|
May 2005
Of
Mountains And Molehills
Listening To The Hi-Fi...In the
subscriber portion of our site, a while back we penned a
discussion regarding the financial stocks as being the current
canaries in the proverbial coalmine both for the US credit cycle
and for the broader financial markets. Our thought at the
time was that the financial stocks were giving us an early warning
sign regarding the broad equity market as a whole. By early April,
they had turned down well below their January lows, unlike the
leading equity averages at the time, and were putting in both
lower highs and lower lows in terms of price patterns. Now that we
all know what has transpired since, we again suggest keeping a
sharp eye on this sector. At the risk of totally beating a dead
horse, the financials are our way of keeping tabs on what the
macro market is pricing in at any point in time regarding the
dynamics of US credit cycle. And in our minds, the credit cycle is
the
key to the big picture.


Of
Mountains And Molehills…Although
we believe it’s very important to monitor the charts above and
the character of the greater US financial sector, we started this
discussion with a suggestion regarding the importance of
monitoring the financials really as a segue into a larger
discussion regarding cash.
If indeed we are potentially at or near the crest of the greatest
credit cycle of a generation at least, just how are households
positioned for perhaps having to deal with a post-credit cycle
economy? There are boatloads of charts to follow, so
get ready. Post the
release of the recent Fed Flow of Funds report, you may have seen
it commented upon that households are sitting on a huge pile of
cash. We see it in Street research now and again.
Often referred to as the “mountain of money”.
Money just waiting to go into the market?
Waiting to go into real estate?
Money that is a direct offset to household debt?
Well, we thought it appropriate to take a little closer
look and perhaps compare what we see today to historical context.
Are households really sitting on top of a mountain of
money, or is it more a molehill?
Well, as you’d imagine, in our eyes, and as with so many
financial relationships, it all comes back to the central question
of “compared to what?” And we suggest that the character
of household cash will ultimately be very important during the
next systemic credit contraction, which of course is ultimately
inevitable. Cash being the major shock absorber in any
credit cycle downturn. We believe this question takes on
heightened importance in light of the recently enacted
bankruptcy bill as well as the OCC (Office of the Comptroller of
the Currency) mandating changes in minimum credit card payment
levels.
As
you know, the headline savings rate in the US has been bumping
along historic lows over the last few years.
We’re about as close to zero as we’ve ever been.
And we’ll be the first to admit that there is plenty of
controversy regarding how the reported savings rate is calculated
in the first place. But,
one thing that we do cling onto when looking at these savings rate
numbers is the fact that the calculation has been consistent
across history. There have been no changes in methodology.
To us, it makes the numbers meaningful when set in
historical contrast. And
why is cash, or savings, important?
Academically, the ability of a country to finance its build
up of productive capital over time has been through domestic
businesses “borrowing” the savings of the country.
And academically, it’s this productive capital that
allows any country to manufacture goods that it can “trade” in
the global marketplace. Hence
the whole concept of balanced foreign trade.
Now we all know full well that the US has been borrowing
the savings of its foreign neighbors, primarily Asia, for many a
moon now. It truly is
one of the big “it’s different this time” issues
characterizing the current environment. When we're speaking
of household cash, for the most part, we're really speaking of the
accumulated savings component of household financial assets
over time. In essence, we're looking at a balance sheet
item. When the savings rate itself is calculated monthly,
it's an income statement view of life. We just wanted to
make that clear before pushing ahead.
OK,
so just how much cash assets are US households sitting on as of
the end of 2004? A very simplistic definition of cash
includes the following: Checkable deposits and currency,
time and savings deposits, money market funds and foreign
deposits. As of 12/31/04 the number stood at just shy of
$5.7 trillion. On face value, that's one big number, right?

Before
pushing ahead and looking at a number of household financial asset
relationships, we're going to be very charitable and broaden the
definition of household cash. For the sake of giving
households the total benefit of the doubt when looking at supposed
liquidity and accumulated savings, let's also include all bond
fixed income holdings as a form of cash in addition to what we
showed you above. This would include household investments
in Treasuries, savings bonds, open market paper, muni and
corporate bonds, agency securities, mortgage paper and foreign
bonds. We're trying to cover the waterfront here and assume
these are relatively liquid assets that could be tapped at a
moments notice, so to speak. Collectively, as of year end
2004, these household bond asset holdings totaled $2.265 trillion.
If we add these assets to the cash assets previously described
(checking, savings, MMF's, etc.), we come up with a total of $7.95
trillion in total household cash and near cash assets for the 4Q
period end. As you can see, taken strictly on face value,
it's no wonder many a commentator has referred to this
"mountain of money" as one big financial backstop.
We'll
keep the comments short and let the graphs do the bulk of the
"talking". In the following pictures of life taken
as of 4Q period end, remember that we are using the broadened
definition of cash, inclusive of all household bond asset
holdings. As we mentioned, the question of cash levels
"compared to what" is what we believe to be of utmost importance
when pondering an inevitable credit cycle downturn. Let's
start off with household cash relative to household common stock
holdings. As you can see below, cash as a percentage of
common stocks stands at 71%. The near sixty year average is
153%. It is clear where this relationship stood during
historic major equity market lows of the late 1940's (prior to the
bull of the 50's), the mid-70's and the early 1980's. We're
currently miles away. The all time low for the period shown
was seen in late 1999 at 53%. Clearly we're much nearer
historic lows than not. We sit at a level near what was seen
at the peak of the 1960's equity bull. And this is all
despite some pretty significant equity price erosion in aggregate
since the first quarter of 2000.

