个小忙。我正在查找有关潜在增税的数据，但我所看到的那些差距很大。事实上，我这周是打算写增税这个话题的，但我不能相信我所看到的那些数据。如果您有相关资料或近期的报告与我分享，我会不胜感激。 达拉斯，有关经济的思考 我认识的包括我子女在内的很多人正在面临的个人问题是促使我去思考增税这个话题的原因。看着自己的子女因工时数减少而为生活苦苦挣扎，又要支付车款，又要买尿布，是令人心酸的。对于很多人来说，还意味着薪酬减少，失业等等问题。失去健康保险往往也是一个担忧。 而知道情况可能还将继续恶化，令人警醒。相信我，在个人方面，我看到我们需要进行医保改革，但同时，我也看到我们需要进行财政制律。我们还有38万亿美元的医保负债需要资金。在这种情况下，我们如何能增加更多负债？是否有人认为被提议的这项法案真能减少开支？在医保资金供应已经严重不足的情况下，你如何还能再将之削减5,000亿美元？真的么？孩子们和那些没有保险的家庭怎么办？要解决这个问题，我们需要更好的办法。请下周继续关注。 我将以专门小组成员身份参加将于3月26日在达拉斯举行的首届“美国：繁荣还是破产？”峰会。专门小组总共有五个人，我们将提出各种问题（很多！）以及可能的解决办法。这次会议将会让大家畅所欲言，一定会很有趣。详情请访问：www.fedfriday.com 。 该点击发送了。我有子女过来，准备到机场了，我要去接他们。期待和他们一起过春假。祝你们愉快！ 为子女们担心的分析师，
约翰-墨登 如果您想转载约翰-墨登的任何一期简讯，您必须注明文章来源和电子邮箱地址（Jo...@FrontLineThoughts.cn），并写信通知我们Wa...@FrontLineThoughts.cn，说明将在何时何地转载。 约翰-墨登是千嬉波顾问有限公司的总裁，这是一家注册投资顾问公司。本简讯中所包含的所有资料都被认为是可靠的，但是我们不能够证明其准确性。所有资料都代表约翰-墨登的个人意见。投资建议可能会改变，因此我们迫切要求读者在做任何投资决定之前，先征求其投资顾问的意见。 报告中所表达的意见可能在无事先通知的情况下发生改变。在上文提到的基金中，约翰-墨登与千嬉波顾问有限公司的员工可能有也可能没有投资利益。 注：一般《授信投资者简讯》并非投资之邀约。它仅代表约翰-墨登先生与千嬉波投资公司的意见。其对象仅仅限于通过 www.accreditedinvestor.ws 或其它直接关联的网站向千嬉波投资公司（Millennium Wave Investments）以及Altegris投资公司（Altegris Investments）进行注册而且注册时间不少于30日的授信投资者。《授信投资简讯》的发送是建立在保密基础上的，任何订阅者不可将该简讯转发给除他们的专业投资顾问以外的其他人。投资者应同其个人投资顾问商讨所有投资项目。约翰-墨登先生是千嬉波顾问有限公司（Millennium Wave Advisors, LLC, MWA）的总裁，这是家在美国多个州都有注册的投资顾问公司。他还是千嬉波证券有限公司（Millennium Wave Securities，LLC，MWS）的注册代表，千嬉波证券有限公司是经美国金融业管理组织注册的经纪交易公司，是经美国商品期货交易委员会（CETC）注册的商品基金操作公司（Commodity Pool Operator, CPO）与商品交易顾问公司（Commodity Trading Advisor, CTA），同时也是一家中介经纪公司（Introducing Broker, IB）。千嬉波投资公司是千嬉波顾问有限公司与千嬉波证券有限公司的业务公司（dba）。千嬉波投资公司与诸如Altegris投资公司、绝对回报合伙公司（Absolute Return Partners, LLP）、领先对冲基金（Pro-Hedge Funds）、EFG资产国际公司（EFG Capital International Corp）和Plexus资产管理公司等其他独立公司进行私募投资咨询与销售合作。由墨登先生推荐的基金将他们的一部分费用支付给这些独立公司，这些公司再将收到费用的三分之一支付给千嬉波证券公司与墨登先生。本文中所表述的任何观点仅为提供信息之目的，不应以任何方式将之解释为对本文中或其它地方所提到的任何CTA、基金或项目进行投资的邀约、担保或诱导。在寻求任何投资顾问之服务或对某个基金进行投资之前，投资者必须认真阅读及分析相关的披露文件或发行备忘录。由于这些公司与墨登先生仅从他们所推荐或推销的基金当中获取费用，因此他们只推荐或推销他们能够就费用安排方面达成合意的投资产品。 过往绩效并不代表未来的表现。投资管理基金既有收益机会，也存在损失风险。在决定进行另类投资（包括对冲基金）之前，你应该考虑各种风险因素，包括以下事实，有些产品：经常从事可能增加投资风险的负债投资或其它投机投资；是不能立即兑现的；是不须要向投资者定期提供定价或评估信息的；可能会伴随复杂的税收结构与重要税收信息传播的延迟；所适用的规范与共同基金所适用的规范不同；费用通常比较高；并且，在许多情况下，投资是不透明的，只有投资经理人才知道其中细节。 The Implications of Velocity March 12, 2010 by John Mauldin The Velocity of Money Our Little Island World GDP = (P) x (T) P=MV A Slowdown in Velocity Dallas and Thoughts on the Economy This week we do some review on a very important topic, the velocity of money. If we don't understand the basics, it is hard to make sense of the hash that our world economy is in, much less understand where we are headed. But before we jump into that, I want to let my Conversations subscribers know that we have posted a recent conversation with two hedge-fund managers, Kyle Bass of Hayman Advisors [and his staff] here in Dallas and Hugh Hendry of the Eclectica Fund in London. Our discussions centered on what we all think has the potential to be the next Greece, but on a far more serious level. It was a fascinating time. Then next Wednesday we will post a Conversation I had with George Friedman of Stratfor fame, and then the following Wednesday a Conversation that I just completed with Dr. Ken Rogoff and Dr. Carmen Reinhart, the authors of This Time Is Different. For new readers, Conversations with John Mauldin is my one subscription service. While this letter will always be free, we have created a way for you to "listen in" on my conversations with some of my friends, many of whom you will recognize and some whom you will want to know after you hear our conversations. Basically, I will call one or two friends each month and, just as we do at dinner or at meetings, we will talk about the issues of the day, with back and forth, give and take, and friendly debate. I think you will find it very enlightening and thought-provoking and a real contribution to your education as an investor. And as you can see, I can get some rather interesting people to come to the table. Current subscribers can renew for a deeply discounted $129, and we will extend that price to new subscribers as well. To learn more, go to http://www.johnmauldin.com/newsletters2.html. Click on the Subscribe button, and join me and my friends for some very interesting Conversations. The Velocity of Money The Federal Reserve and