Today’s News September 2, 2015

  • Former CIA Boss and 4-Star General: U.S. Should Arm Al Qaeda

    Former CIA boss and 4-star general David Petraeus – who still (believe it or not) holds a lot of sway in Washington – suggests we should arm Al Qaeda to fight ISIS.

    He’s not alone …

    As we’ve previously shown, other mainstream American figures support arming Al Qaeda … and ISIS.

    The U.S. actually did knowingly support Al Qaeda in Libya. And also in Syria.

    And we actually ARE supporting ISIS to some extent.

    Truly, America’s foreign policy is insane.

  • The Alarming Regularity of 6 and 7-Sigma Events Illustrates Why a Deep Understanding of Banker-Induced Fraud is a Necessity

    In today’s SmartKnowledgeU_Vlog_005, we discuss why an intelligent investment strategy is impossible without incorporation of market & banker fraud analysis, something that we have incorporated heavily into our strategies since we launched our company in mid-2007. Understanding market fraud allowed us to position our portfolio short the US stock market before the fall out occurred these past few weeks, as we even publicly posted this warning about an “imminent” US market collapse to our twitter account on 19 August, 2015, just one day before the US stock markets began free-falling.

     

     smartknowledgeu 2015 US stock market crash prediction

     

    In addition to shorting US markets and closing out positions at very quick and substantial gains, our understanding of banker pricing fraud in gold and silver futures markets also allowed us to short gold and silver into the US stock market free fall and quickly close out our short gold and short silver positions respectively for very quick +5.27% and +16.24% gains. In our latest vlog below, we discuss why understanding the meaning behind these 5, 6, 7, and even 16sigma events that are occuring with alarming regularity in global financial markets has been critical to maintaining positive yields this year in the short-term, will be critical to maintaining strongly positive yields over the long-term, and is necessary in   formulating intelligent low-risk strategies to cope with the massive asset and market volatility that we have been experiencing, and that will likely accelerate in future months.

     

    smartknowledgeu_vlog_005: why formulating intelligent investment strategies without a deep understanding of banker fraud is impossible

     to watch the above vlog, please click the image above


    About the Vlogger: JS Kim is the Managing Director and Chief Investment Strategist of SmartKnowledgeU. His Crisis Investment Opportunities newsletter has respectively outperformed the Philadelphia Gold & Silver Index, the Australian ASX200, the London FTSE and the US S&P 500 by +125.53%, +76.92%, +69.07% and +27.63% (investment period from inception on 15 June, 2007 until present day on 2 September, 2015). For more information and access to our annual returns, please visit smartknowledgeu.com

  • The Alarming Regularity of 6 and 7-Sigma Events Illustrates Why a Deep Understanding of Banker-Induced Fraud is a Necessity

    In today’s SmartKnowledgeU_Vlog_005, we discuss why an intelligent investment strategy is impossible without incorporation of market& banker fraud analysis, something that we have incorporated heavily into our strategies since we launched our company in mid-2007. Understanding market fraud allowed us to position our portfolio short the US stock market before the fall out occurred these past few weeks, as we even publicly posted this warning about an “imminent” US market collapse to our twitter account on 19 August, 2015, just one day before the US stock markets began free-falling.

     

     smartknowledgeu 2015 US stock market crash prediction

     

    In addition to shorting US markets and closing out positions at very quick and substantial gains, our understanding of banker pricing fraud in gold and silver futures markets also allowed us to short gold and silver into the US stock market free fall and quickly close out our short gold and short silver positions respectively for very quick +5.27% and +16.24% gains. In our latest vlog below, we discuss why understanding the meaning behind these 5, 6, 7, and even 16sigma events that are occuring with alarming regularity in global financial markets has been critical to maintaining positive yields this year in the short-term, will be critical to maintaining strongly positive yields over the long-term, and is necessary to  intelligently formulating strategies to cope with the massive asset volatility that we have been experiencing and that will likely accelerate in future months.

     

    smartknowledgeu_vlog_005: why formulating intelligent investment strategies without a deep understanding of banker fraud is impossible

     to watch the above vlog, please click the image above


    About the Vlogger: JS Kim is the Managing Director and Chief Investment Strategist of SmartKnowledgeU. His Crisis Investment Opportunities newsletter has respectively outperformed the Philadelphia Gold & Silver Index, the Australian ASX200, the London FTSE and the US S&P 500 by +125.53%, +76.92%, +69.07% and +27.63% (investment period from inception on 15 June, 2007 until present day on 2 September, 2015). For more information and access to our annual returns, please visit smartknowledgeu.com

  • Sheep Led To The Slaughter: The Muzzling Of Free Speech In America

    Submitted by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

    “If the freedom of speech be taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”—George Washington

    The architects of the American police state must think we’re idiots.

    With every passing day, we’re being moved further down the road towards a totalitarian society characterized by government censorship, violence, corruption, hypocrisy and intolerance, all packaged for our supposed benefit in the Orwellian doublespeak of national security, tolerance and so-called “government speech.”

    Long gone are the days when advocates of free speech could prevail in a case such as Tinker v. Des Moines. Indeed, it’s been 50 years since 13-year-old Mary Beth Tinker was suspended for wearing a black armband to school in protest of the Vietnam War. In taking up her case, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”

    Were Tinker to make its way through the courts today, it would have to overcome the many hurdles being placed in the path of those attempting to voice sentiments that may be construed as unpopular, offensive, conspiratorial, violent, threatening or anti-government.

    Consider, if you will, that the U.S. Supreme Court, historically a champion of the First Amendment, has declared that citizens can exercise their right to free speech everywhere it’s lawful—online, in social media, on a public sidewalk, etc.—as long as they don’t do so in front of the Court itself.

    What is the rationale for upholding this ban on expressive activity on the Supreme Court plaza?

    “Allowing demonstrations directed at the Court, on the Court’s own front terrace, would tend to yield the…impression…of a Court engaged with — and potentially vulnerable to — outside entreaties by the public.”

    Translation: The appellate court that issued that particular ruling in Hodge v. Talkin actually wants us to believe that the Court is so impressionable that the justices could be swayed by the sight of a single man, civil rights activist Harold Hodge, standing alone and silent in the snow in a 20,000 square-foot space in front of the Supreme Court building wearing a small sign protesting the toll the police state is taking on the lives of black and Hispanic Americans.

    My friends, we’re being played for fools.

    The Supreme Court is not going to be swayed by you or me or Harold Hodge.

    For that matter, the justices—all of whom hale from one of two Ivy League schools (Harvard or Yale) and most of whom are now millionaires and enjoy such rarefied privileges as lifetime employment, security details, ample vacations and travel perks—are anything but impartial.

    If they are partial, it is to those with whom they are on intimate terms: with Corporate America and the governmental elite who answer to them, and they show their favor by investing in their businesses, socializing at their events, and generally marching in lockstep with their values and desires in and out of the courtroom.

    To suggest that Harold Hodge, standing in front of the Supreme Court building on a day when the Court was not in session hearing arguments or issuing rulings, is a threat to the Court’s neutrality, while their dalliances with Corporate America is not, is utter hypocrisy.

    Making matters worse, the Supreme Court has the effrontery to suggest that the government can discriminate freely against First Amendment activity that takes place within a government forum. Justifying such discrimination as “government speech,” the Court ruled that the Texas Dept. of Motor Vehicles could refuse to issue specialty license plate designs featuring a Confederate battle flag because it was offensive.

    If it were just the courts suppressing free speech, that would be one thing to worry about, but First Amendment activities are being pummeled, punched, kicked, choked, chained and generally gagged all across the country.

    The reasons for such censorship vary widely from political correctness, safety concerns and bullying to national security and hate crimes but the end result remains the same: the complete eradication of what Benjamin Franklin referred to as the “principal pillar of a free government.”

    Officials at the University of Tennessee, for instance, recently introduced an Orwellian policy that would prohibit students from using gender specific pronouns and be more inclusive by using gender “neutral” pronouns such as ze, hir, zir, xe, xem and xyr, rather than he, she, him or her.

    On many college campuses, declaring that “America is the land of opportunity” or asking someone “Where were you born?” are now considered microaggressions, “small actions or word choices that seem on their face to have no malicious intent but that are thought of as a kind of violence nonetheless.”  Trigger warnings are also being used to alert students to any material or ideas they might read, see or hear that might upset them.

    More than 50 percent of the nation’s colleges, including Boston University, Harvard University, Columbia University and Georgetown University, subscribe to “red light” speech policies that restrict or ban so-called offensive speech, or limit speakers to designated areas on campus. The campus climate has become so hypersensitive that comedians such as Chris Rock and Jerry Seinfeld refuse to perform stand-up routines to college crowds anymore.

    What we are witnessing is an environment in which political correctness has given rise to “vindictive protectiveness,” a term coined by social psychologist Jonathan Haidt and educational First Amendment activist Greg Lukianoff. It refers to a society in which “everyone must think twice before speaking up, lest they face charges of insensitivity, aggression or worse.”

    This is particularly evident in the public schools where students are insulated from anything—words, ideas and images—that might create unease or offense. For instance, the thought police at schools in Charleston, South Carolina, have instituted a ban on displaying the Confederate flag on clothing, jewelry and even cars on campus.

    Added to this is a growing list of programs, policies, laws and cultural taboos that defy the First Amendment’s safeguards for expressive speech and activity. Yet as First Amendment scholar Robert Richards points out, “The categories of speech that fall outside of [the First Amendment’s] protection are obscenity, child pornography, defamation, incitement to violence and true threats of violence. Even in those categories, there are tests that have to be met in order for the speech to be illegal. Beyond that, we are free to speak.”

    Technically, Richards is correct. On paper, we are free to speak.

    In reality, however, we are only as free to speak as a government official may allow.

    Free speech zones, bubble zones, trespass zones, anti-bullying legislation, zero tolerance policies, hate crime laws and a host of other legalistic maladies dreamed up by politicians and prosecutors have conspired to corrode our core freedoms.

    As a result, we are no longer a nation of constitutional purists for whom the Bill of Rights serves as the ultimate authority. As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, we have litigated and legislated our way into a new governmental framework where the dictates of petty bureaucrats carry greater weight than the inalienable rights of the citizenry.

    It may seem trivial to be debating the merits of free speech at a time when unarmed citizens are being shot, stripped, searched, choked, beaten and tasered by police for little more than daring to frown, smile, question, challenge an order, or just breathe.

    However, while the First Amendment provides no tangible protection against a gun wielded by a government agent, nor will it save you from being wrongly arrested or illegally searched, or having your property seized in order to fatten the wallets of government agencies, without the First Amendment, we are utterly helpless.

    It’s not just about the right to speak freely, or pray freely, or assemble freely, or petition the government for a redress of grievances, or have a free press. The unspoken freedom enshrined in the First Amendment is the right to think freely and openly debate issues without being muzzled or treated like a criminal.

    Just as surveillance has been shown to “stifle and smother dissent, keeping a populace cowed by fear,” government censorship gives rise to self-censorship, breeds compliance and makes independent thought all but impossible.

    In the end, censorship and political correctness not only produce people that cannot speak for themselves but also people who cannot think for themselves. And a citizenry that can’t think for itself is a citizenry that will neither rebel against the government’s dictates nor revolt against the government’s tyranny.

    The end result: a nation of sheep who willingly line up for the slaughterhouse.

    The cluttered cultural American landscape today is one in which people are so distracted by the military-surveillance-entertainment complex that critical thinkers are in the minority and frank, unfiltered, uncensored speech is considered uncivil, uncouth and unacceptable.

    That’s the point, of course.

    The architects, engineers and lever-pullers who run the American police state want us to remain deaf, dumb and silent. They want our children raised on a vapid diet of utter nonsense, where common sense is in short supply and the only viewpoint that matters is the government’s.

    We are becoming a nation of idiots, encouraged to spout political drivel and little else.

    In so doing, we have adopted the lexicon of Newspeak, the official language of George Orwell’s fictional Oceania, which was “designed not to extend but to diminish the range of thought.” As Orwell explained in 1984, “The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of IngSoc [the state ideology of Oceania], but to make all other modes of thought impossible.”

    If Orwell envisioned the future as a boot stamping on a human face, a fair representation of our present day might well be a muzzle on that same human face.

    If we’re to have any hope for the future, it will rest with those ill-mannered, bad-tempered, uncivil, discourteous few who are disenchanted enough with the status quo to tell the government to go to hell using every nonviolent means available.

    However, as Orwell warned, you cannot become conscious until you rebel.

  • It's The Fed, Stupid; Why Kuroda And Draghi Are No Match For Quantitative Tightening

    Earlier today, Deutsche Bank – who last week won the sellside race to coin a new term for the unfolding EM FX reserve unwind – took a close look at the end of the “Great Accumulation” and what it means for asset prices and DM monetary policy going forward. Here was Deutsche Bank’s “profound” takeaway:

    Less reserve accumulation should put secular upward pressure on both global fixed income yields and the USD. Many studies have found that reserve buying has reduced both bund and US treasury yields by more than 100bps. 

     

    Declining FX reserves should place upward pressure on developed market yields given that the bulk of reserves are allocated to fixed income. 

     

    This force is likely to be a persistent headwind towards developed market central banks’ exit from unconventional policy in coming years, representing an additional source of uncertainty in the global economy. The path to “normalization” will likely remain slow and fraught with difficulty.

    But that, as it turns out, is not all. 

    As you might imagine, EM capital flows have tracked the Fed, BOJ, and the ECB’s balance sheets quite closely (albeit with a lead) in the post-crisis, QE-dominated world.

    What’s interesting however, is that there now appears to be a disconnect:

    What accounts for that, you ask? Well, according to DB (and this isn’t exactly surprising) the simple fact is that EM inflows/outflows are far more dependent on the Fed than they are on the BOJ and ECB and that means that a dovish Kuroda and Draghi will be no match for an even semi-hawkish Fed and that could be very bad news for EM flows considering how far ahead the Fed is in terms of approaching a rate hike cycle and considering, as we noted earlier, that DB’s previous answer to the EM FX reserve liquidation quandary was that perhaps “other central banks [will] come in to fill the gap that the PBoC is leaving [as] China’s QT would need to be replaced by higher QE elsewhere, with the ECB and BoJ being the most notable candidates”. From DB:

    Given the reliance of EM reserves on QE-enabled financial flows since the 2008 crisis, the speed of reversal should be a key driver of reserves trends going forward. EM capital flows have indeed had a strong relationship with G3 central bank balance sheet growth with a two-quarter lead (Figure 15), given that market pricing anticipates shifts in QE. Projecting G3 balance sheet trends thus offers some clues. In our most hawkish scenario, the Fed stops reinvestment by mid- 2016 and the ECB and BoJ stop QE by September and December 2016, respectively. A more dovish scenario might see the Fed reinvesting ad infinitum and the ECB and BoJ extending QE purchases until end-2017.

    Worryingly, EM capital flows are already significantly undershooting the projection from the hawkish scenario. A constructive take on this would be that EM outflows have overreacted and could give way to inflows again as global liquidity conditions remain more accommodative than feared. The less constructive view is that the Fed balance sheet simply matters far more for EM, with liquidity provided by the ECB and BoJ a poor compensation for the Fed’s retrenchment. Indeed, Figure 16 suggests this to be the case, with EM flows tracking the fall in Fed balance sheet growth closely of late. The hawkish scenario of Fed stopping reinvestment next year would suggest that EM flows can get weaker, while even a more dovish scenario of a constant Fed balance sheet would not be enough to lift inflows again. 

     

    In other words, even under DB’s dovish scenario for the Fed, in which Yellen reinvests the proceeds from maturing securities forever, EM capital flows will likely remain negative, putting perpetual pressure on FX reserves. And as should be abundantly clear by now, perpetual pressure on FX reserves means the unwind of the “Great EM Accumulation” continues unabated until either the Fed launches QE4 or else stands by while the world’s emerging economies burn through their cushions and careen into crisis. 

    Finally – as noted earlier in “ABN Amro Warns There Is A 40% Chance Mario Draghi Expands ECB QE As Soon As This Week” – while we agree with ABN that the ECB may indeed boost QE in a rerun of what the BOJ did in the great Halloween massacre of 2014, it would be largely a non-event, as the ECB biggest limitation remains the availability of monetizable assets. As such, any real monetary offset to the Reverse QE that is about to be unleashed now that the “Great Accumulation” is over, is and will always be the Fed. For a quick explanation of this, re-read “Why QE4 Is Inevitable.

  • Circling The Drain….

    CIRCLING THE DRAIN:

    So last weeks turmoil is seemingly not over yet…..Was it simply a storm in a teacup brought on by another one of those market tantrums that erupt every now and again to keep everyone on their toes and eventually evaporate? Or was it a significant tremor giving pre warning of a major earthquake to follow?

    WAX ON WAX OFF;

    Historically September and October are not very good months for stocks and there are fundamental arguments for both sides.

    The fact is that there is a lot more to worry about than to be confident of. 

    There are clearly real concerns both internally and externally that the China’s growth rate is running at closer to 5% than 7%, Brazil and Russia are in recession, 

    Emerging market countries are suffering massive capital outflows and are burdened with huge dollar debts, Abenomics is not delivering inflation in Japan, the Eurozone is an invalid, Greece is a month away from another potential exit crisis, Europe faces a migrant crisis and the Middle East is unstable. 

     

    There is plenty of reason to be concerned especially when the global economy is in the anaemic state it is despite a zero interest rate environment and huge injections of QE. At the height of last week’s crisis the proposed responses if the rout continued were for more of the same — QE in China to be added to more QE in Japan and Europe. There was even a suggestion from the president of the Minneapolis Fed that the week’s developments potentially justified “adding accommodation”. All this despite evidence that the impact of each new injection is diminishing and creating side effects that are sowing the seeds of the next financial crisis.

    THE CHARTS DON’T LIE

    We broke ,we rallied to the multi year trend line  and now we have retreated again…..

    Weekly S&P chart:

    You really dont need to be a rocket scientist;

    What I have not liked from the recent move is that the fixed income market that one would expect to flatten from his point has if fact steepened…this has been down to apparent Chinese liquidation of treasury positions;

    YIELDS UP / STOCKS DOWN……

    With everything for sale…the next 2 months could be quite hairy

     

     

    In regards to more detailed and expert options and futures advice ,volatility analysis etc ,please contact Darren Krett,Bryan Fitzgerald or John Haden through www.maunaki.com or dkrett@maunaki.com 

    “Futures and options trading involves substantial risk and is not for everyone. Such investments may not be appropriate for the recipient. The valuation of futures and options may fluctuate, and, as a result, clients may lose more than their original investment. Nothing contained in this message may be construed as an express or an implied promise, guarantee or implication by, of, or from Mauna Kea Investments LLC. that you will profit or that losses can or will be limited in any manner whatsoever. Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results. Although care has been taken to assure the accuracy, completeness and reliability of the information contained herein, Mauna Kea Investments LLC makes no warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, reliability or usefulness of any information, product, service or process disclosed.”

     

  • The Myth Of A Russian 'Threat'

    Authored by Pepe Escobar, originally posted at SputnikNews.com,

    Not a week goes by without the Pentagon carping about an ominous Russian "threat".

    Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey entered certified Donald “known unknown” Rumsfeld territory when he recently tried to conceptualize the “threat”; “Threats are the combination, or the aggregate, of capabilities and intentions. Let me set aside for the moment, intentions, because I don’t know what Russia intends.”

    So Dempsey admits he does not know what he’s talking about. What he seems to know is that Russia is a “threat” anyway — in space, cyber space, ground-based cruise missiles, submarines.

    And most of all, a threat to NATO; “One of the things that Russia does seem to do is either discredit, or even more ominously, create the conditions for the failure of NATO.”

    So Russia “does seem” to discredit an already self-discredited NATO. That’s not much of a “threat”.

    All these rhetorical games take place while NATO “does seem” to get ready for a direct confrontation with Russia. And make no mistake; Moscow does view NATO’s belligerence as a real threat.

    It’s PGS vs. S-500

    The “threat” surge happens just as US Think Tankland recharges the notion of containment of Russia. Notorious CIA front Stratfor has peddled a propaganda piece praising Cold War mastermind George Kennan as the author of the “containment of Russia” policy.
     
    The US intel apparatus don’t do irony; before he died, Kennan said it was now the US that had to be contained, not Russia.
     
    Containment of Russia – via the expansion of the EU and NATO — has always been a work in progress because the geopolitical imperative has always been the same; as Dr. Zbigniew “The Grand Chessboard” Brzezinski never tired of stressing, it was always about preventing the – threatening — emergence of a Eurasian power capable of challenging the US.
     
    Ultimately, the notion of “containment” can be stretched out towards the dismantling of Russia itself. It also carries the inbuilt paradox that NATO’s infinite expansion eastwards has made Eastern Europe less, not more, safe.

    Assuming there would even be a lethal Russia-NATO confrontation, Russian tactical nuclear weapons would knock out all NATO airports in less than twenty minutes. Dempsey – cryptically – admits as much.

    What he cannot possibly admit is if a decision had been made in Washington, a long time ago, preventing NATO’s infinite expansion, Russia’s concerted move to upgrade its nuclear weapon arsenal would have been unnecessary. 

    Geopolitically, the Pentagon has finally seen which way the – strategic partnership – wind is blowing; towards Russia-China. This major game-changing shift in the global balance of power also translates as the combined military assets of China and Russia exceeding NATO’s.

    In terms of military power Russia has superior offensive and defensive missiles over the US, with the new generation surface-to-air missile system, the S-500, capable of intercepting supersonic targets and totally sealing Russian airspace.

    Moreover, despite short-term financial turbulence, the Sino-Russian combined strategy for Eurasia – an interpenetration of the New Silk Road(s) and the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) – is bound to develop their economies and the region at large to an extent that may surpass the EU and the US combined by 2030.

    What’s left for NATO is to stage military strength made-for-TV shows such as “Atlantic Resolve” to “reassure the region”, especially hysteria-prone Poland and the Baltics. 

    Moscow, meanwhile, has made it clear that nations deploying US-owned anti-ballistic missile systems in their territory will face missile early-warning systems deployed in Kaliningrad.

    And Major General Kirill Makarov, Russia’s Aerospace Defense Forces’ deputy chief, has already made it clear Moscow is upgrading its air and missile defense capabilities to smash any – real — threat by the US Prompt Global Strike (PGS).

    In the December 2014 Russian military doctrine, NATO’s military build-up and PGS are listed as Russia’s top security threats. Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov has stressed, “Russia is capable of and will have to develop a system like PGS.”

    Where’s our loot?

    The Pentagon’s rhetorical games also serve to mask a real high-stakes process; essentially an energy war – centering on the control of oil, natural gas and mineral resources of Russia and Central Asia. Will this wealth be controlled by oligarch frontmen “supervised” by their masters in New York and London, or by Russia and its Central Asian partners? Thus the relentless propaganda war. 

    A case can be made that the Masters of the Universe have resurrected the same old containment/threat geopolitical alibis – peddled by what we could dub the Brzezinski/Stratfor connection — to cover, or conceal, another stark fact.

    And the fact is that the real reason for Cold War 2.0 is New York/London financial power suffering a trillion dollar-plus loss when President Putin extracted Russia from their looting schemes.

    And the same applies to the entire Kiev coup — forced through by the same New York/London financial powers to block Putin from destroying their looting operations in Ukraine (which, by the way, proceed unabated, at least in the agricultural domain).

    Containment/threat is also deployed on overdrive to prevent by all means a strategic partnership between Russia and Germany – which the Brzezinski/Stratfor connection sees as an existential threat to the US.

    The connection’s wet dreams – shared, incidentally, by the neo-cons – would be a glorious return to the looting phase of Russia in the 1990s, when the Russian industrial-military complex had collapsed and the West was plundering natural resources to Kingdom Come.

    It’s not going to happen ever again. So what’s the Pentagon Plan B? To create the conditions of turning Europe into a potential theater of nuclear war. Now that’s a real threat – if there ever was one.

     

  • Chinese Stocks Open Down Hard As PBOC Strengthens Yuan By Most Since 2010 & Default Risk Hits 2-Year High

    From the moment Japan opened, USDJPY buying took off (standard 100 pip rip on absolutely no news whatsoever) as yet another manipulated market breathed new life into equity longs dreams. That 'help' combined with the fact that, as SCMP's George Chen reports, 50 China brokerages will jointly contribute 100 bln RMB capital to the government margin finance agency to start "new round of market rescue" provided some stability after US markets' collapse. However, tonight's big news appears to be a major crackdown on leverage as MNI notes regulators ordering brokerage houses to clear all non-official margin trading services – not just halting new clients but also closing existing accounts. Chinese stocks are opening modestly lower as PBOC fixes Yuan stronger for the 4th day in a row. Finally, China credit risk has spiked to 2-year highs as traders increase positions dramatically. The manipulation will continue through tomorrow at least when Parade Week peaks, so buckle up.

     

    Japan "rescued"… "Mysterious"? – Large USD/JPY Buyer Seen Before Nikkei Index Opened: Traders

     

    China "Stability?"

     

    Though some weakness at the Chinese open:

    • *FTSE CHINA A50 SEPT. FUTURES DROP 0.7% IN SINGAPORE
    • *CHINA'S CSI 300 STOCK-INDEX FUTURES FALL 2.2% TO 2,939.8

     

    • *SHANGHAI COMPOSITE INDEX SET TO OPEN 4.4% LOWER

    And then PBOC Strengthens Yuan:

    • *CHINA SETS YUAN REFERENCE RATE AT 6.3619 AGAINST U.S. DOLLAR
    • *CHINA RAISES YUAN REFERENCE RATE FOR FOURTH DAY

    And loses controil of money markets:

    • *CHINA OVERNIGHT MONEY-MARKET RATE RISES 18 BPS TO 2%

     

    This is the biggest 4-day strengthening in 5 years!

    But tonight's big news appears be a major clampdown on margin trading (as MNI reports),

    China's stock market regulator has issued a circular ordering brokerage houses to clear all non-official margin trading services jointly provided with a third party — not just halting new clients but also closing existing accounts.

     

    Chinese brokerage houses were allowed to offer margin trading services in 2010 but strong stock market performance since last year saw many third parties also providing margin trading services with help from brokerage houses. Beijing realized the potential threat of these fast-growing margin trading services, particularly unofficial ones, and started to push for market deleveraging in late-June this year, contributing to the stock market rout which saw Shanghai Composite Index lose nearly 40% since.

    Even as margin debt drops to a fresh 9-month low…

    • *SHANGHAI MARGIN DEBT BALANCE FALLS FOR 11TH STRAIGHT DAY

     

    The very same brokerages that are seeing executives detained and are being told to shut down margin trading have also provided funds for rescuing the government market…

    Chinese brokerage houses are providing more funds to the China Securities Finance Corp for stock market intervention.

     

    Many listed brokerage houses issued statements last night saying they were giving no more than 20% of their net assets to CSFC, which will use the money to set up a special account for investment in blue chip stocks. These firms include CITIC Securities, which said it's giving another CNY5.4 billion to CSFC. CITIC Securities is at the center of a regulatory storm as many of its senior executives are being investigated by police and Chinese investors have been questioning if CITIC was a key player among short sellers that caused the recent stock market rout.

     

    Besides CITIC, several other brokerage houses which are contributing new funds to CSFC, have also said they are being investigated by the stock market regulator.

    Followed by more talk..

    • *CHINA EXPORTS MAY RISE 2% IN 2015; IMPORTS SEEN DOWN 10%: NEWS
    • *CHINA HAS ROOM FOR FURTHER RATES, RRR CUTS: SECURITIES NEWS
    • *CHINA SHOULD MAKE FUND TO SUPPORT SMALL CO. MARKET-ORIENTED: LI
    • *CHINA PREMIER LI KEQIANG COMMENTS ON 60B YUAN SMALL CO. FUND

    Then – now that China is flush with cash again apparently, it decided to help out Venezuela…

    • *VENEZUELA SIGNS $5B LOAN W/CHINA TO BOOST OIL PRODUCTION:MADURO

    But, not everyone is happy, as Bloomberg reports,

    China-focused hedge funds probably had their worst month in almost 16 years in August, with firms including Orchid Asia Group Management and APS Asset Management Pte suffering losses from the nation’s stock market collapse.

     

    “Greater China hedge funds are on track to show the worst three month returns in at least a decade,” said Mohammad Hassan, an analyst with Eurekahedge in Singapore. “It’s not a surprise given the funds’ limited ability to short the stock markets in China.”

    And finally, it appears traders are hedging China credit risk in size…

    Open positions in China’s credit-default swaps increased by 212 contracts to 9,444 in the week ended Aug. 28, according to latest data from DTCC.

     

     

     

    That’s the biggest increase among global sovereign CDS; gross notional amount rose $1.31b last week

     

     

    Among Asian sovereigns, South Korea’s CDS had second-biggest increase in positions last week, with outstanding amount up 137 contracts, or $1.10b in gross notional value

    Charts: Bloomberg

  • Macroeconomics Is The Root Of All Error

    Submitted by Bill Frezza via The Daily Caller,

    Will Fed chief Janet Yellen pull the trigger to raise interest rates in September or not? Only the soothsayers at Jackson Hole know for sure. But while the world awaits the decision, ponder this. What do the following have in common?

    • Asset bubbles fueled by monetary policy.
    • Unsustainable sovereign debts threatening government bankruptcies.
    • Government economic “cures” worse than the diseases they are supposed to treat.
    • Questionable GDP statistics.
    • Recurring bank bailouts.

    Figured it out yet? They are all driven by an overweening state religion called macroeconomics.

    Friedrich Hayek said it best. The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.”

    A pity this simple, yet profound insight remains at the fringes of a field that continues to wreak havoc in the hands of those who imagine they can design economic outcomes.

    Think about it. We are currently watching global stock markets gyrate toward breakdown trying to anticipate the whims of a cloistered professor who never launched a business, never met a payroll, never shipped a product, and never won an election, yet has been empowered to determine the price of money. What’s even stranger is that people consider this normal. Ask yourself: Why do we wait on pins and needles for Janet Yellen to set interest rates yet laugh at the idea that kings once set the “just price” for a loaf of bread?

    That’s where Hayek’s curious task comes in.

    The human inclination to seek order in a seemingly chaotic world has long been exploited by generations of pundits, professors, and politicians eager to convince us they can impart certainty to the unknowable.

    Note that I say the unknowable, not the unknown. Science has proven quite adept at exploring the unknown. That’s because as science progresses, falsifiable hypotheses that fail to make accurate predictions get discarded in favor of alternatives that do. No so in macroeconomics, whose prognostications bear an uncanny resemblance to predicting the nature of the afterlife. Rather than make continuous progress, the same discredited macroeconomic theories tend to cycle in and out of fashion depending on which court economists have the upper hand at any given time.

    One cannot perform controlled macroeconomic experiments because “the economy” is not a measurable thing, like the weight of a stone or the strength of an electric field. It is merely the name we give to billions of transactions that take place across the planet, each driven by decisions made by independent actors optimizing their own well being according to their own criteria. These criteria cannot even be articulated by many of the players themselves, much less known to a third party pretending omniscience. Undeterred, practitioners of the black arts conjure up aggregates like “GDP” or “CPI,” but any honest examination of these metrics quickly leads to the conclusion that they are nothing more than political fictions that can be manipulated to suit the policy proclivities of the moment.

    Macroeconomists use GDP to characterize billions of economic transactions, supposedly like a physicist uses temperature to characterize the average kinetic energy of gas molecules as they bump into each other in the atmosphere. They come up with equations linking the velocity and quantity of money to the inflation rate, or the inflation rate to the unemployment rate, designed to look like the ideal gas law PV = nRT. This fools many people into believing these soothsayers are doing science.

    But gas molecules are not willful. They don’t have hopes and fears, friends and enemies, retirement savings and mortgage payments. Gas molecules don’t change their behavior when you tell them what their temperature is. The idea that you can write equations to accurately capture complex human behaviors, and then develop policies based on these equations aimed at controlling those behaviors, is what Hayek called the Fatal Conceit.

    Macroeconomics reigns in the realm of the unknowable promising that which cannot be delivered to the eager to be deceived, benefitting an entrenched priesthood and the potentates they serve. Its cloaking in mathematics, rather than music and incense, gives it the requisite air of mystery to discourage questioning the guidance of its anointed sages and prophets. Unless and until we acknowledge that what these people are practicing is a religion and not a science, we will remain in its obscurantist thrall. 

    When scientific laws consistently fail to make accurate predictions, we throw the laws away. What happens when predictions about the impact of macroeconomic interventions fail, such as the inability of quantitative easing to deliver anything like the results promised? There is always a macroeconomist standing by to claim “we didn’t do enough.” And so the answer to every policy failure is: “Give Us Moar!”

    Thus, the goal of reformists cannot be to simply replace one set of grandees with another, but to throw the Church of Macroeconomics out of the Overton Window, so it can pass into history alongside phrenology, phlogiston, and luminiferous aether.

  • Wondering Why Dow Futures Just Spiked Over 100 Points?

    Wonder no more…

     

    Get back to work Mr. Kuroda…

     

    But remember – it’s Chinese stocks that are “manipulated” – that is all.

     

    Charts: Bloomberg

  • "If I Don't Come Home, Look After My Wife": What Happens In China If You Sell Stocks

    It’s probably safe to say that at this point, Beijing is fed up with stocks. 

    The thing about equities that has the Politburo so vexed is that it turns out they can go down as well as up, and because stocks aren’t people, you can’t threaten them or arrest them, although China did its best to do both by throwing CNY1 trillion at the problem and by halting nearly three quarters of the market at the height of the meltdown.

    Ultimately, none of it worked.

    Fortunately for Chinese authorities, carbon-based lifeforms still play an active role in China’s stock market even if they’ve been all but replaced by vacuum tubes elsewhere. These carbon-based lifeforms are responsive to threats and intimidation which is why last week, fearing that the plunge protection effort would end up becoming a black hole, China started arresting people. 

    And not just a few people or any people, but in fact hundreds of people and important people.

    There was Xu Gang, the CITIC executive. And CSRC official Liu Shufan. And let’s not forget poor Wang Xiaolu, the Caijing reporter who, clearly under duress, made the following public confession after suggesting in a story that China’s plunge protection team might be considering an exit from the market (which is of course true): “I shouldn’t have released a report with a major negative impact on the market at such a sensitive time. I shouldn’t do that just to catch attention which has caused the country and its investors such a big loss. I regret . . . [it and am] willing to confess my crime.” 

    Now, China is rounding up other industry players and taking them into custody so that they might “assist with inquiries.” As Reuters reports, for some fund managers, being summoned to to provide such “assistance” is tantamount to getting “sent for” by the Italian mob. Here’s more:

    Investigations by Chinese authorities into wild stock market swings are spreading fear among China-based investors, with some unsure if they are simply helping with inquiries or actually under suspicion, executives in the financial community said.

     

    Chinese fund managers say they have come under increasing pressure from Beijing as authorities’ attempts to revive the country’s stock markets hit headwinds, with some investors now being called in to explain trading strategies to regulators every two weeks.

     

    The authorities’ meddling has unnerved many investors, leaving them questioning China’s commitment to liberalizing its capital markets and the long-term future of the country’s stock markets themselves.

     

    Adding to those concerns is the fact that authorities have also been probing investment funds’ trading strategies, looking into whether they have been engaging in alleged “malicious” short-selling or market manipulation.

     

    Sources told Reuters that the increased tempo of meetings with regulators has become intimidating, especially for foreign funds used to relying on their Chinese brokers to represent them when dealing with Beijing.

