In Barrons recent cover story (see Barrons article), roundtable members were once again interviewed about their thoughts on the economy, the markets, and select stocks. While there was varying opinion about the short-term outlook, many believe that the market has gotten ahead of itself, with some expressing longer-term concerns - even if the a short-term rally continues. As a hedge against the recent government spending spree and potential coming hyperinflation, some have stressed their continued interest in gold (one analysts with a $850/ounce entry point). The short-term stimulus / long-term worry perspective was articulated by Felix Zulauf, stating that:

"The U.S. economy will look a little better in the next two to three quarters, due to inventory restocking and fiscal stimulus. But the improvement won't continue after mid-2010, when the economy turns bumpy again."

Zulauf goes on to state that:

"The market undershot into March, and will probably overshoot in the first half of next year. The first rally is just about done. The market might climb into July, but it will correct in the fall, with stocks retracing maybe 50% of the recent advance. That will provide an opportunity to buy for a rally next spring or summer. That's the whole mini-bull market. Economic conditions won't support more than that."

Fred Hickey goes on to mention that while there are similarities to the 1930s, the current situation is different in that by adding liquidity, we may be recreating the very problem we were trying to solve. As mentioned by Hickey:

"The situation is reminiscent of the past 14 years, when the Fed primed the pump and created bubbles everywhere."

In a different Barrons article (see second article), Michael Darda, chief economist at MKM Partners, is more optimistic short and long-term, and expects the market to bottom this summer. As evidence, Darda points to the money base, measuring currency-in-circulation, bank reserves, and vault cash (see second Barrons article). The money base is now near a record high of around 2.9 times the stock market's value, a value that is slightly below a higher value in February (right before stocks took off), but below the average of 1.5 over the last 20 years. As Darda points out, the value was below 0.9 times as the stock market peaked in 2007. And while rising yields on the 10-year Treasuries have reduced refinancing, and threaten to lower home prices, Darda points out that what is important is the spread of the yield curve. The current slope is signaling strength, and not giving an inverted slope recession prediction.

But Darda does concede that while futures are pricing in a 50 bps increase in short-term rates by the end of the year, he expects unemployment levels and politics will keep the Fed from raising rates - in what could be a choice of risking a "repeat of the 1970s than a repeat of 1937-1938." This perspective of short-term moves followed by long-term concerns is in line with Arthur Laffer's recent higher inflation / higher interest rates op-ed piece in the WSJ (see previous post). In the article, Laffer highlighted that in:

"shorter time frames, the expansion of money the expansion of money can also result in higher stock prices, a weaker currency, and increases in commodity prices such as oil and gold."

Of course, over the long-term, such effects are much more negative, not only for the economy, but the market as well. Therefore, while good economist seem to vary somewhat on the short-term outlook of the economy and market (not unexpected), most agree that the longer-term consequences of the 2008 credit crisis and subsequent spending will provide a challenging environment at best going forward, especially long-term. As mentioned before (see previous post), plan accordingly.

According to the recent TIM (Trade Ideas Monitor) report, over the last five trading days institutional brokers have switched from being bearish to being more bullish on equities (see previous post or youDevise website for additional information on the TIM report). For the five trading days ending June 11, the number of long ideas as a percentage of new ideas sent to investment managers increased 73.66%, compared to 58.65% one week earlier. Longs represent 67.03% of ideas in June.

The TIM Long-Short Index, measuring the total number of long ideas compared to the total number of short ideas sent to clients, increased 97.2% after recently falling. As for individual securities, JetBlue (JBLU), Intuit (INTU), and Gymboree (GYMB) were the stocks most recommended as longs by institutional brokers.

On the surface, the TIM Report appears to be an interesting idea and new source of data. While I am not yet sure if the data will be too lagging for investment/trading purposes, I am interested to learn how this new source of data can be used, and will therefore be tracking it while available.

Hedge funds had a nice May, up 5.2 percent on average. While the recent market rally no doubt helped, hedge funds also appear to be benefiting from less competition (see Economist article), with approximately 1,500 funds liquidating last year. This follows a similar trend observed in the late 1990s when less competition for trading opportunities helped those funds that survived after the LTCM failure.