central banks in general are running a grand experiment on the economic body, without the benefit of anesthesia. They are testing the theories of Irving Fisher (representing the classical economists), John Keynes (the Keynesian school) Ludwig von Mises (the Austrian school), and Milton Friedman (the monetarist school). For the most part, the central banks are Keynesian, with a dollop of monetarist thrown in here and there. Over the next few years, we will get to see who is right about debt and stimulus, the velocity of money, and other arcane topics, as we come to the End Game of the Debt Super Cycle, the decades-long cycle during which debt has grown. I have very smart friends who argue that the cycle is nowhere near an end, as governments are clearly increasing debt. My rejoinder is that it is nearing an end, and we need to think hard about what that end will look like. It will not be pretty for a period of time. The chart below shows the growth in debt, both public and private.
But the end of this debt cycle involves more than just debt reduction. There are a number of ideas we have to get our heads around, including the velocity of money. Basically, when we talk about the velocity of money, we are speaking of the average frequency with which a unit of money is spent. To give you a very rough understanding, 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 will have $2400 of annual "GDP" from our $100 monetary base. So, what that means is that gross domestic product is a function of not just the money supply but how fast that money 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. By the way, this is known as an identity equation. It is true at all times and all places, whether in Greece or the US. Our Little Island World Now, let's complicate our illustration 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 10 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 is $4,000,000 (4 times the $1,000,000 quarterly production). The velocity of money in that economy is 4. But what if our businesses get 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 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 rises to $14,000,000. In order for everyone to stay at the same level of gross income, though, 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. The prices of products fall. 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's 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 Island Central Bank increases the money supply too much, you will have too much money chasing too few goods and inflation will rear 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 will grow to $24,000,000. That will be a good thing, won't it? No, because with the two new businesses only 20% more goods are produced. There is a relationship between production and price. Each business will now sell $200,000 per month, or double their previous sales, which they will spend on goods and services, which only grew by 20%. They will start to bid up the price of the goods they want, and inflation sets in. Think of the 1970s. 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 that 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, the population, and productivity, or deflation will appear. But if money supply grows too much then you have inflation. And what about the velocity of money? Friedman assumed the velocity of money was constant, and therefore he stated that inflation is always and everywhere a function of the supply of money. And it was, from about 1950 until 1978 when he was doing his seminal work. But then things changed. Note that nothing Friedman says contradicts the equation MV=PT, if you assume constant velocity. Almost by definition you get inflation if the money supply grows too fast. 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 of the last 100 years. Also, Lacy pointed out in a conversation that 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 II; but even then, mean reversion would result in a slowing of the velocity of money (V), and mean reversion implies that V would go below (overcorrect) 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 that show us the times the economy was 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 money supply.
