MacroScope

from Global Markets Forum Dashboard:

GMF @HedgeWorld West, World Bank/IMF and Financial & Risk Summit Toronto 2014

(Updates with guest photos and new links).

Join our special coverage Oct. 6-10 in the Global Markets Forum as we hit the road, from the West Coast to Washington to the Great White North.

GMF will be live next week from the HedgeWorld West conference in Half Moon Bay, California, where we’ll be blogging insight from speakers including Peter Thiel, former San Francisco 49ers great Steve Young and other panelists' viewpoints on the most important investment themes, allocation strategies, reputation risk management ideas and more.

 

 

Eric Burl, COO, Man Investments USA

Eric Burl, COO, Man Investments USA

Our LiveChat guests at HedgeWorld West include Jay Gould, founder of the California Hedge Fund Association, on Monday; Rachel Minard, CEO of Minard Capital on Tuesday; and Eric Burl, COO of Man Investments, on Wednesday discussing the evolving global investor. If you have questions for them, be sure to join us in the GMF to post your questions and comment.

Follow GMF’s conference coverage and post questions live via our twitter feed @ReutersGMF as well, where we’ll post comments from other HedgeWorld panelists. They include: 

    Peter Algert, Founder and CIO, Algert Global Adrian Fairbourn, Managing Partner, Exception Capital Nancy Davis, Founder & CIO, Quadratic Capital R. Kipp deVeer, CEO, Ares Capital Judy Posnikoff, Managing Partner, PAAMCO Caroline Lovelace, Founding Partner, Pine Street Alternative Asset Management Cleo Chang, Chief Investment Officer, Wilshire Funds Management Brian Igoe, CIO, Rainin Group Mark Guinney, Managing Partner, The Presidio Group

In a preview of the HedgeWorld West conference, Rachel Minard said what matters most to investors today is "not so much what something is

Rachel Minard, CEO of Minard Capital

Rachel Minard, CEO of Minard Capital

called but what is its behavior," she told the forum. "What investment instruments are being used -- what is the ROI relative to cost, liquidity, volatility, market exposure, price/rates and is this the most "efficient" method by which to achieve return. What's great from our perspective is the meritocracy of the business today -- the proof necessary to validate the effective and sustainable ROI of any fund or investment strategy."

from Global Markets Forum Dashboard:

More volatility expected as Fed rate rise looms – Cumberland Advisors’ David Kotok

David Kotok, Cumberland Advisors

David Kotok, Cumberland Advisors

A healthy dose of fear has re-entered financial markets in the final three months of the year. The Chicago Board Options Exchange VIX, a widely tracked measure of market volatility, rose to a two-month high on Wednesday.

Varying news reports offered threats from the Ebola virus and a stagnating European economy as tangential reasons. Perhaps another point is many investors view the U.S. Federal Reserve’s pending decision to raise interest rates as a rumbling train far off in the distance that they now hear headed their way. Closer to the horizon are headlines that can no longer lean on “Fed easing” to explain away rising asset prices and a rising stock market.

“We are in a new period of volatility and it's been developing for the last two or three months,” David Kotok, chairman and chief investment officer of investment advisory firm Cumberland Advisors told the Global Markets Forum on Wednesday. “When you suppress all interest rates to zero you dampen volatility and you distort asset pricing. Now the outlook for interest rates is changing so we are restoring volatility.”

A Fed dove does Broadway

Earlier this month, the chief of the Minneapolis Fed gave an extraordinary speech http://bit.ly/1qUTucn in which he called for higher inflation.

That’s right — you and me, paying more for goods and services. Why would a central banker want something like that?

To Minneapolis Fed President Narayana Kocherlakota, policymakers who worry about too-high inflation are caught in a time warp from the 1970s, when price rises were in the double digits and President Gerald Ford was organizing the “Whip Inflation Now” campaign, or WIN for short.

The limits of Federal Reserve forward guidance on interest rates

The ‘taper tantrum’ of May and June, as the mid-year spike in interest rates became known, appears to have humbled Federal Reserve officials into having a second look at their convictions about the power of forward guidance on interest rate policy.

Take James Bullard, president of the St. Louis Fed. He acknowledged on Friday that the Fed’s view of the separation between rates guidance and asset purchases had not been fully accepted by financial markets. “This presents challenges for the Committee,” he noted.

A decision to modestly reduce the pace of asset purchases can still leave a very accommodative policy in place to the extent forward guidance remains intact.