But as reported in the article, not everything is rosy. After poor performance in 2008, many investors are requiring a more fair fee structure, one that is either closer to 1-10 (instead of 2-20), or that phases in fees over a longer period, after the fund has outperformed a benchmark - with the benchmark closer to the general market, and not simply zero, or a non-negative return. Investors also seem to be asking for more managed accounts where they can see where their money is being invested, and can also withdraw it quicker (and without gate restrictions). If that was not challenging enough, one cannot forget the added government regulation is coming down the pike. Possibly the biggest loser will be the funds-of-funds, which tack on an extra level of fees for the expertise of picking the best funds. Their failure to outperform enough to compensate for the extra fees, along with the benefits of cheaper hedge fund replication clones (see previous posts here, here, here, and here), are also making their services less cost effective.

Canada posted a trade deficit of $179 million in April. Economist were instead expecting a surplus near $1 billion (see Financial Post article). Both prices and volume fell, with exports dropping 5.1%. Lower exports of industrial goods, materials, energy products, machinery, and equipment drove the number lower. The Canadian dollar, which has been strengthening against the U.S. dollar, is also not helping the situation for Canada. The U.S. is the largest Canadian trading partner (76% of exports and 65% of imports to and from the U.S., 2007 data, wikipedia; about 1/3rd of U.S trade). The numbers, while bad for Canada, also highlight issues for the U.S. While the weak greenback may have helped U.S. exporters, imports into Canada were also down 1.5%. As a result, the larger decrease in exports from Canada illustrates the double-edge sword of a weak dollar. While it makes U.S. exports more attractive, it also makes international goods more expensive for U.S. industries that rely on imports of raw materials. The impact of this was seen in 2008 as higher crude oil prices, driven up in part due to a falling dollar, put a strain on the economy that trumped any benefits from increased exports. The figure below shows how U.S. - Canadian trade has fallen off a cliff over the last six months (figure source, U.S. Census Bureau), and why the recent "Buy American" provisions received so much interest and debate in Canada and the U.S.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

According to a recent Wall Street Journal article, the SEC is being deluged with letters supporting the return of the uptick rule. Pressure for the rule has been building since the market melt-down last fall, generating additional interest this spring (see previous post). Let me state upfront that I believe when regulators interfere with the natural flow of the market, as they did when banning the short selling of financial stocks last fall, it does more harm than good - primarily by reducing market efficiency and increasing volatility when temporary restrictions are lifted. Besides the irony of helping to reduce risk management opportunities, adding an uptick rule seems ineffective for liquid markets, for which it is not all that hard to find a plus tick. Nonetheless, I understand and appreciate the arguments on both sides - primarily that we did fine with it for near 70 years. I am also not sure it will make much difference one way or another. Yet the current debate seems to expand the argument, and fall into the trap of assuming correlation implies causation. This is apparent in the following quote:

"Isn't it coincidental that right at the time the uptick rule was abolished, the sharp spiral downturn started."

While we can debate whether the market began falling July 6, 2007, or later that year, does it really matter? Could it also be argued that the rule was artificially propping up a market that should have long since fallen under the weight of a housing bubble? Is it the rule change that caused the market to crash, or did it simply get out of the way of the inevitable pent-up selling? Is there any difference? Was something else at play? One current argument goes on to say that not only should the uptick rule come back, but that naked short selling should be banned, capital ratios should be increased, the CDS market should be regulated, and leveraged ETFs should be examined. All worth examining. But if the CDS market becomes more regulated (a near given), current naked short selling rules are enforced (not such a given), and leveraged ETFs are restricted, is the uptick rule even necessary? Should we require a little more evidence?

As an additional reason for changing the rule, another advisor mentions that the repeal of the rule "drastically changed the outcome of many stocks this past year." Last I saw, so did greedy banks and home owners, yet we seem to be forgiving many of their problems, and even making it easier for them to become whole, but I digress. Yes, when bad companies are sold, they tend to go down. Maybe the market needed to drastically change. Was there overshooting, sure, but markets have a tendency to overshoot, in both directions.

Maybe the real point of contention is given by another advisor quoted in the article, stressing that reinstating the rule will help "investor psychology." Possibly, but is this a reason for bringing the rule back? And which investors are they talking about? Will the psychology of short-sellers or hedge funds be better off? Probably not, and maybe that is the point. Many blame the hedge funds and short sellers specifically for destroying their nest eggs. It only seems natural to want to punish them, but does it solve the problem? Once again, I don't think it does.

