what the bond guru sees coming - brazil bill gross bonds

8/7/2019 What the Bond Guru Sees Coming - Brazil Bill Gross Bonds

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/what-the-bond-guru-sees-coming-brazil-bill-gross-bonds 1/4



The bad news? The world economy is still in lousy shape. At best, investors can expect a "new normal" eraof slow growth and lower returns on stocks, bonds, and everything else.

Actually, Gross's case for the new normal isn't all that new. He was predicting a long era of weak returnswell before the financial crisis kicked in. Gross isn't always spot-on in his public calls: He was dissing nowhot Treasuries as recently as April.

Still, he has consistently crushed most of his competition. Harbor Bond fund, the Money 70 pick that's acheaper near clone of his flagship Pimco Total Return, has delivered a 7.5% annualized return over thepast decade. That's compared with 5.4% for the average intermediate-term bond portfolio. Gross spoke inmid-June with assistant managing editor Pat Regnier at Pimco's offices in Newport Beach, Calif. Editedexcerpts follow.

A lot of people , including Money's editors, worry that there's a bubble in the bond market,especially in Treasuries. What's your take?

The right time to ask that question would have been in the beginning of 2009. That's when we were in thethroes of the big-R recession, and the 10-year Treasury was paying just over 2%. [When bond prices rise,

their yields fall.] So it was certainly a bubble then. It's less bubbly now. At a yield of around 3.1%, Treasuriesare fairly valued, considering the low expected inflation and slow growth ahead. Investors are finding it hardto get used to such a low yield. But they're going to find it hard to get used to the slow growth -- or what weat Pimco call the "new normal" -- throughout the economy. In that context, a 3.1% yield is okay. It's amilquetoast valuation.

You've recently shifted money back into Treasuries. What changed?

We've recognized that there's a flight to quality, to safe-haven assets. That's because of very slow growthworldwide and financial market chaos. We're having a mini-replay of 2008. Money is fleeing from countrieslike Greece. Everyone is trying to find what we call the least dirty shirt. And the U.S. is the least dirty shirt.As Will Rogers said, "I'm not so much concerned about the return on my money as the return of my money."

In this market, return of money is beginning to become a dominant theme.

A lot of our readers look at the U.S. debt and the Fed's stimulus efforts, and they wonderwhether even Treasuries can be safe. Shouldn't we be worried about inflation and higher rates?

That's legitimate. It's not just the deficit, which is around $1.5 trillion and 10% of the economy now. It's alsoentitlements. Health care is a huge cost that's going to hit the table in the next few years as the boomersage. And at some point even the cleanest dirty shirt is going to come under scrutiny by investors.

But at the moment the U.S. is the reserve-currency country. We have a comparatively low debt-to-GDPratio. The whole world got hooked on debt -- not just subprime homeowners but governments.

We ask ourselves every day, "If we had to invest our $1.1 trillion somewhere and we didn't like the U.S.,where could we go?" Canada and Australia are in decent shape. Germany has been okay but is starting toget infected by Europe's troubles. Overall, the U.S. is still the clearest pond in the forest.

You will probably be the first for the exits if Treasuries seem about to lose their safe-havenstatus. It's harder for the rest of us to time those shifts. Should individuals be as comfortable asyou are buying Treasuries?

Not really. As a group, combining long- and short-term bonds, the yield is just 2%. And as you note, theirsafe-haven status can only go down over time.

What about the possibility of deflation occurring?

1/27/2011 What bond guru Bill Gross sees comin…

money.cnn.com/magazines/…/index.htm 2



We're in a struggle between inflation and deflation right now. We may never get to a negative consumerprice index, but the danger is a drop in asset prices and the destruction of credit. It means corporate bondsdefaulting because companies aren't getting enough business and they can't pay off their debts. It meansforeign governments defaulting. It's individuals with mortgages who can't get out from under their 16 tons ofdebt. The economy can't recover, and unemployment stays high. Stocks would be in trouble because somecompanies would be going bankrupt while others couldn't get the credit they need to grow.