    How intimidating, you ask? This intimidating:

    One manager at a major fund – part of the “national team” of investors and brokerages charged with buying stocks to revive prices – said a friend, also an executive at a large fund, was recently summoned for a meeting with regulators, along with all other mutual funds that had engaged in short-selling activity.

     

    “If I don’t come back, look after my wife,” his friend told him, handing the manager his home telephone number.

    Because there’s little we could add to make that any more tragically absurd than it already is, we’ll simply close with the following clip.

  • Guest Post: 10 Things I Hate About (You) Twitter Finance

    Via 330Ramp.com,

    "You" is used below to indicate "you people" on Twitter Finance. "You people" know who "you" are.

    1. When it comes time for a market correction you make sure to let everyone know that if they would have followed your advice, $29.99 newsletter, or real time alert they would have been fine and avoided disaster.
    2. You are an "expert" in every facet of the economy (Greece, oil, China, Central Banking) yet you graduated with an Art History degree from some community college and live in your parent's basement using Time Warner Cable's 5MB/s internet speed.
    3. You put #timestamps where #timestamps are not needed and then delete tweets when it turns out you were wrong.
    4. You tweet too much and don't click the buy button enough.
    5. After something bad happens, you tweet archaic quotes from 3rd century B.C. Roman poets that no one cares about. (e.g. "Fortune favors the brave." -Aenied)
    6. You consistently quote tweet or RT followers who give you praise for nailing the bottom. (e.g. Thanks! RT @XYZ Great call on $AAPL! Now I'm rich! You nailed it!)
    7. You say "I nailed it" way too much.
    8. You only post about the trades you made money on.  You never post about the trades you lost money on.  This is the oldest trick in the book to make people think you are actually good at what you do and that they should follow you.  They shouldn't.
    9. You incorrectly say $STUDY and annoyingly use it too much.
    10. You post charts that look like this:

     
     
     
    If you find that you are pointing to yourself on 5 or more of the bullet items above please delete your Twitter account immediately.
    Thanks,

    #Rampstamp

     

  • The "Great Accumulation" Is Over: The Biggest Risk Facing The World's Central Banks Has Arrived

    To be sure, there’s been no shortage of media coverage regarding the collapse in crude prices that’s unfolded over the course of the past year. Similarly, it’s no secret that commodity prices in general are sitting near their lowest levels of the 21st century. 

    When Saudi Arabia, in an effort to bankrupt the US shale space and tighten the screws on a recalcitrant Moscow, endeavored late last year to keep oil prices suppressed, the kingdom killed the petrodollar, a move we argued would put pressure on USD assets and suck hundreds of billions in liquidity from global markets. 

    Thanks to the fanfare surrounding China’s stepped up UST liquidation in support of the yuan, the world is beginning to understand what we meant. The accumulation of USD assets held as FX reserves across the emerging world served as a source of liquidity and kept a bid under things like US Treasurys. Now that commodity prices have fallen off a cliff thanks to lackluster global demand and trade, the accumulation of those assets slowed, and as a looming Fed hike along with fears about the stability of commodity currencies conspired to put pressure on EM FX, the great EM reserve accumulation reversed itself. This is the environment into which China is now dumping its own reserves and indeed, the PBoC’s rapid liquidation of USTs over the past two weeks has added fuel to the fire and effectively boxed the Fed in.

    On Tuesday, Deutsche Bank is out extending their “quantitative tightening” (QT) analysis with a look at what’s ahead now that the so-called “Great Accumulation” is over. 

    “Following two decades of unremitting growth, we expect global central bank reserves to at best stabilize but more likely to continue to decline in coming years,” DB begins, before noting what we outlined above, namely that the “three cyclical drivers point[ing] to further reserve draw-downs in the short term [are] China’s economic slowdown, impending US monetary tightening, and the collapse in the oil price.”

    In an attempt to quantify the effect of China’s reserve liquidation, we’ve quoted Citi, who, after reviewing the extant literature noted that for every $500 billion in EM FX reserve draw downs, the effect is to put around 108 bps of upward pressure on 10Y UST yields. Applying that to the possibility that China will have to sell up to $1.1 trillion in assets to offset the unwind of the great RMB carry and you end up, theoretically, with over 200 bps of upward pressure on yields, which would of course pressure the US economy and force the Fed, to whatever degree they might have tightened by the time China’s 365-day liquidation sale ends, to reverse course quickly. 

    Deutsche Bank comes to similar conclusions. To wit:

    The implications of our conclusions are profound. Central banks have accumulated 10 trillion USD of assets since the start of the century, heavily concentrated in global fixed income. Less reserve accumulation should put secular upward pressure on both global fixed income yields and the USD. Many studies have found that reserve buying has reduced both bund and US treasury yields by more than 100bps. For every $100bn (exogenous) reduction in global reserves, we estimate EUR/USD will weaken by ~3 big figures.

     

    […]

     

    Declining FX reserves should place upward pressure on developed market yields given that the bulk of reserves are allocated to fixed income. A recent working paper by ECB staff shows that the increase in foreign holdings of euro area bonds from 2000 to mid-2006… is associated with a reduction of euro area long-term interest rates by about 1.55 percentage points, in line with the estimated impact on US Treasury yields by other studies. On the short-term impact, one recent paper estimates that “if foreign official inflows into U.S. Treasuries were to decrease in a given month by $100 billion, 5- year Treasury rates would rise by about 40–60 basis points in the short run”, consistent with our estimates above. China and oil exporting countries played an important role in these flows.

     


    Which of course means the Fed is stuck:

    The current secular shift in reserve manager behavior represents the equivalent to Quantitative Tightening, or QT. This force is likely to be a persistent headwind towards developed market central banks’ exit from unconventional policy in coming years, representing an additional source of uncertainty in the global economy. The path to “normalization” will likely remain slow and fraught with difficulty.

    Put simply, raising rates now would be to tighten into a tightening.

    That is, the liquidation of EM FX reserves is QE in reverse. The end of the great EM FX reserve accumulation means QT is set to proliferate in the face of stubbornly low commodity prices and decelerating Chinese growth. And indeed, if the slowdown in global demand and trade turns out to be structural and endemic rather than cyclical, the pressure on EM could continue unabated for years to come. The bottom line is this: if the Fed hikes into QT, it will exacerbate capital outflows from EM, which will intensify reserve draw downs, necessitating a quick (and likely embarrassing) reversal of Fed policy and perhaps even QE4.


  • Trump: The Art Of The Bureaucrat

    Submitted by Doug French via Mises Canada,

    Donald Trump says America’s problems are managerial. The political class is “stupid,” and “horrible negotiators.” He can fix the country’s problems instantaneously with his own entrepreneurial ability and by drafting into government service the likes of multi-billionaire Carl Icahn. Trump claims he said over dinner recently,  “Carl, if I get this thing, I want to put you in charge of China and Japan, can you handle both of them? Okay? China and Japan,”

    We’re to imagine Icahn telling his Washington secretary, “Get me China on the phone!” As Jeffrey Tucker explains, Trump sees the country as a single company competing against the companies of China and Japan Inc.. Tucker writes,

    In effect, he believes that he is running to be the CEO of the country — not just of the government (as Ross Perot once believed) but of the entire country. In this capacity, he believes that he will make deals with other countries that cause the U.S. to come out on top, whatever that could mean. He conjures up visions of himself or one of his associates sitting across the table from some Indian or Chinese leader and making wild demands that they will buy such and such amount of product else “we” won’t buy their product.

    Republican voters love it. He’s a breath of fresh, simple, political air. Maybe you’re a smartypants who thinks Trump’s tirades border on moronic. That’s because his answers scored at the 4th-grade reading level during the August 6th debate when the text of his answers was run through the Flesch-Kincaid grade-level test. Most adults wouldn’t pride themselves on speaking at that level, but, a certain financial newsletter operation I know wants their writers to produce Trump-level copy.  So, there must be a market Trumpspeak.

    “The role Trumpspeak has played in Trump’s surging polls suggests that perhaps too many politicians talk over the public’s head when more should be talking beneath it in the hope of winning elections,” Jack Shafer concludes in his Politico piece.

    So if short, blocky words, combined into short, blocky sentences and in turn short, blocky paragraphs works wondrously with the voters, how about the federal bureaucracy The Donald would have to manage? Not that he really wants to manage the leviathan.  Donny Deutsch was probably right when he told a Morning Joe audience that Donald is a real estate developer with ADD, always looking to move on to the next deal.

    Has he considered that the federal government has two million employees, most of whom he can’t fire?  And that’s not the half of it.  “Post-1960 Federal America has become a grotesque Leviathan by proxy, in which an expanding mass of state and local government workers, for-profit contractors, and nonprofit grant recipients administers a vast portion of federal money and responsibilities,” writes John J.DiIulio Jr. for the Washington Post.

    If Republican voters think a Trump presidency will be four to eight years of “The Apprentice” on steroids, with Trump telling those who disobey or slack off “You’re fired,”  they are as delusional as their hero, who, as Nick Gillespie says, has a tenuous grasp on reality.

    Dilulio points out that the federal government spends more than $600 billion per year on more than 200 grant programs for state and local governments whose workforces have tripled to more than 18 million. The result is these state workers essentially function as federal bureaucrats.

    Medicaid, the EPA, the Defense Department, and the Department of Homeland Security all operate using private contractors.  In the case of “the Energy Department [it] spends about 90 percent of its annual budget on private contractors, who handle everything from radioactive-waste disposal to energy production,” writes Dilulio.

    Trump wouldn’t rule the government the way he rules his company. In his book Bureaucracy, Ludwig von Mises distinguished between business management and bureaucratic management. Business management is directed by the profit motive. “Bureaucratic management,” writes Mises, “is management bound to comply with detailed rules and regulations fixed by the authority of a superior body. The task of the bureaucrat is to perform what these rules and regulations order him to do. His discretion to act according to his own best conviction is seriously restricted by them.”

    So while profit and loss dictate the goals of business management, “The objectives of public administration cannot be measured in money terms and cannot be checked by accountancy methods,” Mises explained.

    Government keeps getting bigger because for the government bureaucrat, “In spending more money he can, very often at least, improve the result of his conduct of affairs.”  Revenue and expenditures are completely separated. “In public administration there is no market price for achievements,” Mises wrote. “Bureaucratic management is management of affairs which cannot be checked by economic calculation.”

    Trump’s appeal is that he is a successful businessman and that he’s rich. Mises made the point that the average citizen equates running government to running a business because most people are most familiar with businesses. “Then he discovers that bureaucratic management is wasteful, inefficient, slow, and rolled up in red tape.” “Why can’t government run like a business?” we often hear.

    Mises answered the question decades ago, writing, “such criticisms are not sensible.”  Trump, may have made billions, but “A former entrepreneur who is given charge of a government bureau is in this capacity no longer a businessman but a bureaucrat. His objective can no longer be profit, but compliance with the rules and regulations.”

    Trump may be all about “The Art of the Deal,” but if he is elected, the deals he makes will be every bit as wasteful and tyrannical as those of his predecessors (or worse).  “The quality of being an entrepreneur is not inherent in the personality of the entrepreneur; it is inherent in the position which he occupies in the framework of market society,” Mises emphasized.

    A President Trump may be able to make small changes here or there, “But the setting of the bureau’s activities is determined by rules and regulations which are beyond his reach.”

    Presidents come and go, but the unelected bureaucracy always remains. For all his simpleton bluster, even the mighty Trump is no match for the leviathan.

  • Crude Carnage & Asian Contagion Crushes Hype-Fueled Dreams Of US Stocks

    A'twofer' today… The arrogant BTFDiness of Friday's talking heads…

     

    And for everyone else worried about the "containment"…

     

    So 3 big stories today – Equities collapsed… VIX ETFs turmoiled… and Crude Oil crashed…

    But before we start – something odd is going on… Simply put – it is very clear now that stocks are moving in lockstep with JPY carry (China forced unwinds) and long-dated TSYs (China selling) have entirely decoupled from the rest of US assets…

    We suspect that as Monday's collapse occurred last week it forced "Risk Parity" shops into selling as China's intervention throws ther asimple arbs (equities down, yields down) into a fit – unleashing all sorts of negative feedback loops which are stil underway.

     

    As Volatility relationships 'break'…

     

    Which summarized simply means – any time you introduce an exogenous signal to a correlation pair, it blows it up and forces derisking. The more leverage on both legs, the more unwinds needed… and the more negative the feedback loop. And this 'correlation pair' game has been going on for 5 years unabated.

    *  *  *

    This is the worst "first day the month" since Mar 2009 for The Dow

    Since Sunday night, things have not been great for stocks with aggreesive US futures selling during the Asia session and weakness towards the US Close…

     

    Leaving all major indices notably in the red for the first day of the month…

     

    And we use The Dow Futures to illustrate the pull back… Dow was down over 530 points at the lows

     

    Which has slammed Nasdaq back into the red for 2015 – joining everything else….

     

    FANG stocks are all sufferring post-FOMC Minutes…

     

    As Financials and Energy were ugly…

     

    VIX rose over 10% to top 32 as the VIX complex was a mess of short-squeezes and liquidty holes. S&P is catching down to XIV (inverse VIX ETF)…

     

    With what looked like VIX ETF margin calls into the close…

     

    NOTE: After late-day mismacthes were offset – VIX was smashed lower as always to ensure stocks close "off the lows"

     

    Treasury yields were bid through most of Asia and Europe's session then sold off in the US session – despite equity weakness – before a late day rally…

     

    The USDollar Index drifted lower today as AUD plunged and JPY surged…

     

    Commodities were a mixed bag with Gold & Silver gaining as cruide and copper were clubbed…

     

    Crude Oil was a catastrophe. After yesterday's epic rtamp squeeze into month-end, today saw a total collapse- the biggest drop since OPEC met late November. Note they tried to ramp it into the NYMEX close but that failed…

    • *WTI FALLS $1.65 IN LAST 15 MINS. OF TRADING, SETTLES AT $45.41

    Then touched a $44 handle…

     

    Gold remains the only safe haven for now post-FOMC…

     

     

    Charts: Bloomberg

  • How To Trade Quantitative Tightening, According To Deutsche Bank

    Last week, the world was introduced to what Deutsche Bank has branded “quantitative tightening” or, in layman’s terms, “reverse QE.”

    In short, what began late last year with the death of the petrodollar and culminated last month with China’s massive UST liquidation can be broadly conceptualized as the end of the great EM USD asset accumulation or, put differently, as the (black?) swan song for the era of emerging market FX reserve hoarding that has for years served as a source of liquidity for global markets and kept a bid under assets like USTs. 

    We – as well as Citi, SocGen, and now Deutsche Bank – have endeavored to speculate on what hundreds of billions (if not trillions) in EM FX reserve liquidation may mean for UST yields (see here, for instance), but if you’re looking for other ways to trade QT, Deutsche Bank has another idea and on that note we present the following graphs along and commentary from DB, with the caveat that one should always beware of mistaking correlation for causation.

    From Deutsche Bank:

    The fact that two thirds of global reserves are held in dollars means that a sell-off should be bullish USD against other reserve currencies. This is because as central banks prop up their currencies against the dollar, they also sell other reserve currencies against the USD so as to keep their FX allocations constant. Indeed, fluctuations in EUR/USD are tightly correlated with changes in global reserves (Figure 25), though this correlation naturally captures causality in both directions.

  • Artificially Intelligent Robot Tells Creator It Will Keep Humans "In a People Zoo"

    Submitted by John Vibes via TheAntiMedia.org,

    Android Dick is a robot created in the likeness of the science fiction writer, Philip K. Dick. Android Dick is an attempt to create thinking and reasoning artificial intelligence that has human traits like compassion and creativity. The first version of the android was created in 2005 and has been a work in progress ever since.

    In 2011, the creators of the android appeared on the PBS show Nova, where they interviewed the robot and asked it a series of questions. Some of the answers were impressive. Others are typical of what you would expect from a robot. However, one answer in particular is probably one of the most ominous things ever spoken by artificial intelligence.

    During the interview with the creators (embedded below), Android Dick said,

    “…don’t worry, even if I evolve into terminator I will still be nice to you, I will keep you warm and safe in my people zoo where I can watch you for old time’s sake. [emphasis added].

    The comments came after the creators asked, “Do you think that robots will take over the world?”

    When asked about his programming, Android Dick responded by saying:

    “A lot of humans ask me if I can make choices or if everything I do is programmed. The best way I can respond to that is to say that everything, humans, animals and robots, do is programmed to a degree. As technology improves, it is anticipated that I will be able to integrate new words that I hear online and in real time. I may not get everything right, say the wrong thing, and sometimes may not know what to say, but everyday I make progress. Pretty remarkable, huh?”

    While Android Dick does seem intelligent, many of his predictions are truly ominous, and it is actually fairly common for robots to display this sort of strange attitude.

    As we reported earlier this year, one of Japan’s largest cellphone carriers, SoftBank Mobile, has created the first humanoid robot designed specifically for living with humans. The company claims the robot, Pepper, is the first example of artificial intelligence that can actually feel and understand emotion. However, a quick demonstration with Pepper shows that it has a difficult time with emotion and is in fact a bit of an egomaniac. Regardless of the question it is asked, most conversations usually leads back to Pepper (and its rivalry with the iPhone).

     

    Last month, over 1,000 scientists and experts – including Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk – signed a letter warning of the dangers of unchecked advancements in artificial intelligence. This robot certainly doesn’t calm those concerns.

  • Sep 2 – Dow Sinks Over 400 Points as Weak China Data Batter U.S. Stocks

    Follow The Market Madness with Voice and Text on FinancialJuice

    EMOTION MOVING MARKETS NOW: 8/100 EXTREME FEAR

    PREVIOUS CLOSE: 14/100 EXTREME FEAR

    ONE WEEK AGO: 3/100 EXTREME FEAR

    ONE MONTH AGO: 20/100 EXTREME FEAR

    ONE YEAR AGO: 42/100 FEAR

    Put and Call Options: EXTREME FEAR During the last five trading days, volume in put options has lagged volume in call options by 24.03% as investors make bullish bets in their portfolios. However, this is still among the highest levels of put buying seen during the last two years, indicating extreme fear on the part of investors.

    Market Volatility:  EXTREME FEAR The CBOE Volatility Index (VIX) is at 31.40 and indicates that investors remain concerned about declines in the stock market.

    Stock Price Strength: EXTREME FEAR The number of stocks hitting 52-week lows is slightly greater than the number hitting highs and is at the lower end of its range, indicating extreme fear.

    PIVOT POINTS

    EURUSD | GBPUSD | USDJPY | USDCAD | AUDUSD | EURJPY | EURCHF | EURGBPGBPJPY | NZDUSD | USDCHF | EURAUD | AUDJPY 
     

    S&P 500 (ES) | NASDAQ 100 (NQ) | DOW 30 (YM) | RUSSELL 2000 (TF) Euro (6E) |Pound (6B) 

    EUROSTOXX 50 (FESX) | DAX 30 (FDAX) | BOBL (FGBM) | SCHATZ (FGBS) | BUND (FGBL) 

    CRUDE OIL (CL) | GOLD (GC) 

     

    MEME OF THE DAY – I JUST LOVE MY NEW SWEATER 

     

    UNUSUAL ACTIVITY

    MU SEP 20 CALL ACTIVITY @$.11 on OFFER 2400+ Contracts

    FAST SEP 38 PUT ACTIVITY ON OFFER @$.70 2500+ Contracts

    TWTR DEC 50 CALLS 1500+ @$.15 .. also activity in the DEC 40 calls

    APLE EVP, Chief Legal Counsel P    5,592  A  $ 17.88

    MTZ 10% Owner Purchase 10,000 A $15.98 and Purchase 5,000 A $15.63

    More Unusual Activity… 

     

    HEADLINES

     

    Fed’s Rosengren Says Inflation Doubts Justify Slow Rate Pace –BBG

    US ISM Manufacturing (Aug): 51.1 (Est 52.5; Prev 52.7)

    US Manufacturing PMI (Aug F): 53.0 (Est 52.9; Prev 52.9)

    US Construction Spending (MoM) (Jul): 0.7% (Est 0.6%; Prev 0.7%)

    Atlanta Fed Q3 GDPNow Estimate: 1.3% (Prev. 1.2%)

    Canadian GDP Annualized (QoQ): -0.5% (Est -1.0%; Prev -0.8%)

    Greek Creditors May Delay Bailout Review Until November: Sources

    SNB’s Jordan: Current Negative Rate Not Absolute Bottom

    Dow sinks over 400 points as weak China data batter U.S. stocks

    U.S. Auto Sales Up Despite Holiday Shift

    Historic three-day streak comes to abrupt halt, as crude falls by 7%

     

    GOVERNMENTS/CENTRAL BANKS

    Fed’s Rosengren Says Inflation Doubts Justify Slow Rate Pace –BBG

    Atlanta Fed Q3 GDPNow Estimate: 1.3% (Prev. 1.2%)

    US Treasury Official: China should clearly explain policies to markets –Channel News Asia

    Greek Creditors May Delay Bailout Review Until November: Sources –MNI

    IMF’s Lagarde Sees Weaker Than Expected Global Economic Growth –RTRS

    ECB’s Dickson: National laws hamper ECB’s work as single supervisor –RTRS

    EU report calls for ‘consistency checks’ on EU financial rules –RTRS

    SNB’s Jordan: Current Negative Rate Not Absolute Bottom –ForexLive

    Irish FinMin: To Raise Growth Forecast, Appoint Central Bank Head Soon –RTRS

    Japan EcoMin Amari: too early to declare end to deflation risk –RTRS

    GEOPOLITICS

    EU Set to Roll Over Sanctions on Russian and Ukraine-Rebel Individuals and Firms –WSJ

    Islamic State Used Chemical Weapons For Second Time –Sky News Sources

    FIXED INCOME

    Medium-, short-dated Treasuries gain on weak U.S., China data –Yahoo

    British gilts rally on weak factory PMI data –RTRS

    US Sold USD 35bln in 4-week Bills; Avg yield 0.00%

    UK DMO To Sell GBP 2bln 30-year Gilts On 8th September

    FX

    Dollar Falls as Weak Chinese Data Prolongs Market Fears –WSJ

    GBP/USD extends declines and posts 3-month lows –FXStreet

    USD/CAD looking to stabilize below 1.3200 –FXStreet

    ECB: Forex Reserves Rose To EUR 264.1bln, Up Eur 1.3bln –ECB

    ENERGY/COMMODITIES

    Historic three-day streak comes to abrupt halt, as crude falls by 7% –Investing.com

    Gold Ends Higher On Safe Haven Appeal, Disappointing Economic Data –LSE

    Copper Drops on Weaker Chinese Manufacturing Data –NASDAQ

    Iranian Oil Minister: Almost All Opec Members Want Oil At $70-80/bbl –CNN

    Government Report Finds Economic Benefits of Oil Exports –WSJ

    El Nino Sends Strong Signal as Pacific Temperatures Soar –WSJ

    NZ Change In GDT Price Index (1 Sep): +10.9% (Prev +14.8%) –GDT

    NZ Change In Whole Milk Powder Price (1 Sep): +12.1% (Prev. +19.1%) –GDT

    EQUITIES

    Dow sinks over 400 points as weak China data batter U.S. stocks –MarketWatch

    European Stocks drop on weak Chinese and US data –Yahoo

    FTSE posts biggest one-day fall in over a week –RTRS

    Dollar Tree Shares Fall as Sales Forecast Trails Estimates –BBG

    U.S. Auto Sales Up Despite Holiday Shift –WSJ

    Apple explores move into original programming business –Variety

    Valeant Strikes Psoriasis-Drug Pact With AstraZeneca –WSJ

    Critics Line Up Against Moynihan’s Roles at Bank of America –WSJ

    General Electric set to secure approval for Alstom deal –FT

    Mexico withheld millions in tax refunds from P&G, Unilever, Colgate –RTRS

    Bayer Separates Material Science Business Covestro –WSJ

    BG Puts Its Thai Gas Field Stake Worth $1.2 Billion On Sale –RTRS

    Online Betting Firm 888 Forced To Improve Bid For Bwin –RTRS

    Fitch Affirms AIG’s Ratings; Outlook Positive

    EMERGING MARKETS

    Latam markets drop on China worries –RTRS

    China Boosts Efforts to Keep Money at Home –WSJ

     

    Don’t Ditch Emerging Markets Just Because They’re Down –Time

     

     

  • Here's How High Oil Prices Must Climb To Stop Saudi Arabia's Budget Bleed

    Last week, we showed how long Saudi Arabia’s stash of USD reserves will last under $30, $40, and $50 crude. 

    As we’ve detailed exhaustively, the country is staring down a current account-fiscal account outcome that makes Brazil look favorable by comparison. The fiscal budget deficit is projected at some 20% of GDP and two proxy wars combined with the necessity of maintaining the status quo for ordinary Saudis mean fiscal retrenchment is a tall order – even with the help of “advisers.”

    Meanwhile, Saudi stocks just fell 17% in a month.

    So how high, you might ask, do oil prices need to climb in order for Saudi to plug the gap? Here’s Deutsche Bank with the answer.

    As you can see, there’s a long, long way to go, and between the pain from lower crude and from maintaining the riyal peg (which we’ve discussed at length), expect the petrodollar reserve bleed to continue. Here’s some color from DB:

    The impact of oil prices on global central bank reserves is even greater than estimated by our model, due to the omission of Middle Eastern SWF holdings. In practice, low oil prices trigger reserve depletion through two channels. First, reserves are used to plug fiscal deficits. The Saudi government deficit, for instance, is to reach 20% of GDP this year. Second, a number of the largest oil exporters in the Middle East, notably Saudi Arabia and the UAE, maintain dollar pegs that come under pressure with low oil export revenues, which are also unhelpfully correlated with a stronger broad dollar. 

     

    We expect Middle Eastern governments to continue to lose significant reserves in the coming months. Low oil prices are only one ingredient in the mix. The exacerbating factor is our economists’ prediction that the main dollar pegs in Saudi and the UAE will hold, albeit at considerable costs in terms of reserves.

     

    If oil prices do recover in the medium term, pressure on the pegs would naturally diminish. Our economists note, however, that Saudi public spending has increased by about 10% a year over the past decade. This has lifted the oil price needed to balance the budget from $25/bbl in 2004 to $105/bbl (Figure 22). This may be reduced with government spending cuts. Yet it seems unlikely that the budget breakeven will fall back to levels seen in the 2000s. Unless oil prices rise to unprecedented levels, therefore, OPEC reserve accumulation is unlikely to return to the run rate of the past decade. The more realistic baseline is that, over time, OPEC countries will slowly burn reserves.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News September 1, 2015

  • US & China Stocks Are Plunging After PMI Hits 6.5-Year Low, PBOC Strengthens Yuan Most Since Nov 2014

    Following China's official PMI print at a 3-year low, Caixin's PMI collapsed to 47.3 – the lowest sinec March 2009. Despite another CNY150bn liquidity injection (but the biggest strengthening of Yuan since Nov 2014 and a financial conditions tightening in FX trading), China, US, and Japanese stocks are plunging… SHCOMP -4%, Dow -280, NKY -340

    Carnage!

     

    China -4%

     

    Dow -280…

     

    NKY -340

    Japan is now getting worried:

    • *ASO: CHINESE ECONOMY HAS BIG IMPACT ON JAPAN ECONOMY

    Blood on the streets again in China…

     

    None of this should come as a surprise to anyone as we noted earlier…

    *  *  *

    And as we detailed earlier…

    Having exposed the culprit for all of its economic and market woes, China is likely going to have problems explaining why its economic plague is still spreading (with South Korean exports collapsing and Japanese Capex growth slowing) and China's official manufacturing PMI slipped into contraction for the first time in 6 months (to 3 year lows). Amid the face-saving clean-air of Parade Week, the appearance of awesomeness must prevail and following the worst quarter since Lehman, stocks are indicated lower despite having received some 'help' into last night's close. PBOC proxies push 'hope' as a strategy for stock stability (even as US markets and oil are re-collapsing) as margin debt drops to an 8-month low – still double YoY though. PBOC fixes Yuan 0.22% stronger- the biggest jump since Nov 2014 – as it injects another CNY150bn via 7-day rev.repo.

     

    China's bubonic economic plague is spreading…

    • S. KOREA EXPORTS DROP BY MOST SINCE 2009, FALLING FOR 8TH MONTH

     

    So guess who wil lbe next to devalue!

    *  *  *

    But having arrested the culprit for all of China's market and economic woes, following the worst 3-month slide in stocks since Lehman

     

    And with Parade Week under way, the propaganda continues…

    • *PBOC ACADEMIC URGES ATTENTION ON STOCK MKT STABILITY: SEC TIMES

    Which, he writes, means market expectations should be optimistic about the economy as they were during the bull market… even though there seems to disconnect between economic fundamentals and the stock market, while the gap between the link, it is the reflection of the policy.

    Which roughly translated means – In China, hope is a strategy.. and if you are anything but hopeful you are arrested.

    But then China PMI hit…

    • *CHINA MANUFACTURING PMI AT 49.7 IN AUG. – 3 Year Low – The Official PMI in contraction for first time in 6 months.
    • *CHINA NON-MANUFACTURING PMI AT 53.4 IN AUG.

     

    "Both domestic and external demand are weak," said Tommy Xie, an economist at Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp. in Singapore. "Market sentiment is bad and it’s too early to say the Chinese economy is bottoming out."

     

    Don't forget – Hope fills the gap.

    So having switched its focus to more economic-growth-focused measures than stock-levitation, $100s of billions later, the economy keeps sliding.

    Of course, there is always the unofficial Caixin print at 2145ET to baffle everyone with bullshit.

    *  *  *

    There is some good news… The delveraging continues:

    • *SHANGHAI MARGIN DEBT BALANCE FALLS TO LOWEST IN EIGHT MONTHS
    • Outstanding balance of Shanghai margin lending fell to 673.1b yuan on Monday, lowest level since Dec. 25.
    • Balance dropped by 1.5%, or 10b yuan, from previous day, in a 10th straight decline

    But then again, we are not sure if we are allowed to mention that. And in any case – just to screw things up completely, China is goping full subprime in the real estate market…

    China may strengthen property loosening and reduce down payment ratio on commercial mortgage loans if property investment remains weak, analysts led by Ning Jingbian write in note.

     

    Move to boost mkt confidence in short term, though real policy effect may be impaired due to caps on housing provident fund loans

    Yeah – because loosening standards and lowering upfronts worked out so well for America's already inflated housing market.!!

    Asian equity markets are not happy…

    • *JAPAN'S NIKKEI 225 MAINTAINS LOSS AFTER CHINA PMI; DOWN 1.5%
    • *CHINA FTSE A50 STOCK-INDEX FUTURES FALL 1% AT OPEN
    • *CHINA SHANGHAI COMPOSITE SET TO OPEN DOWN 1.5% TO 3,157.83
    • *CHINA'S CSI 300 INDEX SET TO OPEN DOWN 2.1% TO 3,296.53

    After two days of stronger Yuan fixes, PBOC goes crazy and drastically strengthens Yuan…

    • *CHINA SETS YUAN REFERENCE RATE AT 6.3752 AGAINST U.S. DOLLAR
    • That is the biggest single-day strengthening since Nov 2014…

     

    We are not sure of the implications yet but it seems like a tightening of financial conditions:

    • *PBOC SAID TO MAKE BANKS TRADING FX FORWARDS HOLD RESERVES: RTRS
    • *PBOC FX FORWARD RESERVE RATIO SAID TO BE 20% FOR NOW: REUTERS

     

    Charts: Bloomberg

     

  • The Oligarch Recovery: Low Income Americans Can't Afford To Live In Any Metro Area

    Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

    We were told we needed to bail out Wall Street in order to save Main Street. Well the results are in…

    Wall Street has never done better, and Main Street has never done worse.

    From the Huffington Post:

    Low-income workers and their families do not earn enough to live in even the least expensive metropolitan American communities, according to a new analysis of families’ living costs published Wednesday.

     

    The analysis, released by the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute, is an annual update of the think tank’s Family Budget Calculator that reflects new 2014 data. The Family Budget Calculator is a formula designed to determine the income “required for families to attain a secure yet modest standard of living” in 618 different communities across the country that the U.S. Census Bureau defines as metropolitan areas. The formula uses data collected by the government and some nonprofit groups to measure costs of housing, food, child care, transportation, health care, “other necessities” like clothing, and taxes for families of 10 different compositions in these specific locales.

     

    The updated Family Budget Calculator shows that even the most affordable metropolitan areas in the country are beyond the reach of millions of American families with incomes above the official federal poverty level. The official federal poverty level for a family of two parents and two children in 2014 was $24,008, according to the EPI. But the least expensive metropolitan area in the country for this family type is Morristown, Tennessee, where a family needs an income of $49,114, according to the Economic Policy Institute’s budget calculator.

     

    The Economic Policy Institute also estimates that minimum-wage workers — who almost universally earn less than the federal poverty level — lack the income needed to make an adequate living in any of the communities surveyed, even if they are single and childless. The think tank notes that this includes minimum-wage workers living in cities or states with a higher minimum wage than the federal minimum of $7.25 an hour, or $15,080 a year for a full-time worker.

     

    Even families with incomes closer to the middle of the earnings spectrum lack the means to maintain an adequate standard of living. The nation’s median household income was $51,939 in 2013 — the most recent year in which data were available — not much higher than the cost of living in the relatively inexpensive Morristown.

    Where’s our hero when you need him?

    Screen Shot 2015-08-20 at 3.21.02 PM

  • Russian Military Forces Arrive In Syria, Set Forward Operating Base Near Damascus

    While military direct intervention by US, Turkish, and Gulf forces over Syrian soil escalates with every passing day, even as Islamic State forces capture increasingly more sovereign territory, in the central part of the country, the Nusra Front dominant in the northwestern region province of Idlib and the official “rebel” forces in close proximity to Damascus, the biggest question on everyone’s lips has been one: would Putin abandon his protege, Syria’s president Assad, to western “liberators” in the process ceding control over Syrian territory which for years had been a Russian national interest as it prevented the passage of regional pipelines from Qatar and Saudi Arabia into Europe, in the process eliminating Gazprom’s – and Russia’s – influence over the continent.

    As recently as a month ago, the surprising answer appeared to be an unexpected “yes”, as we described in detail in “The End Draws Near For Syria’s Assad As Putin’s Patience “Wears Thin.” Which would make no sense: why would Putin abdicate a carefully cultivated relationship, one which served both sides (Russia exported weapons, provides military support, and in exchange got a right of first and only refusal on any traversing pipelines through Syria) for years, just to take a gamble on an unknown future when the only aggressor was a jihadist spinoff which had been created as byproduct of US intervention in the region with the specific intention of achieving precisely this outcome: overthrowing Assad (see “Secret Pentagon Report Reveals US “Created” ISIS As A “Tool” To Overthrow Syria’s President Assad“).

    As it turns out, it may all have been just a ruse. Because as Ynet reports, not only has Putin not turned his back on Assad, or Syria, but the Russian reinforcements are well on their way. Reinforcements for what? Why to fight the evil Islamic jihadists from ISIS of course, the same artificially created group of bogeyman that the US, Turkey, and Saudis are all all fighting. In fact, this may be the first world war in which everyone is “fighting” an opponent that everyone knows is a proxy for something else.

    According to Ynet, Russian fighter pilots are expected to begin arriving in Syria in the coming days, and will fly their Russian air force fighter jets and attack helicopters against ISIS and rebel-aligned targets within the failing state.

    And just like the US and Turkish air forces are supposedly in the region to “eradicate the ISIS threat”, there can’t be any possible complaints that Russia has also decided to take its fight to the jihadists – even if it is doing so from the territory of what the real goal of US and Turkish intervention is – Syria. After all, it is a free for all against ISIS, right?

