≡ Menu

Quantitative tightening and you

Quantitative tightening is a regime change in the markets, illustrated here by military shooters and a helicopter

What is quantitative tightening? Why are bond funds falling? Should you alter your portfolio before the Bank of England further raises rates and soaring inflation sends you to the soup kitchen?

All good questions that we’re hearing from Monevator readers every day.

So let’s have a primer on what’s going on with central banks, rates, inflation, and the market.

Setting expectations

With most things in investing, every answer leads to two more questions.

Such exponential growth is great for compounding your wealth. But it’s bad for your patience and my fingertips.

So rather than go down every rabbit hole, I’ll include plenty of links to other articles.1

And we’ll put off considering what (if any) action you should take until next week.

When we’re done you still won’t like it if your portfolio falls when a central banker opens their mouth. But at least you’ll know why you’re down!

Note: there will be much talk of the US. That’s because as the engine of global markets, changes in US monetary policy typically affect everything.

What is quantitative tightening?

Quantitative tightening (QT) is a contractionary monetary policy. It’s the opposite of quantitative easing (QE).

In fact QT potentially reverses QE.

Still with me?

Okay but (a) what the flipping Henry is a ‘contractionary monetary policy’? And (b) as many of us never really understood QE, reversing it doesn’t simplify much.

So, briefly, QE involves experiments operations by central banks to lower interest rates. They do this to support economic growth and soothe stress in the financial system. The bankers’ aim is to hit their inflation target and any other policy goals.

Traditionally central banks exerted their influence by changing the base interest rate that commercial banks are charged for holding money with them.

However in the ruinous crater-strewn landscape that followed the financial crisis, central banks went unconventional.

The bankers wanted to support asset prices, tempt money into riskier securities, and encourage economic growth to ward off deflation. They’d try to do this by keeping market rates lower than they otherwise would be.

Led by the US Federal Reserve (the Fed), central banks purchased higher-yielding assets from commercial banks in exchange for more liquid shorter-term paper. (Read Cullen Roche’s QE series for the mechanics.)

The net result was higher prices for safer assets and lower yields across the spectrum.

For example, the graphic below shows the decline in the all-important ten-year bond yield in the heyday of pre-pandemic QE.

Most economists (though not all) would agree this descent was at least partly due to QE:

Source: Vanguard

Other mooted impacts of QE – such as egging on reckless speculation or juicing the money supply – are more hotly debated.

For instance the Bank of England found no evidence QE boosted lending in the real economy. (Although some might say: “it would say that wouldn’t it.”)

The consequences of quantitative tightening

Quantitative tightening should be the opposite of QE. Central banks will wind down their purchases of assets (and eventually maybe sell them). They will also raise their base rate.

This should reduce demand for assets like government bonds compared to cash and short-term paper, and hence increase yields as bonds are sold off. (When bond prices fall, yields rise).

You’d expect this to happen until bond yields reach a level that tempts enough buyers back into them.

And indeed this dance has already happened. Without the US Federal Reserve yet raising interest rates or halting asset purchases, yields have been shifting across the curve in anticipation:

Source: GuruFocus

Expectations are everything in financial markets. Yields have risen as traders try to anticipate where rates and inflation will be in one or two years from now and beyond. It’s happened in all major markets.

That is why your bond funds are down.

Markets now expect slightly more than half-a-dozen US rate rises in this cycle, starting in March.

Meanwhile in the UK bank rate is expected to be above 1% by the end of 2022, peaking in 2023 at around 1.5%.

Why do quantitative tightening?

Okay, but if QE made money cheap and it supported economic growth, why stop? Who doesn’t like free money and a booming economy?

Well, central bankers for a start. History suggests too much of a good thing can cause the economy to overheat.

At best that could stoke even higher inflation, which would then have to be choked off with more rate rises – and perhaps a deeper recession – compared to if central bankers had acted earlier

At worst too much cheap money could lead to dumb investment decisions, credit bubbles, and another financial crisis.

(Actually, history again reminds us of worse still. Folks who end up moving their near-worthless savings around in wheelbarrows get politically uppity. Think gunshots in the streets uppity.)

Central bankers would therefore like to return conditions to normal in their noble pursuit of price stability. (And to avoid a revolution).

