We cannot make investing less difficult than it is

We cannot make investing less difficult than it is. Even if you
are investing for the long term and using well-known mutual
fund companies or a smart money manager that you like, you still
have to question the advice you get, make your choices, and live
with the consequences.
And we are not, like some prognosticators, preparing you for
the good time or the bad time we see ahead. We are predicting
neither an investing nirvana nor an investing debacle ahead—just
curves and straightaways.

McCulley’s management at PIMCO

McCulley’s insights are based on years of economic forecasting
and money management at PIMCO. Since September of
1999, he has expressed his views on monetary policy, markets,
and economic thought in his “Fed Focus” column, which was recently
renamed “Global Central Bank Focus.”
At The New York Times, Jonathan Fuerbringer was a financial
columnist and wrote extensively about economic policy, the
Federal Reserve, and stocks, bonds, commodities, and currencies

PIMCO

We also take a side trip into the world of mutual funds to
look at the consequences of being right and of being wrong as a
money manager—and we illustrate how being right or wrong can
make a difference of billions of dollars very quickly. And we
show what groupthink did to the best call on interest rates that
McCulley has ever made at PIMCO. We will also take a peek at
McCulley’s portfolio—a look that will show that he is much
more of a Main Street investor than you might think. For years,
in fact, his most exotic investment was his home! McCulley will
also lay out what he is doing with his own money in two investing
situations, one a plan for his son and the other the investments
for his foundation. And we offer a primer on some of the
big—and small—thoughts that drive markets.

THE DEADWEIGHT LOSS DEBATE

Supply, demand, elasticity, deadweight loss—all this economic theory is enough
to make your head spin. But believe it or not, these ideas go to the heart of a profound
political question: How big should the government be? The reason the debate
hinges on these concepts is that the larger the deadweight loss of taxation,
the larger the cost of any government program. If taxation entails very large deadweight
losses, then these losses are a strong argument for a leaner government
that does less and taxes less. By contrast, if taxes impose only small deadweight
losses, then government programs are less costly than they otherwise might be.
So how big are the deadweight losses of taxation? This is a question about
which economists disagree. To see the nature of this disagreement, consider
the most important tax in the U.S. economy—the tax on labor. The Social Security
tax, the Medicare tax, and, to a large extent, the federal income tax are
labor taxes. Many state governments also tax labor earnings. Alabor tax places a
wedge between the wage that firms pay and the wage that workers receive. If we
add all forms of labor taxes together, the marginal tax rate on labor income—the
tax on the last dollar of earnings—is almost 50 percent for many workers.

Resurgence in inflation

While it is easier to read the intentions of Federal Reserve policy
makers than it was several decades ago, their statements and
speeches can still be confusing, leading investors to make mistakes.
We will tell investors how to figure out what Federal Reserve
policy makers are doing as they are doing it, and we roll out
our favorite leading indicator of Fed policy. But one old adage is
still true—do not bet against the Fed. And do not doubt the policy
makers’ anti-inflation commitment. They would still rather
risk a recession than see a resurgence in inflation

The governors of the Federal Reserve Board

The governors of the Federal Reserve Board and the presidents
of the 12 regional Federal Reserve banks now have to
shoulder the task of getting us through the next recession without
a deflationary spiral, and through the next bubble without too
much damage to the financial system and the economy. Later in
this book, we look at their ability to do this and propose a tool
for managing monetary policy that would be helpful to both investors
and the policy makers at the nation’s central bank.

Peace dividend

The Federal Reserve’s success on inflation is also a reason that
returns have shrunk in both the stock and bond markets. As the
Fed was winning the fight against inflation, it provided a one-time
opportunity for big returns in the bond market as interest rates
adjusted to new lower levels. There were even bigger returns in
the stock market as the prospect of declining inflation raised the
value of future equity earnings in line with falling interest rates,
and then some. But now both these markets are assuming that inflation will be stable, with real rates and price-earnings (P/E) multiples
reflecting that stability. And you do not get to go to heaven
twice for winning the war against inflation—the “peace dividend”
is paid just once, as the victory occurs, not year after year
in its aftermath.