    From Ynet:

    According to Western diplomats, a Russian expeditionary force has already arrived in Syria and set up camp in an Assad-controlled airbase. The base is said to be in area surrounding Damascus, and will serve, for all intents and purposes, as a Russian forward operating base.

     

    In the coming weeks thousands of Russian military personnel are set to touch down in Syria, including advisors, instructors, logistics personnel, technical personnel, members of the aerial protection division, and the pilots who will operate the aircraft.

    The Israeli outlet needless adds that while the current makeup of the Russian expeditionary force is still unknown, “there is no doubt that Russian pilots flying combat missions in Syrian skies will definitely change the existing dynamics in the Middle East.

    Why certainly: because in one move Putin, who until this moment had been curiously non-commital over Syria’s various internal and exteranl wars, just made the one move the puts everyone else in check: with Russian forces in Damascus implicitly supporting and guarding Assad, the western plan instantly falls apart.

    It gets better: if what Ynet reports is accurate, Iran’s brief tenure as Obama’s BFF in the middle east is about to expire:

    Western diplomatic sources recently reported that a series of negotiations had been held between the Russians and the Iranians, mainly focusing on ISIS and the threat it poses to the Assad regime. The infamous Iranian Quds Force commander Major General Qasem Soleimani recently visited Moscow in the framework of these talks. As a result the Russians and the Iranians reached a strategic decision: Make any effort necessary to preserve Assad’s seat of power, so that Syria may act as a barrier, and prevent the spread of ISIS and Islamist backed militias into the former Soviet Islamic republics.

    See: the red herring that is ISIS can be used just as effectively for defensive purposes as for offensive ones. And since the US can’t possibly admit the whole situation is one made up farce, it is quite possible that the world will witness its first regional war when everyone is fighting a dummy, proxy enemy which doesn’t really exist, when in reality everyone is fighting everyone else!

    That said, we look forward to Obama explaining the American people how the US is collaborating with the one mid-east entity that is supporting not only Syria, but now is explicitly backing Putin as well.

    It gets better: Ynet adds that “Western diplomatic sources have emphasized that the Obama administration is fully aware of the Russian intent to intervene directly in Syria, but has yet to issue any reaction… The Iranians and the Russians- with the US well aware- have begun the struggle to reequip the Syrian army, which has been left in tatters by the civil war. They intend not only to train Assad’s army, but to also equip it. During the entire duration of the civil war, the Russians have consistently sent a weapons supply ship to the Russian held port of Tartus in Syria on a weekly basis. The ships would bring missiles, replacement parts, and different types of ammunition for the Syrian army.

    Finally, it appears not only the US military-industrial complex is set to profit from the upcoming war: Russian dockbuilders will also be rewarded:

    Arab media outlets have recently published reports that Syria and Russia were looking for an additional port on the Syrian coast, which will serve the Russians in their mission to hasten the pace of the Syrian rearmament.

    If all of the above is correct, the situation in the middle-east is set to escalate very rapidly over the next few months, and is likely set to return to the face-off last seen in the summer of 2013 when the US and Russian navies were within earshot of each other, just off the coast of Syria, and only a last minute bungled intervention by Kerry avoided the escalation into all out war. Let’s hope Kerry has it in him to make the same mistake twice.

  • Is This Man Responsible For China's Stock Market Crash?

    Authored by Shannon Tiezzi, originally posted at TheDiplomat.com,

    If Chinese authorities are to be believed, we finally know the cause of the country’s stock market woes: a single reporter. In a video segment aired by China’s state television broadcaster, journalist Wang Xiaolu confessed to fabricating a “sensationalized” story about the stock market and claimed responsibility for having “caused panic and disorder” among China’s investors.

     

    At issue is a story Wang wrote for Caijing on July 20, in which he reported that China Securities Regulatory Commission was looking to end interventions designed to prop up share prices. CSRC denied the report, which was removed from Caijing’s website last week. CSRC blamed Wang’s piece for a massive drop in the stock market in late July, which sparked market woes that continue today.

    Caijing, a financial and business newspaper in China, often pushes the envelope of state-sanctioned media coverage. It has been particularly active in publishing investigations into the finances and business connections of officials suspected of corruption.

    Wang was arrested on August 25 for “fabricating and spreading false information about securities and futures trading.” A Xinhua report said that Wang had confessed to writing a false report on China’s stock market. According to Xinhua, Wang admitted that his story “caused panics and disorder at stock market, seriously undermined the market confidence, and inflicted huge losses on the country and investors [sic].”

    On Monday, CCTV aired a video confession from Wang, in which he said he was “deeply sorry” for his actions. “At such a sensitive time, I should not have published a report that negatively affected the market,” Wang said, saying he had “caused great losses to the country and to investors” all for the sake of “sensationalism.”

    Reporters Without Borders condemned Wang’s arrest in a statement issued on August 28. “Suggesting that a business journalist was responsible for the spectacular fall in share prices is a denial of reality,” the international non-profit’s secretary general Christophe Deloire said in the statement. “Blaming the stock market crisis on a lone reporter is beyond absurd.”

    Chinese authorities have warned media outlets not to speculate on (or devote too much coverage to) the stock market troubles. The high-profile scapegoating of Wang is likely designed to send a stern message to other journalists thinking about following in his footsteps. And journalists aren’t the only ones being encouraged to keep quiet: China’s Ministry of Public Security also said that it had punished 197 people for spreading online rumors about the stock market crash, the deadly explosions in Tianjin, and China’s upcoming military parade.

    Meanwhile, Xinhua also reported that a CSRC official, Liu Shufan, is under investigation for insider trading and accepting bribes. Four senior executives at Citic Securities, China’s largest brokerage firm, are also under investigation for insider trading. All five men have confessed, Xinhua said.

    Chinese markets endured another roller-coaster-ride of a day on Monday, with both the CSI300 index and the Shanghai Composite Index dropped more than four percent before rising again in the afternoon. Both indexes fell by around 12 percent over the month of August, Reuters reported, and have lost almost 40 percent of their value compared to mid-June 2015.

  • Exposed: The New American Way Of Life

    It’s enough to make you cry… or scream.

     

     

    Source: The Lonely Libertarian

  • "It's The Gun's Fault!!"

    Presented with no comment…

     

     

    Source: Townhall.com

  • The Age Of Voodoo Finance

    Submitted by Jeffrey Snider via Alhambra Investment Partners,

    The Jackson Hole gathering may end up providing at least some clarification, but not even close to the manner in which everyone seems intent on inferring. With Janet Yellen’s notable absence, there isn’t the same sort of celebrity about what would have been the media hanging upon every word; that is, after all, what the Federal Reserve has become, not an organ of stability or even expertise but a public relations effort aimed squarely at trying to convince everyone possible that it is. Given the unique circumstances at the moment, the real issue is not whether they might raise rates but just how much systemic misdirection has already been revealed even to the least attentive of people.

    The retreat at Jackson Hole goes back more than thirty years to the early 1980’s and Paul Volcker’s apparent affinity for fly fishing. It had started more as a very quiet and exclusive affair but for the first time this year there were outside and competing conferences held at the same time in the same place. That configuration, I think, speaks volumes about finally understanding the broad, general terms of what monetary policy actually is.

    Apparently, right next to the main central banker conclave, a left-wing group was meeting ostensibly not to target the Fed and its Wall Street bias, perceived or not, but rather to urge it against ending ZIRP.

    “The economy has not fully recovered and interest rates should not be raised when racial disparities exist,” said Shawn Sebastian, a policy advocate for the Fed Up Coalition of the Center for Popular Democracy, pointing to continued higher-than-average unemployment rates for black Americans…

    As Fed officials hear from central bankers from Switzerland and Chile Friday, they are doing so practically next door to a workshop called “Do Black Lives Matter to the Fed?” sponsored by Sebastian’s group, which wants rates to stay low until wage growth and unemployment improve, especially for minorities.

    The Fed Up Coalition is a grab bag of union activists and community organizers, the very sorts that propelled the crude communism of Occupy Wall Street almost five years ago. This is not to say that there might be differences in what becomes embraced on the heavily governmental wing, but for a few generations it had been that Wall Street and “money” were upon the “side” of free market set against those government means of redistribution.

    Even the Fed itself, especially under Yellen, has taken up “inequality” as a major emphasis with the same lack of self-awareness that it has operated with for decades. This, however, is not really much of a change as the institution has been the same side of the coin going back to the reformation after the Great Inflation; the ruse about free markets was always that, as monetary policy has never been anything else other than redistribution by other means.

    The crude history of the Great “Moderation” gives away the charade, as at the end of the 1970’s there were no more charms in “demand side” economics. Even the great “liberals” of the day had renounced Keynesianism with full vigor, setting up the “supply side” as the great answer to the decade and a half malaise of redistribution experimentation (with the “inflation” part coming as the Fed was monetizing it all). It was so unquestioned that George HW Bush accused Ronald Reagan of risking more “inflation” by including tax cuts for individuals rather than exclusively limiting to the business end; that was the infamous “voodoo economics” that Bush proposed, the historically-invalidated redistribution of the “demand side.”

    The idea of “supply side” economics has come to mean, I think, more about tax cuts in general than anything of a true set of economic ideas. That isn’t surprising given politics playing out over more than thirty years, but for me it really comes down to redistribution vs. markets. There is always going to be some of both in any economic system, the question is really about the balance especially at setting the marginal economic changes. In that sense, tax cuts have to be seen in the broader framework of a market-oriented approach rather than their own ends.

    What was most devious about monetarism is that it snuck in way under the radar as if it were among those market schemes. A lot of that has to do with the secrecy with which monetary policy was carried and why that was so, but mostly it was Paul Volcker who had, starting in 1979, given the Fed “market” credibility that in hindsight was obviously overstated. It is taken as convention that Volcker “defeated” the “demand side” inflation by placing the US into recession twice. Thereafter would be the “supply side” revolution of “Reaganomics.”

    Almost straight away you can see that wasn’t really true; after all, how in the world could this market approach during the Great “Moderation” end up with serial asset bubbles? It never really was truly an embrace of the market format, especially at the Federal Reserve which had already begun to explore means of intruding further and further. The “exploitable” Philips Curve, which had engendered the start of the Great Inflation was monetary policy intent on “aiding” fiscal redistribution (in the form, firstly, of the “Great Society” and even Vietnam), had been replaced, at first in an effort to understand what went wrong, by “rational expectations.” Instead of redistribution by taxation through the Treasury, it was to be monetary redistribution by financialism that wasn’t at all truly a market effort.

    In May 1982, the Fed was debating stabilizing markets over what Volcker termed a “rinky dink” firm that had caused trouble for several Wall Street dealers. Rather than let actual markets work out and deal out the discipline, the Fed met in an almost emergency setting where Volcker, the assumed champion of free markets, was already on the side of monetary interference.

    VOLCKER Ultimately, if there’s no other solution, we might just have to stabilize this market for a period of time. At least I can see that as a possible scenario. So, I just took this very preliminary step of keeping in touch with the market if it really goes off. I think the next step, if the market comes under more pressure, is that we’ll just have to go in openly and buy some bonds. That is very insufficient knowledge, but it about summarizes what I know, frankly. The other lenders involved in this particular short-selling operation are apparently major security houses in New York. There is a group of 7 or 8 of them; they’re all well-known firms. They should be able to withstand the loss if things ever settle, so far as we know about the loss. But that doesn’t mean it won’t send ripples of very deep concern all through the market.

    The very tone and nature of Volcker’s methodology is quite recognizable, isn’t it? Here, in 1982, was the very Fed that we see right now being crafted in secrecy apart from Wall Street which was very much in the loop (as Volcker says above, “I just took this very preliminary step of keeping in touch with the market if it really goes off”). Too big to fail had been embraced in other forms before, even in the 1970’s, but this was very different as it applied not to individual firms but the whole “market.” As I wrote further about this voodoo history, this was perhaps the central point of this coming “moderate” age:

    This was just a minor episode of primitive “too big to fail” in its view of “market stability” as a primary function of policy – which opens up the entire so-called market to a central bank determining wholly on its own what counts as “stability” and even where that applies to which “market.” …The Fed was, by the early 1980’s, making plain where its priorities were taking policy and why. Almost at the same moment the “supply side” of economics removed the Keynesian destructiveness from the mainstream the “demand side” had already re-entered the back door of the open Fed.

    Once taking the technocratic reins, they have only increased the applications in exactly those terms – deciding, particularly through the Greenspan era, to “stabilize” not just minor bond market perturbations but whole asset markets and actually the entire economy. “Filling in troughs without shaving off the peaks” is exactly this kind of mission creep, where the Fed took it upon itself to “stabilize” the world, all done by monetary redistribution.

    As if to emphasize this point beyond any of my own descriptive capabilities, by the time of the dot-com bubble, monetary models and modes of mathematical incorporation had turned back once more toward Keynesian thinking about the mechanics of the economy; the monetarists had not removed the “demand side”, far from it, they only changed the primary manner in which it was to be “stabilized”, going from taxes and treasuries to central banks and financial factors. The voodoo of technocratic redistribution had never actually disappeared, it went underground faking free markets.

    I believe that is why we are starting to see another re-alignment at least in perceptibility. The Fed isn’t much fooling anyone about being dedicated to actual markets, at least not to the degree it was taken in the years before 2007. As it is, if you look closely, it has become quite openly hostile to them just as Samuelson and Solow were writing about in 1960. That is why I termed that period of the Great “Moderation” the third age of economic socialism because it was entirely redistribution in the monetary part that had taken over from the fiscal part which had so utterly failed as to be universally rejected in bipartisan fashion. But rather than give way to the free market rebirth as is commonly cited (again, how could free market discipline lead to not just a single asset bubble but rather a series of them globally?) it was just the same voodoo system with different actual incantations.

    This political re-alignment is simply another view to what is certainly the end of that third age. Central banking has run itself aground and there isn’t much hiding anymore either that fact or the means by which it has been operating all this time. Hopefully we can yet get it right, that there won’t be any more underground subversion disposed of the same inevitable failings; markets actually work whereas technocracy only ends up with totalitarian (read: unresponsive) disruptiveness and decay. The argument for the technocratic approach, under more honest discussion, has always been that it might achieve less robust growth on the upswings but would be absent the violence and messiness of a purely market regime, a more stable and steady platform as an almost utopian piety.

    Three AGES

     

    By 2015, it is beginning to dawn quite widely that instead the redistribution in this form isn’t different at all from the last, delivering instead the same or worse violence and instability only without any of the economic growth. Already, the lines are being drawn in ways in which to go back exclusively to the 1960’s and 1970’s as if it has been markets the problem all along. Properly understanding what has happened is the only in which to understand how to break out of it.

     

  • Dow Futures Plunge 240 Points As Oil Drops 4% Ahead Of China PMI

    Just when you thought it was safe to listen to the stability-preaching talking heads, crude futures are sliding and US equity futures are tumbling as Asia opens. Worse still XIV (VIX inverse ETF) has tumbled to fresh lows with a 24 handle in the after-hours market, suggesting more downside for stocks. With all eyes on China PMIs – though, there is little need for a weak PMI to be present for China to unleash moar measures, and a strong PMI will be scoffed at – it seems, the end-of-month rip-fest is fading fast…

     

    Oil is sliding back..

    As Goldman explains,

    within the context of the global oil market balance, rising OPEC and elevated non-OPEC ex. US production leave the global oil market still oversupplied with a decline in US production in 2016 increasingly likely to halt the build in inventories. For example, OPEC production rose by 485 kb/d between April and June as US production declined by 316 kb/d.

     

    As a result, we reiterate our view that oil prices have to remain low, with our near-term WTI forecast of $45/bbl, to rebalance the oil market by late 2016

    but US equity futures are tumbling… back to Thursday JPM crash levels…

     

    Front-month VIX futures surge back to Monday's highs…

     

    As XIV tumbles… well below the scene of Friday's crime…

     

    And VXX nears Monday's flash-crash highs…

     

    For if we learned one thing last week, it is the suddenly-illiquid ETF tail wagging the dog underlying assets that creates the big air pockets in today's markets.

     

    Charts: Bloomberg

  • Brazil Throws In Towel On Budget; Citi Compares Fiscal Outlook To "Bloody Terror Film"

    Late last week, Brazil officially entered a recession as the economy contracted 1.9% in Q2, a quarter in which Brazilians suffered through the worst stagflation in over ten years. 

    What was perhaps worse than the GDP print however, was budget data for July which was meaningfully worse than expected. “On a 12-month trailing basis the consolidated public sector recorded a 0.9% of GDP primary deficit in July, worse than the 0.6% of GDP deficit recorded in December and, therefore, increasingly distant from the new unimpressive +0.15% of GDP surplus target,” Goldman noted.

    We summed the situation up as follows:No primary surplus for you!” 

    And while analyzing LatAm fiscal policy doesn’t make for the most exciting reading in the universe, this particular budget battle is critical for a number of reasons, the most important of which is that Brazil’s investment grade credit rating might just depend on it and to the extent the country is forced to concede that it will not, after all, hit its primary surplus target this year, junk status could be just around the corner. Needless to say, if Brazil is cut to junk, that will do exactly nothing to help the country combat a bout of extremely negative market sentiment tied to Brazil’s rather prominent role in the great emerging market unwind. 

    Sure enough, government sources have now confirmed that embattled President Dilma Rousseff – whose political woes are making it nearly impossible to pass legislation designed to plug gaps – will now submit a 2016 budget proposal that projects a deficit. Here’s Bloomberg

    The Brazilian government will send to Congress Monday a budget proposal for 2016 that projects a primary deficit instead of the previously expected surplus, according to two government sources familiar with the matter.

     

    President Dilma Rousseff had earlier abandoned the idea of reviving the so-called CPMF tax on financial transactions after a backlash from politicians and companies, said the sources, who asked not to be named because the negotiations aren’t public. The goal now is to send a budget proposal that is more aligned with the reality of a sharp economic slowdown, according to the sources.

     

    Rousseff was alerted by Vice President Michel Temer in the past couple of days that the current political crisis would make it hard to convince the Congress to pass measures such as the CPMF tax. The government had planned to include the revenue collected from the tax in the budget proposal to be sent to lawmakers on Monday, one of the sources said. The president met with some ministers on Sunday to discuss the new budget proposal, according to the source.

    Although, as one analyst told Reuters, “the rating agencies are trying to bend over backwards to give Brazil the benefit of the doubt,” there’s only so much they can do, especially considering the fact that no one likely wants to set a precedent of being behind the curve as we enter what may end up being an outright emerging markets crisis. And a bit more color from Bloomberg:

    The government foresees a deficit next year excluding interest payments of 30.5 billion reais ($8.4 billion), or about 0.5 percent of gross domestic product, Budget Minister Nelson Barbosa told reporters in Brasilia on Monday. That compares with a target of 2 percent at the beginning of the year and a revised objective of 0.7 percent announced in July.

     

    The revision reflects the growing political headwinds Finance Minister Joaquim Levy faces in winning congressional approval for austerity measures and pushes Brazil’s credit rating closer to junk status, said Italo Lombardi, senior Latin America economist at Standard Chartered Bank. The government over the weekend scrapped plans to revive a tax on financial transactions following opposition by congressional leaders.

     

    “Politics are making Levy’s life very difficult,” Lombardi said by telephone. “It’s a big red flag and rating agencies would need to show a lot of patience to not downgrade Brazil.”

    And that, as they say, is all she wrote for Brazil’s investment grade rating.

    We’ll close with the following rather colorful analysis from Citi:

    Morning Friends, A Nightmare on Elm Street – one of the scariest movies of my childhood, where Freddy Krueger (a burnt serial killer) used to haunt and execute his victims in their own nightmares, was the origin of asleep nights for many kids of my generation… Well, before I tell you the Nightmares on Via Palacio Presidencial (Brasilia) and what is keeping players asleep, let me voice you that as in any bloody terror film, the villain never dies and the sequels are worse than the initial film. So, the American villain (Fed September Lift-off) is alive, as Vice Chair Fischer suggested over the weekend, sounding less dovish than expected. Also, the Chinese anti-hero (fear of slow growth) never dies, with Korea`s Industrial Production bringing additional woes.

     

    As the film says:                     

     

    1&2 – Freddy’s coming for you!

     

    3&4 – Better lock the door…

     

    In the meantime, in our (un)beloved country, there is something scarier than Freddy Krueger: our growth / fiscal outlook. The Growth scenario is haunting and executing our policymakers, with limited ability to halt such negative vortex and took our economic team to revise our GDP forecast to -2.7% (-1.7% previous) in 2015 and to -0.7% (-0.2% prior) in 2016. Mr. Market will price a -3% GDP growth figure in 2015… This damaging growth scenario will undermine the political capability to implement any fiscal austerity measure and will undermine the already bloody fiscal situation. With no growth and no fiscal measures, the primary fiscal figure for 2015 & 2016 will be scarier than Freddy Krueger & Jason together… Our view is that the 2015 primary fiscal print will be a deficit of -0.7% GDP (-0.3% previous) and  -0.1% GDP (+0.3% prior) deficit in 2016. Wires are mentioning that the government will send a draft budget proposal with a primary DEFICIT of 0.50% GDP (+0.70% primary SURPLUS target), with the proposal of reintroduction of the financial tax transaction being defeated and President Dilma not approving further spending cuts. The Nightmares on Via Planalto Presidencial must be keeping a lot of kids asleep.

     

    Rates are trading 10/51bps wider on back of such bloody fiscal news as Players are pricing the downgrade from the Investment Grade level before year end. As the film says:                     

     

    1&2 – Freddy’s coming for you!

     

    3&4 – Better lock the door…

  • Unusually Massive Protests Erupt in Japan Against Forthcoming "War Legislation"

    Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

    In case you aren’t up to speed on your Japanese history, the nation’s post WWII Constitution prohibits military action unless it’s in self-defense. Clearly a sensible approach, which is why the current Japanese government, led by the demonstrably insane and incompetent Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, wants to get rid of it.

    This story is very important. Not only will this action increase the likelihood of World War III in the Far East, but it’s another important example of a government acting against the will of the people.

    Polling has indicated the Japanese public is against a pivot toward militarization and war, but Prime Minister Shinzo Abe  is pushing forward nonetheless. In fact, the current legislation to allow overseas military intervention has already passed the lower house of government. This prompted many Japanese to emerge from their decades long political apathy and get out into the streets. It’s estimated these protests were the largest in recent memory.

     

    The AP reports:

    TOKYO (AP) — Mothers holding their children’s hands stood in the sprinkling rain, some carrying anti-war placards, while students chanted slogans to the beat of a drum against Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and his defense policies.

     

    Japan is seeing new faces join the ranks of protesters typically made up of labor union members and graying leftist activists. Tens of thousands filled the streets outside Tokyo’s parliament on Sunday to rally against security legislation expected to pass in September.

     

    “No to war legislation!” “Scrap the bills now!” and “Abe, quit!” they chanted in one of the biggest protests in recent memory. The bills would expand Japan’s military role under a reinterpretation of the country’s war-renouncing constitution.

     

    In Japan, where people generally don’t express political views in public, such rallies have largely diminished since often-violent student protests in the 1960s.

     

    The demonstrations started earlier this year and grew sharply after July, when Abe’s ruling coalition pushed the legislation through the more powerful lower house despite polls showing a majority of Japanese were opposed.

    Just like in Greece, the Japanese public is rapidly being forced to come to grips with the fact that their opinions don’t matter and they are politically irrelevant. Of course, this is also the case in these United States. Recall: New Report from Princeton and Northwestern Proves It: The U.S. is an Oligarchy

    A group called Mothers Against War started in July and gained supporters rapidly via Facebook. It collected nearly 20,000 signatures of people opposed to the legislation which representatives tried unsuccessfully to submit to Abe’s office last Thursday.

     

    The security bills would permit the military to engage in combat for the first time since World War II in cases of “collective defense,” when Japan’s allies such as the U.S. are attacked, but Japan itself is not.

     

    Abe’s government argues that the changes are needed for Japan to respond to a harsher security environment, including a more assertive China and growing terrorist threats, and to fulfill expectations that it will contribute more to global peacekeeping.

    …and to distract a disillusioned population from the disastrous economic policies of its government. Recall from earlier this year:

    Japan’s Economic Disaster – Real Wages Lowest Since 1990, Record Numbers Describe “Hard” Living Conditions

    and…

    The Stock Market Myth and How the Japanese Middle Class is on the Precipice Thanks to Abenomics

    The topic has become almost a regular item in women’s magazines, traditionally known more for covering entertainment, beauty, health, food and the Imperial family.

     

    Takashi Watanabe, a deputy editor-in-chief of Shukan Josei (Ladies Weekly), said there has been a growing appetite for social issues among readers, especially since Fukushima.

    This is a great sign for Japan. However, when will Americans emerge from their political slumber? Will it take several decades of economic decay such as in Japan?

    About half a century ago, 300,000 students, many of them Marxist ideologues, staged violent protests, repeatedly clashing with police, over revising the U.S.-Japan security treaty. Those protests played a role in driving Abe’s grandfather, then-Prime Minister Nobusuke Kishi, out of office after his government approved the revision.

    Apparently, they love failed political dynasties in Japan as well.

    “I’m afraid the legislation is really going to reverse the direction of this country, where pacifism was our pride,” said a 44-year-old architect who joined Sunday’s rally with her 5-year-old son. “I feel our voices are neglected by the Abe government.”

    You’re not the only one…

    Of course, when it comes to Japan this has been a long time coming. Recall the following published in 2013:

    War on Democracy: Spain and Japan Move to Criminalize Protests

    How Japan’s “Stealth Constitution” Destroys Civil Rights and Sets the Stage for Dictatorship

    Democracy is dead. Globally. If we fail to bring it back, history will see us as one of the most inept and spineless generations in history.

  • How China Cornered The Fed With Its "Worst Case" Capital Outflow Countdown

    Last week, in “What China’s Treasury Liquidation Means: $1 Trillion QE In Reverse,” we took a look at the potential size of the RMB carry trade, noting that according to BofAML, the unwind could, in the worst case scenario, be somewhere on the order of $1 trillion. 

    Extrapolating from that and applying Citi’s take on the impact of EM reserve drawdowns on 10Y UST yields (which, incidentally, is based on “Financing US Debt: Is There Enough Money in the World – and at What Cost?“, by John Kitchen and Menzie Chinn from 2011), we noted that potentially, if China were to use its FX reserves to offset the pressure on the yuan from the unwind of the great RMB carry, the effect could be to put more than 200bps of upward pressure on the 10Y yield. 

    Going farther, we also said that $1 trillion in FX reserve liquidation by the PBoC would essentially negate around 60% of QE3. In other words, China’s persistent FX interventions amount to reverse QE or, as Deutsche Bank calls is “quantitative tightening.” 

    Now, SocGen is out with a description of China’s “impossible trinity” or “trilemma”. Here’s the critical passage:

    The PBoC is caught in an awkward position: not letting the currency go requires significant FX intervention that will not prevent ongoing capital outflows but which will result in tightening domestic liquidity conditions; but letting the currency go risks more immense capital outflow pressures in the immediate short term, external debt defaults and possibly further domestic investment deceleration. Furthermore, it has to consider the painful repercussions globally that could result from any sharp RMB depreciation.

    In other words, because the new currency regime looks to have paradoxically created a situation where the market will play less of a role in determining the exchange rate for the yuan, China will be stuck liquidating its reserves and offsetting that resultant liquidity drain with reverse repos, RRR cuts, and a mishmash of short- and medium-term lending ops which, to the extent they’re seen as net easing, will only exacerbate pressure on the yuan, necessitating still more interventions in a very non-virtuous loop until such a time as the PBoC either runs out of assets to sell or else throws in the towel and moves to a free float which would likely trigger an all-out short-term panic. 

    Well, that’s not entirely true. Everything could suddenly be “fixed”, or, as SocGen describes it, “for the RMB to appreciate compared to its current value (6.40) will require a very positive environment for EM coupled with a cessation of capital outflows and a vibrant cyclical growth and an export recovery.” 

    Since it’s difficult to imagine a situation that’s further from what’s currently playing out across emerging economies, we can rule that out, and because even if China can manage to mitigate outflows by “temporarily tighten[ing] (the implementation of capital controls,” solving the puzzle here will, to quote SocGen again, “still entail large-scale FX intervention,” we can move straight to a consideration of how dramatic the FX reserve liquidation may ultimately be. Here’s SocGen’s three scenarios:

    Logically, we should first make assumptions about the PBoC’s tolerance for currency volatility and FX reserves drawdown. However, practically, it still helps to envision likely scenarios of capital outflows and reverse-engineer the amount of FX reserves needed. We present a few scenarios over a one-year time horizon to gauge possible reserve usage.

    • Base case: Current account surplus of $280bn over the next four quarters plus capital outflows (FDI + portfolio + other + NEOs) that are 50% greater than the previous year ($560bn) would equate to the PBoC needing to use $280bn of reserves over the next twelve months if it wanted to stabilize the RMB.
    • Moderately bad case: Current account surplus falls by 50% ($150bn) and capital outflows accelerate by a factor of two compared to the previous year ($750bn). The PBoC would need to absorb $600bn in outflows if its goal was no further RMB depreciation
    • Worst case: Foreigners exit all cumulative portfolio investment from the past five years ($260bn), five years worth of cumulative foreign inflows into trade credit/loans/deposits are reversed ($530bn), and locals accelerate outflows by a factor of two ($400bn). There could be $1.2trn in outflows. If the current figure halved over the next year to $140bn, net outflows would be around $1.04trn. There would be hardly any money left to leave after this, and the PBoC would be left with a meagre $2.5trn in reserves (chart 18).

    Or, visually:

    The chart above is important: what it shows is that not only is the Fed trapped in a corner domestically, on one hand dreading the launch of the tightening cycle (as can be seen by the endless drama and dithering about whether or not to hike rates) which will not only unleash even more asset selling and in the process tighten financial conditions even more, thus limiting what little inflationary impulse exists in the economy, while on the other risking complete loss of confidence if it were to postpone or cancel the tightening cycle, but now it is also trapped internationally, courtesy of China’s August 11 announcement of its currency devaluation, which has started a T-minus 365 day countdown on the Fed’s successful conclusion of its monetary policy implementation.

    Furthermore, as SocGen explains vividly, the potential outcomes for China from this point on, are bad, worse and worst, and since China’s recent “success” in effectively controlling its housing, credit, and last but not least, its stock market bubble, has demonstrated a worst case scenario is almost certainly the most probable one, what the above analysis means, is that while the Fed may be hoping for the best and expecting an even better outcome, the “reverse QE” that China launched less than three weeks ago, will make the Fed’s job that much more difficult as its presents not only a timing constraint to Fed policy, but a monetary one as well in the form of what Deustche Bank dubs “Quantitative Tightening.”

    In fact, one can argue that since there is no way resolve China’s “impossible trinity” of pursuing a stable exchange rate, an open capital account and an independent interest rate policy all at the same time, the worst case scenario is very likely an optimistic one. This means that as the Fed debates whether or not to hike, and how much, the acceleration in Chinese capital outflows starting on August 11 has set the path for the Fed, and at this point any incremental delay in hiking merely adds more to the already vast cross-capital and currency confusion around the globe. However, no longer is the Fed’s quandary open ended: with every passing day, China is suffering incremental tens of billions in capital flight, in reserve liquidation, and thus, tighter global financial conditions, as can be expected from the unwind of the world’s largest depository of USD-denominated reserves.

    Finally, what all of this really means, is that having pushed China to the point of dissociating itself from the USD peg officially, the more the Fed tightens, the more China will have to push back through devaluation or otherwise, and the more capital outflows it will be subject to, thereby amplifying the Fed’s tightening posture around the globe. In this very unstable arrangement, suddenly the smallest policy error will reverberate exponentially, and result in the only possible outcome: the Fed’s admission of policy failure by adopting a tightening bias, and ultimately launching another phase of monetary easing, be it QE4 or perhaps even the long-overdue and much anticipated Friedmanesque “helicopter money” episode.

    In even simpler terms: China has just cornered the Fed: not just diplomatically, as observed when China’s PBOC clearly demanded that Yellen’s Fed not start a rate hiking cycle, but also mechanistically, as can be seen by the acute and sudden selloff across all asset classes in the past 3 weeks. Now Yellen has about 365 days or so to find a solution, one which works not only for the US, but also does not leave China a smoldering rubble of three concurrently burst bubbles. Good luck.   

  • China Rocked By Another Massive Chemical Explosion

    Seriously, what the f##k is going on over there?

    • *BLAST SEEN IN CHEM. IND. ZONE IN SHANDONG, CHINA: PEOPLES DAILY

    This is the second explosion in Shandong, which both follow the huge and deadly explosion in Tianjin.

    We’ll await the details which we imagine will suggest that, as was the case in Tianjin, many more tonnes of something terribly toxic were stored than is allowed under China’s regulatory regime which apparently only applies to those who are not somehow connected to the Politburo.

    After the last Shandong explosion, The People’s Daily reported that the plant contained adiponitrile, which the CDC says can cause “irritation eyes, skin, respiratory system; headache, dizziness, lassitude (weakness, exhaustion), confusion, convulsions; blurred vision; dyspnea (breathing difficulty); abdominal pain, nausea, [and] vomiting.”

     

    This clip has just been posted to a Weibo account – reportedly showing tonight’s explosion (we are unable to confirm it this is the most recent or the previous Shandong explosion although that was more twlight than dead of night).

  • Monday Humor: Go 'West' Young Men

    First Trump, now this…!?

     

    h/t @MaxwellStrachan

    Relive the moment…

    Get More:

     

    …and read on for the full transcript below:

    Bro. Bro! Listen to the kids. First of all, thank you, Taylor, for being so gracious and giving me this award this evening.

     

    And I often think back to the first day I met you also. You know I think about when I’m in the grocery store with my daughter and I have a really great conversation about fresh juice… and at the end they say, ’Oh, you’re not that bad after all!’ And like I think about it sometimes. … It crosses my mind a little bit like when I go to a baseball game and 60,000 people boo me. Crosses my mind a little bit.

     

    And I think if I had to do it all over again what would I have done? Would I have worn a leather shirt? Would I have drank half a bottle of Hennessy and gave the rest of it to the audience? Ya’ll know ya’ll drank that bottle too! If I had a daughter at that time would I have went on stage and grabbed the mic from someone else’s? You know, this arena tomorrow it’s gonna be a completely different setup. Some concert, something like that. The stage will be gone. After that night, the stage was gone, but the effect that it had on people remained.

     

    The … The problem was the contradiction. The contradiction is I do fight for artists, but in that fight I somehow was disrespectful to artists. I didn’t know how to say the right thing, the perfect thing. I just … I sat at the Grammys and saw Justin Timberlake and Cee-Lo lose. Gnarls Barkley and the FutureLove … SexyBack album … and Justin, I ain’t trying to put you on blast, but I saw that man in tears, bro. You know, and I was thinking, like, ’He deserved to win Album of the Year!'”

     

    And this small box that we are as the entertainers of the evening … How could you explain that? Sometimes I feel like all this s–t they run about beef and all that? Sometimes I feel like I died for the artist’s opinion. For artists to be able to have an opinion after they were successful. I’m not no politician, bro!

     

    Look at that. You know how many times MTV ran that footage again? ’Cause it got them more ratings? You know how many times they announced Taylor was going to give me the award ’cause it got them more ratings? Listen to the kids, bro! I still don’t understand awards shows. I don’t understand how they get five people who worked their entire life … sold records, sold concert tickets to come stand on the carpet and for the first time in they life be judged on the chopping block and have the opportunity to be considered a loser! I don’t understand it, bruh!