Once conditions are ‘normalized’, they can go back to simply raising base rates – and their eyebrows – to influence the economy.

(They’d also probably like to get back some of their firepower so they have more ammunition to respond in the next crisis.)

Some doubt complete normalization is achievable anytime soon, due to the sheer scale of QE. But it’s the aspiration.

However there’s an even bigger reason to start quantitative tightening ASAP – which is that inflation is missing its target by about the same margin as I missed out on playing for Man United.

Inflation is running at 6-8% in the US and Europe. And unemployment is very low.

It’s hard to justify rock-bottom rates when inflation is going through the roof.

Quantitative tightening and your bond funds

With all this going on, it’s clear why the mere talk of quantitative tightening has roiled markets – and your portfolio.

Higher rates across the yield curve come about from falling bond prices, as investors reshuffle their holdings according to their expectations for central bank interest rate hikes and any reversal of asset purchases, as well as their forecasts for inflation.

  • At the ‘short end’, those government bonds that will mature over the next year or two have sold off mostly in anticipation of imminent central bank rate rises.
  • The further out you go towards the ‘long end’, however, the more inflation expectations and the prospects for economic growth drive bond prices/yields (by influencing the much more uncertain expectations for interest rate levels that will prevail many years hence).

Short-dated US Treasuries have seen their yields rise faster than long-dated bonds. Short-dated bonds compete with cash in the bank, where traders are very sure interest rates will soon be much higher.

In addition, traders might be betting that the more central banks tighten now, the greater the long-term impact on market interest rates and inflation.

Hence expectations for more rate rises – and sooner – that have emerged in 2022 (driven by higher than expected inflation and arguably lower unemployment) may imply a need for fewer rate rises further out.

Or maybe the market fears a policy error?

This is all a balancing act for central bankers. If they go too heavy too soon with quantitative tightening, they could cause a recession.

Expectations of a recession may be signaled by the yield curve inverting – a situation where long-dated bonds yield less than short-dated ones. (Unusual, due to the additional term premium that’s normally demanded by investors in longer-term bonds).

The curve is already flattening, as short-term yields have risen by more than long-term yields:

Source: Mish Talk

We may well discover a recession is an inevitable price to pay for the easy money conditions (and asset price rises) of the past decade.

But I don’t think it’s a policy goal.

Higher rates and inflation affect equity valuations

Broadly speaking, equity valuations also turn on the cost of money (interest rates) and inflation.

  • With higher inflation, the value of future earnings in terms of today’s money is lower.
  • With higher rates, investors see safer returns from cash and bonds as more attractive than before. So again, they’ll value uncertain future earnings less highly.

We can expect quantitative tightening to depress valuations for pretty much all asset classes.

However some investments (such as miners and energy shares right now) may enjoy an off-setting boost, as high inflation makes their near-term high earnings more attractive.

With a lot of fits, starts, bumps, and reversals, the same repricing and reshuffling shenanigans we’re seeing in bonds will therefore play out across the risk/reward spectrum of all assets.

Investors are now re-evaluating equities, property, and even the likes of gold.

As I noted, companies’ shares are mostly valued on their future earnings power – discounted by expectations for interest rates and inflation.

The more that a company’s earnings will come in the far future, the more higher yields and inflation expectations will impact – in theory – its present value.

When interest rates are at zero and inflation is low, the value put on future earnings can be very high indeed. Cash is trash (in that it earns you nothing) and low inflation expectations means distant earnings will still be very attractive in terms of today’s money.

All that changes with quantitative tightening and with higher inflation, however.

Investors aren’t willing to pay so much for a company that won’t be profitable until 2030 if they think that by then the spending power of cash will have fallen 25% in real terms and they might have earned 3% a year in the bank on the way.

Hence the ‘multiple’ investors put on the company’s earnings will go down.

Played out across all companies, this re-rating can cause a market decline.

The ups and downs of go-go stocks

In practice so-called growth shares have been hit much more than value shares.

Investors had slapped very high multiples on growth companies’ future earnings – and then ratcheted them even higher on the back of temporary stay-at-home economics. They’ve now reined that in.

Of course shares represent businesses, and their individual fortunes will depend mostly on the success of their operations.

But tightening monetary conditions can have a direct impact here, too.

For example, banks may reduce lending, making it harder to (re)finance and to borrow to grow.

