Skip to main content

Market's Inflationary Expectations


Image result for eric j. weigel

Investors in the spring of 2016 could have gotten ahead of events by aligning their portfolios to “a world of lower expected capital market returns and higher forward volatility.” That, at any rate, was the upshot of a thoughtful analysis by Eric J. Wiegel of Global Focus Capital, a Boston based asset allocation advisor. Why does Wiegel think so? Because the market’s inflationary expectations are/were too low.
With the benefit of a year of hindsight ... was Wiegel right?
So far as I can tell ... no. In particular, the market's inflationary expectations as of the spring of 2016 for the following year were accurate, and following Wiegel's effort to outguess the market would nought have availed. There was no upsurge in inflation numbers in the months after Wiegel wrote, and in fact investors have since then benefitted by higher than expected capital market returns.

In the five months before and contemporaneous with Wiegel's article, the inflation rate (annualized, that is, multiplied by 12 in each case) was: 1.4, 1.0, 0.9, 1.1, and 1.0.

In the following five months, the inflation rate was: 1.0, 0.8, 1.1, 1.5. and 1.6. As you may already have noticed, there was a slow upward trend in that sequence, but it wasn't really anything out of line with market expectations as of the spring.  

Inflation continued to tick up until February of this year, when it hit 2.7, an altitude it hadn't seen for five years. But since then it has headed back down again: 2.4 in March and 2.2 in April. None of this qualifies as an inflation surge of the sort Wiegel seemed to have in mind. 

Volatility?  I've just quoted Wiegel's observation that IF there had been an inflation surge, "higher forward volatility" would result. It probably would have. But in fact, volatility is at a 23 year low.

None of this is to criticize Wiegel. Economic forecasting is a tricky business, and even the most careful and scholarly analysis can go wrong. Perhaps that is the take-away from this little reality check.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

England as a Raft?

In a lecture delivered in 1880, William James asked rhetorically, "Would England ... be the drifting raft she is now in European affairs if a Frederic the Great had inherited her throne instead of a Victoria, and if Messrs Bentham, Mill, Cobden, and Bright had all been born in Prussia?"

Beneath that, in a collection of such lectures later published under James' direction, was placed the footnote, "The reader will remember when this was written."

The suggestion of the bit about Bentham, Mill, etc. is that the utilitarians as a school helped render England ineffective as a European power, a drifting raft.

The footnote was added in 1897. So either James is suggesting that the baleful influence of Bentham, Mill etc wore off in the meantime or that he had over-estimated it.

Let's unpack this a bit.  What was happening in the period before 1880 that made England seem a drifting raft in European affairs, to a friendly though foreign observer (to the older brother…

Cancer Breakthrough

Hopeful news in recent days about an old and dear desideratum: a cure for cancer. Or at least for a cancer, and a nasty one at that.

The news comes about because investors in GlaxoSmithKline are greedy for profits, and has already inspired a bit of deregulation to boot. 

The FDA has paved the road for a speedy review of a new BCMA drug for multiple myeloma, essentially cancer of the bone marrow. This means that the US govt has removed some of the hurdles that would otherwise (by decision of the same govt) face a company trying to proceed with these trials expeditiously. 

This has been done because the Phase I clinical trial results have been very promising. The report I've seen indicates that details of these results will be shared with the world on Dec. 11 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. 

The European Medicines Agency has also given priority treatment to the drug in question. 

GSK's website identifies the drug at issue as "GSK2857916," althou…

Francesco Orsi

I thought briefly that I had found a contemporary philosopher whose views on ethics and meta-ethics checked all four key boxes. An ally all down the line.

The four, as regular readers of this blog may remember, are: cognitivism, intuitionism, consequentialism, pluralism. These represent the views that, respectively: some ethical judgments constitute knowledge; one important source for this knowledge consists of quasi-sensory non-inferential primary recognitions ("intuitions"); the right is logically dependent upon the good; and there exists an irreducible plurality of good.

Francesco Orsi seemed to believe all of these propositions. Here's his website and a link to one relevant paper:

https://sites.google.com/site/francescoorsi1/

https://jhaponline.org/jhap/article/view/3

What was better: Orsi is a young man. Born in 1980. A damned child! Has no memories of the age of disco!

So I emailed him asking if I was right that he believed all of those things. His answer: three out of …