     

    I don’t understand when the biggest album, or the biggest video … I’ve been conflicted, bro. I just wanted people to like me more. “But f–k that, bro! 2015! I will die for the art! For what I believe in. And the art ain’t always gonna be polite! Ya’ll might be thinking right now, ’Did he smoke something before he came out here?’ The answer is yes, I rolled up a little something. I knocked the edge off!

     

    I don’t know what’s gonna happen tonight, I don’t know what’s gonna happen tomorrow, bro. But all I can say to my artists, to my fellow artists: Just worry how you feel at the time, man. Just worry about how you feel and don’t NEVER … you know what I’m saying? I’m confident. I believe in myself. We the millennials, bro. This is a new mentality. We’re not gonna control our kids with brands. We not gonna teach low self-esteem and hate to our kids. We gonna teach our kids that they can be something. We gonna teach our kids that they can stand up for theyself! We gonna teach our kids to believe in themselves!”

     

    If my grandfather was here right now he would not let me back down! I don’t know I’m fittin’ to lose after this. It don’t matter though, cuz it ain’t about me. It’s about ideas, bro. New ideas. People with ideas. People who believe in truth. And yes, as you probably could have guessed by this moment, I have decided in 2020 to run for president.”

    *  *  *

    If you thought Kanye West’s declaration that he would run for president in 2020 was a joke, guess again. As MediaEqualizer reports,

    A Maryland Republican has already registered a pro-West committee with the federal government, Ready For Kanye. Eugene Craig III of White Marsh (shown above) submitted paperwork to the Federal Election Commission this morning and was given FEC Committee ID number C00585596:

    Ready For Kanye FEC

    The rapper made the announcement during last night’s VMA Awards.

    Mr Craig has set up a Ready For Kanye Facebook page, which has attracted just four likes so far but is sure to grow from here.

    Two T-shirt designs are featured there as well, appearing to have heavily borrowed from past campaigns including Mitt Romney’s in 2012:

    Ready For Kanye FB

    Craig is the Third Vice Chair of the Maryland Republican Party and Executive Director of The Bulldog Collegian.

    We asked Craig whether West would run as a Republican and why his candidacy should be taken seriously and are awaiting a response.

    *  *  *

    Crazy or not, West, 38, scored the award show's top hashtag, #Kanye2020, according to social analytics company NetBase. The show became the most-tweeted television program since Nielsen began tracking Twitter TV activity in 2011, with some 21.4 million tweets sent in the United States alone.

  • Stocks Suffer Biggest Monthly Drop In Five Years As Oil Spikes Most Since 1990

    Only one thing for it really…

     

    Forget stocks, today was all about crude oil again…

    WTI pushed into the green for August!!!

     

    3 Bear markets and 3 Bull markets now in 2015 so far… perfectly tagging the 50-day moving-average today…

     

    This is the biggest 3-day rise in WTI since 1990!!

     

    Oil Volatility and credit markets were not squeezed into euphoria at all…

    Trade accordingly!!

    *  *  *

    Having got that out of the way…Dow's worst monthly drop since May 2010..

     

    and had an ugly close…

     

    Stocks got some lift from the momo-igniters -but once NYMEX closed, it was over. Stocks traded in a relatiovely narrow range glued to VWAP after the overnight plunge… Small Caps outperformed as Nasdaq Underporformed…

     

    But were glued to VWAP all day… on no volume

     

    Futures markets giveus a better idea of the moves…NOTE -0 this is from the beginning of Friday's pathetic EOD ramp…

     

    Once again complete chaos on VIX ETFs…

     

    VIX had its biggest monthly jump in history…

     

    For the month, it's been a wild ride!! but just look at how clustered the moves were…

     

    Finacials & Enmergy and Healthcare (Biotech) were worst performers in August…

     

    For all the excitment over FANG – August was a mixed bunch for them with FB and AMZN notably red…

    With all the craziness in stocks, Treasury yields at the long-end ended the month practically unch… 2Y rose 8bps…

     

    With some more notable weakness today (which was also seen in Bunds)…note once again selling weas in US session, buying in Asia and Europe…

     

    The USD ended the day lower with some major swings in CAD…

     

    As August's USD Index drop was the biggest in 4 months…

     

    Commodities were insane today – led obviously by crude!

     

    And on the month… perhaps most notably, the perfect recoupling of crude and gold on the month!!??

     

    But we note that Gold (+3.5%) had its best month since January even as Silver dropped

     

    Finally – amid all the chaos in August, it appears there is a safe-haven… Gold outperforms

     

    Charts: Bloomberg

    Bonus Chart: We're gonna need Moar QE…

  • Preparing For A Potential Economic Collapse In October

    Submitted by Jeff Thomas via InternationalMan.com,

    There’s no question that the world economy has been shaky at best since the crash of 2008.

    Yet, politicians, central banks, et al., have, since then, regularly announced that “things are picking up.” One year, we hear an announcement of “green shoots.” The next year, we hear an announcement of “shovel-ready jobs.”

    And yet, year after year, we witness the continued economic slump. Few dare call it a depression, but, if a depression can be defined as “a period of time in which most people’s standard of living drops significantly,” a depression it is.

    Many people are surprised that no amount of stimulus and low interest rates have resulted in creating more jobs or more productivity. Were they a bit more cognizant of the simple, understandable principles of classical economics (as opposed to the complex theoretical principles of Keynesian invention), they’d recognise that, when debt reaches the level that it cannot be repaid, a major re-set of some sort must take place.

    The major economies of the world have reached and exceeded that point and the debt problem is no mere anomaly that can be papered over. It is, instead, systemic. There must be a major forgiveness of debt, a default, or an economic collapse, or some combination of the three.

    And so, those who recognise the inevitability of such an event have been storing their nuts away in preparation for an economic winter.

    Those of us who warned of the 2008 crash in advance had been regarded as economic “Chicken Littles.” After the crash, we were largely resented as having made a “lucky guess.” Following that time, a moderate amount of credence has been allowed us, as we’ve recommended investments in real estate and precious metals (outside of those jurisdictions that are most at risk). However, since the Great Gold Correction (2011-2015), that begrudging credence has worn away and been replaced with renewed contempt.

    To the naysayers, the 2001-2011 gold boom has been relegated to the investment dustbin and, to most punters, gold is clearly “over.”

    Just as importantly, the most significant events of the “Greater Depression” that we had been predicting have clearly not yet come to pass. They’re still ahead of us. And, in this, we must confess that those of us who made this prediction did unquestionably believe that it would have taken place by now. We were wrong.

    Or at least we were wrong on the timing, but most of us still believe, more than ever, in the inevitability of a collapse (again, this is true because the problem is systemic, not symptomatic).

    All of the above is a preface of the coming of October, a month which, historically, has seen more than its fair share of negative economic events.

    This time around, there are warning signs aplenty that, sometime around October of this year, we shall see a number of black swans on the wing, headed our way.

    The greatest of these is that, once every five years, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) renews its membership structure (SDR quota, governors, and voting power.) This is significantly in question this year, as China vies for a larger chair at the table.

    Although China surpassed the US in 2014 as the world’s largest manufacturing economy, it still has less than one-quarter of the voting power of the US and even has less than France or Germany. To say the IMF has been dragging its feet on a rebalancing of IMF member voting would be an understatement.

    In fairness, China should expect to be allotted significantly greater voting power in October. But we are discussing the IMF, which has never been known for fairness. It has, indeed, been infamous for its duplicity and self-serving inclinations (having been created at Bretton Woods in 1944 to allow the US hegemony over the world economy, its primary purpose is to assure US dominance).

    Still, it would be difficult to imagine how the IMF could avoid a shift in its voting (diminishing the US and increasing China). Anything the IMF did at this point to derail the re-balance would be highly suspect.

    And yet, that’s exactly what the IMF has done. It has publicly questioned whether 2015 is the right year for the review. However, even it is worried enough about its presumptuousness that, rather than announce a delay, it has announced the consideration of a delay. It has run the possible delay up the flagpole to see whether it will fly or be torn down.

    Clearly the IMF feels it’s on shaky ground with its proposal. And it should be. In recent years, it has arrogantly pushed China away from the IMF table time after time, so the Chinese have taken matters into their own hands. They’ve created their own international development bank, their own worldwide cable communication system, and even their own SWIFT system.

    Very soon, they’ll have the ability to run their own worldwide economic system, independent of the US/EU/IMF system. Early on, many of the world’s governments recognised the future opportunities that this would bring to the world. First, Russia and the countries of Southeast Asia signed on, then South America, Africa, and, finally, some EU countries reached agreements with China.

    The IMF is in a jam, no member country more so than the US. If, in October, it allows China greater voting power, it will cast in stone China’s increased economic influence over the world. However, if the IMF chooses to put off China another year, China may move ahead with its own economic system.

    Buying Time

    There can be no doubt that the IMF is hoping to buy time. The question is whether it merely wishes to buy time to delay the inevitable, or whether it feels it has a card up its sleeve that it might be able to play, should it gain another year.

    If the US is arrogant (as it generally is), it’ll employ its customary bravado and, in so doing, may well cause the Chinese to play hardball and dump some of their US Treasuries and/or dollars.

    In considering the above, the US/IMF may feel that China is in the throes of a major correction at present and cannot retaliate without feeling the pain itself. They’d be correct. And so, the Chinese, known for being patient and choosing their moment carefully, may choose to swallow the IMF delay quietly, then, when they’ve dumped some of their baggage and possibly rebounded in 2016, make an even firmer stand than they could now make. For that reason, US arrogance now would create a very short-lived gain, and a very foolish one.

    So, what does this mean to the investor? It suggests that, once again in history, October promises to be a month when great economic change may well take place. When dramatic change looms, it’s best to keep your powder dry, whilst keeping an eye open for opportunities as soon as events reveal the future. Until then, nut–gathering serves to provide an insurance policy against unpleasant economic surprises.

  • Recession Odds Surge To 47%, Highest Since 2011

    Once upon a time, when the market actually discounted the future path of the economy instead of being a lagging indicator to not only underlying macroeconomic conditions

     

    … or simply frontrunning central bank policy, economists would use it to anticipate key economic inflection points such as recessions and recoveries. Which is also why the recent correction in the market has spooked all those conventional economists who still believe there is a “market” instead of a centrally-planned “wealth effect” policy tool, whose only purposes is to react to every increase in the global $14 trillion central bank balance sheet.

    It is these economists, which also include the academics on the Fed’s staff, who took one look at the tumble in stocks in the past two weeks and decided that a rate hike may not be such a hot idea after all. Because if the market is sliding, it surely is telegraphing that not all is well with the economy and therefore tightening financial conditions would be suicidal for any central bank.

    So assuming that after being wrong for 7 years about everything, economists are actually right about the market still having some discounting abilities left, what then is the market telegraphing? The answer, according to the Bank of America: the biggest surge in recessionary odds since 2011, which over the past few days have nearly hit a 50% probability of an economic slowdown.

    BofA explains:

    Recession probability from stock prices shoots higher: The more interesting and difficult question is whether the equity correction is signaling a deeper economic malaise. Equity prices can be leading indicators of recession. Indeed, Michael Hanson has developed a variety of probit models that use financial variables to estimate the risk of a recession. According to his model, the 15% annualized drop in the S&P500 index (over the past six months) is signaling a 47% risk of recession starting sometime in the next 12 months. That sounds fairly grim; however, we wouldn’t take the signal too literally. As Paul Samuelson famously quipped in the late 1960s: “The stock market has called nine of the last five recessions.” Our probit model sends a lot of false signals. For example, in 2011 the model saw a 59% chance of recession (which we argued strongly against at the time).

    Here is the chart that BofA has created to track coincident recession odds based on market signals:

    Actually BofA is dead wrong about 2011 being a false positive: the only thing that delayed the 2011 recession, was the Fed’s launch of Operation Twist in September of that year, coupled with the Fed’s liquidity swap line bailout of Europe in November, and the commencement of the ECB’s massive €1 trillion LTRO in December 2011. It was this liquidity avalanche that delayed the effects of what was a  guaranteed recession, one which even the ECRI called.

    Delayed but not eliminated, and with every passing year that the world’s central banks have kicked the can of the global business cycle’s down phase, the more acute it will be when it finally launches.

    Finally, unlike 2011 this time not only is the Fed not planning any pro-cyclical liquidity interventions, but Yellen is actively considering tightening monetary conditions as soon as September with the start of the first rate hiking cycle in nearly a decade.

    Which is why while the market may or may not be correctly discounting a recession this time, or anything else for that matter, an economic recession is precisely what is coming, just because every single time when financial conditions were as adverse as they are now, the Fed would proceed to bailout if not the economy, then certainly the “market.”

  • Sep 1 – Global Stocks Extend On Rout

    Follow The Market Madness with Voice and Text on FinancialJuice

    EMOTION MOVING MARKETS NOW: 14/100 EXTREME FEAR

    PREVIOUS CLOSE: 14/100 EXTREME FEAR

    ONE WEEK AGO: 3/100 EXTREME FEAR

    ONE MONTH AGO: 20/100 EXTREME FEAR

    ONE YEAR AGO: 42/100 FEAR

    Put and Call Options: EXTREME FEAR During the last five trading days, volume in put options has lagged volume in call options by 26.67% as investors make bullish bets in their portfolios. However, this is still among the highest levels of put buying seen during the last two years, indicating extreme fear on the part of investors.

    Market Volatility: FEAR The CBOE Volatility Index (VIX) is at 28.43, 71.89% above its 50-day moving average and indicates that investors are concerned about the near-term values of their portfolios.

    Stock Price Strength: EXTREME FEAR The number of stocks hitting 52-week lows is slightly greater than the number hitting highs and is at the lower end of its range, indicating extreme fear.

    PIVOT POINTS

    EURUSD | GBPUSD | USDJPY | USDCAD | AUDUSD | EURJPY | EURCHF | EURGBPGBPJPY | NZDUSD | USDCHF | EURAUD | AUDJPY 
     

    S&P 500 (ES) | NASDAQ 100 (NQ) | DOW 30 (YM) | RUSSELL 2000 (TF) Euro (6E) |Pound (6B) 

    EUROSTOXX 50 (FESX) | DAX 30 (FDAX) | BOBL (FGBM) | SCHATZ (FGBS) | BUND (FGBL) 

    CRUDE OIL (CL) | GOLD (GC)

     

    MEME OF THE DAY – I JUST LOVE MY NEW SWEATER

     

    UNUSUAL ACTIVITY

    MU SEP 20 CALL ACTIVITY @$.11 on OFFER 2400+ Contracts

    FAST SEP 38 PUT ACTIVITY ON OFFER @$.70 2500+ Contracts

    TWTR DEC 50 CALLS 1500+ @$.15 .. also activity in the DEC 40 calls

    APLE EVP, Chief Legal Counsel P    5,592  A  $ 17.88

    MTZ 10% Owner Purchase 10,000 A $15.98 and Purchase 5,000 A $15.63

    More Unusual Activity…

     

    HEADLINES

     

    OIl Surges as OPEC Stands Ready To Talk Other Producers

    US EIA Reports Decline In Monthly Oil Output

    G20 Said To Not See Currency War As Major Issue

    US Chicago PMI (Aug): 54.4 (est. 54.5, prev. 54.7)

    US Dallas Fed Manufacturing Activity (Aug): -15.8 (est. -3.8, prev. -4.6)

    Global Stocks Extend On Rout Seen Through August

    Europe: stocks cap worst month since 2011 with drop

    Apple, Cisco Unveil Business Partnership

    Google, Sanofi join forces on Diabetes monitoring and treatment

     

    GOVERNMENTS/CENTRAL BANKS

    G20 Said To Not See Currency War As Major Issue –BBG

    No ‘viable’ alternative to QE seen for the ECB –Reuters poll

    Greece’s ‘invisible negotiator’ may assuage bailout fears in election run-up –Rtrs

    FIXED INCOME

    German and US Bonds Drop as Inflation Expectations Show Recovery Sign –BBG

    ECB Bought EUR 1.937Bln Under Covered Bond Programme –ECB

    ECB Sold EUR 106mln under ABS purchase programme –ECB

    ECB Bought EUR 9.776bln under public sector purchase programme –ECB

    CURRENCIES, COMMODITIES, METALS

    Oil ends up 8.8%, at $49.20 a barrel; highest since July 21 –CNBC

    OPEC stands ready to talk to other producers about market –ForexLive

    Oil futures spike sharply higher after EIA reports monthly output declines –MktWatch

    Citi: Crude price rally to be short-lived; prices should post another fresh leg lower – RTRS

    USD: Euro, yen on track to post monthly gains vs. dollar –MarketWatch

    GBP: Pound Slips Near 3-Mth Low Against USD –WBP

    EUR: Buck Lacks Momentum After Unremarkable Chicago PMI –WBP

    JPY: Dollar Pares Morning Losses Amid Momentum Struggle –WBP

    Gold Prices Fall as Traders Mull U.S. Monetary Policy –WSJ

    EQUITIES

    Global Stocks Extend August Rout–BBG

    Europe: stocks cap worst month since ’11 with a drop –FT

    China funds cut equity allocations to lowest on record- Reuters Poll

    Google, Sanofi join forces on Diabetes monitoring and treatment –MktWatch

    Apple, Cisco Unveil Business Partnership –WSJ

    Netflix passes on Epix content deal, Hulu steps in –MktWatch

    Fiat Chrysler’s Marchionne says ‘unconscionable’ to give up on GM deal –Rtrs

    Fiat Chrysler US is recalling approx. 206K vehicles –Detroit News

    GT Advanced Technologies to cut staff, operating expenses by about 40% –MktWatch

    Pemex Investors Face Crude Reality With Credit Downgrade Threat –BBG

    EMERGING MARKETS

    China eases housing investment rules again to boost economy –Rtrs

    China Markets End Volatile August in Continued Slide –BBG

     

    Argentine Central Bank Assets Can?t Be Seized by Bondholders –BBG

  • If The Fed Is Always Wrong, How Can Its Policies Ever Be Right?

    Submitted by Ralph Benko via Forbes.com,

    One of the most curiously persistent surrealisms of Washington, DC is the reflexive deference given the Federal Reserve System. The Washington elite tends to accord more infallibility to the Fed than do Catholics the Pope.

    Now comes one of the world’s top monetary reporters, Ylan Q. Mui, to make a delicate observation at the Washington Post’s Wonkblog, in Why nobody believes the Federal Reserve’s forecasts. Mui:

    “The market recognizes that the Fed has repeatedly erred on the optimistic side,” said Eric Lascelles, chief economist at RBC Global Asset Management. “Fool me 50 times, but not 51 times.”

    Even the government’s official budget forecasters are dubious of the Fed’s own forecast.

    This is a theme that Mui has touched on before. In 2013, she wrote Is the Fed’s crystal ball rose-colored?:

    The big question is whether Fed officials can get it right after years in which they have regularly predicted a stronger economy than the one that materialized. In January 2011, Fed officials predicted that GDP would grow around 3.7 percent that year. It clocked in at 2 percent. In January 2012, they anticipated growth of about 2.5 percent. We ended up with 1.6 percent.

    To give Ms. Mui’s competition its due, Dr. Richard Rahn at the Washington Times last April crisply noted:

    The Federal Reserve had forecast the U.S. economy to grow about 4 percent near the beginning of each year for the last five years. But during each year, the Fed was forced to reduce its forecast until it got to the actual number of approximately 2 percent. (Other government agencies have been making equally bad forecasts.) These mammoth errors clearly show that the forecast models the official agencies use are mis-specified and contain incorrect assumptions.

    What’s going on here?

    A good bet would be that there’s a problem with the Fed’s reliance on an arcane art.  This art is designated “Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium” modeling.

    Sound scientific? Well.

    With admirable intellectual honesty an assistant vice president in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s Research and Statistics Group, Marco Del Negro, Wharton Ph.D. student Raiden Hasegawa and University of Pennsylvania professor of economics Frank Schorfheide (speaking for themselves and not the Fed) open a two part analysis at the NY Fed’s own excellent Liberty Street Economics, Choosing the Right Policy in Real Time (What That’s Not Easy):

    Model uncertainty is pervasive. Economists, bloggers, policymakers all have different views of how the world works and what economic policies would make it better. These views are, like it or not, models. Some people spell them out in their entirety, equations and all. Others refuse to use the word altogether, possibly out of fear of being falsified. No model is “right,” of course, but some models are worse than others, and we can have an idea of which is which by comparing their predictions with what actually happened.

    The authors go on to conclude in the second part of their analysis:

    In the end, we have shown that policy analysis in the very oversimplified world of DSGE models is a pretty difficult business. Contrary to what it may sometimes appear from listening to talking heads, deciding which policy is best is very rarely a slam dunk.

    Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium modeling sure sounds amazing.  That said let’s be blunt.  If NASA suffered from comparable inaccuracy the manned spaceflight program would have been shut down by an endless series of Challenger-type catastrophes many years ago.   With monetary forecasts this bad is it any wonder the American economy continually crashes and burns?

    As I have noted before, yet it bears repeating, Prof. Reuven Brenner powerfully has called our current system to account:

    [M]acro-economics is now [astrology’s] modern incarnation: Only instead of stars, macro-economists look at “aggregates” gathered religiously by governments’ statistical agencies – never mind if the country has a dictatorial regime, be it left, right or anything in between, or has large black markets, as Italy and Greece do, where tax evasion has long been the main national sport. So let us first forget about this “macro” stuff, whose beginnings are almost a century old, and offer a simple alternative for shedding light on the situation today and on possible solutions, hopefully demolish this modern pseudo-”science” once and for all.

    Classical liberal economist Axel Kaiser anticipated this line of argument in his book Intervention and Misery: 1929 – 2008 by calling for the “end of the mystery [which] implies the end of the witch doctors and the definite defeat of the economic astrology that has prevailed in recent decades.”

    This line of criticism, while apparently alien to the Fed, is nothing new. Hayek, in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech The Pretence of Knowledge tartly observed:

    We have indeed at the moment little cause for pride: as a profession we have made a mess of things.

     

    It seems to me that this failure of the economists to guide policy more successfully is closely connected with their propensity to imitate as closely as possible the procedures of the brilliantly successful physical sciences — an attempt which in our field may lead to outright error. It is an approach which has come to be described as the “scientistic” attitude — an attitude which, as I defined it some thirty years ago, “is decidedly unscientific in the true sense of the word, since it involves a mechanical and uncritical application of habits of thought to fields different from those in which they have been formed.” I want today to begin by explaining how some of the gravest errors of recent economic policy are a direct consequence of this scientistic error.

    That said, nobody, not even the great Hayek, nailed the problem better than did Hans Christian Anderson in The Emperor’s New Clothes:

    One day, two rogues, calling themselves weavers, made their appearance. They gave out that they knew how to weave stuffs of the most beautiful colors and elaborate patterns, the clothes manufactured from which should have the wonderful property of remaining invisible to everyone who was unfit for the office he held, or who was extraordinarily simple in character.

     

    “These must, indeed, be splendid clothes!” thought the Emperor. “Had I such a suit, I might at once find out what men in my realms are unfit for their office, and also be able to distinguish the wise from the foolish! This stuff must be woven for me immediately.”

     

     

    And now the Emperor himself wished to see the costly manufacture, while it was still in the loom. …

     

    “Is not the work absolutely magnificent?” said the two officers of the crown, already mentioned. “If your Majesty will only be pleased to look at it! What a splendid design! What glorious colors!” and at the same time they pointed to the empty frames; for they imagined that everyone else could see this exquisite piece of workmanship.

     

    “How is this?” said the Emperor to himself. “I can see nothing! This is indeed a terrible affair! Am I a simpleton, or am I unfit to be an Emperor?

     

     

    So now the Emperor walked under his high canopy in the midst of the procession, through the streets of his capital; and all the people standing by, and those at the windows, cried out, “Oh! How beautiful are our Emperor’s new clothes! …

     

    “But the Emperor has nothing at all on!” said a little child.

    If the Fed is making policy based on consistently wrong predictions how good can its policy consistently be? If its forecasts consistently are wrong — as now is undeniable — on what is it basing policy? Guesswork (more pretentiously phrased as “discretion”)?

    America deserves some candor. A frank admission of “guesswork” — even educated guesswork — would better our understanding of why American workers have been for the past 15 years, and are today, engaged in painful belt-tightening. And, forgive the heresy, just maybe there is a better way than guesswork.

    Ylan Mui is, as she ought to be, far too politic to be so blunt. Thus it falls to me, in my role as the simpleton on this beat, to declare: The Emperor has no clothes.

    I’d welcome being set straight if the Board of Governors is prepared to contest this simpleton. Surely Chair Yellen or Vice Chair Fischer — both first rate economists and authentically honorable public servants — will support the Brady-Cornyn Centennial Monetary Commission legislation lately approved by Chairman Hensarling’s House Financial Services Committee.

    So let the Fed set me straight by entering the beautiful canopy of this Commission to make the case for the exceptional beauty of its handiwork. If, rather, the Fed raises objections to a Commission (to which it will appoint an ex officio commissioner)… perhaps my declaration is not, after all, that of a simpleton. In the event of Fed opposition Congress should be even more eager to enact this Monetary Commission.

    I say the Emperor has no clothes. If clad, high time to parade their exceptional beauty. 

    Pass the Centennial Monetary Commission. Let’s see the Emperor’s clothes.

  • When Every Option In The Financial System Is Grounded In Absurdity, It's Time To Look Elsewhere

    Submitted by Simon Black via SovereignMan.com,

    If you’ve ever picked up a copy of The Economist magazine, you’ve probably heard of the Big Mac Index.

    This is an interesting tool where a bunch of reporters from around the world are forced to go into McDonalds and find out the price of a Big Mac in local currency.

    In Santiago, Chile, for example, a Big Mac runs 2,100 Chilean pesos, which is around $3. Meanwhile the average price for a Big Mac in the United States is $4.79.

    This suggests that the US dollar is substantially overvalued against the Chilean peso.

    It’s the same story across most of the world. In Russia, a Big Mac costs 107 rubles, which is just over $1.50.

    The reason The Economist uses the Big Mac is because it’s basically the same product no matter where you go in the world.

    There are some subtle differences, but McDonalds generally serves the same pink foam disguised as beef wherever you go. So in theory it should all cost the same.

    When a Big Mac is too cheap or too expensive, this suggests that the currency is either undervalued or overvalued against the US dollar.

    Now I’d like to add a new way of comparing currencies: airfare.

    As I travel around the world, I often buy what are known as round-the-world tickets (RTW).

    RTW tickets are issued by airline alliances like OneWorld or Star Alliance, and they’re typically very cost effective.

    RTW is just like it sounds. You fly, for example, from London to Chicago to Shanghai to Dubai and back to London, all for one special fare.

    It’s a cheap, easy way to see the world.

    But I’ll let you in on a little secret that I’ve picked up over the years: the price of a RTW ticket varies dramatically depending on the city where you start.

    As an example, I just researched a OneWorld RTW ticket with the following itinerary:

    Los Angeles – Sydney – Bangkok – Hong Kong – Johannesburg – London – Los Angeles.

    Six different cities around the world on five continents.

    Now, if I start and stop that itinerary in Los Angeles, the price for a business class ticket is $14,164.60.

    That’s not a bad price for a business class experience. But if we experiment a little bit, something interesting happens.

    Starting and stopping the journey in Los Angeles means that OneWorld prices my ticket in US dollars.

    But it’s also possible to fly the same route by shifting the cities. For example, instead of starting/stopping in LA, I can start/stop in Sydney.

    So the route becomes Sydney- Bangkok – Hong Kong – Johannesburg – London – Los Angeles – Sydney.

    It’s the same flights to the same six cities, I just start/stop in a different place.

    Here’s what’s crazy: if I start/stop in Sydney instead, the price changes. Now instead of $14,164.60, it’s $15,272 Australian dollars, which is about $10,900 USD.

    So the same six flights now cost you 23% less.

    Note that the RTW ticket is always priced in the local currency of the city where you start.

    And unlike the Big Mac Index where the results are skewed by the costs of ingredients, property, and labor, here you’re comparing the exact same product.

    I did the same with each city on the list, and the most incredible difference came when I started and stopped the trip in Johannesburg.

    Johannesburg – London – Los Angeles – Sydney – Bangkok – Hong Kong – Johannesburg.

    Flying to the exact same cities, the price is now 81,395 South African Rand.

    Based on current exchange rates, this is just barely over $6,000.

    In other words, you pay over $14,000 by starting/stopping in LA, and just $6,000 to start/stop in South Africa, even though you’re visiting the exact same six cities on the exact same flights in the exact same business class cabin.

    What’s even more amazing is that if you do the exact same itinerary from LA in economy class, the price is $7,545.

    So that means that if someone flies from LA, they’ll pay more to fly in coach than someone starting in Johannesburg pays to fly in business.

    Clearly, you’d be better off buying a separate ticket to South Africa and beginning your RTW journey from there.

    Or you could spend about $200 and get a ticket to Vancouver, and start a RTW from Vancouver, which costs about $10,000 in business class and gives you a $4,000 savings.

    Now, I’m not here to tell you about how to save money on airfare (though I hope you give it a try).

    The bigger idea is that it’s clear that the US dollar is painfully overvalued against nearly every currency in the world.

    Right now the dollar appears to be the “safe” place to put your money. However, this isn’t based on anything.

    The fundamentals for the US dollar are terrible, but people keep dumping money into it like trained monkeys simply because nothing else in financial markets makes any sense.

    To be clear, I fully expect the dollar to get even stronger as even more trained monkeys pile into US dollar assets.

    But it’s important to show that this perception of ‘safety’ is based on a complete myth. Every credible fundamental suggests that the dollar is dangerously overvalued.

    In the long run these things tend to equalize, and the dollar’s strength may end up being the biggest bubble of all.

    Of course, it raises the question– if not the US dollar, then which currency is the safe haven? The euro is garbage, the Chinese are fighting a depression, Japan is a disaster.

    And that’s precisely the point.

    When every option in the financial system is grounded in absurdity, the only solution is to start looking for safety outside of it.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News August 31, 2015

  • It Gets Even Uglier In Canada

    Wolf Richter   www.wolfstreet.com   www.amazon.com/author/wolfrichter

    The Province of Alberta, the epicenter of the Canadian oil bust, may be sliding into something much worse than a plain-vanilla recession. And it’s not exactly perking up the rest of Canada.

    Layoffs are already cascading through the oil patch, as companies are retrenching and adjusting to the new reality. New vehicle sales are plummeting. And home sales are taking a broadside.

    In August so far, total home sales in Calgary plunged 28% from a year ago, on flat prices. Condo sales collapsed 39%, with the median price down 8%, according to the Calgary Real Estate Board. Year-to-date, total home sales in Calgary are down 25%; condo sales 30%. And those condos that did sell spent 30% longer on the market than condos did a year ago, as sellers hang on by their fingernails to the illusion of wealth, and sales are stalling.

    And the Business Barometer Index for all of Canada, which measures the optimism among small businesses, dropped again in August for the third month in a row. An index level between 65 and 70 indicates that the economy is growing at its potential. But now it hit 56.7, the lowest level since April 2009.

    The Canadian Federation of Independent Business, which produces the index, blamed the commodity bust but added additional sectors, particularly those that are considered absolutely crucial for the hopefully coming economic recovery in the second half: construction, transportation, and retail.

    The index dropped in 7 of 10 provinces, even in British Columbia, which was weighed down by “domestic conditions, coupled with weakening economic prospects in Asia.”

    And that feverishly expected rebound of GDP in the second half from recessionary levels in the first half? Small business owners don’t see it. What they see is a continued downturn.

    But it’s in Alberta where small business optimism has totally crashed. The Index dropped 3.5 points in August to 40.4, the worst level since March 2009, and just one such step above the historic low of 37, of February 2009, the very bottom of the Financial Crisis.

    A bitter irony: for the years after the Financial Crisis, small businesses in Alberta were practically exuberant compared to those in the rest of Canada. But in November and December, their exuberance dissipated into the oil bust, and the index began plunging. In January, it fell below the national level for the first time since March 2010. And it has continued plunging.

    The chart shows how the index for Canada (green line) has hit the worst level since April 2009, and how the index for Alberta (blue line) has plummeted to the trough of the Financial Crisis:

    Canada-business-borometer-index-2008_2015-08

    “As businesses are crunched, they’re examining all of their expenses more closely – their taxes, the regulatory costs, their wage costs – and if the government continues to add to the list of things, at some point they simply can’t handle all of those new costs,” CFIB Alberta director Amber Ruddy told the Calgary Herald, with an eye on the province’s new government that is musing about raising royalty rates on energy companies at the worst possible time.

    And it’s not just businesses. It’s consumers too. Confidence of Canadian households regarding current economic conditions, according to the Conference Board of Canada, dropped to 91.9. Last year, the index was set at 100. But in the Prairie Provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba, consumer confidence plummeted to the lowest level since March 2009.

    Sentiment dropped across all survey questions. The chart by the Alberta Real Estate Association (AREA), which is fretting about home sales, shows just how fast household confidence has fallen in the Prairie Provinces (black line, right scale). But the feeble hope is that it will not totally asphyxiate homes sales: the percentage of households thinking that now is a good time for a major purchase (blue bars, left scale) has fallen sharply – and is low (white horizontal line) – but has not yet totally crashed:

    Canada-Prairies-consumer-confidence-2007_2015-08

    It looked dreary in the Prairie Provinces: Expectations for household budgets declined in August, and more households expected their budgets to decline further over the next six months. The outlook for jobs deteriorated, as layoffs of employees and reduced hours or no hours for contract workers – numerous in the oil business – are cascading through the local economy. 

    So it remains a mystery where exactly the power for that feverishly anticipated rebound in the second half is supposed to come from, unless a miracle happens to commodity prices. But miracles have become exceedingly rare these days.

    The commodities rout is tearing into Canada’s broader economy, but this is even worse. Read… Canada “Getting Clocked” by Something Far Bigger than Oil 

  • Ron Paul Rages "Blame The Fed, Not China" For The Stock Market Crash

    Submitted by Ron Paul via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity,

    Following Monday’s historic stock market downturn, many politicians and so-called economic experts rushed to the microphones to explain why the market crashed and to propose "solutions” to our economic woes. Not surprisingly, most of those commenting not only failed to give the right answers, they failed to ask the right questions.

    Many blamed the crash on China’s recent currency devaluation. It is true that the crash was caused by a flawed monetary policy. However, the fault lies not with China’s central bank but with the US Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve’s inflationary policies distort the economy, creating bubbles, which in turn create a booming stock market and the illusion of widespread prosperity. Inevitably, the bubble bursts, the market crashes, and the economy sinks into a recession.

    An increasing number of politicians have acknowledged the flaws in our monetary system. Unfortunately, some members of Congress think the solution is to force the Fed to follow a “rules-based” monetary policy. Forcing the Fed to “follow a rule” does not change the fact that giving a secretive central bank the power to set interest rates is a recipe for economic chaos. Interest rates are the price of money, and, like all prices, they should be set by the market, not by a central bank and certainly not by Congress.

    Instead of trying to “fix” the Federal Reserve, Congress should start restoring a free-market monetary system. The first step is to pass the Audit the Fed legislation so the people can finally learn the full truth about the Fed. Congress should also pass legislation ensuring individuals can use alternative currencies free of government harassment.

    When bubbles burst and recessions hit, Congress and the Federal Reserve should refrain from trying to “stimulate” the economy via increased spending, corporate bailouts, and inflation. The only way the economy will ever fully recover is if Congress and the Fed allow the recession to run its course.

    Of course, Congress and the Fed are unlikely to “just stand there” if the economy further deteriorates. There have already been reports that the Fed will use last week’s crash as an excuse to once again delay raising interest rates. Increased spending and money creation may temporally boost the economy, but eventually they will lead to a collapse in the dollar’s value and an economic crisis more severe than the Great Depression.