Or consumers may decide to save more and so reduce their spending, hurting sales.

It’s all connected

A big shift in the outlook for rates and inflation ultimately changes the relative attractiveness of all assets.

Investors now even view something like gold – which has no earnings – differently.

When your cash earns you nothing in the bank, why not own gold?

Conversely when cash is paying say 2%, why pay to hold gold that earns nothing?

Remember: a goal of QE was to push money to accept riskier returns.

All things being equal, we can therefore expect quantitative tightening to do the opposite. Investors will retrench. More investors will eventually see attractive returns available again from bonds, thanks to higher yields following price declines. Some money that shifted into shares in a desperate hunt for yield will go back to fixed income.

This is all why – besides their eternal effort to sound sexier than accountants – City types call the shift to quantitative tightening a regime change.

Thankfully the CIA need topple no banana republics to get us to this new financial world order.

But if the 40-year decline in interest rates really is over, we can still expect some fireworks.

The turning of the screw

We now know what quantitative tightening is, and why it’s happening.

But to return to where we started, what does it mean for your portfolio?

Well, it sure looks like a recipe for more volatility, lower stock markets than otherwise, and – gasp – falling bond prices.

But before you sell everything and cower in a cash savings account (where you’ll be losing 6% a year in real terms) I have a menagerie of caveats.

We’ll get into those next week.

  1. Fewer people seem to follow links nowadays. What a waste of hypertext! []
{ 14 comments }

Weekend reading: Feeling winsome

Weekend reading logo

What caught my eye this week.

I was delighted this week when we were named Best Investing Blog in the 2021 SHOMO Awards.

These awards have been running since 2015 and we were chosen by a panel of money bloggers as well as journalists and PRs. A nice way to start the year!

But why aspire to hang one award on the wall of the guest bathroom when you might pick up another?

And to that end, we’ve been nominated (thank you, whoever did the deed) for Online Financial Influencer of the Year in the 2022 British Bank Awards.

These fairly prestigious gongs are chosen by the public. So please do feel free to have your say – for us, or for our sworn enemies – via the official voting survey. All entries go into a draw with a £1,000 cash prize.

Anyway this is Weekend Reading, so I thought I’d celebrate our SHOMO win by spreading the joy and linking to recent posts from runners-up in our category:

Hope you enjoy them. But not by so much that you think there was a miscarriage of justice.

Good stuff

Finally and sticking with voting, the results of our best FIRE film poll are in.

The winner by a clear majority was that tale of 1970s utopian suburbia, The Good Life. A respectable second place was claimed by It’s A Wonderful Life, with the Playing with FIRE documentary coming in third.

Thanks to everyone who cast their lot.

Judging by the comments and emails, it’s not clear to me whether The Good Life won on account of its financial messaging merits, or on the back of several dozen rekindled flames for Felicity Kendal.

Here’s a bonus clip from the winner then to please all parties!

Have a great weekend.

[continue reading…]

{ 34 comments }

Will you spend less as you age? The case against

Evidence is mounting that retirees spend less as they age, on average. The theory is that infirmity and uncertainty about the future erode people’s ability and desire to spend money on non-essentials.

Instead they accumulate savings. That’s even though most retirees do not experience a spike in healthcare costs towards the end of their lives.

The very first paper on the topic was published in 1998. It used British data but the pattern has been found in multiple countries in the decades since.

I have a question

We explored the evidence for the real-terms retirement spending decline in the UK and what might drive it in last week’s post.

My outstanding questions were:

  • Could the evidence be wrong?
  • Could the established pattern reverse?
  • Even if retirees’ real spending declines on average, can individuals make practical use of this information?

A retirement spending decline graph vs constant inflation-adjusted spending and a U shaped consumption curve

The Precautionary Principle suggests we should plan to do worse than typical when it comes to our own health. Because how do we know we won’t be whacked by huge long-term care bills in the future?

Let’s make like rational sceptics and examine the case against doing anything at all.

Why retirement spending research may not apply to you

I illustrated the evidence for spending less as you age using the UK paper Understanding retirement journeys: expectations vs reality by Cesira Urzi Brancati, Brian Beach, Ben Franklin, and Matthew Jones.

