Federal funds rate

Morehead argues that the Fed made a big policy mistake by keeping the federal funds rate too low.

“The difference between inflation (their mandate) and their policy tool (fed funds) is much larger than at any point in history — including the disastrous 1970s,” he writes.

“They left rates at zero. Fed funds were 1.55% before the pandemic. They’ve just gotten overnight rates to back where they were before the pandemic policy eruption when inflation was only 2.30%.”

As we know very well by now, inflation is no longer at 2.30%. The latest Labor Department report showed that consumer prices rose 8.6% in May from a year ago, marking the biggest increase since December 1981.

And even that official reading was not accurate because it does not measure housing inflation in real time, argues Morehead.

Instead, the official CPI measures housing inflation using something called owner’s equivalent rent — how much it would cost a homeowner to live in their home if they were renting — and that metric only went up 5.1% year over year.

If you’ve been in the market to buy or rent a property, you’d know prices have gone up way more than that. The government says it uses owner’s equivalent rent because it’s only trying to measure the change in the cost of shelter while removing the investment aspect of homebuying.

Morehead instead looks at the S&P CoreLogic Case-Shiller U.S. National Home Price Index, a leading measure of U.S. residential real estate prices that can be viewed as a barometer of the housing market. It jumped 20.6% year over year, and Morehead says that if we use that instead of owner’s equivalent rent to calculate inflation, CPI would have gone up 12.5%.

To tame spiking inflation, Morehead says that the Fed still needs to raise interest rates “by three or four hundred basis points.”

Join Masterworks to invest in works by Banksy, Picasso, Kaws, and more. Use our special link to skip the waitlist and join an exclusive community of art investors.

Skip waitlist

Manipulation of the bond market

While the low interest rate policy was a mistake, Morehead says, it is “dwarfed” by the Fed’s manipulation of the government and mortgage bond markets.

He suggests that previously, the Fed let free market actors like pension plans, mutual funds and insurance companies do the lending — but things changed in 2020.

“[W]hen the Fed got into the mortgage lending business, they really went for it. They completely crowded out all other lenders.”

And that led to a huge increase in housing prices.

“They forced 30-year mortgage rates to hit 2.68%, basically daring people not to buy a house (or two or three), which would obviously create a bubble in housing, which itself contributed to a labor shortage as two million Americans retired early or otherwise left the workforce.”

Officials argue that the Fed’s purchases of securities were essential to “keep markets working” during the pandemic and “convey to the public that the Fed stands ready to backstop important parts of the financial system.”

But when you can borrow money at 2.68% to buy properties that are going up 20% in value per year on average, both homeowners and investors are going to go for it, explains Morehead.

“Over the past two years the Fed bought government and mortgage bonds equivalent to over 200% of all mortgage lending in the U.S.”

While that doesn't match the exact definition of a Ponzi scheme, Morehead argues that the Fed’s easy money policies has created a huge housing bubble.

Crypto to the rescue?

All of that does not bode well for the U.S. economy.

Plenty of experts — including Morehead — are calling for a recession. But investors are already feeling the pain. With the S&P 500 down 20% year to date, many stocks are already in a bear market.

The Fed, on the other hand, is more optimistic. Last month, Fed Chair Jerome Powell said the U.S. economy is in “strong shape” and “overall the U.S. economy is well positioned to withstand tighter monetary policy.”

Morehead expects interest rate hikes to impact bonds, stocks and real estate. But there are asset classes that are less correlated with the interest rate markets.

“I can easily see a world in, say, a year when stocks are down, bonds are down, you know, real estate's down, but crypto is rallying and trading on its own — very much like gold does, or soft commodities like corn, soybeans all doing very well.”

Morehead’s Pantera Capital specializes in blockchain technology. It launched the first cryptocurrency fund in the U.S. in 2013.

That said, Morehead did note that crypto is “very correlated with risk assets.”

Bitcoin — the world’s largest cryptocurrency — is down 57% year to date but has still returned over 900% over the past five years.

Fine art as an investment

Stocks can be volatile, cryptos make big swings to either side, and even gold is not immune to the market’s ups and downs.

That’s why if you are looking for the ultimate hedge, it could be worthwhile to check out a real, but overlooked asset: fine art.

Contemporary artwork has outperformed the S&P 500 by a commanding 174% over the past 25 years, according to the Citi Global Art Market chart.

And it’s becoming a popular way to diversify because it’s a real physical asset with little correlation to the stock market.

On a scale of -1 to +1, with 0 representing no link at all, Citi found the correlation between contemporary art and the S&P 500 was just 0.12 during the past 25 years.

Earlier this year, Bank of America investment chief Michael Harnett singled out artwork as a sharp way to outperform over the next decade — due largely to the asset’s track record as an inflation hedge.

Investing in art by the likes of Banksy and Andy Warhol used to be an option only for the ultrarich. But with a new investing platform, you can invest in iconic artworks just like Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates do.

About the Author

Jing Pan

Jing Pan

Investment Reporter

Jing is an investment reporter for MoneyWise. Prior to joining the team, he was a research analyst and editor at one of the leading financial publishing companies in North America. An avid advocate of investing for passive income, he wrote a monthly dividend stock newsletter for the better half of the past decade. Jing holds a Master’s Degree in Economics and an Honours Bachelor of Science Degree, both from the University of Toronto.

What to Read Next

Disclaimer

The content provided on MoneyWise is information to help users become financially literate. It is neither tax nor legal advice, is not intended to be relied upon as a forecast, research or investment advice, and is not a recommendation, offer or solicitation to buy or sell any securities or to adopt any investment strategy. Tax, investment and all other decisions should be made, as appropriate, only with guidance from a qualified professional. We make no representation or warranty of any kind, either express or implied, with respect to the data provided, the timeliness thereof, the results to be obtained by the use thereof or any other matter.