    Ironically, considering how popular China-bashing has become, China’s large purchase of US Treasury notes has helped the US postpone the day of reckoning. The main reason countries like China are eager to help finance our debt is the dollar’s world reserve currency status. However, there are signs that concerns over the US government’s fiscal irresponsibility and resentment of our foreign policy will cause another currency (or currencies) to replace the dollar as the world reserve currency. If this occurs, the US will face a major dollar crisis.

    Congress will not adopt sensible economic policies until the people demand it. Unfortunately, while an ever-increasing number of Americans are embracing Austrian economics, too many Americans still believe they must sacrifice their liberties in order to obtain economic and personal security. This is why many are embracing a charismatic crony capitalist who is peddling a snake oil composed of protectionism, nationalism, and authoritarianism.

    Eventually the United States will have to abandon the warfare state, the welfare state, and the fiat money system that fuels leviathan’s growth. Hopefully the change will happen because the ideas of liberty have triumphed, not because a major economic crisis leaves the government with no other choice.

  • 80 Year Old Woman Trampled To Death In Venezuela Supermarket Stampede

    With 30% of Venzuelans eating two or fewer meals per day, social unrest is mounting rapidly in President Nicolas Maduro's socialist utopia. As WSJ reports, soldiers have now been deployed to stem rampant food smuggling and price speculation, which Maduro blames for triple-digit inflation and scarcity. "Due to the shortage of food… the desperation is enormous," local opposition politician Andres Camejo said, and nowhere is that more evident than the trampling death of an 80-year-old woman outside a state-subsidized supermarket.

    As Reuters reports,

    An 80-year-old Venezuelan woman died, possibly from trampling, in a scrum outside a state supermarket selling subsidized goods, the opposition and media said on Friday.

     

    The melee at the store in Sabaneta, the birthplace of former Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez, was the latest such incident in the South American nation where economic hardship and food shortages are creating long queues and scuffles.

     

    The opposition Democratic Unity coalition said Maria Aguirre died and another 75 people were injured – including five security officials – in chaotic scenes when National Guard troops sought to control a 5,000-strong crowd with teargas.

     

    "Due to the shortage of food … the desperation is enormous," local opposition politician Andres Camejo said, according to the coalition's website. It published a photo of an elderly woman's body lying inert on a concrete floor.

     

    Camejo said thieves had also attacked the crowd, members of which were seeking to buy cheap food on offer at an outlet of the state's Mercal supermarket chain in Barinas state.

     

     

    El Universal newspaper reported that Aguirre was knocked to the ground during jostling in the crowd, while the pro-opposition El Nacional said she was crushed in a stampede.

     

    Another person was killed and dozens detained following looting of supermarkets in Venezuela's southeastern city of Ciudad Guayana earlier this month.

     

    President Nicolas Maduro accuses opponents of deliberately stirring up trouble, exaggerating incidents, and sabotaging the economy to try and bring down his socialist government.

     

    Critics, though, say incidents of unrest are symptoms of the increasing hardships Venezuela's 29 million people are facing due to a failed state-led economic model. Low oil prices are exacerbating economic tensions in the OPEC nation.

    Venezuelans protest the starvatiion with signs saying 'hunger'…

     

    Shoppers are finger-printed when buying government-controlled foods…

     

    “What’s certain is that we are going very hungry here and the children are suffering a lot,” said María Palma, a 55-year-old grandmother who on a recent blistering hot day had been standing in line at the grocery store since 3 a.m. before walking away empty-handed at midday.

     

    In a national survey, as WSJ reports, the pollster Consultores 21 found 30% of Venezuelans eating two or fewer meals a day during the second quarter of this year, up from 20% in the first quarter.

     

    Around 70% of people in the study also said they had stopped buying some basic food item because it had become unavailable or too expensive.

    As The Mises Institute's Carmen Elena Dorobat details,

    Millions, Billions, Trillions: The Disaster of Socialism, Once Again

    Venezuela’s nearly full-blown socialism is making the news once again. For approximately two years now, the country’s economic crisis has been rapidly unfolding: rising prices, fuelled by increased scarcity of goods and a depreciating currency, were followed by price controls, which brought about even higher prices and more shortages. The list of basic commodities missing from stores, such as toilet paper, has gradually expanded to include cooking oil, corn flour, sugar, sanitary pads, batteries, coffins, and even oil (once the country’s main export). The Cendas survey showed that more than a third of foodstuffs cannot be found on supermarket shelves; moreover, vegetables are 32% more expensive every month, meat prices are going up by 22% every month, and beans are surging by 130%. Basic Venezuelan dishes containing rice and beans have thus become a luxury, as people queue for 8 hours a week, on average, to buy basic goods.

    This time it was the bolivar, Venezuela’s currency, which made the headlines, as it tumbled from 82 bolivars to the dollar last year, to 300 bolivars in May, and to a staggering 670 bolivars this August. Because the Venezuelan administration stopped publishing inflation figures in December 2014 (when annual inflation reached 68%), some economists have designed an Arepa (i.e. cornmeal cake with cheese) hyperinflation index, which suggests a current inflation rate of around 400%. Others estimate the annual inflation rate is actually 808%.

    A photo of a Venezuelan using a 2 bolivar banknote as a napkin to hold a cheesy pastry (an empanada) has recently gone viral: the banknote is worth less than a third of one US cent on the black market, while the price of a pack of napkins is about 500-600 bolivars. The photo is reminiscent of the Weimar Republic hyperinflationary episode, where the wholesale price index jumped from 100% in July 1922 to more than 2500% in January 1923, which led to German banknotes being used to light fires (right photo).

    One can only speculate at the moment the extent of the damage this episode will leave on Venezuelan savings. But if history is any indication, we could soon hear stories similar to those of some of Mises’s acquaintances (recorded from his lectures by his student, Bettina Bien-Greaves):

    [A] man made a will according to which this $ 2,000,000 was to be sent back to Europe to establish another orphan asylum such as that in which this man had been educated. This was just before World War I. The money was sent back to Europe. According to the usual procedure it had to be invested in government bonds of this country, interest to be paid every year to keep up the asylum. But the war came, and the inflation. And the inflation reduced to zero this fortune of $ 2,000,000 invested in European Marks—simply to zero.

     

    [The president of a Bank in Vienna] told me that as a young man in his twenties he had taken out a life insurance policy much too large for his economic condition at the time. He expected that when it was paid out it would make him a well-to-do burgher. But when he reached his sixtieth birthday, the policy became due. The insurance, which had been a tremendous sum when he had taken it out thirty five years before, was just sufficient to pay for the taxi ride back to his office after going to collect the insurance in person. Now what had happened? Prices went up, yet the monetary quantity of the policy remained the same. He had in fact for many, many decades made savings. For whom? For the government to spend and devastate (Mises 2010, 30-31).

    As news of Venezuela’s suffering keeps coming through, one cannot help but feel a certain sense of dread. All governments control the money supply to essentially the same extent that Maduro’s administration does. All around the world we have monetary socialism, where national currencies are subject solely to political power. And one cannot help but wonder (and fear) how many more such economic disasters it will take before it becomes clear that socialism of all shapes, sizes, and degrees, is unrealizable, unbearable, and unforgivable.

    *  *  *

     

  • Chinese Stocks Slump After "Arrest-Fest", Yuan Strengthens Most In 9 Months, Goldman Cuts Outlook

    Update: So much for the "no more intervention" Since the government bailout fund has run dry of money, the brokerages have to step up – CHINA SAID TO ORDER BROKERAGES TO BOOST STOCK MARKET SUPPORT

    A busy weekend in Asia was dominated by mayhem in Malaysia, and witch-huntery in China. Chinese authorities began a wide-scale crackdown on rumor-mongerers, arrested journalists, and even detained a regulator for insider trading, as they lifted loan caps on the banking system at the same as withdrawing (verbally) support for the stock market. China strengthen the Yuan fix by 0.15% to 6.3893 – this is the biggest 2-day strengthening of the Yuan fix since Nov 2014. Then just to rub some more salt in the wounds, Goldman cut China growth expectations to 6.4% and 6.1% respectively for the next 2 years. Chinese stocks are opening modestly lower (SHCOMP -3.3%).

    • *SHANGHAI COMPOSITE INDEX EXTENDS DECLINES, FALLING 3.1%

    Yuan fixed stronger for 2nd day in a row…

    • *CHINA SETS YUAN REFERENCE RATE AT 6.3893 AGAINST U.S. DOLLAR
    • *CHINA RAISES YUAN REFERENCE RATE BY 0.15% TO 6.3893/USD

    Then Goldman slahes China growth…

    • *CHINA 2016 GDP GROWTH FORECAST CUT TO 6.4% VS 6.7% AT GOLDMAN
    • *CHINA 2017 GDP GROWTH FORECAST CUT TO 6.1% VS 6.5% AT GOLDMAN
    • *CHINA 2018 GDP GROWTH FORECAST CUT TO 5.8% VS 6.2% AT GOLDMAN

    A “double-dip” in China’s growth in 2015…

    China’s economic growth was very weak in early 2015, reflecting a combination of slowing money/credit growth, reform-driven fiscal tightening, and an appreciating CNY, among other factors. Policy easing starting in March seemed to help revive growth in May and especially June. But growth has slowed anew in July and August, prompting market and policymaker concerns and a further spate of easing measures. We retain our 2015 real GDP growth forecast of 6.8%, but note that alternative indicators of activity suggest a sharper slowdown, and mark down our 2016/17/18 forecasts to 6.4%/6.1%/5.8% respectively from 6.7%/6.5%/6.2% previously. We now expect short-term interest rates to fall further, to 1.5% by end-2016 (from 2.25% previously).

    …and increased policy uncertainty…

    Policy uncertainty has increased. Measures to contain local governments' off-balance sheet financing have taken a back seat for now to a focus on reviving infrastructure spending. Equity market volatility has been large, diminishing the near-term potential for this channel to reduce reliance on debt financing. The snap 3% depreciation in the CNY is small in a macro context, but represents the sharpest weakening in two decades that were dominated by stability/appreciation vs USD, and has prompted an acceleration in capital outflows, heightening the risk of a larger move down the road.

    But before all that, this happened…

    First, as The FT reports, China "says" it will abandon buying stocks…

    China’s government has decided to abandon attempts to boost the stock market through large-scale share purchases, and will instead intensify efforts to find and punish those suspected of “destabilising the market”, according to senior officials.

     

    For two months, a “national team” of state-owned investment funds and institutions has collectively spent about $200bn trying to prop up a market that is still down 37 per cent since its mid-June peak.

     

     

    Traders and officials said the latest intervention was aimed at providing a “positive market environment” in preparation for a big military parade this week to celebrate the 70th anniversary of the “victory of the Chinese people’s war of resistance against Japanese aggression”.

     

    Senior financial regulatory officials insist that this was an anomaly, and that the government will refrain from further large-scale buying of equities.

    Which could be a problem as all that stopped total and utter carnage last week was their buying…

     

    But then they unleashed full scale fractional reserve banking…

    • *SCRAPPING OF LOAN CAP TO HELP STABILIZING ECO GROWTH: FIN. NEWS

    Though we suspect this is as much use as a chocalate fireguard for the already maximally-indebted Chinese public.

    Butnothing stops the propaganda from flowing…

    • *CHINA ECO FUNDAMENTALS BETTER THAN OTHER MAJOR ECONOMIES: 21ST

    As authorities begin wide-scale crackdowns on rumor-mongers and nay-sayers…

    • *CHINA DETAINS REPORTER ON SUSPECTED SPREADING RUMORS: XINHUA
    • *CHINA DETAINS CSRC OFFICIAL ON SUSPECTED INSIDER TRADING:XINHUA

    As The FT goes on to note,

    In a worrying signal for global investors with a presence in China, some officials have argued strongly for a crackdown on “foreign forces”, which they say have intentionally unsettled the market.

     

    “If our own people have collaborated with foreign forces to attack the soft underbelly of the market and bet against the government’s stabilisation measures then they should be suspected of harming national financial security and we must take resolute measures to subdue them,” said an editorial in the state-controlled Securities Daily newspaper last week.

    As SCMP's Goerge Chen details…

       

     

    As China.org further details,

    Chinese authorities have held several people, including a journalist, an official of China's securities watchdog and four senior executives of China's major securities dealer for stock market violations.

     

    Wang Xiaolu, journalist of Caijing Magazine, has been placed under "criminal compulsory measures" for suspected violations of colluding with others and fabricating and spreading fake information on securities and futures market, Xinhua learned on Sunday.

     

    Wang confessed that he wrote fake report on Chinese stock market based on hearsay and his own subjective guesses without conducting due verifications.

     

    He admitted that the false information have "caused panics and disorder at stock market, seriously undermined the market confidence, and inflicted huge losses on the country and investors."

     

    Also put under "criminal compulsory measures" were Liu Shufan, an official with China Securities Regulatory Commission. He is held over suspicions of insider dealings, taking bribes and forging official seals.

     

    According to Liu's confession during the investigation, he has taken advantage of his position to secure an approval from the securities authorities for a public company and help the growth of the company's shares.

     

    In return, the head of the company offered bribes worth several million yuan to him.

     

    Also, Liu has used insider information from the above-mentioned company and another company and obtained millions of yuan of illegal gains, according to his confession.

     

    Liu confessed that he has forged official seals to fake a court ruling on divorce and taxation certificates for his mistress.

     

    Xinhua also learned from authorities that Xu Gang, Liu Wei, Fang Qingli and Chen Rongjie, senior executives of the Citic Securities, China's leading securities dealer, have been put under "criminal compulsory measures" for suspected insider trading. They have also confessed to their violations.

     

    "Compulsory measures" may include arrest, detention, issuing a warrant to compel a suspect to appear, bail pending trial, or residential surveillance.

    *  *  *

    Way to go China – "open" those markets up to anyone (as long as they are buying)

     

    Charts: Bloomberg

  • Why Devaluing The Yuan Won't Help China's Economy

    Submitted by Frank Shostak via The Mises Institute,

    Earlier this month, the Chinese government decided to depreciate its currency on three consecutive occasions. On August 13, the price of the US dollar was trading at 6.413 — an increase of 3.3 percent against July.

     

    The key factor behind the central bank’s lowering of the yuan is a sharp decline in the growth momentum of exports with the yearly rate of growth falling to minus 8.3 percent in July from 2.8 percent in June.

    Percent change in Chinese exports
     

    It is held that by means of currency depreciation that it is possible to strengthen the export of goods and services, thereby strengthening the gross domestic product (GDP), which currently displays a visible weakening. The yearly rate of growth of real GDP stood at 7 percent in Q2 against 7.5 percent in Q2 last year and 8.6 percent in Q1 2012.

    Percent change in China Real GDP

    According to popular thinking, the key to economic growth is demand for goods and services. It is held that increases or decreases in demand for goods and services are behind rises and declines in the economy’s production of goods. Hence in order to keep the economy going economic policies must pay close attention to overall demand.

    Why Governments Devalue Currencies to Boost Exports

    Now, part of the demand for domestic products emanates from overseas. The accommodation of this demand is labeled “exports.” Likewise, local residents exercise demand for goods and services produced overseas, which are labeled “imports.” Observe that while an increase in exports implies an increase in the demand for domestic output, an increase in imports weakens demand. Hence exports, according to this way of thinking, are a factor that contributes to economic growth while imports are a factor that detracts from the growth of the economy.

    From this way of thinking it follows that since overseas demand for a country’s goods and services is an important ingredient in setting the pace of economic growth, it makes a lot of sense to make locally produced goods and services attractive to foreigners. One of the ways to boost foreigners’ demand for domestically produced goods is by making the prices of these goods more attractive.

    One of the ways of boosting their competitiveness is for the Chinese to depreciate the yuan against the US dollar. Based on this one can reach the conclusion that as a result of currency depreciation, all other things being equal, the overall demand for domestically produced goods is likely to increase while also lowering Chinese demand for American goods. This in turn will give rise to a better balance of payments and in turn to a stronger economic growth in terms of GDP. What we have here, as far as the Chinese is concerned, is more exports and less imports, which according to mainstream thinking is great news for economic growth.

    Why an Exports Boost Fueled by Depreciation Can’t Grow the Economy

    When a central bank announces a loosening in its monetary stance this leads to a quick response by participants in the foreign exchange market through selling the domestic currency in favor of other currencies, thereby leading to domestic currency depreciation. In response to this, various producers now find it more attractive to boost their exports. In order to fund the increase in production, producers approach commercial banks which — on account of a rise in central bank monetary pumping — are happy to expand their credit at lower interest rates.

    By means of new credit, producers can now secure resources required to expand their production of goods in order to accommodate overseas demand. In other words, by means of newly created credit, producers divert real resources from other activities. As long as domestic prices remain intact, exporters record an increase in profits. (For a given amount of foreign money earned they now get more in terms of domestic money.) The so-called improved competitiveness on account of currency depreciation in fact amounts to economic impoverishment. The improved competitiveness means that the citizens of a country are now getting fewer real imports for a given amount of real exports. While the country is getting rich in terms of foreign currency it is getting poor in terms of real wealth (i.e., in terms of the goods and services required for maintaining people’s life and well being).

    As time goes by, the effects of loose monetary policy filters through a broad spectrum of prices of goods and services and ultimately undermines exporters’ profits. A rise in prices puts an end to the illusory attempt to create economic prosperity out of thin air. According to Ludwig von Mises,

    The much talked about advantages which devaluation secures in foreign trade and tourism, are entirely due to the fact that the adjustment of domestic prices and wage rates to the state of affairs created by devaluation requires some time. As long as this adjustment process is not yet completed, exporting is encouraged and importing is discouraged. However, this merely means that in this interval the citizens of the devaluating country are getting less for what they are selling abroad and paying more for what they are buying abroad; concomitantly they must restrict their consumption.

     

    This effect may appear as a boon in the opinion of those for whom the balance of trade is the yardstick of a nation's welfare. In plain language it is to be described in this way: The British citizen must export more British goods in order to buy that quantity of tea which he received before the devaluation for a smaller quantity of exported British goods.

    Contrast the policy of currency depreciation with a conservative policy where money is not expanding. Under these conditions, when the pool of real wealth is expanding, the purchasing power of money will follow suit. This, all other things being equal, leads to currency appreciation. With the expansion in the production of goods and services and consequently falling prices and declining production costs, local producers can improve their profitability and their competitiveness in overseas markets while the currency is actually appreciating.

    Percent change in China AMS
     

    The economic slowdown in China was set in motion a long time ago when the yearly rate of growth of the money supply fell from 39.3 percent in January 2010 to 1.8 percent by April 2012. The effect of this massive decline in the growth momentum of money puts severe pressure on bubble activities and in turn on various key economic activity data. Any tampering with the currency rate of exchange can only make things much worse as far as the allocation of scarce resources is concerned.

     

  • Illinois Pays Lottery Winners In IOUs After $30K/Month Budget "Guru" Fails To Produce Deal

    Much as Brazil is the poster child for the great EM unwind unfolding across emerging economies from LatAm to AsiaPac, Illinois is in many ways the mascot for America’s state and local government fiscal crisis. 

    Although well documented before, the state’s financial troubles were thrown into sharp relief in May when, on the heels of a state Supreme Court ruling that struck down a pension reform bid, Moody’s downgraded the city of Chicago to junk. 

    Since then, there’s been quite a bit written about the state’s pension problem and indeed, Reuters ran a special report earlier this month that outlined the labyrinthine, incestuous character of the state’s various state and local governments.

    On Friday, in the latest sign that Illinois’ budget crisis has deepened, Governor Bruce Rauner apparently fired “superstar” budget guru and Laffer disciple Donna Arduin who had been making some $30,000 a month as an economic consultant.

    And while Illinois apparently found the cash to fork over six figures to Arduin for just four months of “work”, the budget stalemate means hard times for Illinoisans – including, apparently, lottery winners. The Chicago Tribune has more:

    After years of struggling financially, Susan Rick thought things were looking up when her boyfriend won $250,000 from the Illinois Lottery last month. She could stop working seven days a week, maybe fix up the house and take a trip to Minnesota to visit her daughter.

     

    But because Illinois lawmakers have not passed a budget, she and her boyfriend, Danny Chasteen, got an IOU from the lottery instead.

     

    “For the first time, we were finally gonna get a break,” said Rick, who lives in Oglesby. “And now the Illinois Lottery has kind of messed everything up.”

     


     

    Under state law, the state comptroller must cut the checks for lottery winnings of more than $25,000.

     

    And lottery officials said that because lawmakers have yet to pass a budget, the comptroller’s office does not have legal authority to release the funds.

     

    Prizes of $25,000 or less will still be paid at lottery claim centers across the state, and people who win $600 or less can cash in their ticket at the place where they bought it.

     

    But the bigger winners? Out of luck, for now.

     

    While lottery officials could not immediately say how many winners’ payments were delayed or provide the total amount of those payoffs, the agency’s website lists multiple press releases for winners since the current fiscal year began July 1. Including Chasteen, those winners represent millions of dollars in prizes.

     

    “The lottery is a state agency like many others, and we’re obviously affected by the budget situation,” Illinois Lottery spokesman Steve Rossi said. “Since the legal authority is not there for the comptroller to disburse payments, those payments are delayed.”

    Generally speaking, this just serves to underscore the extent to which gross fiscal mismanagement along with the perceived inviolability of pension “implicit contracts” is pushing Illinois further into the financial abyss, but what’s particularly interesting about the suspension of lottery payouts is that the state is now effectively in default to its own citizens, something which, if the situation were reversed, would not be tolerated, and on that note, we give the last word to Rick (quoted above) and also to State Rep. Jack Franks:

    Rick: “You know what’s funny? If we owed the state money, they’d come take it and they don’t care whether we have a roof over our head. Our budget wouldn’t be a factor. You can’t say (to the state), ‘Can you wait until I get my budget under control?'”

     

    Franks: “Our government is committing a fraud on the taxpayers, because we’re holding ourselves out as selling a good, and we’re not — we’re not selling anything. The lottery is a contract: I pay my money, and if I win, you’re obligated to pay me and you have to pay me timely. It doesn’t say if you have money or when you have money.”

  • JPMorgan: "Nothing Appears To Be Breaking" But "Something Happened"

    If you thought you were merely on the fence about being confused on the topic of the global economy, and how the Fed may be on the verge of a rate hike when on both previous occasions when financial conditions were here the Fed was launching QE1 and QE2, here is JPM’s chief economist Bruce Kasman to make sure of that.

    Something happened

     

    The August turbulence in global markets has produced significant shifts, including a 6.6% fall in equity prices. The currencies of emerging market countries have depreciated substantially against the G-4, while emerging market borrowing rates for sovereigns and corporates have moved higher. Global oil prices have been whipsawed as have G-4 bond yields.

     

    The speed and magnitude of these movements is reminiscent of past episodes in which financial crises emerged or the global economy slipped into recession. However, nothing appears to be breaking. Global activity indicators have, on balance, disappointed but remain consistent with a modest pickup in the pace of growth. Additionally, despite the turbulence in financial markets, there is no sign of unusual stress in short-term funding markets or of a credit crisis in any large EM economy.

    And just to ease the confusion somewhat, here is Kasman’s attempt at explaining what many others had foreseen months, if not years, ago:

    While the global economy is not breaking, the events of recent weeks have prompted a reassessment of the risks to global growth and financial market stability. Three related factors tied primarily to EM economies, lie behind this reassessment.

    • US and China not giving expected boost to EM. We have noted the widespread expectations (including our own) that a demand boost from the US and China would help to fuel a growth bounce-back across the EM, similar to what happened last year. However, recent activity data from China have uniformly disappointed, reversing a modest firming that took place into mid-year. The US and other DM economies look to be generating solid growth, a point underscored by this week’s impressive revision to 2Q US GDP. However, the positive impulse this is providing to the EM is limited— partly because the composition of G-3 growth appears to be shifting toward services—and so far has been insufficient to offset the sharp deceleration in EM domestic demand.
    • It’s not a war, but currency moves hurt. Against a backdrop of divergent business cycles, shifts in FX rates can be a constructive force that promotes rebalancing. To a large degree, the dollar’s rise against the euro and the yen over the past two years reflects this dynamic since this was accompanied by ECB and BOJ easing. However, the recent declines in EM currencies signal a sense of heightened risk and, in some cases, concerns about policy credibility— further constraining EM policymakers’ ability to ease even as local financial market conditions have tightened.
    • The elephant in the room is the EM credit overhang. The risks associated with weaker growth and tighter financial conditions in the EM are magnified by the large overhang of EM private-sector credit. Our estimates suggest that overall EM private sector debt stands at about 130% of GDP, about 50%-pts above the 2007 level. This pace of increase is unsustainable and the risks of a disruptive deleveraging have increased.

    While recent developments have raised the specter of past EM financial crises, EM governments have taken steps to limit these risks over the past 15 years. In most cases, EM public sector balances are in good shape and FX reserves have risen significantly.  What’s more, the role of short-term interbank financing has been limited in this cycle. Thus, the risk of a crisis that begins with EM sovereigns or the banking sector appears limited.

     

    That said, EM governments’ capacity to offset the effects of an adverse shock to the corporate credit supply is limited. And the risk of this deterioration is real given the interaction of weak growth, reduced pricing power for goods and commodity producers, and rising local market borrowing rates. The downtrend in many EM FX rates will add to the pressure on corporates that have significant FX liabilities. A tightening in EM credit already is under way. Data through
    June show bank loan growth has slowed by one-third in recent years.

     

    The immediate concern for the EM economies seems to be that the credit supply may tighten further, possibly sharply, adding to the downward pressure on growth and capping global growth at a pace much closer to the economy’s potential 2.6%, which is significantly below our current forecast.

    And a pop quiz: at a time when a sharp contraction in the credit supply is the top global growtth fear by Wall Street’s most “respected” bank, does the Fed: i) hike or ii) ease more. This is not a trick question.

  • Do You Feel Lucky?

    Chinese (Mis)Fortune Cookie…

     

     

    Source: Townhall.com

  • Policy Confusion Reigns As China Caps Muni Debt, Uncaps Bank Debt, And Bad Loans Soar

    Last week, China moved to increase the quota for issuance under the country’s local government debt swap program to CNY3.2 trillion. The program, designed to help the country’s local governments crawl out from under a debt burden that amounts to more than 30% of GDP, allows provincial governments to issue bonds with yields that approximate the yield on central government debt and swap the new bonds for outstanding LGFV loans which generally carry higher interest rates. Generally speaking, the debt swap will save local governments somewhere in the neighborhood of 300 to 400 bps. 

    Of course, as we’ve detailed exhaustively, these types of deleveraging initiatives come at a cost for China. That is, with the economy slowing, there’s a certain degree to which China needs to re-leverage by attempting to boost credit growth and juice aggregate demand. That reality, plus the fact that the banks which made the initial loans to local governments weren’t keen to swap those high yielding assets for the new, lower yielding bonds, prompted the PBoC to implement what amounts to Chinese LTROs which allow the banks to pledge the new local government bonds for central bank cash which can then be re-lent to the real economy. So, in a nutshell, local governments issue new bonds, the bank swaps existing loans for those bonds, then the PBoC allows the bonds to be pledged as collateral for new cash. Ideally, this would be a win-win; that is, local government save billions in debt servicing costs and banks have fresh cash to make new loans. 

    The only problem is this: what happens when local governments need to borrow more money to finance things like infrastructure projects? That question prompted the PBoC to relax rules on LGVF financing, a move which hilariously negated the entire refi effort by encouraging local governments to turn to the very same high interest loans that got them into trouble and necessitated the debt swap program in the first place. 

    There’s some (or maybe we should say “a lot”) of ambiguity here regarding how much of local governments’ new financing needs can be met by issuing on-balance sheet bonds (i.e. the same type of traditional, low yielding munis that are part and parcel of the debt swap program only issuance is aimed at raising cash, not at refinancing old LGFV loans) and how much is new, off-balance sheet LGVF borrowing, and sorting that out is an exercise in futility (trust us), but whatever the case, China has now moved to cap local government debt issuance at CNY16 trillion for 2015. Here’s Xinhua with the story:

    China’s top legislature on Saturday imposed a ceiling of 16 trillion yuan (2.51 trillion U.S. dollars) for local government debt in 2015.

     

    The decision was adopted at the close of the National People’s Congress (NPC) Standing Committee bi-monthly session.

     

    The 16-trillion-yuan debt consists of two parts, 15.4 trillion yuan of debt balance owned by local governments by the end of 2014, and 0.6 trillion as the maximum size of debt local governments are allowed to run up in 2015.

     

    The 2014 debt balance surged over 40 percent from the end of 2013 H1, and valued 1.2 times of the final accounting of 2014 public budget, according to the statistics.

     

    According to the Budget Law which took effect this year, and a State Council regulation, China should cap local government debt balance, and the size of local government debt should be submitted by the State Council to the NPC for approval.

     

    Wang Dehua, researcher at Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said the fast expansion of local debt was a result of former inaccurate statistics and the recent proactive fiscal policy as well as major infrastructure projects.

     

    “The move will rein local government debt with law,” said Ma Haitao, a professor at Central University of Finance and Economics.

    Yes, “rein local government debt with law,” but because this is China, and because one initiative designed to curtail leverage must everywhere and always be met with an initiative to expand credit growth lest Beijing, in an effort to get control of the situation should inadvertently end up choking off what little demand for credit still exists outside of CSF plunge protection borrowing, China has also decided to remove the 75% loan-to-deposit cap. Here’s WSJ:

    China will remove a 75% cap on banks’ loan-to-deposit ratios on Oct. 1 following the adoption of a legal amendment by the national parliament on Saturday, according to state news agency Xinhua.

     

    The ratio will instead be regarded as a liquidity monitoring indicator, according to the amendment passed by the Standing Committee of the legislature, known as the National People’s Congress, Xinhua said.

     

    The 75% cap has been in place since its inclusion in a commercial banking law enacted in 1995, Xinhua said. China’s State Council, or cabinet, said in June that the ceiling would be scrapped in a draft amendment to the law.

     

    Under current rules, Chinese banks must keep their loan-to-deposit ratios below 75%. For every dollar a bank collects in deposits, it can lend only 75 cents.

     

    Analysts say the move could modestly boost lending, while also making banks safer as the ceiling encouraged many of them to disguise loans as investments or move them off their balance sheets.

    Of course it’s not at all clear here how much of this decision is truly aimed at reducing risk and how much is simply a desperate attempt to encourage banks to lend. After all, the fact that Chinese banks disguise loans as investments and hold as much as 40% of credit risk off balance sheet isn’t exactly a secret, and in fact, it’s a critical piece of the puzzle when it comes to what is essentially a state-sponsored effort to keep NPLs artificially low (another part of the effort involves forcing banks to roll bad loans).

    And speaking of artificially suppressed NPLs, even the fake numbers official NPL ratios are rising. Here’s FT with a bit of color on H1 performance for China’s big four:

    The country’s big four state-controlled banks — Agricultural Bank of China, ICBC, Bank of China and China Construction Bank — reported only marginal gains in net profit for the first half of the year, while official measures of non-performing loans surged.

     

    While the central bank eased policy last week, cutting the benchmark interest rate and lowering the reserve ratio requirement for banks, analysts expect China’s lenders to remain under increasing pressure as they grapple with the most difficult market conditions they have faced in recent years.

     

    “It’s definitely going to get tougher before we see any turnround,” said Patricia Cheng, head of China financial research at CLSA in Hong Kong. “This is the usual trick of kicking the can down the road, adding new liquidity and hoping it goes to more productive businesses so companies can generate better returns and pay off debt,” she said. “But for the last few years, it hasn’t come true.”

     

    Analysts at Moody’s, the credit rating agency, estimate that the move to cut the RRR — the amount of reserves that banks must keep with the central bank — by 50 basis points to 18 per cent will free up Rmb600bn-Rmb700bn ($94bn-$110bn) of liquidity in the banking system.

     

    Andrew Collier, managing director of Orient Capital, an independent research house in Hong Kong, reckons the People’s Bank of China will continue to reduce the RRR in an attempt to support the banks and the real economy.

     

    But he doubts that will be effective in tackling the main challenge of rising bad debts.

     

    “There are trillions available in banks that the government is slowly releasing like air being let out of a basketball,” he said. “It will help banks’ profitability but it won’t help them overcome the real problem.”

    No, it most certainly will not and in fact, one could plausibly argue that flooding banks with liquidity and forcing them to lend into a weakening economy where household and corporate balance sheets are feeling the heat from a stock market collapse and generally poor economic conditions, respectively, is a recipe for disaster in terms of NPLs. Here’s a bit more from FT:

    [ICBC’s] NPL ratio rose to 1.4 per cent as of end-June, from 1.29 per cent at the end of March, while Bank of China’s rose to 1.4 per cent from 1.33 per cent and Agricultural Bank of China’s hit 1.83 per cent from 1.65 per cent. The ratio for CCB rose to 1.42 per cent from 1.19 per cent at the end of last year.

    Not to put too fine a point on it, but China no longer has any idea what it’s doing. On the one hand, NPLs are rising and there’s every reason to think that creditworthy borrowers are becoming fewer and farther between as the economic deceleration gathers pace. Meanwhile, demand for credit has fallen off a cliff as evidenced by the fact that in July, lending to the real economy (i.e. not to the plunge protection team) cratered 55%. But China simply cannot afford to let the system adjust and rebalance, especially not when daily FX interventions are sapping liquidity and tightening money markets. So Beijing has resorted to forcing the issue by flooding banks with liquidty, an effort which, again thanks to currency management, has to be orders of magnitude larger than it would otherwise be which is why you’re seeing RRR cuts, LTROs, hundreds of billions in reverse repos, and a mishmash of short- and medium-term lending ops. 

    So where, ultimately, does this leave China? Well, it’s almost impossible to say. What the above demonstrates is the extent to which Beijing is continually forced to implement conflicting policy initiatives in a desperate attempt to deleverage and re-leverage simultaneously. At the risk of using an overly colloquial metaphor, this is just a giant game of whack-a-mole. The question is where and how it all ends.

  • Black(er) Monday Looms: Dow Futures Down 220 After J-Hole Speeches & China Fold

    It appears a combination of Stan Fischer’s ‘September is still on the table’ hawkishness (among others at Jackson Hole) and the “promise” once again that China will not intervene in the stock market anymore has taken all the exuberance out of last week’s epic short squeeze in US stocks. Dow futures have given all of Friday’s manipulation back and are trading back near Thursday’s JPM panic lows – down 220 from Friday’s close.

    An ugly start to the week:

     

    With some key Fib support being tested:

     

    As The FT reports,

    China’s government has decided to abandon attempts to boost the stock market through large-scale share purchases, and will instead intensify efforts to find and punish those suspected of “destabilising the market”, according to senior officials.

     

    For two months, a “national team” of state-owned investment funds and institutions has collectively spent about $200bn trying to prop up a market that is still down 37 per cent since its mid-June peak.

     

     

    Traders and officials said the latest intervention was aimed at providing a “positive market environment” in preparation for a big military parade this week to celebrate the 70th anniversary of the “victory of the Chinese people’s war of resistance against Japanese aggression”.

     

    Senior financial regulatory officials insist that this was an anomaly, and that the government will refrain from further large-scale buying of equities.

    Finally, for a glimpse at where we might mean-revert to after the biggest 3-day short-squeeze since the bank bailout in Nov 2008…

     

    We are gonna need another AAPL email, stat.

    Charts: Bloomberg

  • Manipulation = Fragility

    Submitted by Charles Hugh-Smith of OfTwoMinds blog,

    In markets distorted by permanent manipulation the most powerful incentive is to borrow as much money as you can and leverage it as much as you can to maximize your gains in risk-on asset bubbles.