In this chart from Hoisington, the recessions are in gray. If you can't read the print at the bottom of the chart, he assumes that GDP is $14.5 trillion, M2 is $8.2 trillion, and therefore velocity is 1.7, down from almost 1.97 just a few years ago. If velocity is to revert to or below the mean, it could easily drop 10% from here. We will explore why this could happen in a minute. P=MV But let's go back to our equation, P=MV. If velocity does slow by another 10%, then money supply (M) would have to rise by 10% just to maintain a static economy. But if we assume 1% population growth, 2% (or thereabouts) productivity growth, and a target inflation of 2%, then M (money supply) actually needs to grow about 5% a year, even if V is constant. And that is not particularly stimulative, given that we are in recession. Bottom line? Expect money-supply growth well north of 7% annually for the next few years, or at least the attempt. Is that enough? Too much? About right? We won't know for a long time. This will allow armchair 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 '90s, 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 were pursued 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. The financial innovation that drove velocity to new highs is no longer part of the equation. Its absence is slowing things down. If the money supply hadn't risen significantly to offset that slowdown in velocity, the economy would have been in a much deeper recession, if not a depression. 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. And now we come to the policy conundrum for the Fed. They have pumped a great deal of money (liquidity) into the economy. Normally, banks would take that money and multiply it by lending it out (through fractional reserve banking at a potential 9-times factor), increasing velocity and the overall money supply. In the past, the more the Fed increased the money supply, the more banks lent. But today bank lending is still falling at an average of 15% annually, so far this year. But what if that trend stops? Corporations in the US have more money on hand than ever in the last 54 years. They are more productive. Their debt-to-equity ratio has been dropping by about 25% for the last 3 quarters, as they repair balance sheets. Capital spending jumped 18% annually in the last quarter. If we are not at an inflection point of rising employment, we are close to it (although we do need at least 100,000 new jobs a month to make up for increased population). And thus are the stock market bulls inspired, and we hit new trend highs weekly. While growth this quarter will not be as robust as last, it will be fairly good for an economy with 10% unemployment. If you are a Fed governor, you have to be worried that things could turn around quicker than now seems plausible. What if corporations decided to take their cash and start investing in growth? The last chart showed a small uptick in velocity at the end of last year. What if that is for real? What if we have turned the corner? Then the Fed will have to start taking back the money they have put into the economy, unless they want to see inflation. And indeed, that is what some Fed governors are arguing. They want to raise rates now, or at least signal that they will begin to do so soon. Note there have been a number of speeches by Fed officials of late assuring the bond market that they are aware of the problem, and that they have all the tools they need to keep inflation (and higher interest rates) at bay. But then again, while there are signs that the economy may be picking up, it is a strange type of recovery. It is what I call a statistical recovery. Let's look at this litany from my friend David Rosenberg of Gluskin Sheff. He notes that there are measures of economic health other than the stock market and GDP. To wit:
