Onset of food price inflation

The best measure for food price inflation is usually through Loblaws’ quarterly releases.

In their year-end release, they have the following comment on food prices:

– the Company’s average quarterly internal retail food price index
was flat. This compared to average quarterly internal retail food
price deflation in the fourth quarter of 2009.

Anecdotal evidence by my food shopping trips to Superstore would suggest that food prices are increasing somewhat. For example, a 4 litre jug of milk is about CAD$4.40 presently, while a couple years ago it used to be around $3.90. The BC Dairy Board might have to do with this price increase. I also notice prices for bread products creeping up to around CAD$3 for a 1.5 pound loaf of good quality bread, although they do have a freshly baked 99 cent French Bread which is a very good value if you can use a knife to slice it. It has been this price for the past five years.

Staple commodities such as grains and sugar have been rising significantly over the past couple years since the economic crisis, and combining this with energy price increases, there doesn’t seem to be a way that costs can be kept down other than with removing labour costs from products. This does not bode well for employment.

Federal Reserve and the long-term bond yield

The US federal reserve today released a “business as usual” statement, leaving their short term rates between 0 to 0.25%. Most relevantly:

To promote a stronger pace of economic recovery and to help ensure that inflation, over time, is at levels consistent with its mandate, the Committee decided today to continue expanding its holdings of securities as announced in November. In particular, the Committee is maintaining its existing policy of reinvesting principal payments from its securities holdings and intends to purchase $600 billion of longer-term Treasury securities by the end of the second quarter of 2011. The Committee will regularly review the pace of its securities purchases and the overall size of the asset-purchase program in light of incoming information and will adjust the program as needed to best foster maximum employment and price stability.

This QE2 (Quantitative Easing #2) capital will fund the US government’s fiscal deficit. Normally when the federal reserve purchases long-dated treasury securities, you would expect the yields of such bonds to decrease, but ever since the last imminent threat of QE2 last October, long-term bond yields have done nothing but rise. The following are 1-year charts of the 30-year and 10-year US treasury bond yields:

If these yields rise further, it affects valuations of other yield-bearing securities since these bonds are considered to be “risk-free”. In addition, the value of companies with long bonds in their portfolios will decline, and companies will be taking comprehensive losses to account for the market value decline in treasury prices.

Will interest rates rise further? Time will tell. Just be prepared for volatility.

It should also be noted that Canadian equivalents are trading at less yield than US counterparts – e.g. the Canadian 10-year note is trading at 3.27%, while the US 10-year treasury note is at 3.43%.

Speech worth reading

Take a moment to read Bank of Canada chief Mark Carney’s speech, Living with Low for Long. It gives some interesting perspective in terms of the macroeconomic and monetary policy side of the economy.

Export-related economies are “unsustainable” – this is a kick at China for sure:

This is an increasingly uneasy emergence. Growth strategies reliant on exports and excess national savings are unsustainable in the long term. In the near term, for many emerging economies, the limits to non-inflationary growth are approaching and the challenges of shadowing U.S. monetary policy are increasing.

US householders are still suffering:

Unfortunately, the best contemporary analogue to the Japanese zombie firms is probably the U.S. household sector. Problems with the foreclosure process, government programs and forbearance by lenders are all delaying the adjustments. Absent more aggressive restructuring, the impact of negative equity on one-quarter of U.S. homeowners will weigh on consumption for the foreseeable future.

Sensitivity of householders to rising unemployment is significant:

The Bank has conducted a partial stress-testing simulation to estimate the impact on household balance sheets of a hypothetical labour market shock. The results suggest that the rise in financial stress from a 3-percentage-point increase in the unemployment rate would double the proportion of loans that are in arrears three months or more. Owing to the declining affordability of housing and the increasingly stretched financial positions of households, the probability of a negative shock to property prices has risen as well.

Apparently if more people adhered to the following quotation, we might not have the 2008 financial crisis:

Similarly, financial institutions are responsible for ensuring that their clients can service their debts.

Makes you really wonder about who’s buying sovereign debt in countries clearly unable to pay it back.

And finally, when rates rise, they may rise very quickly, leading to:

More broadly, market participants should resist complacency and constantly reassess risks. Low rates today do not necessarily mean low rates tomorrow. Risk reversals when they happen can be fierce: the greater the complacency, the more brutal the reckoning.

An interesting speech. Nothing concrete, but you can infer what the Bank of Canada is guessing their tea leaves indicate.

US Thanksgiving Shopping – Amazon vs. Walmart

The USA celebrated their Thanksgiving weekend last Friday, and one tradition they have is buying new stuff. Reading all the stories about the crowds and such always makes for media amusement in what is otherwise a very slow news day.

Some more sober statistics is that retail sales apparently were up 0.3%, while online sales were up a whopping 16% by comparison with respect to last year’s thanksgiving to this one.

One can easily see why people buy stuff online – it is so much easier to compare prices, shipping costs are now baked into the retail price, and you avoid crowds. I think shopping in crowds is a cultural event for a lot of people, in the quest for finding that elusive “great deal” that you can brag to all your friends about after.

This brings me to the subject of the valuation of Amazon (Nasdaq: AMZN), the largest online retailer. They are trading at $177/share, which gives them a market cap of about $80 billion. Amazon’s sales for the past 12 months were $31 billion, and income was $1.12 billion. So on a past 12 months basis, Amazon is trading at a P/E of 71x, or a yield of 1.4%.

Quite obviously, the market expects Amazon to grow a lot to fit into its present valuation. If the analysts are correct, Amazon priced in 2011 projected earnings will have an earnings yield of 1.96%, or 51 times earnings. You have to assume that Amazon will be able to grow their income considerably within a short period of time to begin to match some other firms with comparative valuations. For example, Walmart (NYSE: WMT)’s 2011 valuation has it at 12.1 times earnings, or an 8.3% earnings yield.

For Amazon to fit into this valuation, they will need to increase their bottom line profits by a factor of 5.9 times from what they have currently made over the past 12 months. This is a huge leap and there is obviously growth in the marketplace that can be better purchased elsewhere.

However, in terms of providing retail customers with a venue to shop in, they do an absolutely fantastic job. This is another classic case of a great company having a stock that you would not want to invest in at current valuations.

Food price inflation

It is visibly evident, especially going through the supermarkets, that food prices have been heading up. In light of the fact that commodity prices (e.g. grain, sugar, etc.) have been rising, there is no way that producers can sell the same products and maintain margins without increasing prices.

Reducing the size of packaging has been one approach some companies have been taking – seen with such products such as breakfast cereals, to name one.

This is a function of loose monetary policy and demand for goods – the net result is that everybody is going to have more money, but the purchasing power of that money will be less. It will be nearly impossible for the average member of the public to maintain their purchasing power – you are forced to make a financial decision of some form to maintain it.