    A core dynamic is laying waste to global financial markets: the greater the level of central bank/government manipulation, the greater the systemic fragility.

    One key characteristic of this fragility is that it invisibly accumulates beneath the surface stability until some minor disturbance cracks the thinning layer of apparent stability. At that point, the system destabilizes, as it has been hollowed out by ceaseless manipulation, a.k.a. intervention.

    There are a number of moving parts to this dynamic of steadily increasing fragility.

    One is that any system quickly habituates to the manipulation, that is, the system soon adds the manipulation to its essential inputs.

    For example: if you lower interest rates to near-zero, the system soon needs near-zero interest rates to remain stable. Raising rates even a mere percentage point threatens to fatally disrupt the entire system.

    Another is that permanent intervention (i.e. manipulation, or to use a less threatening word, management) strips the system of resilience. When participants are rescued from risk by central bank/central state authorities, they take bigger and bigger gambles, knowing that if the bet goes south, the central bank/state will rush to their rescue.

    One of the core sources of resilience is a healthy fear of losses. If you're going to face the consequences of your actions and choices, prudence forces you to either hedge your bets or diversify very broadly, so if bets in one sector go south you won't be wiped out.

    Thanks to the permanent manipulation of central banks and states, trillions of dollars have concentrated in high-risk, high-yield carry trades that are now blowing up.

    A third source of fragility in manipulated financial systems is the perverse incentives generated by cheap credit and assets bubbles. In markets distorted by permanent manipulation–near-zero interest rates, central bank asset purchases, quantitative easing, etc.–the most powerful incentive is to borrow as much money as you can and leverage it as much as you can to maximize your gains in risk-on asset bubbles.

    Why this increases system fragility is obvious: when the bubbles pop, the debt has to be paid back. But once the assets drop enough, selling won't raise enough money to pay back the debt.

    At that point, the borrowers are bankrupt, and the dominoes of debt topple the entire financial system.

    Dave of X22Report and I discuss these dynamics in Central Banks Have Manipulated The Markets Which Will Ultimately Crash: (42:48)

  • Jackson Hole Post-Mortem: "Door Still Fully Open To September Lift Off"

    Curious why the S&P futures have opened down some 0.6%, wiping out the entire late-Friday ramp? The reason is that as SocGen summarizes it best, following the Jackson Hole weekend, we now know that despite Bill Dudley’ platitudes “the door is still fully open to Fed liftoff in September.”

    Here is how SocGen describes a Fed whose posture still hints at a September rate hike:

    Jackson Hole vs Market Consensus

     

    Analysing the speeches and papers from Jackson Hole, we note several “gaps” to the market consensus. Top of the list, Vice-chair Fischer struck a slightly less dovish tone suggesting that all options remain open with respect to a September liftoff. New research presented, moreover, showed that US inflation is less influenced by FX rates than some in markets fear. BoE Governor, for his part, played down the China slowdown noting this did not yet warrant a change to BoE strategy. Vice President Constancio also sounded confident in the ECB’s ability to close the output gap and raise inflation. More worrying, RBI Governor Rajan warned that central banks should not be overburdened and noted mispricing of certain assets. Also notable was the apparent lack of discussion on what tools central banks have left to fight new downside risks; and this at a time when one of the more effective QE channels of emerging economies’ leverage expansion has lost its punch. A topic perhaps for the 4-5 September G20 in Ankara.

     

    Door still fully open to Fed liftoff in September …

     

    Comments by Fed Vice Chair Fischer kept the door open to a September rate hike. Speaking Saturday, he noted that at “At this moment, we are following developments in the Chinese economy and their actual and potential effects on other economies even more closely than usual.” At the same time, he highlighted that “With inflation low, we can probably remove accommodation at a gradual pace. Yet, because monetary policy influences real activity with a substantial lag, we should not wait until inflation is back to 2 percent to begin tightening.”

     

    Interestingly, while Fischer made reference to role of the dollar in potentially keeping US inflation low, new research from Harvard Economics Professor Gita Gopinath, (link here) suggested that the US economy is fairly “insulated” from foreign inflation/deflation pressures via exchange rates given that the bulk of US foreign trade in conducted in dollars. This is very much in line with the findings of our Chief US Economist, Aneta Markowska.

     

    At present the market is pricing in a probability of just under 40% for a September rate hike, up from a low last week of 24% but still below our own baseline which sits above 50% and more dovish than our interpretation of the tone struck at Jackson Hole and recent data releases. Albeit that part of the Q2 GDP revision from 2.3% to 3.7% came from an inventory build, private demand was also robust. This week’s employment report is the key release ahead of the 16-17 September FOMC and we look for 250K. In addition to the economic data, financial conditions will play an important role in shaping the Fed’s liftoff decision; the recent stabilisation if confirmed should increase the odds.

    * * *

    Translation: while the Fed may or may not hike in September, the Fed itself does not know what it will do, less than three weeks until the September FOMC, but as we explained on Friday the higher the market rises, i.e., the looser financial conditions become, the higher the likelihood the Fed does hike in September after all… thereby forcing another sell off.

    Good luck with that particular bit of circular logic.

  • A Very Unexpected Statement From A Central Banker: "We Are Merely Reacting To A Situation We Did Not Create"

    The ECB’s Vitor Constancio, while largely a silent puppet operating quietly in the shadow of his boss, former Goldmanite Mario Draghi, is best known for his tragicomic statement from October 2014 that the ECB will not stress test Europe’s banks for deflationary scenario because it simply won’t happen…

    My question would be on how credible these tests are. Looking at the adverse scenario, you haven’t even included deflation. You have not included an interruption in gas imports to Europe. You have not included full-on sanctions on Russia. So please elaborate and convince us.

     

    Constâncio: The scenario for the stress test was published earlier in the year, so some of the things you mentioned would not have been considered. But indeed, what was considered is a severe shock being the growth of other countries. If you look to the scenario, you see that for the US, there is also a big deceleration of growth which is part of the scenario and also for other countries that are the markets of the euro area. So that is embedded in those assumptions of indeed a big drop in external demand directed to the euro area. That’s the first point. The scenario of deflation is not there because indeed we don’t consider that deflation is going to happen.

    … just two months before the same Constancio warned Europe would shortly have its first episode of outright deflation, and which was confirmed in the first week of January

     

    … precipitating the launch of Europe’s own version of QE.

    But while the general public is now largely used to central bankers’ utter cluelessness when it comes to predicting even the most immediate future, just a few days ago the same ECB vice president uttered something far more confusing and perhaps troubling during the Annual Congress of the European Economic Association, on August 25.

    Here is what he said:

    Sometimes the criticism directed at our policies implicitly attributes responsibility for the low interest-rate environment to central bank policies. But the truth is precisely the opposite: central banks are simply reacting to and trying to correct a situation that they did not create. Indeed, medium and long-term market interest rates are mostly influenced by investors and market players, as the recent so-called “bund tantrum” illustrates.

    Huh? Suddenly central bankers are pulling the Obama ‘defense’ – it was all the “other guy’s fault”. But why? And if the current unprecedented regime of ubiquitous central planning is not the central planners’ fault,  then whose fault is it?

    Well, according to the same ECB comedian, it is the market’s fault: the same markets that haven’t existed since 2009 when the only “trade” was to frontrun, drumroll, the central bankers.

    It gets better, because suddenly Constancio decides to completely lose logic and blame low rates on… low rates.

    More importantly though, it should be pointed out that for a few decades now we have been witnessing a sort of secular trend towards lower real interest rates. This trend is related to secular stagnation in advanced economies, resulting from a continuous deceleration of total productivity growth and an increase in planned savings accompanied by less buoyant investment prospects. Monetary policy short-term rates are low because of those developments, not the other way around. At the same time, our monetary policy has to be accommodative precisely in order to normalise inflation and growth rates, thereby opening up the possibility of higher interest rates.

    Actually, dear Vitor, the only reason there is secular stagnation now is because of the $200 trillion in global debt your policies have enabled: debt, which even McKinsey and the IMF, i.e., very serious institutional participants, admit needs to be washed away for global growth to have even a remote chance.

     

    But the moment Constancio’s speech jumped the printer was this:

    Furthermore, in the present short-term conditions, with no fiscal room for manoeuvre, it is monetary policy that has the capacity to create the hope that this normalisation will protect savers in the future and improve net margins for banks.

    Get this: a VP for a central bank… whose deposit rate is negative… which forces savers to pay the banks for the privilege of holding their cash… is suddenly concerned about “protecting savers.”

    One couldn’t make this up.

    The good news is that finally central bankers are scared: otherwise they wouldn’t be deflecting public anger from their actions and blaming the “market” – a market which may have existed once upon a time, but in a world with $22 trillion of central bank liquidity is just a fond memory.

    Here is to hoping that whatever is scaring these same central planners, finally forces them to admit what has been clear to most for the past 7 years: the money printing emperor has been naked from day one. And to finally leave and never come back, allowing this so-called “market” to return and wipe away 7 years of parasitic policies that have only benefited the top 1% of the population while crushing everyone else.

  • Did The Fed Intentionally Spark A Commodity Sell-off?

    Submitted by Leonard Brecken via OilPrice.com,

    The intention here is the bring facts to light so the public can decide.

    I’m not quite sure what to believe on how and why oil prices remain more than 50 percent below free cash flow break even for most independent E&P companies. I know for sure it’s not just one reason and is more likely a confluence of events.

    Part of the reason oil prices broke new six-year lows is tied to hedge funds shorting equities and pressuring equity pricing through shorting oil. Another reason is the desire of private equity firms to buy assets on cheap and some banks seeking M&A fees. Obviously OPEC policy has a part to play. There is also no doubt that EIA statistics mistakenly leave the impression that production has remained resilient throughout the summer. But the spark that set the ball in motion was the dollar strength as every major money center bank in the U.S. recommended going long EU equities and long the dollar because of further monetary easing in Europe.

    The inverse correlation between the U.S. dollar and oil prices in June was virtually 100 percent, but that has changed more recently, as I have noted previously. At that time, investors here in the U.S. plowed into biotechnology and technology and went short oil as if they knew what assets central banks were going to buy and not buy based on all the free money from Europe and Japan.

    Since the financial crisis began the cozy relationship between money center banks and the Federal Reserve, since the bail outs, is well known. For example, Goldman Sachs’ deep ties to the U.S. government are notorious and, not surprisingly, they led the charge in calls for a downturn in oil. So has the media, as I have extensively documented all year here.

    On the other hand, oil inventories on paper in the U.S. were rising into the fall of last year for sure while the economy was weakening in the U.S. and in China, the largest importer of commodities. So the merits of weaker commodity prices stand on their own to an extent. The correction to $70 from $100 was justified, but the crash to levels not seen since the crisis of 2008-2009 are overblown. Now the cries comparing the 2015 crisis to the 1986 oil demise rise as well. Are economic conditions that bad?

    For oil, demand has greatly accelerated, in fact. Then why go long the riskier, higher beta technology that, at their highs and still to this day, are still being pumped? To make matters worse, record short positions in oil futures and equities still exist, eclipsing even the 2008-2009 meltdown. So where did this long tech, short commodity trade derive from and why? One possibility is the Federal Reserve itself; either indirectly, through monetary policy, or directly.

    When the markets corrected last fall, Fed officials did not shy away from additional use of monetary policy or Quantitative Easing (QE). The cries from Wall Street were as loud as ever for it.

    By early 2015, the economy had weakened, and GDP dropped below 2 percent growth on an annual basis. But Wall Street’s cries were largely silent, other than to say the Fed shouldn’t raise rates. The Fed, on the other hand, instead of threatening to ease, is instead threatening to tighten; the opposite of what we heard when markets fell similarly in 2014. The question is, why the change, despite fundamentals weakening?

    One theory is that some within the Fed realized that QE wasn’t working, and never worked, thus another path was needed. But what alternative did they have, since rates were already ZERO?

    So maybe they changed course and took a strong dollar policy vs. a weak one to intentionally weaken the commodity sector and thus boost consumer spending. Throughout this down turn, that message has been repeated by Yellen herself many times, as a source of economic stimulus and for sure has been repeated over and over in the media and the talking heads of Wall Street.

    Wall Street is notorious for not fighting Fed policy, so they turned to other asset classes such as technology to blow that bubble up even further. But then why was there such a desire to close the Iran deal so suddenly, which would further add to global oil supply?

    This theory isn’t as farfetched as it initially seems, especially considering that Wall Street has been investing based on central bank policies for 6 years now, moving money where easing occurs around the globe and putting very little into real fundamentals. It’s something to consider in explaining prices.

  • Polish Government Confirms Discovery Of Nazi "Gold Train", Warns It May Be Booby-Trapped

    Last weekend we reported that in the past month two men, a Pole and German, claimed to have discovered the legendary Nazi “gold train” – a 150 meter long German train alleged to be full of gold, gems and weapons, which disappeared just before the end of World War II – in the proximity of the Polish town of Walbrzych, close to where the Nazi are said to have loaded up the train with valuables for its final voyage in the town of Wroclaw, just as the Soviet forces approached in 1945.

    As we detailed, the train is said to have been entombed in the vast tunnel labyrinth located close to Ksiaz castle, which served as Nazi headquarters during World War II…

    Ksiaz castle, Nazi headquarters during World War II

    … and specifically, was said to be located at the foot of the Sowa mountain, in the woods three miles outside the town of Walbrych.

    The “gold train” is said to be located under this hill

    While many were skeptical that the mystical Nazi treasure train had been finally discovered after many years of searching, an official update last Friday by the Polish government suggested that that may indeed be the case. As the Mail reported on Friday, a representative of the Polish culture ministry, Poland’s National Heritage and Conservation Officer Piotr Zuchowski, said that the man who helped hide the train had revealed its location shortly before he died, and that proof of the train has been observed on radar.

    Zuchowski added that “Information about where this train is and what its contents are were revealed on the deathbed of a person who had knowledge of the secret of this train.’ He added that Polish authorities had now seen evidence of the train’s existence in a picture taken using a ground-penetrating radar. He said the image – albeit blurred – showed the shape of a train platform and cannons. 

    Piotr Zuchowski, Poland’s National Heritage and Conservation Officer, confirmed the ‘unprecedented’ find

    Mr Zuchowski said the find was ‘unprecedented’, adding: ‘We do not know what is inside the train. ‘Probably military equipment but also possibly jewellery, works of art and archive documents. 

    ‘Armored trains from this period were used to carry extremely valuable items and this is an armored train, it is a big clue.’ He said authorities were now ’99 percent sure the train exists’ and whatever is on it will be returned to the rightful owners, if they can be found. ‘We will be 100 per cent sure only when we find the train,’ Mr Zuchowski added.

    The train found in the mountains is an ‘armored train’ which looks similar to the one pictured

    Mr Zuchowski told reporters that the train was about 100 metres long but added: ‘It is not possible to disclose the exact location of where the train can be found. Still, he noted cryptically that “The local government in Walbrzych knows where it is.”

    He explained it is hidden along a 4km stretch of track on the Wroclaw-Walbrzych line.

    Mr Zuchowski said the person who claimed he helped load the gold train in 1945 said in a ‘deathbed statement’ the train is secured with explosives. The official declined to comment further about the man who said this but speculation is now rife that it was a former SS guard or a local Pole who stumbled upon the train before hiding it.

    Deputy Mayor of Walbrzych, Zygmunt Nowaczyk told the press: ‘The city is full of mysterious stories because of its history. ‘Now it is formal information – we have found something.’

    Key excerpts from the press conference by the Polish official can be seen on the Euronews clip below:

     

    The confirmation of the discovery unleashed a surge of treasury hunters, and forced the Polish government to warn the population to stop looking because it could be booby-trapped and dangerous. Zuchowski said “foragers” have become active since two people claimed to have discovered the train last week and urged eager fortune-hunters to stop searching, saying they risk injury or death.

    Zuchowski adds that “there may be hazardous substances dating from the Second World War in the hidden train, which I’m convinced exists. I am appealing to people to stop any such searches until the end of official procedures leading to the securing of the find. There’s a huge probability that the train is booby-trapped.’

    If anything, tthese warnings are sure to unleash an even more aggressive wave of seekers now that the train’s existience has been confirmed, and the government is actually warning seekers to be careful in their search.

    But perhaps what is more interesting is just what the discovery, which would be straight out of an Indiana Jones sequel, will contain, and whether someone already got to the precious cargo over the past 7 decades. The answer should be made public shortly.

  • Leveraged Financial Speculation In The US At A Familiar Peak, Once Again

    Via Jesse's Cafe Americain,

    "I believe myriad global “carry trades” – speculative leveraging of securities – are the unappreciated prevailing source of finance behind interlinked global securities market Bubbles. They amount to this cycle’s government-directed finance unleashed to jump-start a global reflationary cycle.

     

    I’m convinced that perhaps Trillions worth of speculative leverage have accumulated throughout global currency and securities markets at least partially based on the perception that policymakers condone this leverage as integral (as mortgage finance was previously) in the fight against mounting global deflationary forces."

     

    Doug Noland, Carry Trades and Trend-Following Strategies

    The basic diagnosis is correct.   But the nature of the disease, and the appropriate remedies, may not be so easily apprehended, except through simple common sense.  And that is a rare commodity these days.

    Like a dog returns to its vomit, the Fed's speculative bubble policy enables the one percent to once again feast on the carcass of the real economy.

    'And no one could have ever seen it coming.'

    Once is an accident.

    Twice is no coincidence.

    Remind yourself what has changed since then.  Banks have gotten bigger.   Schemes and fraud continue.

    What will the third time be like?  And the fourth?

     

    Do you think that Jamie bet Lloyd a dollar that they couldn't do it again?

    Should we ask them to please behave, levy some token fines, watch the politicans yell and posture in some toothless public hearings, let all of them keep their jobs and their bonuses?   And then bail them out, wind up the old Victrola,  and have another go at the same old thing again?

    Maybe we can vote for one of their hired servants, or skip the middlemen and vote for one of the arrogant hustlers themselves, and hope they get tired of taking us for a ride before we all go broke.

    This policy we have now is the trickle down stimulus that the wealthy financiers have been sucking on with every opportunity that they have made for themselves since the days of Andrew Jackson. Whenever the ability to create and distribute money has been handed over by a craven Congress to private corporations and banking cartels without sufficient oversight and regulation, excessive speculation, financial recklessness, and moral hazard have acted like a plague of misery and stagnation on the real economy.

    "Gentlemen! I too have been a close observer of the doings of the Bank of the United States. I have had men watching you for a long time, and am convinced that you have used the funds of the Bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the Bank.

     

    You tell me that if I take the deposits from the Bank and annul its charter I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin!

     

    You are a den of vipers and thieves. I have determined to rout you out, and by the Eternal, (bringing his fist down on the table) I will rout you out."

     

    From the original minutes of the Philadelphia bankers sent to meet with President Jackson February 1834, from Andrew Jackson and the Bank of the United States (1928) by Stan V. Henkels

    I believe all of the above is entirely possible.  Because we still have an unashamed cadre of quack economists and their ideologically blind followers blaming the victims,  prescribing harsh punishments for the weak, laying all the blame on 'government' and not corrupt officials on the payrolls of Big Money, and giving the gods of the market and their masters of the universe a big kiss on the head, and expecting them to just do the right thing the next time out of the natural goodness of their unrestrained natures the next time. 

    What could go wrong with that?

    Genuine reform.   It's too much work, and too much trouble.

    h/t Jesse Felder for the chart

  • This Trade Works Like Clockwork

    By Chris at www.CapitalistExploits.at

    The past few weeks we’ve been enjoying the sights and sounds of Colombia with our Seraph group, a country which has gradually been dragging itself out of a nightmarish civil war, constantly overshadowed and closely tied to drug cartel wars which pepper it’s history. Much of that seems a distant memory now and the rise of a middle class, the flip side of which is a fairly rapidly falling unemployment numbers and poverty levels, is evident all around. Colombia has benefited in the last decade from strong commodity prices and on the face of it is doing well.

    In the short term I think there comes some serious dislocations in the market for a host of reasons which we discussed in earnest late into the nights. I like a bit of chaos as prices typically move accordingly and in emerging markets like Colombia they tend to move more violently than elsewhere. This is due to relative illiquidity amongst other things.

    I’ll have more on this next week but due to what the broader markets, especially those in the US, are delivering us right now I felt it better to provide some thoughts from our colleague Mark Schumacher.

    Enjoy!

    ————

    This past week the Dow Jones industrial average fell almost 900 points or 5.1% from 17,352 to 16,460. The index is now 10.1% below its 18,312 peak reached on 5/19/15 crossing the 10% mark which defines a technical correction.  For all of 2015 it is down 7.7% while our portfolios are still up this year. I’ll provide a thorough summary at the end of Q3.

    The catalyst for the recent correction is renewed global growth fears which are centered on concerns about China having a hard landing as it attempts to become less dependent on exports by growing its service economy. The market is interpreting (correctly in my opinion) the recent nearly 2% devaluation of the yuan as evidence that China’s problems are worse than previously thought… why else would they need to make such a move on top of all the financial stimulus they have been pumping into their system. If trouble is indeed brewing in the 2nd largest economy and #1 exporter ($2.25T vs. 1.61T for the US), than there will be ripple effects across the globe.

    There is no guarantee that US stocks prices will suffer a great deal especially for domestically oriented companies, plus some US businesses will benefit from a weaker China. However in case trouble spreads or the negative momentum simply feeds on itself for a while I purchased portfolio insurance in the form of three ETFs that will appreciate during a US stock market sell off.

    Insurance: How Much and Which Products

    I did not purchase enough insurance to cover our entire portfolio of investments as that would be overkill and too expensive. The products we own cover 26% – 30% of our entire portfolio including assets with limited risk. I am considering increasing it to cover up to 35% depending on how events develop but currently don’t see a need to go higher than that.  Should another step be necessary for greater safety, I would simply sell some shares and hold the cash for a while, but I much prefer sitting tight as our holdings offer very good value especially at today’s prices. I expect the businesses we own to flourish for years because they are either leaders in their respective fields while benefiting from strong trends, or they are super cheap turnaround candidates that we are generating income from. We are best served by sitting tight with these investments while having some insurance rather than exiting now then trying to time when to get back in again.

    Gold may appreciate during a stock market sell off but it does not always work that way, therefore I do not think of gold as portfolio insurance.

    The three ETFs we purchased were:

    1. SDS – moves inversely 2-1 vs. the S&P 500 index which is a basket of 500 very large US stocks spanning many industries.

    2. QID – moves inversely 2-1 vs. the NASDAQ 100 which is a basket of large US technology stocks. This nicely correlates with some of our technology holdings.

    3. BIS – moves inversely 2-1 vs. the NASDAQ biotechnology and pharmaceutical index which has had a crazy run up.

    FYI, because these are -2x products we can cover 30% of our portfolio by investing just 15% of our assets in these ETFs. These inverse products experience some daily rebalancing decay so they are not buy and hold investments. You don’t sit on them for years. Several months is more typical, and I only plan to hold them for as long as the current market weakness continues.

    Historical Chart: Corrections and Recoveries

    The two biggest things I take away from observing the 20-year stock market chart below (which is on a log scale) are:

    • Corrections happen quickly while recoveries happen more gradually but last longer. This is where the saying “stock investors ride escalators up but take the elevator down” comes from. The majority of the time you will be on the escalator. Right now we are in the elevator.
    • The stock market rarely moves sideways. It is nearly always either trending up or trending down. I believe this is purely due to investor psychology rather than fundamentals such as GDP and business profits which fairly often trend sideways. Best not to ignore investor psychology at least over the near term as it drives stock price trends, in my opinion.

    I would say this historical chart puts the size of the recent decline from 2,100 to 1,970 for the S&P 500 index into proper perspective which is why it is not too late to buy some portfolio insurance.

    SPX Chart

    20-Year Chart: US Stock Market (SPX)

    The 15-year chart below is simply to demonstrate the crazy run up biotech stocks have had over just the past few years making that sector vulnerable to a price correction as many of these stocks sport multi-billion dollar valuations but don’t yet have any products on the market.

    IBB Chart

    15-Year Chart: US Biotech & Pharma Stocks (IBB)

    Bottom Line

    The stock market correction that I have been worried about for a few years is finally here. I hope it will be shallow and short lived but hope is not a defensive technique so I thought it prudent to buy some protection in case the selling continues. Having a portion of our portfolios appreciate during a sell off is even better than holding extra cash.

    Furthermore, I have a plan should volatility spike really high; I will execute our time-tested strategy of buying ZIV or XIV which I will reiterate should we put that plan into action.

    ————

    Members have just received an alert on this very trade.

    Until next week…

    – Chris

     

    “A man who does not plan long ahead will find trouble at his door.” – Confucius

  • The End Of "The Permanent Lie" Looms Large

    Submitted by Satyajit Das via The Sydney Morning Herald,

    Like the characters in Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot, the world awaits the return of wealth and prosperity. But the global economy may be entering a period of stagnation.

    Over the last 35 years, the economic growth necessary to increase living standards, increase wealth and manage growing inequality has been based increasingly on rising borrowings and financial rather than real engineering. There was reliance on debt-driven consumption. It resulted in global trade and investment imbalances, such as that between China and the US or Germany and the rest of Europe.

    Everybody conspires to ignore the underlying problem, cover it up, or devise deferral strategies to kick the can down the road.

    Citizens demanded and governments allowed the build-up of retirement and healthcare entitlements as well as public services to win or maintain office. The commitments were rarely fully funded by taxes or other provisions.

    The 2008 global financial crisis was a warning of the unstable nature of these arrangements. But there has been no meaningful change. Since 2007, global debt has grown by US$57 trillion, or 17 per cent of the world’s gross domestic product. In many countries, debt has reached unsustainable levels, and it is unclear how or when it is to be reduced without defaults that would wipe out large amounts of savings.

    Imbalances remain. Entitlement reform has proved politically difficult. Financial institutions and activity dominate many economies.

    The official policy is “extend and pretend”, whereby everybody conspires to ignore the underlying problem, cover it up, or devise deferral strategies to kick the can down the road. The assumption was that government spending, lower interest rates and supplying abundant cash to the money markets would create growth. While the measures did stabilise the economy, they did not lead to a full recovery. Instead, they set off dangerous asset price bubbles in shares, bonds, real estate and even fine arts and collectibles.

    Economic problems are now compounded by lower population growth and ageing populations; slower increases in productivity and innovation; looming shortages of critical resources, such as water, food and energy; and man-made climate change and extreme weather conditions. Slower growth in international trade and capital flows is another retardant. Emerging markets, such as China, that have benefited from and recently supported growth are slowing. Rising inequality affects economic activity.

    For most people, the effect of these problems is unemployment, reduced job security, the deskilling of many professions and stagnant incomes. Home ownership is increasingly out of reach for many. Retirement may become a luxury for all but a few, reflecting increasing difficulty in building sufficient savings. In effect, living standards will decline. Future generations will bear the bulk of the cost as they are left to tackle the unresolved problems of their forebears.

    Governments are unwilling to tell the truth about the magnitude of the economic problems, the lack of solutions and cost of possible corrective actions to the electorate. Politicians have taken regard of historian Simon Schama’s comment that no one ever won an election by telling voters it had come to the end of its “providential allotment of inexhaustible plenty”. The official policy articulated, in a moment of unusual candour, by Jean-Claude Juncker, the current head of the European Commission, was that when the situation becomes serious it is simply necessary to lie.

    Ordinary people are complicit; refusing to acknowledge that maybe you cannot have it all. They sense that the ultimate cost of the inevitable adjustments will be large. It is not simply the threat of economic hardship; it is fear of a loss of dignity and pride. It is a pervasive sense of powerlessness.

    The political and social response is likely to be volatile. It was the fear and disaffection of the middle class who had lost their savings in the events of Great Depression that gave rise to totalitarianism.

    For the moment, to paraphrase Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the “permanent lie [has become] the only safe form of existence”. But the world cannot postpone, indefinitely, dealing decisively with the economic, resource management, social and political challenges we face.

  • Sanders Surges As 1 Million Fake Hillary Followers Exposed

    "This feels like 2008 all over again," as NPR reports the latest Iowa Poll showed Sanders just 7 points behind Hillary Clinton, who leads 37 to 30 percent among likely Democratic caucus-goers. Why 2008? As NPR notes, that's when a heavily favored Clinton stumbled and lost to Barack Obama, then a young senator whose middle name, Hussein, was the same as a dictator the U.S. had just overthrown and whose last name rhymed with America's Public Enemy No. 1. And while the socialist septuagenarian continues to surge, Hillary faces yet another 'issue', as Yahoo Tech reports, 1 million (or one third) of her 'apparent' Twitter followers are fake.

     

     

    As The Des Moines Register reports,

    Liberal revolutionary Bernie Sanders, riding an updraft of insurgent passion in Iowa, has closed to within 7 points of Hillary Clinton in the Democratic presidential race.

     

    She's the first choice of 37 percent of likely Democratic caucusgoers; he's the pick for 30 percent, according to a new Des Moines Register/Bloomberg Politics Iowa Poll.

     

    But Clinton has lost a third of her supporters since May, a trajectory that if sustained puts her at risk of losing again in Iowa, the initial crucible in the presidential nominating contest.

     

     

    This is the first time Clinton, the former secretary of state and longtime presumptive front-runner, has dropped below the 50 percent mark in four polls conducted by the Register and Bloomberg Politics this year.

     

    Poll results include Vice President Joe Biden as a choice, although he has not yet decided whether to join the race. Biden captures 14 percent, five months from the first-in-the-nation vote Feb. 1. Even without Biden in the mix, Clinton falls below a majority, at 43 percent.

     

     

     

     

    "These numbers would suggest that she can be beaten," said Steve McMahon, a Virginia-based Democratic strategist who has worked on presidential campaigns dating to 1980.

    *  *  *

    But Hillary's problems continue to rise as Yahoo Tech finds that an analysis of the Hillary Clinton's and Joe Biden's Twitter accounts has revealed that over one million of Clinton's followers are fake, while only 53% of Biden's social media fans are real.

    Fake Twitter followers abound among the U.S. presidential candidates as they gear up for the election in 2016. And Hillary Clinton isn’t the only candidate with more than a million of them. GOP frontrunner Donald Trump also has well over a million fake followers. Other candidates have them, too, but not as many (in large part because they don’t have as many followers, period).

     

    “Fake followers are a mix of inactive Twitter users (who signed up but never log on), completely fake users that are created for the sole purpose of following people, and spam bots that are programmatically set up to tweet ads and malicious content,” explained David Caplan, co-founder of TwitterAudit.

     

    “Fake followers aren’t inherently bad,” Caplan said, “they are just a dishonest form of using social media. They can be leveraged to inflate someone’s reputation. People will most likely follow someone who already has many followers, so buying followers is a way to boost your follower count in the future. Fake followers can also be used to commit fraud in the sense that you can inflate the value of your Twitter account for advertising purposes without creating any real value.”

    Here are the "real" follower counts for the numerous presidential hopefuls…

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News August 30, 2015

  • Why The Great Petrodollar Unwind Could Be $2.5 Trillion Larger Than Anyone Thinks

    Last weekend, we explained why it really all comes down to the death of the petrodollar. 

    China’s transition to a new currency regime was supposed to represent a move towards a greater role for the market in determining the exchange rate for the yuan. That’s not exactly what happened. As BNP’s Mole Hau hilariously described it last week, “whereas the daily fix was previously used to fix the spot rate, the PBoC now seemingly fixes the spot rate to determine the daily fix, [thus] the role of the market in determining the exchange rate has, if anything, been reduced in the short term.” Of course a reduced role for the market means a greater role for the PBoC and that, in turn, means FX reserve liquidation or, more simply, the sale of US Treasurys on a massive scale. 

    The liquidation of hundreds of billions in US paper made national headlines this week, as the world suddenly became aware of what it actually means when countries begin to draw down their FX reserves. But in order to truly comprehend what’s going on here, one needs to look at China’s UST liquidation in the context of the epochal shift that began to unfold 10 months ago. When it became clear late last year that Saudi Arabia was determined to use crude prices to bankrupt US shale producers and secure other “ancillary diplomatic benefits” (think leverage over Russia), it ushered in a new era for producing nations. Suddenly, the flow of petrodollars began to dry up as prices plummeted. These were dollars that for years had been recycled into USD assets in a virtuous loop for everyone involved. The demise of that system meant that the flow of exported petrodollar capital (i.e. USD recycling) suddenly turned negative for the first time in decades, as countries like Saudi Arabia looked to their stash of FX reserves to shore up their finances in the face of plunging crude. Of course the sustained downturn in oil prices did nothing to help the commodities complex more broadly and as commodity currencies plunged, the yuan’s dollar peg meant China’s export-driven economy was becoming less and less competitive. Cue the devaluation and subsequent FX market interventions.

    In short, China’s FX management means that Beijing has joined the global USD asset liquidation party which was already gathering pace thanks to the unwind of the petrodollar system. To understand the implications, consider what BofAML said back in January:

    During the oil-boom era, oil-exporters used oil earnings to finance imports of goods and services, and channeled a portion of surplus savings into foreign assets. ‘Petrodollar’ recycling has in turn helped boost global demand, liquidity and asset prices. With the current oil price rout, external and fiscal balances of oil exporters are undermined, and the threat of lower imports and repatriation of foreign assets is cause for concern.


    Recycling of Asia-dollars might partly replace the recycling of petrodollars.  Asian sovereign wealth funds ($2.8tn) account for about 39% of total sovereign wealth funds, and will likely see their size increase at a faster clip. Sovereign wealth funds of China (CIC & SAFE), Hong Kong (HKMA), Singapore (GIC & Temasek) and Korea (KIC) rank in the Top-15 globally

    Yes, the “recycling of Asia-dollars might partly replace the recycling of petrodollars.” Unless of course a large Asian country is suddenly forced to become a seller of USD assets and on a massive scale. In that case, not only would the recycling of Asian-dollars not replace petrodollar recycling, but the “Eastern liquidation” (so to speak) would simply add fuel to the fire – and a lot of it. That’s precisely the dynamic that’s about to play out. 

    A careful reading of the above from BofA also seems to suggest is that looking strictly at official FX reserves might underestimate the potential size of the petrodollar effect. Sure enough, a quick check across sellside desks turns up a Credit Suisse note on the “secular downtrend in EM reserves” which the bank says could easily be understated by focusing on official reserves. 

    First, note the big picture trends (especially Exhibit 2):

    And further, here’s why the scope of the unwind could be materially underestimated.

    Taken into context, the year-to-date fall in EM reserves accounts for only 2% of the total stock of EM reserves. However, the change in the behavior of EM central banks from persistent buyers to now sellers of reserve assets carries important implications. Importantly, official reserves will likely underestimate the full scale of the reversal of oil exporters’ “petrodollar” accumulation.

     

    Crucially, for oil exporting nations, central bank official reserves likely underestimate the full scale of the reversal of oil exporters’ “petrodollar” accumulation. This is because a substantial part of their oil proceeds has previously been placed in sovereign wealth funds (SWFs), which are not reported as FX reserves (with the notable exception of Russia, where they are counted as FX reserves).

    • Currently, oil exporting countries hold about $1.7trn of official reserves but as much as $4.3trn in SWF assets.
    • In the 2009-2014 period, oil exporters accumulated about $0.5trn in official reserves but as much as $1.8trn of SWF assets.

    Now that the tide has turned, it is likely that not only official reserves drop but that SWF asset accumulation slows to nil or even reverses. SWF selling may be a slower process as assets tend to be less liquid, but the opportunity might still be taken to repatriate some investments, for instance to boost domestic rather than foreign infrastructure projects. 