The authors say about the consumption decline in later life:

We should stress that this is an average, which, by definition, will mean that some individuals will not experience stable patterns of expenditure on essential items.

The overall decline relies on essential consumption remaining flat (-ish) while non-essential spending falls.

But not everyone can control their spending. The report reveals that nearly a quarter of 60-year-olds and older spend more than they earn.

Even one in seven of the 80-plus age group spends more than their income.

You could argue the overspend odds must be lower for the money mavens who read Monevator. Our readership is dominated by financially literate types who plan for the future.

But like a budget version of the Anthropomorphic Principle, your part of the universe is likely to have special properties simply because you’re interested in the topic of retirement spending.

The academics must measure broader patterns.

It could be you

Brancati’s data can’t tell you anything about whether you’ll draw unlucky numbers in the UK’s long-term care lottery yourself.

And by her own admission, the data is understandably limited in other ways:

At this point it should be noted that our data is restricted to households only and therefore excludes those actively living in care homes who may be paying for it from their remaining assets.

Still, the percentage of households paying towards long-term care looks surprisingly low:

Only 6.4% of households from the 80-plus age group bore the burden of long-term care costs.

We can assume this data captures some people who live in care homes but don’t represent their entire household. Similarly, the percentages must miss some households that exist entirely in care homes.

Brancati believes the lack of exploding healthcare expenditures in her data means a U-shaped retirement consumption curve is atypical.

Obviously that’s not the same as saying it won’t happen to some individuals.

U-shaped consumption The U-shaped spending curve was posited in US research by David Blanchett. He found that real-terms spending headed down post-retirement but rebounded towards the end as health costs mount. (The upward leg of the U-consumption curve). But Blanchett concluded the net effect is still a decline in overall retirement spending.

Different strokes for different folks

Brancati’s data is a snapshot of UK spending and lifestyle factors from 2003 to 2013.

Your eighties may be three years away or 50. Will an aging population and shrinking workforce increase healthcare costs for the retirees of the future?

It seems a fair assumption.

And that leads us to another reason to be cautious about this research.

Retirement spending studies usually compare different age groups at a moment in time.

For example, the consumption curve in 2013 compares that year’s 65-year olds versus 75-year-olds versus 85-year-olds.

The data doesn’t typically track how the same cohort of 75-year-olds in 2013 spent as 65-year-olds in 2003. Nor how they’ll spend as 85-year-olds in 2023.

That’s important, because each cohort is subject to a unique lifetime of socio-economic pressures.

The habits – and savings accounts – of today’s 85-year-olds are shaped by their prior experience. Those influences are materially different from previous generations at the same age.

For example, a cohort that experiences high healthcare inflation could well face higher costs in that area than previous cohorts at similar ages.

The generation game

Each generation faces different financial conditions, which can alter their retirement path:

  • UK pensioners previously suffered high rates of poverty. This began to be corrected by government policy after the year 2000.
  • Baby Boomers benefited from the advent of defined benefit pensions and the Triple Lock. But increasing lifespans and diminishing dependency ratios leave them more exposed to healthcare costs.
  • Gen X and Millennials bear the scars of the Financial Crisis. They were left to work out defined contribution pensions for themselves.
  • Gen Z and Millennials benefit from default pension savings, but are up against daunting housing prices.

Who knows how this shakes out? But fluctuations in fortune could mean a majority will not always experience falling retirement consumption.

Moreover, retirement spending researchers valiantly re-purpose data designed to answer different questions from the ones they’re asking.

And that leads to inconsistent outcomes across the literature (although the overall trend is still convincing).

For example, Brancati finds that 77% of older households save something.

In contrast, according to retirement professor Wade Pfau’s analysis of a US paper1 only 39% of retirees see falling consumption.

Applying the retirement spending research

It is clear that retirees save to hedge against an uncertain future. And Brancati gives good advice when she endorses that behaviour as rational:

…people may live longer than they expect, investments may generate exceptionally low (or high) returns, and prices on certain goods and services may unexpectedly rise.

For this reason, prudent individuals may set aside a certain amount of wealth to avoid running out of cash in case of unexpected expenditures.

Brancati makes further suggestions for retirees likely to spend less as they age:

For those with small DC [Defined Contribution] pots and little else, they might best use their DC savings to give them some flexibility early on in retirement and rely on pensioner benefits to meet essential spending needs later on.