Wow. 18% of personal income in the US is now from the US government (also known as taxpayers, current and future). If you take away the punchbowl too soon, you risk strangling a very shaky recovery that is significantly dependent on stimulus spending, which is going to rapidly go away the second half of this year. Further, the Fed situation is complicated by the fact that taxes are highly likely to go up in 2011 (maybe the largest tax increase ever), which will put a serious strain on the economy. I think the Fed is on hold throughout 2010 and well into 2011, as they see what effect the tax hikes, coupled with decreased stimulus, bring. Next week we will explore the potential effects of the tax hike on the 2011 economy. Stay tuned. Let me ask for a little bit of help. I am trying to find data on the potential tax increases, and what I am finding is all over the board. In fact, I had intended to write about that topic this week, but simply don't trust the numbers I am reading. If you have a source or RECENT paper, I would love to see it. Thanks. Dallas, and Thoughts on the Economy What started me thinking about tax increases was the problems that so many people I know personally are having, including my kids. It is difficult watching your kids struggle with fewer work hours, the need to make car payments and buy diapers. For many, it's cuts in pay, lost jobs, and more. Lack of health insurance is often a worry, too. And knowing it could get worse is rather sobering. Trust me, I see the human side of the need for health-care reform, but also balance it with the need for some fiscal responsibility. We have $38 trillion in unfunded Medicare liabilities. How can we add more? Does anyone really believe that this bill being offered will actually cut spending? How do you cut Medicare by $500 billion when it is already so underfunded? Really? But what about kids and families with no insurance? Something better than what we are seeing is needed to get the problem solved. More on this next week. I will be a panelist in the inaugural "America: Boom or Bankruptcy?" summit to be held in Dallas on March 26. There will be five of us, presenting problems (plenty of those!) and possible solutions. This promises to be a no-holds-barred, full-throttle event. It should be a lot of fun. Details at www.fedfriday.com. It's time to hit the send button. I have kids coming to the airport, and I want to be there. Spring break and all, and I look forward to it. Have a great week. Your worried about the kids analyst,  John Mauldin Jo...@FrontlineThoughts.com Copyright 2010 John Mauldin. All Rights Reserved |
|
版权所有约翰-墨登2007 如果你想转载约翰-墨登的任何一期简讯，你必须注明文章来源和电子邮箱地址（Jo...@FrontLineThoughts.cn），并写信通知我们Wa...@FrontLineThoughts.cn ，说明将在何时何地转载。 约翰-墨登是千嬉波顾问有限公司的总裁，这是一家注册投资顾问公司。本简讯中所包含的所有资料都被认为是可靠的，但是我们不能够证明其准确性。所有资料都代表约翰-墨登的个人意见。投资建议可能会改变，因此我们迫切要求读者在做任何投资决定之前，先征求其投资顾问的意见。 报告中所表达的意见可能在无事先通知的情况下发生改变。在上文提到的基金中，约翰-墨登与千嬉波顾问有限公司的员工可能有也可能没有投资利益。 注：普通《授信投资者简讯》并非投资之邀约。它仅代表约翰•墨登先生与千嬉波投资公司的意见。其对象仅仅限于通过 www.accreditedinvestor.ws 或其它直接关联的网站向千嬉波投资公司（Millennium Wave Investments）以及Altegris投资公司（Altegris Investments）进行注册而且注册时间不少于30日的授信投资者。《授信投资简讯》的发送是建立在保密基础上的，任何订阅者不可将该简讯转发给除他们的专业投资顾问以外的其他人。投资者应同其个人投资顾问商讨所有投资项目。约翰-墨登先生是千嬉波顾问有限公司（Millennium Wave Advisors, LLC, MWA）的总裁，这是家在美国多个州都有注册的投资顾问公司。他还是千嬉波证券有限公司的注册代表，千嬉波证券有限公司是经美国金融业管理机构注册的经纪交易公司，是经美国商品期货交易委员会（CETC）注册的商品基金操作公司（Commodity Pool Operator, CPO）与商品交易顾问公司（Commodity Trading Advisor, CTA），同时也是一家中介经纪公司（Introducing Broker, IB）。千嬉波投资公司是千嬉波顾问有限公司与千嬉波证券有限公司的业务公司（dba）。千嬉波投资公司与诸如Altegris投资公司、绝对回报合伙公司（Absolute Return Partners, LLP）、领先对冲基金（Pro-Hedge Funds）、EFG资产国际公司（EFG Capital International Corp）和Plexus资产管理公司等其他独立公司进行私募投资咨询与销售合作。由墨登先生推荐的基金将他们的一部分费用支付给这些独立公司，这些公司再将收到费用的三分之一支付给千嬉波证券公司与墨登先生。本文中所表述的任何观点仅为提供信息之目的，不应以任何方式将之解释为对本文中或其它地方所提到的任何CTA、基金或项目进行投资的邀约、担保或诱导。在寻求任何投资顾问之服务或对某个基金进行投资之前，投资者必须认真阅读及分析相关的披露文件或发行备忘录。由于这些公司以及墨登先生仅从他们所推荐或推销的基金当中获取费用，因此他们只推荐或推销他们能够就费用安排方面达成合意的投资产品。 过往绩效并不代表未来的表现。投资管理基金既有收益机会，也存在损失风险。在决定进行另类投资（包括对冲基金）之前，你应该考虑各种风险因素，包括以下事实，有些产品：经常从事可能增加投资风险的负债投资或其它投机投资；是不能立即兑现的；是不须要向投资者定期提供定价或评估信息的；可能会伴随复杂的税收结构与重要税收信息传播的延迟；所适用的规范与共同基金所适用的规范不同；费用通常比较高；并且，在许多情况下，投资是不透明的，只有投资经理人才知道其中细节。 Copyright 2007 John Mauldin. All Rights Reserved
| |
|
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: Thoughts from the Frontline 1000 North Ballpark Way, Suite 216 Arlington, TX 76011 USA |
*nl*