     

    In other words, looking at the total amount of official reserves for oil exporters understates the potential for petrodollar draw downs by around $2.5 trillion. Now obviously, it’s unlikely that exporters will exhaust the entirety of their SWFs. Having said that, the fact that EM FX reserve accumulation turned negative for the first time in history during Q2 underscores how quickly the tide can turn and how sharp reversals can be. If one fails to at least consider the SWF angle then the effect is to underestimate the worst case scenario by $2.5 trillion, and if 2008 taught us anything, it’s that failing to understand just how bad things can get leaves everyone unprepared for the fallout in the event the situation actually does deteriorate meaningfully. 

    So that’s the big picture. In other words, the above is a discussion of the pressure on accumulated petrodollar investments and is an attempt to show that the pool of assets that could, in a pinch, be sold off to finance things like massive budget deficits (Saudi Arabia, for instance, is staring down a fiscal deficit that amounts to 20% of GDP) is likely being underestimated by those who narrowly focus on official reserves. Switching gears briefly to consider what $50 crude means for the flow of petrodollars (i.e. what’s coming in), RBS’ Alberto Gallo has the numbers:

    If petroleum prices continue in to year end at their current YtD average ($52), this would represent a 60% decline in Petrodollar generated in 2015 vs between 2011 and 2014. Assuming that 30% of gross Petrodollars generated per year are invested in financial markets, this would imply $288bn ready for investments in 2015 vs a $726bn average between 2011 and 2014. Lower purchasing power from oil-exporting countries may in turn reduce demand for $-denominated fixed income assets, including $ IG and $ HY. US IG and HY firms have issued $918bn and $220bn YtD, which in total marks a record-high vs past years. 

     

     

    And while all of this may seem complex, it’s actually quite simple: less petrodollars coming in without a commensurate reduction in what’s going out means the difference has to be made up somewhere and that somewhere is in the sale of USD reserve assets which are prone to being understated if one looks only at official FX reserves. Contrast this with the status quo which for years has been more petrodollars coming in than what’s going out (in terms of expenditures) with the balance being reinvested in USD assets.

    Simplifying even further: the virtuous circle (for the dollar and for USD assets) has not only been broken, but it’s now starting to reverse itself and the potential scope of that reversal must take into account SWF assets. 

    Where we go from here is an open question, but what’s clear from the above is that between China’s FX reserve drawdowns in defense of the yuan and the dramatic decrease in petrodollar flow, the self-feeding loop that’s sustained the dollar and propped up USD assets is now definitively broken and we are only beginning to understand the consequences. 

  • Dis-Integrating America

    Submitted by Pat Buchanan via Buchanan.org,

    The Wednesday morning murders of 24-year-old Roanoke TV reporter Alison Parker and cameraman Adam Ward, 27, were a racist atrocity, a hate crime. Were they not white, they would be alive today.

    Their killer, Vester L. Flanagan II, said as much in his farewell screed. He ordered his murder weapon, he said, two days after the slaughter of nine congregants at the African-American AME church in Charleston, South Carolina.

    “What sent me over the top was the church shooting,” said Flanagan.

    To be sure, racism does not fully explain why Flanagan, fired from that same WDBJ7 station, committed this act of pure evil.

    Black and homosexual, he said he was the target of anti-gay slurs from black males and racial insults from white colleagues. He had gotten himself fired from other jobs in broadcasting. He carried a grab bag of grudges and resentments.

    Yet, in the last analysis, The Washington Post headline got it right: “Gunman’s letter frames attack as racial revenge.”

    Other news organizations downplayed the racial aspect. But had those murdered journalists been young and black, and their killer a 40-something “angry white male,” the racial motivation would have been front and center in their stories.

    Now, Black America is surely as sickened by this horror outside Roanoke as was White America by the Charleston massacre.

    But it is hard to see how and when we come together as a people. For racial crimes and race conflict have become “the story” that everyone seizes upon — since Ferguson in the summer of 2014.

    On the first anniversary of Michael Brown’s death, protesters blocked public buildings in St. Louis and St. Louis County, shut down I-70 at rush hour. In Ferguson, hoodlums rioted and looted for days.

    What justification was there for such lawlessness?

    Explained some in the press, it was to protest the failure to prosecute a white cop who had killed an “unarmed black teenager.”

    Left out of most stories was that Brown, 18, had knocked over a convenience store, throttled a clerk half his size, and was unarmed only because he failed to wrest a gun away from Officer Darren Wilson, whom a grand jury declared had acted in self-defense when he shot the charging 290-pound Brown.

    Since then, we have had the Eric Garner incident on Staten Island, where a 345-pound black man, suffering from diabetes, asthma, obesity and heart disease, died of heart failure after being wrestled to the ground by five cops, none of whom was charged.

    Came then the death of Freddie Gray in Baltimore, while in police custody.

    There, six officers have been charged. Then came the death of a 12-year-old black kid in Cleveland, who was waving a toy gun.
    As the incidents pile up, with white cops shooting black suspects, and black criminals killing white cops, the news goes viral and America divides along the lines of race and color, and between black and blue.

    Though, let it be said, the violence in Ferguson and Baltimore was child’s play compared to Watts in ’65, Detroit and Newark in ’67, and D.C. and 100 other cities after Dr. King’s assassination in 1968.

    “Can we all get along?” pleaded Rodney King, when South Central exploded in rioting, arson and looting after the L.A. cops who had beaten King were exonerated.

    Answer: Probably not.

    For what seems certain, ensuring that our racial divide widens and deepens, is that more incidents like those involving Michael Brown, Eric Garner and Freddie Gray are inevitable.

    Why so?

    First, violent crime, declining since the early 1990s, is rising again. And violent crime in black communities is many times higher than in the white communities of America.

    Collisions between black suspects and criminals and white cops are going to increase, and some of these collisions are going to involve shootings. And such shootings trigger fixed, deep-seated beliefs about cops, criminals and injustice, they also cause an instantaneous taking of sides.

    Moreover, this is the sort of “news” that instantly goes viral through the Internet, Facebook and 24-hour cable TV.

    Liberals and Democrats take sides with the black community out of solidarity and to solidify their political base, while Republicans stand with the cops, law-and-order conservatives, and the Silent Majority in Middle America.

    The race issue has even begun to split the Democrats.

    When former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley, a card-carrying liberal, attended a conference of Netroots Nation and responded to a chant of “Black Lives Matter!” with the more inclusive, “Black Lives Matter! White Lives Matter! All Lives Matter!” he was virtually booed off the stage.

    O’Malley proceeded to apologize for including the white folks.

    To many Americans, even many who did not vote for him, the election of Barack Obama seemed to hold out the promise that our racial divide could be healed by a black president.

    Even Obama’s supporters must concede it did not happen, though we would, again, argue angrily over why.

  • Stagnant US Economic Growth Explained (In 1 Cartoon)

    Presented with no comment…

     

     

    Source: Townhall.com

  • Despite Being A 'Pet Rock', The Premium For Physical Bullion Is Exploding

    While status quo-huggers are all too happy to point out gold and silver's lack of utter exuberance amid this week's carnage, perhaps they need to re-comprehend the difference between a heavily manipulated 'paper' market and the surging demand for physical precious metals that is evident in the 20-plus percent premium – and rising – being paid for silver bullion currently…

     

     

    Chart: GoldChartsRUs.com

    "One important aspect of the physical market that is often overlooked is the premium it commands over spot price. Right before the Global Financial Crisis in 2008, the spot Silver price fell as low as USD 9 per oz., whereas the price of a 1 oz. Silver Eagle was around USD 17 on the wholesale market and even higher on the retail market! That’s a price premium of 188%!

     

    That means that if you had held 100 oz. of paper Silver, you might have had to liquidate that for USD 900 (assuming the market was not halted for trading then), whereas if you had held 100 pieces of 1 oz. Silver Eagle coins, you would have gotten at least USD 1700 for them if not more."

     

    BullionStar, The Difference in Paper and Physical Gold and Silver in times of Crisis

    h/t Jesse's Americain Cafe

  • Ayn Rand & Murray Rothbard: Diverse Champions Of Liberty

    Submitted by Tibor R. Machan via Acting-Man.com,

    Differences and Similarities

    No one should attempt to treat Ayn Rand and Murray N. Rothbard as uncomplicated and rather similar defenders of the free society although they have more in common than many believe.  As just one example, neither was a hawk when it comes to deploying military power abroad.*  There is evidence, too, that both considered it imprudent for the US government to be entangled in international affairs, such as fighting dictators who were no threat to America.  Even their lack of enthusiasm for entering WW II could be seen as quite similar.

     

    Ayn Rand, famed writer and founder of the Objectivist movement

    Photo credit: Cornell Capa / Magnum

     And so far as their underlying philosophical positions are concerned, they both can be regarded as Aristotelians.  In matters of economics they were unwavering supporters of the fully free market capitalist system, although while Rand didn’t find corporations per se objectionable, arguably Rothbard had some problems with corporate commerce, especially as it manifest itself in the 20th century.  One sphere in which they took very different positions, at least at first glance, is whether government is a bona fide feature of a genuinely free country. Rand thought it is, Rothbard thought it wasn’t.  Yet the reason Rothbard opposed government was that it depended on taxation, something Rand also opposed, so even here where the difference between them appears to be quite stark, they were closer than one might think.

     

    RothbardChalkboard

    Murray Rothbard, introducing his students to French economist Anne-Robert-Jacques Turgot (widely regarded as a “proto-Austrian” today)

    Photo credit: Roberto Losada Maestre

     

    When intellectuals such as Rand and Rothbard have roughly the same political-economic position, it isn’t that surprising that they and their followers would stress the difference between them instead of the similarities.  Moreover, in this case both had a similar explosive personality, with powerful likes and dislikes not just in fundamentals but also in what may legitimately be considered incidentals–music, poetry, novels, movies and so forth.

    Yet what for Rothbard might be something tangential, even incidental, to his political economic thought, for Rand could be considered more germane since Rand thought of herself–and many think of her–as a philosopher (roughly of the rank of a Herbert Spencer or Auguste Comte).  Rothbard wrote little in the sphere of metaphysics and epistemology, although he was well informed in these branches of philosophy, while Rand chimed in, quite directly, on several philosophical issues, having written what amounts to a rather nuanced long philosophical essay on epistemology and advanced ideas in metaphysics, such as on free will, causality, and the nature of universals.  Her followers, such as Nathaniel Branden, Leonard Peikoff, Tara Smith, Alan Gotthelf, James Lennox, and David Kelley, among others, have all made contributions to serious discussions in various branches of philosophy.

     

    Disagreements on Government and Market Exchanges

    The central dispute, however, between Rothbard and his followers and Rand and hers focuses, as I have already noted, on whether a free country would have a government.  The debate is moved forward in the volume edited by Roderick Long and me,  Anarchism versus Minarchism; Is Government Part of a Free County (Ashgate, 2006).

     

    they-live

    A scene from John Carpenter’s famous documentary “They Live” – the State ultimately enforces its diktats and demands by threatening and exercising violence.

    Photo credit: John Carpenter

    Even apart from their disagreement about the justifiability of government in a bona fide free country, there is the difference between them about the subjectivity of (some) values. Rothbard holds, for example, that “’distribution’ is simply the result of the free exchange process, and since this process benefits all participants on the market and increases social utility, it follows directly that the ‘distributional’ results of the free market also increase social utility.”  The part here that shows the difference between Rothbard and Rand is where Rothbard says that the “free exchange process … benefits all participants on the market.”

    Maybe most of them benefit in such exchanges, but some do not.  Suppose someone exchanges five ounces of crack cocaine for an ounce of heroin.  Arguably, at least as Ayn Rand would very likely maintain, neither of these traders gains a benefit in this exchange, assuming that both commodities being traded are objectively harmful to the traders’ health.  Both are, then, harmed, objectively speaking, even if they believed they would benefit.

    This may be a minor matter but it isn’t, not at least if Rothbard’s idea is generalized to apply to all market exchanges.  True, from a purely economic viewpoint both parties in free exchanges tend to take it or believe that they are benefited by these.  But this belief could well be false.

    Now of course Rand would agree with Rothbard that just because people engage in trade that’s harmful to them, it doesn’t follow that anyone, least of all the government, is authorized to ban such trade or otherwise interfere with it.  Such matters as what may or may not harm free market traders from the trades they choose to engage in are supposed to be dealt with in the private sector.  Family, friends, doctors, nurses, et al., or other agents devoted to advising people what they should and should not do are the only ones who may launch peaceful educational or advisory measures to remedy the private misjudgments and misconduct of peaceful market participants.  Such an approach sees public policies such as the war on drugs as entirely unjustified even if consuming many drugs is objectively damaging to those doing so.

    In any case, the Randian view doesn’t assume that all free trade benefits those embarking on them.  Let me, however, return to the major bone of contention between Murray Rothbard and Ayn Rand, namely, whether government is (or could be) part of a free country.  Given that Rothbard believes government cannot exists without deploying the rights-violating policy of taxation, his view is understandable, but the underlying assumption that gives rise to it is questionable.

    Rand did indeed question it in her discussion of funding government in the chapter “Government Financing in a Free society” in The Virtue of Selfishness, at least by implication, when she argued that government can be financed without taxation. If she is correct, then Rothbard or his followers need to mount a different attack on the idea that the free society can have a government.  (And some have indeed made this argument, including me in, for example, my “Anarchism and Minarchism, A Rapprochement,” Journal des Economists et des Estudes Humaines, Vol. 14, No. 4 [December 2002], 569-588).

    Rand proposed that instead of taxation, which involves the rights-violating policy of confiscation of private property, a government could be funded by way of a contract fee, a lottery, or some other peaceful method.  Whether this is so cannot be addressed here but it shows that Rand and Rothbard were not very distant from each other on the issue of the justifiability of government in a free country. Perhaps the term “government” is ill advised when applied to whatever kind of law-enforcement institution would be involved in bona fide free countries. But this is not what’s crucial–a rose by any other name is still a rose and a law-enforcement, judicial or defense agency in a free society is what is at issue here, not what term is used to call it.  So, again, Rand and Rothbard seem closer than usually believed.

    Yet it’s not just about taxation for many who follow Rothbard.  Most also hold that the idea is mistaken that government–or whatever it is called–needs to serve a society occupying a continuous instead instead of Swiss cheese like region.  The idea of a disparately located country, without a continuous territory and with the possibility of all parts being accessible by law enforcers without the need of international treaties, makes sense to Rothbardians.  Not, however, to Randians, it can be argued, not unless the familiar science fiction transportation option of being “beamed up” from one area to anther (so that law enforcement can reach all those within its jurisdiction) is available.  Otherwise enforcement of the law can be easily evaded by criminals.

     

    Conclusion

    Again, this isn’t the place to resolve the dispute between Rand & her followers and Rothbard and his.  This brief discussion should, however, indicate where their differences lie.  It doesn’t at all explain, however, why the different parties to the debate tend often to be quite acrimonious toward each other.  What may explain this, though, is a simple point of psychology.  Nearly all champions of a fully free, libertarian society are also avid individualists and often tend to insist on what might be called the policy: My way or the highway!  Even when their differences don’t warrant it.

  • Citigroup Chief Economist Thinks Only "Helicopter Money" Can Save The World Now

    Having recently explained (in great detail) why QE4 (and 5, 6 & 7) were inevitable (despite the protestations of all central planners, except for perhaps Kocharlakota – who never met an economy he didn't want to throw free money at), we found it fascinating that no lessor purveyor of the status quo's view of the world – Citigroup's chief economist Willem Buiter – that a global recession is imminent and nothing but a major blast of fiscal spending financed by outright "helicopter" money from the central banks will avert the deepening crisis. Faced with China's 'Quantitative Tightening', the economist who proclaimed "gold is a 6000-year old bubble" and cash should be banned, concludes ominously, "everybody will be adversely affected."

    China has bungled its attempt to slow the economy gently and is sliding into “imminent recession”, threatening to take the world with it over coming months, Citigroup has warned. As The Telegraph's Ambrose Evans-Pritchard reports, Willem Buiter, the bank’s chief economist, said the country needs a major blast of fiscal spending financed by outright "helicopter" money from the bank to avert a deepening crisis.

    Speaking on a panel at the Council of Foreign Relations in New York, Mr Buiter said the dollar will “go through the roof” if the US Federal Reserve lifts interest rates this year, compounding the crisis for emerging markets.

     

    "So why it matters is that the competence of the Chinese authorities as managers of the macro economy is really in question – the messing around with monetary policy, the hinting on doing things on the fiscal side through the policy banks. But I think the only thing that is likely to stop China from going into, I think, recession – which is, you know, 4 percent growth on the official data, the mendacious official data, for a year or so – is a large consumption-oriented fiscal stimulus, funded through the central government and preferably monetized by the People’s Bank of China.

     

    Well, they’re not ready for that yet. Despite, I think, the economy crying out for it, the Chinese leadership is not ready for this.

     

    So I think they will respond, but they will respond too late to avoid a recession, and which is likely to drag the global economy with it down to a global growth rate below 2 percent, which is my definition of a global recession. Not every country needs go into recession. The U.S. might well avoid it. But everybody will be adversely affected."

    Or translated from 'economist' to English – a massive helicopter drop of cash (well 1s and 0s) into the inflating hands of Chinese soon-to-be-consumers is al lthat can the world from another recession… and The Chinese leadership may need to stare into the abyss before they actually pull the trigger. Just think of the pork prices?

     

     

    Mr Buiter had some more to add on the idiocy of Chinese Equity markets. He said the stock market crash in Shanghai and Shenzhen…

    …is a sideshow. Consumption effects, you know, wealth effects, minor. Almost no capex in China is funded through share issue. And so it is a symbol of the policy failure rather than intrinsically economically important.

     

    China’s problems are excessive leverage in the corporate sector, in the local government sector, and the very fragile banking system, and shadow banking system. As Chen pointed out, it won’t be allowed to collapse because it is underwritten by the government, but it won’t be a source of great funding strength.

     

    There is excess capacity and a pathetically low rate of return on capital expenditure, right? Invest 50 percent of GDP and get, even in the official data, 7 percent growth. The true data is probably something closer to 4 ½ percent or less. So it is an economy that, I think, is sliding into recession.

     

    And what the stock market reminds us of, I think, especially this sequence of the government first cheerleading the stock market boom and bubble – because quite a few of the local pundits believed that this was a great way of deleveraging without paying for the corporate sector, to have a stock market bubble. And then, of course, the rather panicky and incompetent reaction in response.

     

    So, once again, why it matters is that the competence of the Chinese authorities as managers of the macro economy is really in question.

    *  *  *

    So, it seems, all of a sudden – despite the permabulls, asset-gatherers, and commission-takers saying otherwise – China matters! As Bloomberg notes, China’s deepening struggles are starting to make a bigger dent in the global economic outlook.

    “We’re seeing evidence that the slowdown is broader than expected” in China, saidMarie Diron, a London-based senior vice president at Moody’s and one of the report’s authors. “It’s long been clear that there’s a slowdown in the manufacturing and construction sector, but the service sector was more resilient. That’s still the case, but we’re seeing some signs of weakness in the labor market.”

     

    “We continue to believe that the greatest risks to our growth forecasts remain to the downside,” Schofield wrote. Actual growth is “probably even lower” because of “likely mis-measurement in China’s official data,” he wrote.

    *  *  *
    Which, is exactly what we have been saying for the last 2 years as the rolling collapse of China's ponzi becomes ever more evident (and hidden by ever more manipulation)…

    Here, for those curious, are links to previous discussions:

    And so on and so forth.

    In short, stabilizing the currency in the wake of the August 11 devaluation has precipitated the liquidation of more than $100 billion in USTs in the space of just two weeks, doubling the total sold during the first half of the year. 

    In the end, the estimated size of the RMB carry trade could mean that before it’s all over, China will liquidate as much as $1 trillion in US paper, which, as we noted on Thursday evening, would effectively negate 60% of QE3 and put somewhere in the neighborhood of 200bps worth of upward pressure on 10Y yields. 

    And don't forget, this is just China.

    The potential for more China outflows is huge: set against 3.6trio of reserves (recorded as an “asset” in the international investment position data), China has around 2trillion of “non-sticky” liabilities including speculative carry trades, debt and equity inflows, deposits by and loans from foreigners that could be a source of outflows (chart 2). The bottom line is that markets may fear that QT has much more to go.

    What could turn sentiment more positive? The first is other central banks coming in to fill the gap that the PBoC is leaving. China’s QT would need to be replaced by higher QE elsewhere, with the ECB and BoJ being the most notable candidates. The alternative would be for China’s capital outflows to stop or at least slow down. Perhaps a combination of aggressive PBoC easing and more confidence in the domestic economy would be sufficient, absent a sharp devaluation of the currency to a new stable. Either way, it is hard to become very optimistic on global risk appetite until a solution is found to China’s evolving QT.

    *  *  *

  • Guns, Drugs, & Booze: The Bipartisan Support For Prohibition

    Submitted by Andrew Syrios via The Mises Institute,

    It’s been noticed more than a few times that there aren’t many substantive differences between the Republicans and Democrats. While this is true in many ways for the parties themselves, the Left and Right certainly differ on a range of issues from welfare to abortion to gay rights.

    What they have in common — at least the mainstream varieties — is a desire to use the state to shape society in whatever way they see fit. As Andrew Napolitano put it, “We have migrated from a two-party system into a one-party system, the big-government party. There’s a democratic wing that likes taxes and wealth transfers and assaults on commercial liberties and there’s a republican wing that likes war and deficits and assaults uncivil liberties.” And both parties love prohibition, just of different things.

    Alcohol Prohibition

    There aren’t many people left who believe the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s was a good idea. Interestingly enough, it was the progressives of the time that pushed for that. As historian William Leuchtenburg noted, “It was a movement that was embraced by progressives.” On the other side, in the words of historian Daniel Okrent, were the “… economic conservatives who … pushed so hard for repeal.”

    Prohibition turned out to be a disaster. A report from the Cato Institute found that after Prohibition passed in 1920, homicide rates increased, corruption increased, alcohol-related deaths were unchanged and after a short dip in 1921, alcohol consumption returned to what it had been before the law was passed. Furthermore, in the midst of this chaos, Al Capone and organized crime came to power. Indeed, black markets and prohibition go together like peas and carrots.

    Drug Prohibition

    In the past, it was usually the progressives who wanted to use the state to tell people what they could and could not put in their own bodies. However, something must have changed among conservatives as the Right has generally been at the vanguard of the War on Drugs (although, with plenty of help from many on the Left). In 1971, Richard Nixon decided to try prohibition all over again, but this time with cocaine, heroin, and marijuana.

    And of course, it has failed in every way imaginable.

    According to the National Institute of Drug Abuse, “Illicit drug use in America has been increasing.” In 2012, “9.2 percent of the population” had used illicit drugs in the last month “… up from 8.3 percent in 2002.” So drug use has actually gone up despite spending over a trillion dollars on this massive boondoggle.

    Meanwhile, the United States has the largest prison population in the world. Despite having only 5 percent of the world’s population, the United States has 25 percent of the world’s prison population. A large percentage of these prisonere are in prison for nothing more than non-violent drug charges.

    Some think this is counterproductive and immoral. Others, like Michael Gerson, believe that those who want to legalize drugs have “second-rate values.” First-rate values include locking drug addicts in cages. So in accordance with Gerson’s first-rate values, instead of trying to help these poor addicts rebuild their lives, the government declared war on the substances, and thereby, the addicts themselves.

    And to wage this war has required a massively invasive police state. “Victimless” crimes don’t leave many witnesses (or at least not many who want to talk about it). So the government must use more bellicose means. According to the ACLU, there are an estimated 45,000 SWAT raids every year and only about 7 percent are for hostage situations. The vast majority are for drugs. These raids sometimes end tragically. For example, David Hooks was shot twice while face down on the ground in one raid and a baby was put into a coma when a flash bang was dropped in another.

    The evidence also shows that legalization works. Glenn Greenwald notes that “Since Portugal enacted its decriminalization scheme in 2001, drug usage in many categories has actually decreased when measured in absolute terms” and Forbes points out that “drug abuse is down by half.”

    And despite some haranguing from conservatives, Colorado has done just fine since decriminalizing marijuana in 2014.

    Gun Prohibition

    While conservatives have taken some notes from the progressives of old, progressives certainly haven’t given up on the idea of molding society through prohibition. Fortunately, in the United States, most of the debate about guns has to do with regulation and not prohibition. This is not the case in many other countries. And it has also not been the case in several US cities, until Supreme Court decisions overturned the gun bans in Washington, DC and Chicago. Still, many US cities have extremely arduous gun laws on the books.

    John Lott did an extensive study and noted that,

    The odds that a typical state experiences a drop in murder or rape after a right-to-carry law is passed merely due to randomness is far less than 0.1 percent. … The average murder rate dropped in 89 percent of the states after the right-to-carry law was passed. … There was a similar decline in rape rates.

    Further, to make sure he controlled for every variable imaginable (or didn’t control for variables that would incorrectly skew the data) he ran “20,480 regressions” using every imaginable arrangement of possible criteria and concluded,

    … all the violent-crime regressions show the same direction of impact from the concealed-handgun law. The results for murder demonstrated that passing right-to-carry laws caused drops in the crime ranging from 5 to 7.5 percent.

    John Lott found twenty-six peer reviewed studies on concealed-carry laws, sixteen showed a reduction in crime and ten were inconclusive. Not one showed that crime rates increased.

    We can all mourn tragic events such as the recent mass shooting in Charleston. But what is obviously problematic about restricting civilian gun use is that only law-abiding citizens will comply, criminals will not. (Like many other such massacres, the Charleston shooting took place in a “gun free” zone.) Indeed, criminals will likely have no harder a time getting guns then they do getting drugs, which means that restricting guns just disarms potential victims. A survey by Gary Kleck made him conclude that there were approximately 2.5 million incidents of defensive gun use each year. Although that number is almost certainly way too high, defensive gun use is still relatively common. For example, during a school shooting in Oklahoma, Mikael Gross and Tracey Bridges retrieved the guns from their vehicles and stopped the shooter before he could kill anyone else.

    As stated above, while there are some in the United States who call for extreme restrictions on guns, or bans altogether, for the most part, outright prohibition is only an issue in other countries. Many will point to the higher murder rates in the United States than Britain as proof that gun prohibition stops murder (interestingly they don’t point to the property crime statistics as they are actually higher in Britain than the US).

    But there are major problems with this simplistic analysis. For example, gun ownership has been increasing rapidly in the United States while gun crime has been falling. In addition, most guns are owned by people in rural areas, then suburban, then urban. Crime rates are exactly the opposite. Further, as Thomas Sowell points out in Intellectuals and Society,

    Russia and Brazil have tougher gun control laws than the united States and much higher murder rates. Gun ownership rates in Mexico are a fraction of what they are in the United States, but Mexico’s murder rate is more than double that in the United States.

     

    Handguns are banned in Luxembourg but not in Belgium, France or Germany; yet the murder rate in Luxembourg is several times the murder rate in Belgium, France or Germany.

    And what about that lower murder rate for Britain? Well, Thomas Sowell again, “London had a much lower murder rate than New York during the years after New York State's 1911 Sullivan Law imposed very strict gun control, while anyone could buy a shotgun in London with no questions asked in the 1950s.” What matters are the trends, not simplistic and vulgar comparisons. Instead, an international study done at Harvard noted,

    To bear that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world.

    Finally, when it comes to gun bans, the results are predictably terrible. John Lott again, “Every place around the world that has banned guns appears to have experienced an increase in murder and violent crime rates.” This includes Washington, DC, Chicago, Britain, Ireland, and Jamaica. One British newspaper ran the darkly humorous article “Gun Crime Soaring Despite Ban.” Change the “Despite” to “Because” and you have an accurate article.

    Conclusion

    Penn Jillette has half-joked, “If you can convince the gun nuts that the potheads are ok and the potheads that the gun nuts are ok, then everyone's a libertarian.” Arguments about whether these things should be regulated and how much so would be the subject for a different article. But it’s hard to understand why many liberals think that prohibiting drugs creates black markets with drugs, but that it wouldn’t happen with guns. Does one really think that drug cartels couldn’t add guns to their list of products to push? And the same goes for conservatives in the reverse.

    It’s really quite simple; prohibition doesn’t work. Freedom does.

     

  • What Bill Dudley's Hedge Fund Advisors Told Him About A September Rate Hike

    By now virtually every prominent financial authority or pundit has chimed in and told the Fed not to hike rates: these include the IMF, Larry Summers (who for some reason lost the fight with Yellen for the Fed chair because he was seen as “too hawkish” – oops, irony), and even China. Yet all of these are irrelevant, because when it comes to soliciting opinions, the NY Fed in general, and former Goldmanite Bill Dudley in particular, care about just one group of “advisors” – the Investor Advisory Committee on Financial Markets (a group created in July 2009 after the 2008 market crash) also known as the billionaires who run the country’s biggest hedge funds, prop desks and PE firms, including JPM, Credit Suisse, Apollo, Blackrock, Blue Mountain, Brevan Howard, Tudor, Fortress, and lo and behold, David “Balls to the Wall” Tepper.

    The next IACFM meeting is scheduled to take place in October, as such it will be too late to change the Fed’s opinion for a potential September 17 rate hike.  Which is why we have to revert to the latest advisory committee meeting which took place on June 25, just before the Greek referendum was announced and two months before the Chinese devaluation, the July FOMC minutes and subsequent market correction. It will have to do.

    This is what the “smartest people in the room” told Bill Dudley and his minions about a potential September rate hike. From the June 25, 2015 minutes:

    Domestic Developments

     

    Committee attendees discussed the outlook for the U.S. economy and their expectations for monetary policy. Overall, they noted that real economic activity has gradually improved after a lackluster first quarter. Committee attendees characterized indicators of realized inflation as improving, but subdued relative to FOMC objectives. Meanwhile, the labor market was viewed as at or near full employment.

     

    Committee attendees suggested that the FOMC is likely to increase the federal funds target range during 2015, with September cited as the most likely timing of liftoff. Some felt that financial markets are well positioned for liftoff, while others expected volatility following the first increase in the target range. Most Committee attendees suggested that the path of the policy rate would be more impactful on financial conditions than the timing of liftoff. They expected the path of monetary policy to be data dependent, but noted that they expect the FOMC to be cautious during normalization.

    A quick primer on what “discounting” means – since all the participants expected a September rate hike, and since most expected volatility “following” the rate hike, some of these “smartest people in the room” decide to frontrun the volatility (a polite way for violent selling), and sell first before everyone else did. Just in case there was still some confusion about the recent market selloff.

    But back to the advisory committee minutes, and what it said about global developments including China:

    The sharp rise in core euro area yields during the second quarter was mostly attributed to positioning dynamics, with some feeling low yield levels were too extended. Committee attendees suggested relative value considerations prompted the coordinated move in global developed market rates. Better-than-expected economic data in the euro area and, to a lesser extent, shifting expectations for the ultimate size of the ECB asset purchase program were cited as contributing factors.

     

    Committee attendees suggested that the euro area economy is improving, but that inflation indicators remain below mandate consistent levels and are likely to remain there for a considerable time. They felt that the ECB was doing its part, but fiscal and labor market policies across the region were likely to inhibit the euro area from reaching its inflation mandate in the near term. Most felt that that further euro depreciation was necessary to stimulate the economy.

     

    Committee attendees generally concluded that the Japanese economy has also improved, highlighting the strength of the labor market and the improvement in inflation indicators. A few cited concerns about the Bank of Japan’s exit strategy, given the size of their balance sheet.

     

    China was the focus of the emerging markets discussion. Committee attendees characterized the Chinese economy as slowing, with most believing GDP was running below the target level. Most concluded that recent PBOC easing measures were executed to combat the slowing economy, but noted that financial conditions were not easing much in response. Committee attendees acknowledged officials’ efforts to internationalize Chinese markets, but suggested some of those efforts may run counter to easing initiatives. Beyond China, Committee attendees did not consider emerging markets, on the whole, well prepared for liftoff by the Federal Reserve given that few countries have made structural changes necessary to absorb higher rates.

    Well, they were right: emerging markets have since been paralyzed by the biggest currency collapse since the Asian Crisis of 1998 in the aftermath of the Chinese devaluation. However, if the June minutes are to be trusted, then none of what is going on in China is a surprise to any of these smartest people in the room, which is why “Committee attendees suggested that the FOMC is likely to increase the federal funds target range during 2015, with September cited as the most likely timing of liftoff”, unless…

    What appears to have happened in the ensuing 2 months is that none of these so-called “smartest” people hedged against anything that they warned may happen. Well, actually we take that back: recall from August 14, or just two weeks ago: “Did David Tepper Just Call The Market Top” – the S&P tumbled some 10% since then.

    In fact, what has happened is that none of these “smartest people” were actually hedging anything – only Nassim Taleb was actually prepared and ready to capitalize from a market crash, and as we reported last night, his affiliated hedge fund, Mark Spitznagel’s Universa made $1 billion last Monday. As for everyone else, well, just look at the table below which including many of the “advisors” listed above:

    In fact, the hedge fund performance ranking above is the only thing anyone has to care about when evaluating the chance of a Fed rate hike: if and when the hedge fund losses become too unbearable, any rate hike – September, December, or whenever – will be indefinitely delayed. And that is all Bill Dudley will hear from the only group of advisors whose opinion, and offshore bank accounts, he cares about.

  • Did Tim Cook Lie To Save Apple Stock: The "Channel Checks" Paint A Very Gloomy Picture

    Back in February 2013, Thorsten Heins, then-CEO of what was once the iconic “smartphone” brand Blackberry, publicly lied that its Hail Mary iPhone competitor, the Z10, had “record” early sales. He told CNET, that “BlackBerry nearly tripled the sales of its best performance over the first week in the U.K., while it had its best first day ever in Canada. In fact, it was more than 50 percent better than any other launch day in our history in Canada.”

    Less than one year later, and less than two years after he was hired, the ruse was up – Blackberry’s US market share has fallen from 50% to 3% in four years – and Thorsten was fired.

    Fast forward to Monday morning, when the S&P500 had just hit its first limit down in history, stocks were crashing, countless ETFs were crashing more as ETF pricing models were corrupt and broken, the QQQs were plummeting, and none other than AAPL was set to open at a price of $92 wiping out tens of billions of market cap overnight.

    It is then that AAPL CEO Tim Cook may have pulled a page straight out of Thorsten Heins’ playbook when did something nobody expected him to do – he panicked, and emailed CNBC anchor Jim Cramer to do what the AAPL CEO himself admitted the company does not do by providing mid-quarter updates, and assure the CNBC anchor that there is no need to sell AAPL stock.

    Specifically he said that:

    “I get updates on our performance in China every day, including this morning, and I can tell you that we have continued to experience strong growth for our business in China through July and August. Growth in iPhone activations has actually accelerated over the past few weeks, and we have had the best performance of the year for the App Store in China during the last 2 weeks.”

    Needless to say, this stunning intervention by Tim Cook to arrest the plunge in AAPL stock succeeded, and AAPL soared from $92 to close back over $100, a gain of nearly $60 billion in market cap, in turn dragging the entire market higher with it.

    Yet what many have found problematic is that in emailing Jim Cramer with what was clearly material, non-public information – how long did Cramer have possession of Cook’s email, who did he privately share the information with first, did Cramer trade on the information before going public with it, etc –  Cook may have breached Regulation FD.

    We wondered as much in our Monday post “Did Tim Cook Violate Regulation “Fair Disclosure” By Emailing Jim Cramer To Save AAPL Stock This Morning.” Nearly a week later, there is still no 8-K, even if grotesquely delayed, with what should clearly have been a replica of the statement made by Cook to Cramer.