Others, who have sizeable final salary pensions and small DC pensions may also think it best to exhaust their DC savings relatively early on before relying on their final salary pension plus the State Pension to meet their spending needs in later life.

It may make sense for financial products and services to facilitate relatively high initial income before guaranteeing a base level of income in later life as people reduce expenditure on non-essential items but maintain spending on essential every-day items.

Spend now, pay later

One way to simulate this last idea is to use a slightly higher sustainable withdrawal rate (SWR) at the outset. You could then make the most of any spending decline by buying an annuity very late in life with your evaporating resources.

A level annuity bought in your late seventies or early eighties could hit the sweet spot between fading life expectancy and below-inflation consumption.

Meanwhile Pfau advocates puzzling out your potential exposure to the trend but then treading warily:

…those who plan for greater expenses related to travel, housing, or health care should expect their spending needs to keep pace with inflation.

Spending may decline, so I would not fault anyone for using assumptions of gradual real spending declines such as 10% or even 20% over the retirement period.

But pending further research developments, I would avoid moving too far in the reduced spending direction as a baseline assumption.

Sustainable withdrawal rate bonus?

Consuming less than you earn in retirement leads to a higher SWR than if you assume constant inflation-adjusted spending.

The US sultans of SWR, Wade Pfau and Michael Kitces, have published pieces estimating the SWR bonus you may collect if your spending declines.

Theoretically, you can spend more at the start of retirement because your consumption will tail off later. That offsets the risk of running out of money.

Caveat 1
The SWR estimates vary wildly. They make different assumptions about the rate of decline, asset allocations, and more. They all use US returns and assume you don’t retire until age 65.

Caveat 2
FIRE-ees beware that SWR bonuses attenuate due to your longer retirement. The retirement spending decline doesn’t really pick up speed until age 70 to 74. There’s plenty of time for you to sink your portfolio before then, especially given a bad sequence of returns.

Still, for the brave or foolhardy:

Save yourself

I must admit I ignored the ‘declining retirement spend’ evidence during my own FIRE planning. Neither did I make any special provision for long-term care bills – other than owning a house. 

I think the research has important insights on our likely path through retirement. But I also believe it’s too risky to apply on an individual basis.

Retirement planning is dicey enough without trying to optimise yet another personal unknown.

But I do feel more secure about our finances – and better informed about the choices we face – now I’ve taken a deeper dive into the topic.

I prefer to think of falling retirement consumption as another reason why my chosen SWR is probably okay.

Take it steady,

The Accumulator

  1. Yes, he really is a Professor of Retirement! []
{ 18 comments }

The best FIRE films

Image of a film ticket

This review of the best FIRE films is by The Mr & Mrs from Team Monevator.

Beneath my article (writes The Mrs) about owning a dog while pursuing FIRE1, Monevator reader TahiPanasDua commented:

“This seems like a radical departure from the boring old Monevator diet of investment. Maybe now we can have regular sport, menswear, and film review articles.”

Well, sport and menswear are not our thing – but films? You bet!

The Mr: They’re more The Mrs’ chosen specialised subject for Mastermind than mine. But like a lot of families we watched far more films in 2020 and 2021 than in previous years, so we’re all film experts now…

So I got to thinking: what films most ably represent and reflect on the concept of financial independence?

The best FIRE films would:

  • Have a theme of saving for the future.
  • Explore what money can and can’t do.
  • Highlight a driving sense of purpose and graft.
  • Showcase the required resilience.

Alas these ingredients are hardly the stuff of on-screen drama. It takes real skill to make opening a high interest bank account look exciting, compared to choreographing a bank heist.

We’re not looking for the films about the world of high finance here either. So no battling moguls or city slickers…

The Mr: …although Wall Street, The Big Short, and Margin Call are all terrific.

Despite these constraints, me and The Mr have come up with seven films worth busting out the popcorn for, and that we also believe impart some useful wisdom.

Seven magnificent films about FIRE

Below, The Mr will run through our nominated best FIRE films. They’re all great viewing and offer contrasting takes on financial independence.

Warning! There will be spoilers. But it’s best to know what you’re getting into before you begin to pursue financial independence, right?

Afterwards you can vote for your favourite. Additional nominations are welcome in the comments. Maybe they’ll make our shortlist in the future.