We have to be careful when assuming that one thing causes (or doesn't cause) something else. In fact, I know that some will argued that I am falling into the same trap. I agree. In fact, that is the point. When we interfere with and observe one outcome or property, and try to describe what we are seeing, the less we know about the other paired property, not unlike what Hiesenberg observed over 80 years ago. Controlled studies are needed, but as with quantum physics, this is difficult for dynamic markets. Maybe the next time the markets begin to fall we should spend less time assuming it is only caused by a structural flaw in the system, and more time understanding if something fundamental to the market started the selling. The market may be telling us something early on. If we had listen a little earlier, maybe we would be months and years into the next recovery ....... and figuring out when and how to short the next bubble (which if the uptick rule is reinstated, may be more inevitable).

There is an excellent opinion article in the Wall Street Journal today by Arthur Laffer (see WSJ article). In the article, Laffer discusses the increase in the monetary base, and how in the past 95% of the monetary base was composed of currency-in-circulation. Even with the recent unprecedented increase, cash-in-circulation has risen only 10%, now making up less than 50% of the monetary base, whereas bank reserves have increased nearly 20-fold. Granted, an increase in bank reserves was needed as a result of the liquidity issues of 2008 in order to make it possible for banks to begin lending again, but the balance has shifted too far. Laffer points out that banks will no doubt continue to make loans until they are once again reserved constrained. Currently, as banks make more loans and put more money into the system, the growth rate of M1 (currency in circulation, demand deposits, and travelers checks - see wikipedia article) is now around 15%. This of course will result in higher inflation and higher interest rates. As mentioned by Laffer,

"In shorter time frames, the expansion of money can also result in higher stock prices, a weaker currency, and increases in commodity prices such as oil and gold."

Does this market situation seem familiar? Unless the Fed acts to reduce the monetary base, which appears unlikely anytime soon given that there is no easy approach or outcome (see the Laffer article), it appears likely that the Fed will continue to lose control over rates (see previous post), and the markets will continue to tip towards inflation (see additional previous post). Plan accordingly.

Once again we have a weak dollar helping to push the price of crude oil even higher (see Bloomberg article, see first WSJ article on crude, second WSJ article on the dollar). In the CNBC video below, the technical analysts Nicole Elliott is absolutely beside herself, and even giddy at times, regarding the absurdity of the move in 2-year U.S. Treasuries. She eventually comes to the conclusion that the central banks have lost all control of the setting of interest rates, not to mention the long bond and interbank loans which have been outside of their control for a while.

Source: CNBC Video
Yet the 44.4 basis point move between June 5-8, along with the recent move in the Fed funds rates, are being dismissed by some firms that trade directly with the Fed, implying that it is simply speculators that are driving rates up (see Bloomberg article). Many dealers go on to predict that the Fed will hold tight well into 2010. Maybe so, but does it matter? While the Fed has recently retreated from seeking debt-issuing power to help control inflation (see Bloomberg article), the markets certainly are nervous about what they are seeing, regardless of the policy and wishes of the Fed. The TIPS market has also been active (see previous post).

Of course, what many traders are seeing and are nervous about begins with the unprecedented amounts of cash that is flowing into the world economies, much of which will eventually trigger higher inflation, higher taxes, and lower profit margins. To make matters worse, there is a feeling that much of the spending and printing is not necessary, and even worse, that no one at the Fed is really even minding the store. For instance, in the YouTube video below, one politician questions the Inspector General of the Federal Reserve. During the questioning, the Inspector General seems to have no idea where the trillion-plus dollars the Fed has put into the system actually ended up, or who received the money. There also seems to be no postmortem or investigation on the impact of not bailing out Lehman Brothers, or auditing of any off-balance sheet transactions.


Source: YouTube
Given the market reactions, the inflation-driven moves are beginning to appear a little more obvious (see excellent Michael Pento greenfaucet post), even if the size and timing are still under debate. Yet the moves can happen quickly. Just ask those trading the 2-year Treasury, or those who were looking to lock-in to a 30-year mortgage under 5 percent just a few weeks ago. This certainly seems encouraging for commodities long-term, and even short-term, regardless of the current rallies. Just think if demand actually catches up?

Productivity increased in the first quarter (see Investment News article). It could be argued that the higher number was due in part to companies needing to get the job done with less employees and less hours worked after massive layoffs, but it does signal that companies are becoming more efficient, just at a time when labor costs are down - given the lower head counts. Therefore, while the numbers are not encouraging for employees since hours worked have also decreased, a jobless recovery could result in higher productivity, lower wage growth, and smaller labor costs for companies, helping to stimulate corporate profits going forward. While employment and wage growth will eventually need to increase to bolster consumer spending and further economic growth, productivity-based higher corporate earnings may be enough to help drive a summer rally for select stocks, or at least explain the recent rally over the last few months.