In his own words: Fed’s Bullard explains dovish dissent

The following is a statement from the St. Louis Fed following the decision by its president, James Bullard, to dissent from the U.S. central bank’s decision to signal a looming reduction in its bond-buying stimulus program:

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis President James Bullard dissented with the Federal Open Market Committee decision announced on June 19, 2013.  In his view, the Committee should have more strongly signaled its willingness to defend its inflation target of 2 percent in light of recent low inflation readings.  Inflation in the U.S. has surprised on the downside during 2013.  Measured as the percent change from one year earlier, the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) headline inflation rate is running below 1 percent, and the PCE core inflation rate is close to 1 percent.  President Bullard believes that to maintain credibility, the Committee must defend its inflation target when inflation is below target as well as when it is above target.

President Bullard also felt that the Committee’s decision to authorize the Chairman to lay out a more elaborate plan for reducing the pace of asset purchases was inappropriately timed.  The Committee was, through the Summary of Economic Projections process, marking down its assessment of both real GDP growth and inflation for 2013, and yet simultaneously announcing that less accommodative policy may be in store.  President Bullard felt that a more prudent approach would be to wait for more tangible signs that the economy was strengthening and that inflation was on a path to return toward target before making such an announcement.

Fed speak galore

The pace of Federal Reserve speeches intensifies next week, with Vice Chair Janet Yellen kicking off the calendar on Tuesday with a speech on financial stability. Yellen will be speaking in Tokyo at an IMF meeting panel. The cacophony picks up on Wednesday, with remarks from Minneapolis Fed president and recent dovish convert Narayana Kocherlakota, the board’s regulation-czar Dan Tarullo and the ever hawkish Richard Fisher from Dallas. On Thursday, Yellen will directly address monetary policy in another speech, while board governors Jeremy Stein and Sarah Raskin offer a rare peak into their macroeconomic views. Philadelphia Fed President Charles Plosser and Jim Bullard of the St.Louis Fed, both of whom have opposed QE3, are also on tap. Jeff Lacker, the lone dissenter on this year’s FOMC, will close the week on Friday.

Put your rate hike where your mouth is

Jonathan Spicer and Van Tsui contributed to this post.

This week, for the second time ever, the U.S. Federal Reserve published policymakers’ forecasts for when the central bank should start raising rates. The chart suggested a split Fed, with three policymakers expecting a rate rise this year, three next year, seven in 2014 and four in 2015. That’s useful information, as far as it goes.

But as much as the Fed has embraced transparency in recent years, it stopped short of saying which policymaker backs a rate hike in which year – a key bit of data for grasping where the voters on Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke’s policy-setting committee stand, and how their positions shift over time.

Below is the bar graph that the Fed published Wednesday, with Reuters’ best estimates of who fell where. We stand ready be convinced otherwise by readers offering evidence or insight that supports a different view. Send us an email, gives us a call, write a comment or shout us out on Twitter.

Seein’ double, gettin’ in trouble at the Fed

OK, this time, maybe it was a mistake to do the math.

Concluding the Fed was cooler to more monetary easing by trying to tally policymakers who openly expressed support for further stimulus at the March meeting may have led to a distorted picture of where officials’ views stand. Weak March payrolls data underscore the shakiness of this analysis.

First, let’s run the numbers. Minutes of the Fed’s March meeting revealed that “a couple” participants on the policy-setting Federal Open Market Committee thought the economy would need more help from the Fed if things got worse. That head count was a lot smaller than the previous meeting. January minutes had shown “a few” participants thought there should be more easing if things continued as they were. “Other members” at the first meeting of the year had thought the Fed should act if the outlook got worse.

So, comparing the two meetings, some people, including this reporter, thought it was fair to assume that “a couple” was less than “a few” plus “other members.”

Love, dissent and transparency at the Fed

All four Federal Reserve policymakers who dissented on U.S. central bank policy this year will lose their votes next year. That could make the New Year full of love, but not necessary free from dissent, Dallas Fed President Richard Fisher joked on Friday.

Fisher, like Minneapolis Fed President Narayana Kocherlakota and Philadelphia Fed President Charles Plosser, lobbied and lost against Fed easing earlier this year; all three dissented twice. Chicago Fed President Charles Evans dissented twice from the other side of the aisle, arguing for further easing at the most recent two meetings against the majority’s decision to stand pat.

None will have votes next year. Not, of course, because they voiced their opposition to the majority, but simply because votes rotate among regional Fed presidents according to a set schedule, and it just so happened that all four regional Fed presidents with votes this year used those votes to dissent.