In terms of
household cash relative to real estate holdings (at market value),
the following chart speaks for itself. We currently rest at
an all time low. It should be of little surprise at this
point in the residential real estate cycle.

Very quickly,
let's put a little summation sign around what you see above.
As you know, the two most significant household assets are real
estate and common stock holdings. So what about the history
of cash as a percentage of total household assets? Look no
further than the graph below.

It's
perfectly clear that from the mid-1940's to the early 1950's, the
ratio fell pretty hard. We'd guess that memories of the
depression were still burning bright in the minds of many a
household ten short years later in the mid-40's. But what
also stands out like a sore thumb in the above chart is the
relatively constant nature of this ratio between 1950 and 1991.
Cash as a percentage of total assets hovered between 18% and 21%
for forty years. Through significant stock market ups and
downs and through a baby boom generation significantly helping to
push up the price of residential real estate in the 70's and 80's.
Along come the 1990's and cash as a portion of total household
assets begins to drop like a rock. As we have said many
times in discussing many different data points, we believe we have
lived through a period of intergenerational change regarding
attitudes toward personal leverage. It's pretty darn clear
to us in the chart. For now, household cash as a percentage
of total assets is within a whisper of the lows of the last 60
years at least. As you know, it's easy to understand why.
With the Fed's reflation campaign in full swing over the last two
to three years, cash has been the lowest return asset. One
last comment. If what you see above is not a very long cycle
view of life, then we just don't know what is. In much the
same way that a Kondratieff cycle is a 60+ year affair, are we
witnessing something similar above in terms of household attitudes
toward cash (inclusive of fixed income holdings)? Only time
will tell. (And we're not bringing up Kondratieff cycles to
suggest that "the end is near" so to speak, but rather
to point out that some cycles are much longer term than not.
In a world of relatively continuous inflation over the last six
decades at least, cash holdings at the household level just may be
in such a cycle.) As the dollar has lost real purchasing
power over time, so have households responded appropriately and
lost their taste for cash as an asset class. Notably, the
most recent plunge in this ratio started very shortly after the
Greenspan reign began.
Let's
quickly turn the tables and look at cash relative to the liability
side of household balance sheets. Remember, our definition
of household cash is cash and bond holdings. As you
can see, we're at a half century low at least in the
relationship displayed below that is cash as a percentage of
household liabilities. Never before have US households been
so levered compared to their cash and bond holdings. We
currently rest at a level just a little bit more than one half of
the last half century average.

Although the
above ratio is fine for comparative purposes. The following
chart is the data used above translated into dollars and cents.
Total household cash (cash and bonds) less the dollar amount of
existing household liabilities.