According to the recent TIM (Trade Ideas Monitor) report, over the last five trading days, institutional brokers are continuing to becoming more bearish (see note below, previous post, or the youDevise website for additional information on the TIM report). For the five trading days ending June 4, the number of short ideas as a percentage of new ideas sent to investment managers increased 41.35%, compared to 35.88% just a week ago. The TIM reflects which direction brokers are expecting a stock to move over the next 1-3 weeks. The TIM Long-Short Index, measuring the total number of long ideas compared to the total number of short ideas sent to clients, decreased 35.4%, further highlighting negativity and bearishness from brokers. As for individual securities, Palm (PALM), Freeport McMoran (FCX), and Petroleo Brasileiro (PBR) were the stocks most recommended as shorts by institutional brokers.

Note: The Trade Idea Monitor (TIM) is an application for measuring "ideas from authors (mainly brokers) to recipients (mainly buy-side clients)" (see youDevise website). It is used by institutional brokers to send long and short equity and ETF trade ideas to clients. The TIM Report is based on the number of real-time equity trading ideas sent to over 4,300 equity sales people, sales traders, and analysts at over 300 institutional brokerage firms to more than 100 hedge funds, quant funds, and investment managers.

In the CNBC video below, Bill McIntosh, editor of the Hedge Fund Journal, outlines the state of the hedge fund industry, with a focus on those strategies that have been doing well since the market correction last year. Equity-based strategies, arbitrage, and long-only emerging markets have been doing the best (see Hedge Funds Review article for more on emerging market funds). Not surprising, funds investing in banking and energy stock have been doing well. Defensive funds have underperformed, even though they have at least been able to preserve capital as advertised. The increased optimism is also causing most hedge funds to remove gates and lockups that were put in place late last year.

Source: CNBC Video
As reported at both Reuters (see article) and Bloomberg (see article), and discussed in a previous post, redemption request have decreased, and there is an expectation that investors will add $50 billion into hedge funds this year in an effort to catch the current wave, and hopefully recoup some losses suffered last year. Whether this is a bullish or contrarian indicator remains to be seen. Given the recent market moves, along with inflation and debt worries (see previous post), there are concerns of near term bearishness (see previous post). Yet, if "panic buying" starts occurring from the nearly $3.8 trillion currently sitting in retail and institutional money market funds (see Huffington Post article), a nice summer rally may still be in the cards.

As for the hedges, it will be interesting to see if the smaller funds can regain their out-performance status over larger funds, after falling behind last year (see Hedge Funds Review article). Even with their flexibility, this may be difficult given the trend for skittish investors to now require a track record of accomplishments, which is sometimes easier for the larger funds to provide (see Financial Times article). Of course, if the market continues to rally, greed may starting winning out over fear of loss (possibly replaced by the fear of missing out), regardless of the managers style or size.

While General Motors bondholders are still angry over what they, and many others feel is unfair treatment, those holding other bonds are beginning to think about how they are going to price in what is being labeled as a new level of risk - which could be called the "shared sacrifice" risk (see Bloomberg article). As mentioned in the article, "Bondholders are told to give up legal rights, and cash, as part of a government-mandated tradeoff that favors a politically connected special-interest group." This has some worried that such an undermining of long-standing legal agreements could extend beyond the corporate world, where a new precedent seems to have been set. Those holding equity should also be worried, as raising capital through debt offerings will get more expensive. As mentioned recently by David Einhorn, it is a “quixotic idea ... that creditor recoveries in troubled situations can be determined by an arbitrary sense of shared sacrifice rather than legal agreements and long- established prior practice." Could Treasuries and Municipal debt be next? Would problems with covering local payrolls for city employees such as firefighters and police cause political leaders to ask municipal bondholders to share in the sacrifice? Outcomes such as these, which seemed unlikely to bond holders just 12 months ago, have some considering various new risk factors when pricing bonds. Now the size of the workforce, the level of unionization, and political importance (swing state, home district of a powerful chairperson) are all being consider with greater interest. And you though determining credit risk was hard before. Just wait until a new CDS-like derivative starts to be offered to help manage such risk.

