The Fed says it will keep rates exceptionally low til the end of 2014--here are the winners and losers in the financial markets

01/31/2012 8:30 am EST

Focus: STOCKS

Jim Jubak

Founder and Editor, JubakPicks.com

On Wednesday, January 25, the U.S. Federal Reserve said it would keep interest rates at their current exceptionally low level until the end of 2014. Forget about the middle of 2013, which seemed extremely far away when the Fed made that “guarantee” in August. And forget about the beginning or middle of 2014. Now the Fed is talking about the end of 2014.

Almost three years from now. Three years with short-term interest rates near 0%.

Let’s cut straight to the chase for investors: Who wins and who loses from this extraordinary statement of policy by the U.S. central bank?

Winner: Owners of medium term—say five- and seven-year—Treasuries.

The Fed’s statement, in essence, extended the current 0% short-term rate from now—the beginning of 2012—to the end of 2014 or 3 years. As you’d expect, the yields on the two-year Treasury note had already collapsed with the Fed’s “guarantee” of 0% interest rates until mid-2013, moving from 0.61% in the beginning of January 2011 to just 0.25% in December 2013. (Lock up your money for two years and earn 0.25%? Amazing.) The five-year Treasury note had dropped even further in 2011 from 2.02% at the beginning of 2011 to 0.89% at the beginning for 2012.

But the Fed’s announcement has already moved it lower—to a yield of just 0.76% on January 25, 2012. The five-year yield could certainly move lower but the real action now is probably in the seven-year Treasury, which started 2011 at a yield of 2.74 and began 2012 at 1.41%. The note has dropped since the Fed’s January 25 announcement to 1.31% on January 27 from 1.40% on the 25th.

If you remember that Treasury prices move up as yields move down, you can see how profitable the collapse in Treasury yields was for Treasury holders in 2011 and how 2012 could be just as profitable for holders of seven-year Treasury notes.

Loser: Bank stocks.

Banks make their money on lending from the spread between their cost of capital and the interest they can charge on their loans. Much of that spread is because banks raise their money at the short end of the yield by borrowing for 30 or 90 days and then lending out at the long end for seven or ten or more years. The steeper the yield curve—the greater the difference between the yield for 90 days and the yield for 10 years—the more profitable lending is for a bank. Already 2011 hadn’t been a great year for what is called the net interest rate margin at banks. Short-term costs of borrowing funds to lend have been really, really cheap thanks to the Federal Reserve with the yield on three-month Treasury bills beginning 2011 at 0.15%. That was a huge 3.21 percentage points below the yield on the 10-year Treasury bond, the benchmark for interest rates on mortgage loans.

Since then though, while borrowing costs have remained stable, the yield on the 10-year bond has tumbled to 1.89%. That has cut the spread to 1.74 percentage points from that earlier 3.21 percentage points. Not all banks feel the effects of this decreasing spread equally. Banks with large investment portfolios with lots of assets maturing so they have to replace high yielding with lower yielding assets will take a bigger hit. (That is a problem at Bank of America (BAC), it seems, from the bank’s fourth-quarter earnings report.) Banks with big mortgage portfolios with maturities out beyond 10-years will take less of a hit. Banks that raise much of their funds from deposits might have just a bit more flexibility in lowering their costs of capital—although there is an interest rate so low on deposits that banks can’t cut it any further. But all in all, I think it’s correct to say that a flatter yield curve, which is what the Federal Reserve has produced with its policies in 2011 and 2012 isn’t good for bank margins. (If I were looking for banks that could thrive in this atmosphere I’d look for banks such as US Bancorp (USB), a member of my Jubak’s Picks portfolio http://jubakpicks.com/ , that get a relatively higher percentage (compared to their peers) of revenue from fees rather than from lending or investment banking. This environment will also be tough for insurance companies, which will see their investments yield even less in 2012.)

Winner: Dividend stocks.

The Federal Reserve’s low interest-rate policy has been called a war on savers. That seems pretty accurate to me. Currently you can earn a whopping 0.248% (national average) on a three-month CD (with a $10,000 minimum). Want to make a decent return? Say something as magnificent as 1%. Forget a 12-month CD. The yield is just 0.556%. Willing to go out two-years? The national average for a two-year CD is just 0.875%. To add insult to injury, the headline inflation rate for 2011 was 3%; the core rate (which excludes increases in the prices of food and fuel) was up 2% for the year. No matter which inflation rate you use, all of those CDs lost value in 2011.