As
is absolutely clear, from at least the mid-1940's until 1997,
households had always carried cash balances greater than
their total liabilities. But since 1997, the level of
household liabilities outstanding has shot to the moon in terms of
rate of change. Why do we say this? Because since
1997, household cash has actually grown by $2.1 trillion.
It's just that total household debt has grown by $5 trillion.
We suggest that the chart above speaks volumes about how
households have compensated for a declining stock market and a
very weak US job recovery during the current economic cycle.
The coping mechanism, so to speak, has been household balance
sheet deterioration. As you already know, the monetization
of inflating residential real estate assets has played a huge role
in this phenomenon. Humble question. For how much
longer can what you see above continue? Just how much deeper
does the hole between household cash and liabilities get before
households perhaps have a financial epiphany of sorts?
The
reason we suggest this question is worth some thought is that as
we look ahead to a baby boom generation who is pushing toward
retirement age, cash sure has the potential to be one of the many
household assets quite in demand to fund, or help fund, the
reality of retirement living expenses. Just where is this
living expense cash going to come from now that cash as a
percentage of both household assets and liabilities is much nearer
its modern historical lows than not? We're not bringing up
this question to be negative by any means, but rather to seriously
ponder the future need of household asset monetization in some
form other than increased household leverage (that's already been
done in a big way). Which asset or assets are going to be monetized at
some point to fund baby boomer retirement living expenses (that
certainly are not about to go down in terms of absolute dollar price trajectory)?
Or will this ultimate need to "acquire" cash simply take
the form of reduced consumption and increased saving sooner rather
than later? Again, without sounding melodramatic, this is a
bridge that is going to have to be crossed. There's not much
question about it. With this in mind, we might ask the
question, at least for the baby boom crowd, just when does the
bull market in cash begin?
A
few last charts and we'll call it quits. First, we want to
take a quick look at the rhythm of directional change in household
net worth and household debt growth over the last half century.
As you know, as of the end of 4Q, household net worth stands at an
all time high in absolute dollar terms. Coincidentally, so
does total household debt. But what we suggest is important
is the nature of change in these household financial
characteristics. As you see in the extended chart below,
there is an approximate similarity between household debt and net
worth expressed as a percentage of GDP over time. In our
minds, the acceleration in household debt relative to GDP has been
a primary catalyst for the inflation of household asset values,
primarily equity and residential real estate. Although this
is just our personal opinion, we believe a good portion of the
directional change you see below can be attributed to
demographics. As you know, folks like Harry Dent have
popularized the notion that demographics drive economic and
financial trends. When we look at the charts below, we can
see that in the early 1970's household net worth as a percentage
of GDP began a multi-decade secular rise that at least for now
culminated with the peaking of the equity market. Right
alongside this rise was the coincident secular rise in household
debt as a percentage of GDP. Do these charts "fit"
a number of themes? Changing household attitudes towards
personal leverage. The fact that the public always chases
the inflating asset, first equities and now real estate. The
real demographic force of the baby boom generation. We
believe these graphs do depict these trends. But again, as
we look ahead, we know that the baby boom generation is going to
need cash for living expenses if they expect to retire, or are
forced to retire for age/health reasons. A very simple
question might be, what happens to household asset values
(implicitly net worth) if households slow their acceleration of
leverage? Will the baby boomers simply continue borrowing
until planted six feet under? The demographic rationales of
folks like Dent that theoretically explain real world economic
phenomenon are implicitly crying out this question.

Finally, one
last "for fun" chart. The following is household
cash as a percentage of GDP. And what caught our eye here
more than anything else was simply the rhythm of the relationship.
It sure seems obvious that relative to the benchmark of GDP,
households have repeatedly gone through cyclical periods of cash
accumulation and dissipation over time. Incredibly enough,
the bottoming area in this cyclical relationship has been quite
coincidental. What this chart would suggest is that
household cash as a percentage of GDP is approaching, if not at,
another bottoming area. We'll see what happens ahead, but
all the charts above tell us that household cash relative to asset
values, liabilities, etc, is quite low from an historical point of
view.

Interestingly,
there have been two major periods of corporate capital spending
over the last four decades. In the 1970's corporate capital
spending as a percentage of GDP shot up like a rocket in response
to the US energy crisis. Spending on energy infrastructure
was not only profitable, but vital. (By the way, will it be
so again at some point in the relatively near future? We
think so.) The second great capital
spending boom we have lived through in the last half century was
the tech spending boom of the 1990's. Now, in looking at the
chart above, we can see that cash as a percentage of GDP was
building quite heavily prior to these US corporate capital
spending booms. And during the spending booms themselves,
cash as a percentage of GDP fell as basically it was borrowed by
the corporate sector and spent. Where's the juice for the
next US capital spending boom? (There will be another boom,
won't there?)
So
when you hear it said by some Street commentator that households
are sitting on a mountain of cash at the current time, you know
that the appropriate response is "compared to what?".
Again, we're not suggesting that the world is about to go dark,
but rather we're trying to paint the picture of household
financial character and potential financial flexibility as we move
ahead. Looking down the road, some type of credit cycle
reconciliation will definitely rear its ugly head. The
financial stocks may be telling us that period is sooner rather
than later. In our minds, the ease of availability, ease of
terms and price of credit has been the household substitute for
cash in recent years. After all, one can "always"
refi. One can "always" get a line of credit.
One can "always" get another credit card. Until
the credit cycle reverses, of course. We believe that for
many folks, the distinctive lines between cash and credit have blurred.
But as with household holdings of cash and bond assets, the price,
terms and availability of credit is cyclical over time. In
the current cycle, most folks have probably long forgotten that
truism. In a simple world, we'd suggest that it will
ultimately take cash at the household level to further purchase
equities, residential real estate, etc. as we move forward.
And current cash levels relative to these asset class values look
much more like molehills than mountains at the moment. But
we're not in a simple world. We're in an unprecedented
credit cycle. We're in a finance based economy.
Whether it's the trade deficit or household mortgages, activity is
based on borrowing, not cash. Maybe it will only be with an
ultimate change in the credit cycle that the supposed mountain of household
cash will truly be seen for what it is, not much more than a speed
bump set within the context of history. Happy motoring
modern day credit aficionados. And watch out for those
potholes, OK?
|