Institutional brokers are becoming more bearish on equities over the last five trading days according to the Trade Ideas Monitor (TIM, see Hedge Funds Review article). The TIM is an application for measuring "ideas from authors (mainly brokers) to recipients (mainly buy-side clients)." (see youDevise website). Short ideas as a percentage of all new ideas sent to investment managers through TIM increased from 28.55 percent to 35.88 percent over the last five days. During the same five day period, the TIM Long-Short Index decreased 28.6% from 2.50 to 1.79, signaling more negativity on the market as a lower index reading implies that brokers are more bearish. The TIM Long-Short index measures the total number of long ideas sent to clients, compared to the total number of short ideas, with the ideas focused on market moves covering on average the next 1-3 weeks. This seems to correlate with some of the recent sentiment from technical analysts who predict that the markets may experience a short-term sell-off as they consolidate around key technical levels, even though the upward trend still appears to be in place.

The gap in yield between the 10-year TIP (Treasury inflation-protected security) and the regular 10-year Treasury surpassed two percentage points, as investors begin to price in expectations of inflation (see WSJ article). This comes on the day that Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke warns of how longer-term deficits are threatening the financial stability of the U.S., as yields on longer-term Treasuries and fixed-rate mortgages rise (see Bloomberg article).

U.S. 10-Year Treasury
Source: BigCharts.com

iShares Barclays TIPS Bond Fund
Source: BigCharts.com

In an effort to take advantage of increased investor interest in Treasuries, Pimco (Pacific Investment Management Company) is launching its first ETF, the Pimco 1-3 Year U.S. Treasury Index Fund (ticker TUZ, see MarketWatch article). The current Pimco ETF was developed for investors with a focus on maintaining stable principle with little or no credit risk. The new ETF is one of approximately 65 fixed-income exchange traded funds listed in the U.S., a small number compared to the much larger equity ETF universe. In addition to the new ETF, Pimco filed prospectuses with the SEC for six additional ETFs. Three of the new ETF will cover the 3-7 year, 7-15 year, and 15+ year Treasuries. The remaining three will be tied to the U.S. TIPS, including a general TIPS Index Fund, a short maturity U.S. TIPS Index Fund, and a long maturity TIPS Index Fund. The Pimco TIPS funds are expected to compete with the iShares Barclays TIPS Bond Fund (ticker TIP, see chart above). Such products will give investors betting on hyperinflation, such as Nassim Taleb (see previous post), a new vehicle for placing their bets.

While the effects of government bailouts and spending is still to be determined, Treasury Security Geithner does seem to be responsible for stimulating at least one industry - the exchanges. Since the announcement of his intent to shift more over-the-counter derivative trading onto the exchanges, the share price for the CME Group is up 27 percent, while the share price of Deutsche Borse (owner of the Eurex derivative exchange) is right behind, up 21 percent (see Financial Times article).

CME Group Daily Chart (1 year)
Source: Big Charts

In addition to the exchanges being able to trade more credit derivative products, such as credit default swaps, massive stimulus spending will also make it likely that demand will increase for interest rate products that are traded on the futures exchanges. In particular, the CME should do well given its trading in the popular Eurodollar contract. Yet, all is not rosy, as the introduction of new multilateral trading facilities will also require many of the existing exchanges to modify the way they currently do business, possibly also forcing a cut in fees. The "final" proposed regulations will also have to be carefully examined. For instance, if CDS trading is limited to only those with a direct interest, as opposed to third party speculators, then liquidity will be a fraction of what it is expected, offering less benefit to the exchanges. If, on the other hand, regulations are less restrictive, which seems necessary in order to maintain some type of relatively efficient and liquid market, then the exchanges will certainly benefit from the increased volume, even with a slight reductions in fees. Any rebound in the economy, or continuation of the current new bull / existing bear market rally will also have investors once again dreaming of $700 CME quotes. Let's hope so. After all, an increase in trading and retail participation in the market would certainly be good for more stocks than just the CME Group.

As insurance companies, banks, and endowments continue to scale back hedge fund investments, a new survey from Barclays finds that pension plans and wealthy families may be increasing their investments. Such investors have about 14 percent of their assets in cash, with almost 80 percent of this group planning to allocated money to hedge funds during 2009 (see Bloomberg article). With pension plans having around $437 billion in assets, and wealthy families controlling another $72 billion, potential investments could result in over $50 billion being added to hedge funds this year. While $50 billion is not anyway near current Government spending levels, it is certainly enough to generate its own form of market stimulus, adding additional buying pressure as the major indexes continue to flirt with key levels.

