 |
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
PIMCO's Bill Gross Commentary |
HenryTo
Site Admin
Joined: 06 Aug 2004
Posts: 11254
Location: Los Angeles, California
|
 Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 12:56 pm Post subject: PIMCO's Bill Gross Commentary |
 |
|
April 2007 commentary from Bill Gross:
http://www.pimco.com/LeftNav/Featured+Market+Commentary/IO/2007/IO+April+2007.htm
Along the lines of what I wrote in our weekend commentary. The danger is in overregulation and tighter lending standards for months/years to come, not the current/potential losses from higher resets, etc.
| Quote: | | It will not be loan losses that threaten future economic growth, however, but the tightening of credit conditions that are in part a result of those losses ... Bulls and bears argue over websites as to the percentage of all lending that subprime and alternative mortgage loans provide but while important, the argument obscures the critical conclusion that tighter lending standards and increased regulation will change the housing outlook for some years to come. As past marginal buyers are forced to sell their home to prevent foreclosures, so too will future marginal buyers be restricted from buying them. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Author |
PIMCO's Bill Gross Commentary Replies |
HenryTo
Site Admin
Joined: 06 Aug 2004
Posts: 11254
Location: Los Angeles, California
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rffrydr
Moderator
Joined: 30 Oct 2005
Posts: 16435
Location: Sunny California
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 13, 2009 8:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Wild Bill is dusting off a new strategy for his leveraged fund (some teeny-tiny part of PIMCO): high yield is becoming "safe":
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Allianz-Global-Investors-Fund-bw-2789664457.html?x=0&.v=1
It's taken some time for him to come around to the Brazil debt story--the bonds he was forced to buy in the first boom I am sure have surprised him. The best argument down there now is Venezuela: yet soon Lula will get his new socialized oil policy and we'll see how Wall St.'s collective nose holding vis-a-vis Obama matches up to its loving embrace of that defender of the impovrished Lula. (Brazil paying parents to keep kids in school--is that an incentive).
Reading a native report of 40million lost jobs in China this cycle. And with europe leverage far more to CMBS we'll have to see about that dollar plan. It is the dream carry, I'll grant them that.
_________________
Today is the Tomorrow you worried about Yesterday! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HenryTo
Site Admin
Joined: 06 Aug 2004
Posts: 11254
Location: Los Angeles, California
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2009 11:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Gross reiterates the reasons, and the outcomes, of the "New Normal."
http://www.pimco.com/LeftNav/Featured+Market+Commentary/IO/2009/Gross+Sept+On+the+Course+to+a+New+Normal.htm
| Quote: | The investment implications of this New Normal evolution cannot easily be modeled econometrically, quantitatively, or statistically. The applicable word in New Normal is, of course, “new.” The successful investor during this transition will be one with common sense and importantly the powers of intuition, observation, and the willingness to accept uncertain outcomes. As of now, PIMCO observes that the highest probabilities favor the following strategic conclusions:
1) Global policy rates will remain low for extended periods of time.
2) The extent and duration of quantitative easing, term financing and fiscal stimulation efforts are keys to future investment returns across a multitude of asset categories, both domestically and globally.
3) Investors should continue to anticipate and, if necessary, shake hands with government policies, utilizing leverage and/or guarantees to their benefit.
4) Asia and Asian-connected economies (Australia, Brazil) will dominate future global growth.
5) The dollar is vulnerable on a long-term basis. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rffrydr
Moderator
Joined: 30 Oct 2005
Posts: 16435
Location: Sunny California
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HenryTo
Site Admin
Joined: 06 Aug 2004
Posts: 11254
Location: Los Angeles, California
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 01, 2009 12:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
PIMCO's Bill Gross discusses the political and economic limits for further fiscal and monetary expansion going forward:
http://www.pimco.com/LeftNav/Featured+Market+Commentary/IO/2009/Investment+Outlook+August+2009+Gross+Investment+Potion.htm
| Quote: | Now, however, things have changed, and it is apparent that there is massive overcapacity in the U.S. and indeed the global economy. As reflexive delevering has unveiled the ugly stepsister of the “great 5% moderation,” nominal GDP has not only sunk below 5%, but turned at least temporarily negative. If allowed to continue – and this is my critical point – a portion of the U.S. production capacity and labor market will have to be permanently laid off. Nominal GDP has to grow close to 5% in order for the economy’s long-term balance to be maintained. Otherwise, employment levels become unsustainable, retail shopping centers unserviceable, automobile production facilities unprofitable, and the economy itself heads towards a new normal where unemployment averages 8 instead of 5%, housing starts total 1.5 instead of 2 million, and domestic auto sales 12, instead of 16 million annual units. Critically in the readjustment process, debts are haircutted via corporate defaults and home foreclosures, and equity P/Es are cut based upon increased risk and substantially lower growth expectations. A virtuous circle of expansion turns into a vicious cycle of recession or low-growth stagnation. Label it what you will, but a modern capitalistic economy based on levered financing and asset appreciation cannot thrive if its “return on capital” or nominal GDP suffers such a significant shock.
