I'm curious, what about effectiveness lags? I suppose I'm of the opinion that inflation YoY is pernicious to inelastic goods. I'm just wondering if they're looking at everything you're saying they should be weighing, but there are hidden factors we just don't know about. I suppose mistakes, like externalities, really only emerge after they've become real versus just crying crocodile tears.
The Fed is probably not giving people not much to hang their hat on aside from rising rates, because to telegraph something more could put a dent in their inflation-slaying campaign, because it'll create more volatility and uncertainty on top of what's already baked into the consciousness of investors of all types.
if by over You mean they’ve spent their powder I would agree 100 percent ..
but as You suggested they haven’t used the correct measure ..
not sure how many iterations of zirp, zap and zip we’ve endured since 2008 but there are too many to count each resulting in expanding the money supply..
Thanks John for the insights. So if I understood, your 'most likely' scenario is rates gradually fall and support equity/fixed income prices without a credit event or recession, acknowledging risk of a banking sector credit event remains. However, you mention "We are fast approaching a time when patient investors with ample liquidity will be able to put money to work at extraordinary returns by ‘solving’ the liquidity issues of other investors." How would those liquidity issues arise if we don't get a credit event?
Great piece.
I'm curious, what about effectiveness lags? I suppose I'm of the opinion that inflation YoY is pernicious to inelastic goods. I'm just wondering if they're looking at everything you're saying they should be weighing, but there are hidden factors we just don't know about. I suppose mistakes, like externalities, really only emerge after they've become real versus just crying crocodile tears.
The Fed is probably not giving people not much to hang their hat on aside from rising rates, because to telegraph something more could put a dent in their inflation-slaying campaign, because it'll create more volatility and uncertainty on top of what's already baked into the consciousness of investors of all types.
if by over You mean they’ve spent their powder I would agree 100 percent ..
but as You suggested they haven’t used the correct measure ..
not sure how many iterations of zirp, zap and zip we’ve endured since 2008 but there are too many to count each resulting in expanding the money supply..
thank You Kindly
John for sharing Your thoughts
Thanks John for the insights. So if I understood, your 'most likely' scenario is rates gradually fall and support equity/fixed income prices without a credit event or recession, acknowledging risk of a banking sector credit event remains. However, you mention "We are fast approaching a time when patient investors with ample liquidity will be able to put money to work at extraordinary returns by ‘solving’ the liquidity issues of other investors." How would those liquidity issues arise if we don't get a credit event?