Universa Investments L.P., run by Mark Spitznagel (with no ownership, but a significant investment from Black Swan author Nassim Taleb), is opening a new inflation fund, named the "Black Swan Protection Protocol - Inflation" fund (see WSJ article). While worries that inflation will be caused by increased deficit spending are nothing new (see recent blog post), the fund is making bets on what is expect will be hyperinflation - similar to, and possibly worse, than what was observed in the 1970s. Investments in the aptly named fund will include options tied to what are believed will be volatile commodities, such as corn, crude oil, and copper, in addition to associated stocks, such as the gold miners and oil drillers. The inflation fund is also making negative bets on Treasury bonds in expectation of higher yields and lower bond prices. While most investors believe that the economy will have to deal with inflation at some point, the timing is still a matter of debate. Given the use of options in the fund, which in the past tended to be deep-out-of-the-money puts when looking for a sell-off, it would seem that Spitznagel and Taleb are looking for a much quicker and, in this case, higher move to the upside for assets tied to inflation.

In the wake of the 2008 financial meltdown, it was easy to look the other way as governments and regulators considered nearly every course of action for keeping the engines of the economy from totally falling off the tracks, let alone from moving too fast in the wrong direction. But now, after massive stimulus spending, failures, and private-company ownership stakes, governments are dealing with numerous unintended consequences, forcing them to perform a difficult balancing act between immediate stimulus and long-term growth and stability.

This is now becoming evident in the Treasury market, where rising interest rates are putting pressure on the Fed's plan to bring down borrowing costs and help revive the housing market (see Bloomberg article). Mortgage rates, which have been increasing recently (see Bloomberg article and Reuters article), are now reaching high enough levels (if 5.25% is high) where they are beginning to decrease the number of new refinancing, not to mention making new home purchases more expensive and less attractive. While the increasing yield curve has been good for the net interest margins of the banks, the higher rates are coming at a bad time. It was recently reported that the number of homeowners who are getting behind on their mortgages is increasing, causing a spike in foreclosures (see NY Times article). Also, while the median price of a new home was up 3.7 percent in April, the general longer-term trend is still down, and will require a few more positive months to confirm a reversal. Sales of new homes also rose less than expected in April, with a downward revision of the March figures adding additional concern. Durable goods orders did see their largest gain in 16 months in April, but the March number was revised down sharply, causing concern for the accuracy of the current April reading.

Commodities and commodity-related stocks, on the other hand, have been rallying, with gold marching towards $1,000 an ounce, and oil rising above $65 a barrel (see WSJ article), up nearly 50 percent over the last five weeks (see Reuters article). The moves have come in part due to the falling greenback, with the dollar index down 10 percent over the last 3-months. Higher commodity prices have helped resource-rich emerging markets, lifting specific international indexes and causing a rally in emerging market bonds as the higher prices reflect an improved outlook concerning these nations ability to repay their debts (see Bloomberg article). Yet domestically, rising crude oil prices may slow down consumer spending as U.S. consumers find they once again have less disposal income (see Reuters article). Further increases in commodity prices, especially crude oil, will certainly draw concern from the Federal Reserve as it wrestles with the balancing act of growth and inflation, and subsequent worries about stagflation, making it difficult to raise rates. Capacity utilization is still low enough to make one believe that broad-based inflation is at least a year away, yet higher gasoline prices will influence consumer spending - which is vital to GDP and growth - with higher market rates adding extra pressure on spending.

In the area of "the news is good since it was not as bad as expected" camp, reported revisions highlight that GDP only contracted 5.7 percent in Q1, less than expected and previously reported, while corporate profits after taxes increased by 12.9 percent after falling 28.4 percent in Q4 (see WSJ article). Yet, not everything is rosy. Within the last few days, Tiffany posted a 64 percent drop in Q1 earnings, as margins slumped (see WSJ article). Cintas, the uniform maker, gave a weak Q4 outlook, saying that it also expects to have another round of layoffs, bringing its total workforce reduction to 12 percent over the past year (see WSJ article), and signaling further expected weakness in the broader labor market. As for technology, Dell warned that the PC market has not yet hit bottom (see WSJ article). Isolated, insignificant, and cheery-picked? Possibly. But certainly cause for concern.