Policymakers/government to the rescue –we hope. 0% interest rates, quantitative easing, $1.5 trillion deficits, trillions more in FDIC or explicit government guarantees, a trillion plus in MBS and Treasury bond purchases, TALF, TARP – I could, but I need not go on. Can they do it? In other words, can they successfully reflate to 5% nominal GDP and recreate an “old” normal economy? Not likely. The substitution of government-backed vs. private-leverage is one strong argument against the possibility. Despite the attractive financing rates incorporated with the TALF, TLGP and other government-subsidized financing programs, they come with quality constraints (larger collateral haircuts and mortgage down payments, to name a few) that inhibit the “new normal” lenders from approaching the standards of the 5% nominal-based shadow banking system. Just last week, President Obama proposed new “transaction fees” for “far out transactions” undertaken by financial companies. “If you guys want to do them,” he said, “put something into the kitty.” In turn, there are internal Washington Beltway/external Main Street USA, politically imposed limits which will thwart policy expansion beyond the current stasis. Most of the politicos and even ordinary citizens are screaming for limits on monetary/fiscal expansion: “No TARP II! 1.5 trillion dollar deficits are enough! The Fed must have an exit plan!” etc. If there are such future political constraints or caps (both domestically and from abroad), then one should recognize that most of the ammunition has been spent stabilizing the financial system, and very little directed towards the real economy in terms of job loss prevention. Where is the political will or wallet now to grant corporate tax breaks for private sector job creation or to even hire new government workers, aside from a minor positive push with military enlistment? In brief, the “new normal” nominal GDP, the future return on our stock of labor and capital investment, will likely be centered closer to 3%, for at least a few years once a recovery is in place beginning in this year’s second half. Diminished capitalistic risk taking and constrained policymaker releveraging will lead to that likely conclusion.
Investment conclusions? A 3% nominal GDP “new normal” means lower profit growth, permanently higher unemployment, capped consumer spending growth rates and an increasing involvement of the government sector, which substantially changes the character of the American capitalistic model. High risk bonds, commercial real estate, and even lower quality municipal bonds may suffer more than cyclical defaults if not government supported. Stock P/Es will rest at lower historical norms, and higher stock prices will ultimately depend on tangible earnings growth in the form of increased dividends, not green shoots hope. An investor should remember that a journey to 3% nominal GDP means default/haircuts for assets on the upper end of the risk spectrum, as well as extremely low yielding returns for government and government-guaranteed assets at the bottom end. There is no investment potion for this new environment other than steady income-producing bond and equity investments in companies with strong balance sheets and high dividend yields, as well as selectively chosen emerging market commitments where nominal GDP growth prospects are tilted upward as opposed to gravitating to new lower norms. Madame Rue has met her match. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HenryTo
Site Admin
Joined: 06 Aug 2004
Posts: 11254
Location: Los Angeles, California
|
| Posted: Tue May 05, 2009 9:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
PIMCO's Bill Gross discusses the implications of rising populist sentiment and government intervention going forward:
http://www.pimco.com/LeftNav/Featured+Market+Commentary/IO/2009/IO+May+09+Gross+2+2+4.htm
| Quote: | How does one invest during such a transition? Investors should recognize that this grassroots trend signals – most importantly – an increasing uncertainty of cash flows from financial assets. Not only will redistribution and reregulation lead to slower economic growth, but the financial flows from it will be haircutted and “burden shared” by stakeholders. In turn, the present value of those flows should reflect an increasing risk premium and a diminishing multiple of annual receipts. PIMCO’s Paul McCulley, famous for a catchy phrase or a light-bulb-generating truism, asked a group of clients the other day to compare FedEx and UPS to the U.S. Post Office, if it were a public corporation. “Which one would you pay more for?” he asked. If FedEx deserves a P/E of 12, wouldn’t the value of the Post Office be substantially less? His point, and mine as well, is that as wealth is redistributed, and the invisible private hand of Adam Smith begins to resemble more and more the public fist of government, then asset values should be negatively affected. First comes the haircutting and burden sharing, most recently evidenced by Chrysler and soon to be played out via the stress testing and equity dilution of government ownership of ailing banks. In those footsteps, however, will follow a slower rate of economic growth, not just in the U.S., but worldwide as heretofore libertarian capitalism is bridled, saddled and taught to trot instead of gallop over the investment plains.
This Outlook is not to bemoan this transition, but to recognize it. Slower growth can be a public good if it avoids the cataclysmic effects of double-digit unemployment, escalating foreclosures, and fear of financial insecurity. But the Obama cannon shot will have financial consequences. Do not be deceived by the euphoric sightings of “green shoots” and the claims for new bull markets in a multitude of asset classes. Stable and secure income is still the order of the day. Shaking hands with the new government is still the prescribed strategy, although it should be done at a senior level of the balance sheet. If the government indeed becomes your investment partner, you should keep the big Uncle in clear sight and without back turned. Risk will not likely be rewarded until the global economy stabilizes and the Obama rules of order are more clearly defined.