So which is the bigger risk now -- inflation or de flation?

Our investment committee has sketched out four possible scenarios. Scenario A is that the global economyrebounds back to past levels of high growth. B is just a decent rebound. C is that new normal -- half-sizedgrowth. And D is deflation, debt, destruction. I'd say we're at a C -- right now. We believe in the new normal,but what we're seeing in Europe puts the minus on that C grade.

What does the "new normal" mean for our readers?

Instead of 10% returns for stocks, look for five or so. And instead of the past 20 years' returns on bonds,which are actually better than stocks -- close to double digits -- it's 4% going forward. So that's what the newnormal is. And it's based upon the primary assumptions of a deleveraging of the private sector and thepublic sector being limited in what it can spend.

If stocks might return just a percentage point or two over bonds, does that justify the risk?

Barely.

Why is it so hard to get growth going?

The lack of what economists call aggregate demand. So much of the world's growth and financial surplushave shifted to Asia, where people are fixated on saving instead of buying. Consumption in China is just35% of GDP, half our rate.

What should investors make of the Fed's policy of keeping rates close to zero?

The Federal Reserve wants your readers and Pimco to make a choice. You get almost nothing if you hold

short-term Treasury bills. The Fed wants you and Pimco to buy the assets that were depressed 18 monthsago -- stocks, high-yield bonds, etc. -- to restimulate the economy. Because this economy has been basedon asset appreciation.

Are those the right policy moves? It seems as if we're just maintaining America's depende nce onhigh asset values and debt.

I think it's the only choice, although there's debate here. You have people like economist Paul Krugman onone side who suggest we must do whatever is necessary to avoid deflation. Advocates on the other sidebasically echo what Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon said at the start of the Depression, that we have toliquidate -- let real estate, asset values, and wages fall -- and then we can start to grow again. I've alwaysfelt that if you did that, if you liquidated everything, then optimism, the necessary ingredient for successfulcapitalism, would completely be eliminated.

At the same time, I admit we should have stopped the habit of debt and asset appreciation long ago. Wedidn't. Too bad. But at this point what the Fed wants, what the Treasury wants, what the European Unionwants, is for the economy to renormalize, so that governments can play lesser roles, and the private sectorcan do its thing.

If the biggest dangers are ov erseas, does it still make sense to diversify your portfolio globally?

Yes, definitely. As a bond investor, however, the problem is that many parts of the world that are doing welland will probably continue to do relatively well -- China, much of Asia, Brazil -- don't have developed creditmarkets. We've been buying Brazilian bonds hand over fist. Brazil has low debt, and it has really highinterest rates. But an individual would have a hard time doing that. Investors can't buy a Chinese bond --





their debt is internalized. But you can also diversify by investing in developing-market equities.

States and cities are going broke left and right. Should investors be worried about muni bonds?

Warren Buffett, as usual, zeroed in on this. It all depends on whether or not the federal government rescuesthe states. It has done it in the past 12 to 18 months, with stimulus packages, with Medicaid and educationgrants, and so on. And Obama is proposing more help.

So you're suggesting there might be an opportunity there?

At the moment, the Republican orthodoxy is gaining sway, so the administration has to be careful as to whatchecks it writes. But I can't imagine California, Illinois, or New Jersey going under. We've been buying sometaxable munis. We bought New York City bonds last week, which gets us a 6.5% yield.

That's a nice yield, but overall this "new normal" of low returns won't be much fun.

The important thing to recognize is that if you're looking for 10% returns to pay for college or to retire on,they're not going to be there. We've been an asset-growth-based economy for so long. We've skimmed offthe top, living off second and third mortgages on homes, and capital gains on stocks and even on bonds.Now instead of having money work for you, you've got to work for your money.



what the bond guru sees coming - brazil bill gross bonds

Documents