All of this leaves the Fed and the Treasury with a difficult balancing act going forward. Fortunately for the Fed, or maybe unfortunately depending on your perspective, they may be off the hook, as investors and the markets take action themselves, and in the process drive up Treasury yields on debt and inflation fears (see Financial Post article). As equities enter the summer and currently appear to be stuck in a range as traders collectively make a market, the Fed may also find that it too could benefit from a little monetary consolidation. Unfortunately, the dollar, Treasuries, and commodity prices seem to have a mind of their own, with traders spotting the handwriting on the wall, and taking matters into their own hands. Quite possibility, the inflation train may have already left the station. Maybe the most the Fed can hope for is to make sure it simply arrives later than expected. Even those that feel inflation is a distant reality, see it as a reality, nonetheless. As investors and traders, we can prepare, and maybe make a little money along the way. Gold and commodity traders, as well as those shorting the dollar, are off to a good start.

As the Obama Administration considers ways to pay for their proposed universal health care system, and everything else for the matter, old habits like cigarettes, and growing ones like soda consumption, are being considered for new and/or higher taxes. While it seems like everything is currently on the table, the administration may only need to look up for inspiration, and another source of revenue. Greg Mankiw and Matthew Weinzieri, both from Harvard, have proposed taxing people based on their height (see the Fox Business News article). Crazy and arbitrary? Maybe not.

To backup their proposal, Mankiw and Weinzieri cite studies that show a correlation between height and income. As it turns out, previous research found that each inch of height added about 2 percent to a man's income on average (sorry ladies, only men were considered in the study). Statistical data snooping? Once again, maybe not. According to the theory, it is believed that exhibiting height early in life allows adolescences to develop characteristics such as self-esteem that are later rewarded in the labor market. Others, conducting similar studies, hypothesize that proper pre-natal and childhood nutrition also helps to explain the correlation between growth (height) and cognitive ability (also helpful in the labor market).

Carrying things forward, since tall people are more desired by the labor market, they of course will earn more money, and subsequently pay higher taxes. So who cares you might say. Even if tall people do make more money, they are already paying more taxes. How do you generate more revenue? Simple. Tax those who are tall, regardless of their current income level. After all, as the researchers mention, if the goal is to “maximize the level of happiness through a redistribution of income,” then why not tax those people who are not only already happy (i.e., rich), but also those that are most likely to eventually be happy down the road.

While some may be thinking that this is just another academic study, and therefore a waste of time, it does offer some important points, even if we never tax people based simply on height (at least I hope not, given that I am over 6 feet tall myself). Weinzieri asked the question: "Does government have the right to ask those who have the ability to earn more to pay more?” When taxes on cigarettes and soda are consider to pay for health care, are we not in many cases penalizing healthy individuals because we think that they have a higher chance of getting sick down the road? Could we do the same for tall people, in the name of spreading the wealth and happiness? Carried further, why should someone buying a new car pay more personal property tax than someone with an older car, when the new one is probably more fuel efficient and better on the environment (and the health of everyone)? Are we taxing the correct source, or promoting the behavior we desire?

In conducting and publishing their latest research, Mankiw and Weinzieri have not simply pointed out a statistical correlation, or helped to justify a new tax system. Instead, they have done something far greater and more useful. They have introduced new questions for everyone impacted by the existing tax code, or those looking for new ways to justify taxing one group over another. In short, they have created a dialog. Socrates would be proud ......... as would a few flat tax proponents.

According to a Financial Research Corporation report, equity funds and ETFs posted April net inflows of $8.5 billion and $6.9 billion, respectively, reversing the trend of outflows in March (see Investment News article). Corporate-bond funds had the largest net inflow in April at $16.6 billion, while international fixed-income funds had the largest net outflows at $447 million. As posted earlier, risk taking is back - at least it was in April.

The State Street Global Investor Confidence Index rose 3.1 points from the April reading of 103.2 (see Hedge Fund Review article). The North American version of the index rose 9.6 points to 104.9. For the index, anything over 100 indicates that institutional investors are increasing allocations to risky assets, indicating that investors in North America, and in general across the globe, are adding more risky assets (i.e., more equities) to their portfolios. On the other hand, the indexes for Europe and Asia are still below the 100 benchmark. While the Europe index rose 7.5 points to 84.3, the Asia index fell 4.9 points to 93.1. Time will tell which regions are leading or lagging indicators of the global markets, or if a contrarian move is in order.