Without further ado, drum roll please…

Playing with FIRE (2019)

To our knowledge, the only serious documentary about the FIRE movement. This film follows a couple at the start of their journey and was instrumental in getting us started. Lots of ideas and stories about the ups and downs it brings, and cameos from some big names – Mr Money Mustache, The Mad Fientist, Vicki Robin, the Minimalists, and more. It’s a North American perspective, but that largely reflects the movement so far.

It’s A Wonderful Life (1946)

A subversive take on financial independence. The wealthiest character is the villainous Henry Potter. Our hero, George Bailey, in contrast hits middle age with no savings or investments of any sort. He faces bankruptcy and is contemplating suicide. But the story reveals that throughout his life, George ‘invested’ in other people and in his relationships. And these people are spontaneously willing to donate the money he needs, leading his brother Harry to describe him as “the richest man in town”. It’s a crude parable. But the point is financial investment should not crowd out the investments we make in each other. Those are ultimately far more valuable.

About a Boy (2002)

In some ways Will, the central character, is an inversion of George in It’s A Wonderful Life. Will has financial independence – he inherited royalties from a song his father wrote – and never needed to work. He’s got money, looks, and charm but as a friend says to him, “What is the point of your life?” The story is about how he finds one. Yes, it’s a rom com with a redemption narrative, but nothing like as cheesy and predictable as it might have been. About A Boy shows that other people are liable to mess up our plans, financial or otherwise. That’s kind of the point.

The Great Gatsby (2013)

A film about what motivates financial independence and what it can and can’t bring you. We never learn the source of Gatsby’s wealth, but he appears to be a talented young man who built a business empire from scratch. It seems like Gatsby is now dissipating his wealth on parties and exceeding his safe withdrawal rate. (Indeed one pundit calculated Gatsby is likely in debt.) But he is actually spending his money very deliberately to try to achieve the one thing he wants – a woman called Daisy – that he cannot have. We might ask what drives our desire for financial independence? And are we realistic about what it will mean if and when we get there?

Mary Poppins (1964)

From our perspective, the most interesting character is George Banks, who works steadily at the Fidelity Fiduciary Bank. A sober man of regular habits, Banks is no doubt prudently saving a lot of his income, although economies could be made (all those chimney sweeps!) But things come to a head when he is sacked and faces a bleak future. Banks puts a brave face on it and fixes his children’s kite, but if he had pursued financial independence he’d have had fewer worries. He may not then have needed the plot device of a vacancy for a partner to rescue him – and also spent more time with his children. Bonus points for the best explanation of a bank run ever seen on film.

The Minimalists: Less Is Now (2021)

You may know The Minimalists. In fact they might be the biggest celebrities of the intentional lifestyle. (Celebrities with a difference – if you don’t open their emails they will remove you from their list, because they don’t want to clutter your inbox.) This surprisingly hard-hitting documentary reveals the difficult upbringings of Joshua and Ryan, who responded by becoming high-earning, high-consuming execs before it all fell apart and they discovered minimalist living. There’s plenty of motivation and practical tips based on their key message: “Love people. Use things. The opposite never works.”

The Good Life (1975-1978)

We’re cheating a little – The Good Life is a TV series. But has there ever been such a funny, charming, and at times moving portrayal of thrifty living, in any medium? Tom and Barbara aim to achieve financial independence by growing their own produce rather than their investments. Nevertheless many of the steps they take will be familiar to those on the path to FIRE. The couple enjoy a fun, fulfilling, and exciting life without new clothes, trips, meals out, and all the rest of it. That contrasts with their best friends and neighbours, Jerry and Margot, who consume in a way that was only just becoming possible for the middle-classes in the 1970s. Which of us hasn’t looked on at such friends and neighbours with envy at times? But ultimately whose lifestyle would we really prefer?

Vote for your best of our best FIRE films

Seen them all? Now it’s time to choose a winner in our poll below:

Thanks! The Investor will announce the winner in his Weekend Reading article on Friday.

And again, please let us know in the comments what you think of our picks, and whether there are other FIRE films you’d nominate instead.

Happy viewing!

See all The Mr & Mrs’ articles in their dedicated archive.

  1. Financial Independence Retire Early []
{ 17 comments }