The ghost of Bernard Baruch still counsels that 2 + 2 = 4, but the repercussions of getting something for nothing should dominate the hopes that mankind will get off the deck and revert to a mean or median standard representative of outdated political and economic philosophies. Mohamed El-Erian’s and PIMCO’s “new normal” should trump green shoot exuberance for years to come. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rffrydr
Moderator
Joined: 30 Oct 2005
Posts: 16435
Location: Sunny California
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rffrydr
Moderator
Joined: 30 Oct 2005
Posts: 16435
Location: Sunny California
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 9:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
More on PPIP numbers: this game can only be played by PIMCO and it's table of players. Not much here that resembles the early 20th-Century.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aEDHFtFqc_ko
| Quote: | The plan may reward investors with 20 percent annual returns on “really ‘toxic’” mortgages bought at 45 cents on the dollar by allowing them to borrow six times their money with “non-recourse” government-backed debt, New York-based Credit Suisse Group AG analysts Carl Lantz and Dominic Konstam wrote in a March 27 report. That loan would be worth 15 cents to an investor seeking the same return who can’t use borrowed money.
|
You wanna walk us through this one, Master H.?
| Quote: | | ......With recourse loans, the type of “toxic” mortgages identified by the Credit Suisse analysts, which have a hypothetical 40 percent annual default probability and only 10 percent expected recoveries, would be worth only 19.7 cents.... |
_________________
Today is the Tomorrow you worried about Yesterday! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HenryTo
Site Admin
Joined: 06 Aug 2004
Posts: 11254
Location: Los Angeles, California
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 12:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Latest April 2009 commentary from Bill Gross, titled "The Future of Investing":
http://www.pimco.com/LeftNav/Featured+Market+Commentary/IO/2009/Investment+Outlook+April+2009+Evolution+or+Revolution+Bill+Gross.htm
| Quote: | | What then does commonsense tell us about future asset returns? Let’s revisit our previous conclusions on the developing environment for some clues. They include: delevering, deglobalization, reregulation leading to slow global growth, a heightened risk aversion, a distrust of conventional investment model portfolios, and a greater emphasis on surviving as opposed to thriving. If valid, then an investor or an investment committee would likely stress the bird in the hand – as opposed to the one in the bush; stable and secure income – as opposed to uncertain capital gains; a government-regulated utility model – as opposed to innovative yet risky venture capital investments. At current price levels, to cite one example, the current income from corporate bonds is higher and certainly more secure than the dividend income from stocks. A return to an era reminiscent of the first half of the 20th century is not unimaginable where stocks were viewed as subordinated income producers with yields exceeding their senior bond companions on the liability ladder. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HenryTo
Site Admin
Joined: 06 Aug 2004
Posts: 11254
Location: Los Angeles, California
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rffrydr
Moderator
Joined: 30 Oct 2005
Posts: 16435
Location: Sunny California
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HenryTo
Site Admin
Joined: 06 Aug 2004
Posts: 11254
Location: Los Angeles, California
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Latest March 2009 commentary from Bill Gross. Also contains his views on bank nationalization:
http://www.pimco.com/LeftNav/Featured+Market+Commentary/IO/2009/Investment+Outlook+Bill+Gross+March+2009+Hairy+Lips+Sink+Ships.htm
| Quote: | Question: What do you think about nationalizing the banks?
Answer: I think Roubini, Dodd and Greenspan haven’t thought this one through. The U.S. isn’t Sweden, and not just because our blondes aren’t au naturel. Their successful approach revolved around a handful of banks but we have 7,500, as well as many S&Ls and credit unions, which would have to be flushed into government hands. Regulators are overwhelmed as it is, and if you thought Lehman Brothers was a mistake, just standby and see what nationalizing Citi or BofA would do. Our banks remain at the heart of domestic/global financial transactions and daily clearing, while those Scandinavian banks were not. PIMCO would not dispute the need to further capitalize systemically important banks via convertible bonds held by the government, which unfortunately dilute shareholders’ interests. To go further, however, and “haircut” senior debt or even existing preferred stock similar to that issued via the TARP would create an instability policymakers should not want to risk. In turn, forcing creditors to take haircuts would undermine other financial sectors such as insurance companies and credit unions. The goal of future policy should be to recapitalize lending institutions while maintaining the basic infrastructure of credit markets. Outright nationalization and haircutting of creditors will do just the opposite. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HenryTo
Site Admin
Joined: 06 Aug 2004
Posts: 11254
Location: Los Angeles, California
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rffrydr
Moderator
Joined: 30 Oct 2005
Posts: 16435
Location: Sunny California
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 01, 2009 11:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
TARP I was ridiculed as unworkable, unmanageable and unsupportive of lending--and in its violation of "market principles" unamerican. Direct capital injection to bank balance-sheets on the other hand was supposed to be none of the above--and leverage every dollar 10-1. Where was this support then? Where was the private support for the SuperSIV two years ago?
_________________
Today is the Tomorrow you worried about Yesterday! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HenryTo
Site Admin
Joined: 06 Aug 2004
Posts: 11254
Location: Los Angeles, California
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Please log in to view without the ad banners |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Statistics
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