No wonder then that dividend stocks paying more than 3% (so an investor at least stays even with inflation) are among the hottest stocks on the market. In a year when the Standard & Poor’s 500 managed a return of just over 2%, a not especially stellar drug company like Merck (MRK) returned 8.9%--because it paid a dividend of better than 4%. Verizon (VZ), in not a particularly good year for phone companies, managed a 17.6% total return—because it paid more than 5%. Pipeline master limited partnerships such as ONEOK Partners (OKS) with a dividend yield of 6% returned 51% for the year. Another master limited partnership Magellan Midstream Partners (MMP) returned 27%.

I don’t see any reason that dividend stocks with yields above 3% won’t turn in another stellar performance in 2012. After all, the Federal Reserve just guaranteed that savers won’t be able to make 2% even if they buy seven-year Treasury notes. And, looking at the number of financial advisors and gurus that I see plunking for dividend stocks, I think 2012 could be even better for anything with a pulse and a yield. Merck, ONEOK, and Magellan Midstream are all members of my Jubak Dividend Portfolio http://jubakpicks.com/ . I’ll post a performance report and new picks for that portfolio on Friday, February 3.

Winner: Commodity stocks and precious metals.

It’s hard to see how monetary policy at the Federal Reserve and the world’s other central banks—for more on the global picture see my January 24 post http://jubakpicks.com/2012/01/24/dont-fight-the-fed-and-the-ecb-and-the-banco-central-do-brasil-and-the-peoples-bank-of-china-is-good-advice-most-of-the-time-heres-why-it-wont-work-out-quite-so-well-in-2012/ --won’t eventually push inflation higher. The question isn’t “If?” but “When?” Some investors aren’t interested or willing to look at far ahead. The inflation expectations model produced by the Cleveland Fed shows that the consensus expectation from all the indicators that it watches is for inflation to average less than 2% a year for the next ten-years.

I’d be willing to bet that won’t be true and so are some other investors. To back up their bet they’re buying gold—gold was up almost 5% in the week that ended on January 27—and commodities and commodity stocks. (My favorite gold mining stocks are Goldcorp (GG) and Yamana Gold (AUY). Both are members of  my long-term Jubak Picks 50 portfolio http://jubakpicks.com// ) Shares of Freeport McMoRan Copper and Gold, (FCX), my favorite proxy for copper, climbed by 7.03% in the week that ended on January 27. (Freeport McMoRan is a member of my Jubak’s Picks portfolio http://jubakpicks.com/ )

But for U.S. investors, the Fed’s decision last week to extend “exceptionally” low rates to the end of 2014 provides another argument for gold and commodities. In general low interest rates lead to a lower U.S. dollar versus currencies from countries with higher interest rates (and faster economic growth and lower budget deficits.) The U.S. dollar may not sink like a stone—and given the crisis in the euro and Japan’s huge budget deficit, it may not even fall against the yen and the euro—but the pressures on the dollar during the Fed’s exceptionally long period of exceptionally low rates is definitely downward. And a lower dollar means higher prices for commodities. I’d wait for the next dip on commodities on a global run to safety on the next blow up in the euro, but I’d certainly be looking to add to positions in commodities and commodity stocks whenever the price is right. I’d start first with copper and stocks such as Freeport McMoRan; Southern Copper (SCCO), up on 0.78% in the last week but up 19.3% for 2012 as of January 27; and Buenaventura Mining (BVN), up 13.5% in the last week and 12.6% for 2012 as of January 27.

Full disclosure: I don’t own shares of any of the companies mentioned in this post in my personal portfolio. The mutual fund I manage, Jubak Global Equity Fund http://jubakfund.com/ , may or may not now own positions in any stock mentioned in this post. The fund owned shares of Freeport McMoRan, Goldcorp, and US Bancorp as of the end of September. For a full list of the stocks in the fund as of the end of September see the fund’s portfolio at http://jubakfund.com/about-the-fund/holdings/

Related Articles on STOCKS