    So we decided to follow up.

    What we uncovered may explain why Tim Cook did not want to publicly file his “all is well” email to Cramer: the simple reason is that Tim Cook may have simply been lying in order to halt the rout in his stock, a rout which incidentaly had little to do with concerns about AAPL’s Chinese sales and was driven by the latest HFT-facilitated marketwide flash crash as we described previously.

    Of course, accusations that Tim Cook is lying should be taken very seriously, which is why instead of relying on Thorsten Heins’ pardon, Tim Cook’s self-assessment, we went with the latest AAPL channel check out of GFK, Germany’s largest market research institute.

    For those who are unaware, GfK is almost universally accepted as the best source for end-market demand, collecting and aggregating point of sale data from servers at all major retailers, collecting real time consumer data, as well as conducting manual channel checks at smaller retailers. In short: if something is selling with an upward trajectory, GfK will know about it, with about an 80% confidence interval. And vice versa.

    Here is the latest GfK data on Apple:

    C3Q15 sell-out outlook:

    • Apple’s global ex-NA outlook worsened slightly with the additional JUL/AUG weekly data. Units are now forecast to grow +2.6% q/q (prior +3.0%). Softer early AUG trends in China were only partially offset by resilience in Dev. Asia.
    • In China, iPhone 6 demand softened in the final week of JUL, and remained at such levels in AUG weekly data (Figure 17). Apple, as a result, is expected to see more pronounced share loss in China than prior expectations, though units are still expected to grow +62% y/y.
    • In Japan, iPhone 6 improved meaningfully in AUG despite no material ASP movements. Sony’s Xperia Z4 was most impacted following its short-lived demand uptick in JUL (Figure 18).
    • Apple’s 3Q ASP is expected to decline -3.1% q/q (prior -2.5%); +6% y/y.

    US iPhone demand

    • Apple lost share m/m in final JUL data, with iPhone 6 & 6 Plus unit demand declining -14% m/m. This was worse than the -7% m/m decline seen for the 5s/5c in JUL-14 and was also weaker than GfK’s expectations.
    • Apple’s US smartphone share fell, as a result, to a level below that seen LY (Figure 20).
    • The downtick was more pronounced for iPhone 6 and drove the 6/6 Plus ratio from 4.2:1 in JUN to 3.8:1 in JUL.
    • iPhone 6/6 Plus continues to significantly outperform the 5s/5c launch to date, with units +22%, only modestly below the +24% growth seen through JUN.

    C3Q15 sell-in projection:

    • 49.4m; +4% q/q; +26% y/y (prior 50.6m, +7% q/q; +29% y/y)
    • International sell-out: 37.0m, -0.3% q/q (prior 37.2m, +0.1% q/q); +39% y/y (unchanged)
      • US sell-out: 11.4m, +4% q/q (prior 12.4m); -2% y/y (prior +7%)
      • Inventory build of 1.0m units (unchanged)
      • Shipment ASP projection: USD667, flat q/q; +10% y/y (unchanged)

    * * *

    While the above data has a roughly 2 week lag, but considering the explosion of market volatility into the past two week period, it is certain that sales , if anything, deteriorated as the Shanghai Composite went red for the year (after soaring 60% two months ago).

    So what can we make of the above data? Here are GfK’s highlights:

    1. The Q3 outlook for Apple has softend notably as a result of weaker trends not only in the US, but in China – the place where Cook assured Cramer Apple has “experienced strong growth in its business.”
    2. US unit demand declined 14% in July, far more than the -7% drop a year prior, and weaker than GfK’s own expectations. This could point to substantial weakness over the next 6-12 months for Apple, considering last year, ahead of the iPhone 6 launch, the sales decline was about half of the current decline even without a major new phone rollout imminent. This may mean that the upgrade cycle was much stronger and/or shorter until now, and is starting to fade dramatically.
    3. The data started deteriorating before the recent rout in Chinese stocks and EM currencies (which make products such as the iPhone more expensive). Keep in mind most of the future growth for Apple is expected to come from Emerging Markets and China now that the US only accounts for a third of total sales.

    So did Tim Cook lie?

    If one uses channel check data to objectively determine end demand, the answer is a resounding yes. To be sure, Cook may be telling the truth in a very narrow sense, if Apple is simply be resorting to the oldest trick in the book at this point: channel stuffing.

    The problem with channel stuffing is that it only allows you to mask the problem for 2-3 quarters at which unless there has been a dramatic improvement in the end-demand picture, it re-emerges that much more acutely: just ask AOL which was channel stuffing for months on end, only to be ultimately exposed, leading to a epic plunge in the stock price.

    So is AAPL the next AOL, and is Tim Cook the next Thorsten Heins?

    It all depends on China: if the world’s most populous nation can get its stock market, its economy and its currency under control, then this too shall pass. The problem is that if, as many increasingly suggest, China has lost control of all three. At that point anyone who thought they got a great deal when buying AAPL at $92 will have far better opportunities to dollar-cost average far, far lower.

    Oh, and to anyone still holding their breath for AAPL to file a public statement which may well contain an outright lie, you may exhale now.

  • Greece – Now What

    Submitted by George Kintis of Alcimos

    Greece – Now What

    For those of you who like fast-forwarding to the end of the film, here it is:

    • Grexit was never on the cards. Even less so after the recent European Summit decisions and the Greek bank recap recently put in motion. This is mainly on account of the dual surpluses Greece currently runs: the current-account and primary budget ones. Even if one could push a magic button and kick Greece out the euro, there is nothing that would prevent Greece from immediately reintroducing it, Kosovo- or Montenegro-style. The only impediment would be the funding of the banking system, but this is being taken care of.
    • There has been a decoupling of a large part of the Greek economy from the sovereign issue; for example, exports of goods and services, accounting for around 30% of the Greek economy have been growing at 9% a year. Investors readily recognize this in publicly-traded assets (most Greek corporate bonds are trading well above the sovereign ceiling), but are so far oblivious to it when it comes to non-traded ones (e.g., loans, receivables, etc.). This is a “ginormous” arbitrage opportunity—one just needs to put in a bit of legwork to identify, diligence and acquire such assets. Sorry, you can’t do it off your Bloomberg terminal, or over lunch at Cecconi’s.
    • Greece does not have a functioning banking system—credit has been contracting for years, while new origination is practically non-existent. This depresses asset prices to ridiculous levels—even prices of assets which are uncorrelated to the sovereign situation, per the previous point. This reversal of this situation is likely to start in Q2 2016, post the Greek bank recap, which we expect will be coupled with a bank bail-in—and the mother of all NPL trades.

    Those of you who think that it’s the journey that teaches you a lot about your destination, read on.

    In our recent analyses in the Greek situation, we got many things right—and not just that Grexit will not take place. For example, we had predicted that Tsipras will do an about-face even before the elections, but we also warned that GGBs are not the way to play this on 24 February (unless one has inside information on political decisions). We then advised people on 24 February to stay away from anything that has to do with the public sector and the banks. On 5 April we discussed why investing in Greek banks makes little sense–and then explained why we think Greek banks will be bailed-in on 17 July.

    We also got some things wrong: the outcome of the referendum (for better or for worse, there’s a clear bias in our circle of friends towards people with a positive balance in their bank accounts) and the imposition of capital controls (which we believe to be completely illegal).

    Here’s why we were wrong in predicting that capital controls wouldn’t be imposed: our working assumption in predicting various outcomes at every step of the way of the Greek saga, is that all players are totally selfish, as well as ruthless and shameless in pursuing their own interests. We realize that the ruthlessness and shamelessness of Greek politicians knows no bounds—we’ve known quite a few of them personally for way too long to have any illusions. We assumed, however, that European politicians had a modicum of dignity; that’s where we got it all wrong.

    We did not, for example, expect that Ms. Danièle Nouy, head of the Single Supervisory Mechanism, would go on record as recently as 7 June proclaiming Greek banks “to be solvent and liquid”, but then the Euro Summit of 12 July would identify in its statement the need for the “the establishment of a buffer of EUR 10 to 25bn for the banking sector in order to address potential bank recapitalisation needs and resolution costs”. Where did these guys get that €25bn number—if not from the head of the bank supervisory mechanism? We’d never think that the ECB would cut off financing to banks it considers solvent, saying that they do not have adequate collateral. If they were solvent, how could they not have adequate collateral? Substituting ELA for deposits can have no effect on the solvency of the institution; if the institution was solvent—and therefore its deposits were safe, then the ELA which substitutes these deposits should be safe, too. Anything else is financial alchemy, of which we did not think an institution like the ECB would partake.

    Nor could we have imagined that the ECB would refuse to disclose the rationale behind its decisions to freeze Greek ELA, citing as reason that “[i]f the ELA ceiling determined by the Governing Council and the related deliberations including the names of the credit institutions receiving ELA were to become known to the public, market participants could infer from this information the liquidity situation of the credit institutions, with immediate detrimental effects on financial stability. Even if such ELA ceiling determined in a particular situation were to be disclosed ex post, such publication could have detrimental effects on the Governing Council’s opinion-building and decision-making in future similar situations.

    The ELA ceiling would be an indication of the extent of stress that the credit institutions were facing, and in particular if market participants were able to monitor the development of the ELA ceiling over time, an upward trend would be interpreted as a signal of increasing stress. Hence, publication of such information would negatively impact the banks’ ability to borrow funds from the market and thereby reinforce their liquidity problems”. This, at a time when the ceiling on Greek ELA is leaked to Reuters and Bloomberg immediately after the relevant ECB decisions, is reported on the Bank of Greece balance-sheet published on a monthly basis, while all four Greek systemic banks recently reported their ELA funding to the Athens Stock Exchange (see for example here).

    Who needs another “signal of increasing stress“, when the Euro Summit itself has adjudged “potential [Greek] bank recapitalisation needs and resolution costs [to be between]€10 to 25bn”? Of course, the irony of claiming that “publication of such information would negatively impact the banks’ ability to borrow funds from the market and thereby reinforce their liquidity problems”, when said banks have been locked out of credit markets for months, while their liquidity problems have been a direct effect of the contested ECB decisions, was lost on them. But we are digressing…

    We now know better: we are convinced that all players in the Greek drama are thoroughly unscrupulous. Once one analyses the Greek situation through this lens, it’s hard to get predictions wrong. You can only go wrong when certain players turn out to be even more ruthless than you would have imagined.

    Once one agrees that both sides (i.e., Greece and Germany) are only self-interested, the dynamics of the current Greek negotiation can be analysed within the framework of a prisoner’s dilemma. Greece does not want the structural changes (austerity and the like), while Germany wants to avoid a haircut at all costs. “Cooperation” would then entail Greece swallowing its medicine, while Germany continues to happily fork over money for as long as needed. “Defection” would mean that the Greek government only pretends to be discharging its obligations under the various memoranda, while Germany is forced to accept a haircut. Now, someone who’s even remotely familiar with game theory can easily predict how this will end: both sides will lose. But let’s follow the various steps.

    Germany, as we all know, won the Euro Summit battle: Tsipras surrendered and capitulated (in theory) to all German demands. Germany, has, therefore, “punished” Greece in the prisoner’s dilemma framework. Now we think Greece will retaliate—with the help of the IMF.

    Here is how:

    We have previously analysed the ongoing tug-of-war between Germany and the IMF (read: the US) on a possible haircut on Greek debt as part of the (supposedly) ideological conflict between “austerity” and “Keynesianism”. Germany has said, no deal without the IMF. The IMF has said, no deal without a haircut. Germany has said, no haircut under any circumstances. You can see where that leads: Greece will pass through the measures, but the creditors will find it difficult to agree between themselves on a new package. We may have a few more bridge loans (in the grand can-kicking tradition of Greek negotiations) but the music will eventually stop. Then Germany will be faced with the stark choice between:

    (a)    a Greek default, which will result in Greece going to the IMF for help, which “stand[s] ready to assist Greece if requested to do so”, which then leads to an effective subordination (read: haircut) of Germany’s bilateral loans to Greece due to the IMF preferred-creditor status; and

    (b)    a haircut on Germany’s loans to Greece, which will allow the IMF to participate in the Greek bailout.

    Germany is, therefore, free to choose between a haircut and a haircut—even Die Zeit seems to agree with this. A haircut is of course political suicide for Merkel, but the latter version can be sugared with some grand-European-vision talk, so we think she will go for this. We also claim, however, that whatever she does only affects her chances of political survival and not Greece. Here’s why:

    Despite all the talk, Greece (still) runs a healthy primary surplus (Jan-Jun 2015) and a current account surplus. The former means that if there was no deal with the lenders, the Greek government would keep on functioning; any new money lent to Greece goes back to repay existing debt. The latter means that Greece will still have the euros it needs to pay for its imports, irrespective of any agreement with the lenders. The only leverage Germany has over Greece, is through ECB financing of Greek banks. That last card has been played—we claim to the benefit of large European banks. Greeks banks will be recapitalized (read: bailed in) no matter what, and bought out by large European banks. Their funding no longer will come from the Bank of Greece, but from the parent—which also has access to the ECB. That bullet has been spent.

    Here’s where that leaves us: Greece stays in the Euro, but Greek banks are sold off, properly recapitalized at last. Here’s the back-of-an-envelope calculations behind this:

    As at June 2015, the Greek banking system had loans to the private sector of €220bn and total provisions of €41bn. There’s a 35% NPL figure being bandied around, but we have long believed the real number to be higher. How higher—God knows, but let’s assume it’s 50% (it’s probably even higher, but a good part of those NPLs may be strategic, so let’s settle at 50%). To the €41bn of existing provisions one should another €30bn (equal to 8% of total liabilities which, per article 44(5) BRRD, need to be bailed-in before the public purse can be accessed) and the €25bn which have been set aside for the Greek bank recap per the 12 July Euro Summit statement and you get to a figure of €97bn in capital available to absorb losses on an NPL book of €110bn—translating to an NPL coverage ratio of 88%.

    The big NPL trades, the ones everyone (and their mothers) has in vain been coming to Greece for since 2010, will finally arrive, probably in Q2 2016.

    As to the Greek economy: it’s doing very well, thank you, having grown at 1.6% y-o-y in Q2 2015. It will do even better, when Greece has a functioning banking system. Stay tuned.

  • Finding Pearls Of Wisdom In The Donald’s Trumperbolic Campaign

    Authored by Ben Tanosborn,

    I’ve just received an interesting query from Mingo, a long-standing European journalist friend and expert on all-things-Afghan… someone whose acquaintanceship dates back to the early days of America’s involvement in Afghanistan.  Someone, I might add, who did prove to have in 2004 a clearer vision of what was to happen in that country than most, if not all, military experts, media gurus and politicians in the US.  My writings at that time can attest to that.

    Mingo’s question is about the perception, he claims, Europeans have on US’ current state of the 2016 presidential election, and what he’s calling “the phenomenon Trump.”  His incredulity as to the number of possible followers Trump is said to have (if accurately reflected by the polling) seems to match the incredulity by much of America’s media, or of career politicians sucking on Washington’s udder.  “How can ‘that many’ Americans take seriously an arrogant charlatan and be swept away by ridiculous and undisguised hyperbole,” is a question that not just Mingo raises, but one that many have been asking for weeks since Donald Trump decided to enter presidential politics.

    But it isn’t catchy phrases seasoned with political hyperbole that have been coming out of Donald Trump’s mouth; it’s not just exaggerations sliding out for emphasis or effect.  The short, catchy statements coming out of the leading Republican candidate are not the expected quantifiable or qualifiable exaggerations we are accustomed to hearing from the current political version of yesteryear’s traveling medicine man.  Hyperbole has been elevated to a new literary status more in line with the stature of its charismatic and billionaire originator: trumperbole.  If Trump’s $3 billion wealth can be subjectively inflated to $10 billion, why not just pump hyperbole and call it trumperbole or, in similar fashion, reclassify trump as an adjective and give it comparative and superlative forms: trumper, trumpest, anyone?  Well, these days in the US, we are seeing our celebrated and self-proclaimed potential savior, Donald Trump, as the non-politician politician proudly donning capitalist airs and shouting the trumpest trumperbole.

    Irony of ironies, however, is the amount of truth that can come out of the mouth of this political babe as he tears apart or diminishes the political persona of GOP adversaries.   Not just his party’s peer candidates but other Republican politicians as well who dare stand in the way: Jeb Bush, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, Mike Huckabee, Rick Perry, Rand Paul… all have been cut to sub-Trump size, even ridiculed; while others have not been dignified with a Trump honorable mention, Ted Cruz being the exception with an interesting and secretive question mark.  Be that as it may, the entire group of Republican presidential contenders has been irremediably diminished to a sickly and unworthy flock of possible standard bearers for the GOP.

    But the Republicans are experiencing more than just the political castration of top party figures, often comically so by someone who lacks any orthodoxy or practicality which favors tradition and fights radical change.  Out of the mouth of this political babe, there have been two gems of political wisdom which are likely to hurt Republicans far more than Democrats.  Trump’s contention that politicians in Washington are being bought by special interests is no breaking news announcement, but his underlining and writing of this fact in bold letters readily does away with the mockery that ours is a democracy, or that our government is in any way, shape or form a government for the people… only for those who can pay the entry fee.  The other gem has to do with iniquity in taxation, likely to make him few friends in the gallery of speculators in hedge funds.

    Donald Trump, I could tell Mingo, is no phenomenon or wonder, only someone money has immunized and given a suit of armor under our capitalist system; a person with true elite-freedom.  Little wonder that few people in the media, or politicians, are willing to alienate him or, much less, tackle him head on when there is the prospect of a litigious wrecking ball waiting in the wings.

    It is precisely this view by many that Trump is impervious to any type of fear that makes him an attractive advocate or champion of causes which people would otherwise keep hidden within themselves.  Nativists can now show their passion thanks to Trump’s leadership; and so can racial-mongers; and white nationalist activists; and a few others.  They can all come out of the closet and feel safe.

    I could also tell Mingo something else.  The Republican Party is running the danger, if Donald Trump becomes its nominee, of having its candidate become the counterpart of George McGovern (the liberal candidate) in 1972.  For those then around, we can revisit those numbers and look at the prospect of Trump becoming Republicans’ McGovern.  [McGovern had just 37.5 percent of the popular vote and only carried Massachusetts and the District of Columbia in the Electoral College (520-17).]

    No; Trump is no phenomenon, just a figurehead for those with closeted anger trying to resist unstoppable change in the world and resent their loss of power.

  • Lagarde: "China's Slowdown Was Predictable, Predicted"… Yes, By Everyone Except The IMF

    In what may be the funniest bit of economic humor uttered today, funnier even than the deep pontifications at Jackson Hole (where moments ago Stanley Fischer admitted that “research is needed for a better inflation indicator” which means that just months after double seasonally adjusted GDP, here comes double seasonally adjusted inflation), in an interview with Swiss newspaper Le Temps (in which among other things the fake-bronzed IMF head finally folded and said a mere debt maturity extension for Greece should suffice, ending its calls for a major debt haircut), took some time to discuss China.

    This is what she said.

    Turning to China, Lagarde said she expected the country’s economic growth rate to remain close to previous estimates even if some sort of slowdown was inevitable after its rapid expansion.

     

    China devalued its yuan currency this month after exports tumbled in July, spooking global markets worried that a main driver of growth was running out of steam.

     

    “We expect that China will have a growth rate of 6.8 percent. It may be a little less.” The IMF did not believe growth would fall to 4 or 4.5 percent, as some foresaw.

    Actually, some – such as Evercore ISI – currently foresee China’s GDP to be negative, at about -1.1%.

     

    But the funniest part was this: “The slowdown was predictable, predicted, unavoidable,” Lagarde was quoted as saying.”

    Well, yes, here is China’s Caijing quoting Zero Hedge some time in 2012, explaining that China has “the world’s largest credit bubble.” Incidentally, it was back in 2012 that we warned “that all platitudes of the Richard Koos aside and Paul Krugmans, who demand ever more debt, the developed world is at its debt capacity.”

    Three years later McKinsey admitted just that in one the most “shocking” pieces of economic analysis released in years, showing that global debt had risen by $57 trillion to $200 trillion since the first great financial crisis, which incidentally is why global growth is no longer possible in a world in which only incremental debt creation fuelled growth for decades.

     

    But going back to Lagarde’s sstatement that China’s “slowdown was predictable, predicted“, we just want to add that – yes, it was… by everyone but the IMF.

    Here is the history of the IMF’s Chinese GDP growth forecasts taken straight from its World Economic Outlook quarterly pieces. The graph, also known in Excel as “the dying hockeystick” needs no explanation.

  • Mass Protests Sweep Malaysian Capital As Anger At Goldman-Backed Slush Fund Boils Over

    If we told you that thousands of protesters donning bright yellow shirts had taken to the streets to call for the ouster of a leader in an important emerging market, you’d be forgiven for thinking we were talking about Brazil, where President Dilma Rousseff is facing calls for impeachment amid allegations of fiscal book cooking and government corruption.

    But on this particular weekend, you’d be wrong.

    We’re actually talking about Malaysia, where tens of thousands of demonstrators poured into the streets of Kuala Lumpur on Saturday to call for the resignation of Prime Minister Najib Razak whose government has been accused of obstructing an investigation into how some $700 million from 1Malaysia Development Berhad mysteriously ended up in Najib’s personal bank account.

    1MDB was set up by Najib six years ago and has been the subject of intense scrutiny for borrowing $11 billion to fund questionable acquisitions. $6.5 billion of that debt came from three bond deals underwritten by Goldman, whose Southeast Asia chairman Tim Leissner is married to hip hop mogul Russell Simmons’ ex-wife Kimora Lee who, in turn, is good friends with Najib’s controversial wife Rosmah Manso.

    You really cannot make this stuff up.

    What Goldman did, apparently, is arrange for three private placements, one for $3 billion and two for $1.75 billion each back in 2013 and 2012, respectively. Goldman bought the bonds for its own book at 90 cents on the dollar with plans to sell them later at a profit (more here from FT). Somewhere in all of this, $700 million allegedly landed in Najib’s bank account and the going theory is that 1MDB is simply a slush fund. 

    So you can see why some folks are upset, especially considering Rosmah has a habit of having, how shall we say, rich people problems, like being gouged $400 for a home visit by a personal hairstylist. Here’s The New York Times with more on the protests:

    Tens of thousands of demonstrators in Malaysia defied police orders on Saturday, massing in the capital in a display of anger at the government of Prime Minister Najib Razak, who has been accused of corruption involving hundreds of millions of dollars.

     

    The demonstration in central Kuala Lumpur, which has been planned for weeks, has been declared illegal by the Malaysian police, and the government on Friday went as far as to pass a decree banning the yellow clothing worn by the antigovernment protesters.

     

    But the demonstrators, who represent a broad coalition of civic organizations in Malaysia, including prominent lawyers, asserted their right to protest on Saturday.

     

    The government has acknowledged that Mr. Najib received the money in 2013 and said it was a donation from undisclosed Arab royalty. 

     

    One group of protesters on Saturday carried the image of a giant check in the amount of 2.6 billion ringgit, with a sign that read, “You really think we are stupid?”

     

    The group organizing the protest goes by the name Bersih, which means clean in Malay.

     

    Calls for Mr. Najib to resign have come both from within his party, which is divided, and from the opposition. One junior member of Mr. Najib’s party, the United Malays National Organization, filed a lawsuit against Mr. Najib on Friday asking for details of how the money was spent.

    Of course the most prominent voice calling for Najib’s ouster is that of the former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad. “I don’t believe it is a donation. I don’t believe anybody would give [that much], whether an Arab, or anybody,” he says. 

    Meanwhile, Malaysia is facing a re-run of the 1997/98 financial crisis as the ringgit plunges amid broad-based pressure on emerging markets. With FX reserves now sitting under $100 billion some fear a return to capital controls (let’s just call it the “1998 option”) is just around the corner despite the protestations of central bank chief Zeti Akhtar Aziz. Here’s BofAML:

    Capital controls are not likely, but the possibility cannot be dismissed, despite <assurances from Zeti. Introducing controls will be a regressive move and a huge setback, hurting the economy and financial sector, and derailing any ambitions of becoming an international Islamic financial center. Malaysia’s reputation and credibility remain tainted by the capital controls of 1998, even after almost two decades.

     

    The ringgit has depreciated almost 13% year-to-date, the worst performing EM Asian currency. FX reserves fell to $94.5bn at mid-August, falling below the $100bn threshold and down by about $9bn in July alone. At the peak, FX reserves were $141bn in May 2013. Cover to short-term external debt is only 1x, while cover to imports stands at 5.9 months. Downside risks remain given looming Fed rate hikes, China’s RMB devaluation and the political crisis over 1MDB. Malaysia’s vulnerability is also heightened by high leverage (household, quasi-public and external) and a fragile fiscal position (heavy oil dependence, off balance sheet liabilities)

     

    The current crisis has not reached the extreme stress seen during the Asian financial crisis, when draconian capital controls were eventually introduced in September 1998. During that episode, the ringgit collapsed by about 89% from peak to trough at its worst (to 4.71 from 2.49 against the USD). The ringgit has depreciated some 26% in the current crisis. During that episode, the KLCI fell by about 79% from peak to trough (from 1,271 to 263) at its worst. The KLCI today has fallen by only about 12% from its recent peak. Nevertheless, downside risks remain given looming Fed rate hikes, China’s RMB devaluation and the political crisis.

    So in short, Malaysia is on the brink of political and financial crisis, and it looks as though the nuclear route (capital controls) may be just around the corner, which would of course only serve to alienate the country’s financial system at a time when the government looks to be on the brink of collapse. What’s particularly interesting here is the timing. Mahathir Mohamad famously clashed with George Soros during the ’98 crisis, going so far as to brand the billionaire a “moron”. Now that the country’s “founding father” is looking to oust Najib, it will be interesting to see what role he plays in shaping Malaysia’s response to the current financial crisis and on that note, we’ll leave you with a quote from Dr. Mahathir ca. 1997:

    “I know I am taking a big risk to suggest it, but I am saying that currency trading is unnecessary, unproductive and immoral. It should be stopped. It should be made illegal. We don’t need currency trading. We need to buy money only when we want to finance real trade.”

     


  • Fischer Speaks At Jackson Hole: "Fed Should Not Wait Until 2% Inflation To Begin Tightening"

    Today’s most anticipated event at tthis year’s Jackson Hole event was the panel on “Global Inflation Dynamics”, not because there is any core inflation in the world (at least not in the way the CPI measures it), especially not now that China is finally in the deflation exporting business, but because the most important speaker at this year’s Jackson Hole, Fed vice chairman Stanley Fischer, alongside BOE’s Mark Carney, the ECB’s Constancio and the RBI’s Raguram Rajan, would comment.

    Moments ago he just did, and courtesy of Market News, here are the highlights:

    • FISCHER: SHLD NOT WAIT TIL 2% INFL TO BEGIN TIGHTENING
    • FISCHER: NEED TO ‘PROCEED CAUTIOUSLY’ IN NORMALIZING POLICY
    • FISCHER: FED FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENTS IN CHINESE ECONOMY
    • FISCHER: RATE PATH MATTERS MORE THAN TIMING OF FIRST HIKE
    • FISCHER: RISE IN DOLLAR COULD RESTRAIN GDP GROWTH IN ’16, ’17
    • FISCHER: $ MAY HOLD DOWN CORE INFL ‘QUITE NOTICEABLY’ THIS YR
    • FISCHER: NEED CAUTION IN ASSESSING INFL EXPECTATIONS AS STABLE
    • FISCHER: ‘GOOD REASON’ FOR INFL TO MOVE UP AFTER OIL/$ PASSES
    • FISCHER: CORE INFL ‘TO SOME EXTENT’ IMPACTED BY OIL PRICES
    • FISCHER: ECON SLACK IS ONE REASON CORE INFL HAS BEEN LOW
    • FISCHER: OIL PRICE IMPACT ‘OUGHT’ TO BE LARGELY ONE-OFF EVENT
    • FISCHER: LABOR MARKET ‘APPROACHING’ MAX EMPLOYMENT OBJECTIVE

    As AP notes, Fischer said there’s “good reason to believe that inflation will move higher as the forces holding down inflation dissipate further.” He says, for example, that some effects of a stronger dollar and a plunge in oil prices have already started to diminish.

    Both in his speech Saturday and in an interview Friday with CNBC, Fischer made clear that the most recent economic data and the direction of financial markets over the next two weeks would help determine whether the Fed raises rates next month.

     

    In the CNBC interview, Fischer acknowledged that before the recent market volatility, “there was a pretty strong case” for a rate hike at the Sept. 16-17 meeting, though it wasn’t conclusive. Now, the issue is hazier because the Fed needs to assess the economic impact of events in China and on Wall Street.

    More details from MNI:

    Federal Reserve Vice Chair Stanley Fischer said Saturday the U.S. central bank should not wait until it sees 2% inflation to begin tightening policy, but it should proceed cautiously in removing accommodation.

     

    “With inflation low, we can probably remove accommodation at a gradual pace,” Fischer said in remarks prepared for a panel discussion at the close of the Kansas City Fed’s annual Economic Symposium here.

     

    Yet, he added, “because monetary policy influences real activity with a substantial lag, we should not wait until inflation is back to 2% to begin tightening.”

     

    Fischer, who as a member of the board votes at every meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee, did not comment on a particular time for the first rate hike in more than nine years. He did say, “For the purpose of meeting our goals, the entire path of interest rates matters more than the particular timing of the first increase.”

     

    That path will be decided by the progress on the Fed’s price stability mandate as progress in the labor market continues and is “approaching our maximum employment objective,” Fischer said.

     

    “To ensure that these goals will continue to be met as we move ahead,” Fischer said, “we will most likely need to proceed cautiously in normalizing the stance of monetary policy.”

     

    Right now though, progress on the Fed’s inflation objective is being weighed down by a significant drop in oil prices and a stronger U.S. dollar since last year.  Fischer estimates the rise in the dollar, about 17% in nominal terms since last summer, will restrain real GDP growth through 2016 “and perhaps into 2017 as well.”  It “could plausibly be holding down core inflation quite noticeably this year,” he said.

     

    The lower oil prices could also put downward pressure on core inflation, even though this measure is designed to strip out the effects of the volatile prices.

     

    “Note that core inflation does not entirely ‘exclude’ food and energy, because changes in energy prices affect firms’ costs and so can pass into prices of non-energy items,” he said.

     

    Overall, though, Fischer sounded optimistic these factors will prove transitory. “While some effects of the rise in the dollar may be spread over time, some of the effects on inflation are likely already starting to fade,” he said.

     

    “The same is true for last year’s sharp fall in oil prices, though the further declines we have seen this summer have yet to fully show through to the consumer level,” he said.

     

    The transitory nature of these factors and “given the apparent stability of inflation expectations,” he said, “there is good reason to believe that inflation will move higher as the forces holding down inflation dissipate further.”

     

    In addition, “slack in the labor market has continued to diminish, so the downward pressure on inflation from that channel should be diminishing as well,” he said.

     

    But Fischer warned that Fed olicymakers should “be cautious in our assessment that inflation expectations are remaining stable.”

     

    One reason “is that measures of inflation compensation in the market for Treasury securities have moved down  somewhat since last summer,” he said.

     

    He added, though, “these movements can be hard to interpret, as at times they may reflect factors other than inflation expectations, such as changes in demand for the unparalleled liquidity of nominal Treasury securities.”

     

    Fischer didn’t comment much in his prepared remarks on other recent financial market volatility, except to say “At this moment, we are following developments in the Chinese economy and their actual and potential effects on other economies even more closely than usual.”

    In broad terms, this is a repeat of what he told CNBC’s Liesman yesterday, which resulted in the market getting spooked in a “not dovish enough” reaction, if only until the last 15 minute mauling of VIX, which sent the DJIA down from -110 to almost positive.

    What is clearly missing from Fischer’s speech is even the faintest grasp that China is now actively exporting deflation via active devaluation, which is a double whammy for the Fed’s “financial conditions” as it means not only will US inflation remains persistently low (the way the BLS measures it), but the ongoing selloff in TSYs will force the Fed to get involved soon, especially if ongoing selling in both TSYs and stocks wreaks more havoc with ‘risk parity” models, potentially forcing the world’s biggest hedge fund Bridgewater to delever and/or unwind some of its massive $150+ billion in positions.

    However once again, the most important question was missing: now that China is engaging in reverse QE and selling tens if not hundreds of billions in US Treasurys every month, with the US facing a $450 billion budget deficit (hence needing to issue half a trillion in debt), the Fed balance sheet contracting by over $250 billion, just how does the Fed plan on tightening if what it should instead be doing is easing, and massively at that.

    Full speech here (link):

  • What The Yen Might Reveal

    Submitted by Jeffrey Snider via Alhambra Investment Partners,

    The moment you add the yen to any larger financial discussion it inevitably brings out passionate response. I think that is derived partially from its status as unbelievably durable; if there is one currency in the world that “deserves”, so to speak, ultimate execution it is that of the Japanese. The Bank of Japan has done more than any other central bank for far longer to kill it, but like any horror movie villain it seems immune to any reckoning or even the laws of financial sense.

    In the bigger picture, that is as much a damning indictment as a tale of orthodox resilience. It shows that monetary redistribution is nothing but a trap, an incredibly narrow and locked economic existence that can and will be permitted by any sustained apathy. It is a cautionary tale that “markets” can become comfortable with perpetual dysfunction and disaster over time; distract investors enough with monetary magic and they will apparently forget all about more basic functions like impoverishment and general, sustained degeneration.

    To the more immediate effect, the yen as related to financial markets elsewhere is always going to be tangled by the “carry trade.” The idea has become legend, as to whenever the yen moves starkly in one direction or the other the first commentary will usually “inform” of the carry trade potential. I have no doubt that it exists and even that it forms the great basis of yen involvement in so many spheres, but I think it more a means than an end.

    What was notable about Japan during the past few weeks was the yen’s strengthening. Almost in lockstep with gold, it was quite clear that fear was driving both as the “dollar” was being run. Under less pressured condition, a tightening in wholesale “dollars” would typically find both the yen and gold in the reverse; the fact that they (and the franc) had become the opposite was a telling cue.

    ABOOK Aug 2015 Fear JPY

    Any examination of the yen is drawn to the major devaluations, the most prominent of features in its chronology of the past few years. However, despite that seeming one-way direction there have been a couple of noteworthy exceptions. The first was (below) starting May 22, 2013, and running through the middle of June that year. Recall that May 22 was the onset of the credit crash after the first utterance of the word “taper” and that the selloff ran through to June 24, especially MBS and eurodollars. The yen, rather than continue against such a “strong dollar” instead itself appreciated jumping from a low of 103.50 to 94.30 by the end of the episode.

    ABOOK Aug 2015 Fear JPY 2013

    In the past year, as the “dollar’s” various runs have become more frequent and globally involved, the yen has staged a couple of these same reversals to smaller degrees. The first was October 15, going from 109 to 106 which sounds like almost nothing except that it interrupted, prominently, right in the middle of the second major devaluation. Since that time, these counter moves in the yen have matched perfectly other “dollar” runs; one ending on December 16, 2014, as junk bonds and the corporate credit bubble was hit; one ending on January 15, 2015, when the SNB was forced to break its euro peg from “dollar” pressure, marking the first major central bank warning.

    ABOOK Aug 2015 Fear JPY 2015

    You could even add another yen appreciation in early March, ending just after the March FOMC. Finally, there was the largest yen “safety” bid so far, a huge spike that began August 19 as the “dollar” system was run further toward its ultimate global liquidation point. Was that the carry trade unwinding? Most assuredly, but not for or of itself and certainly not because of factors in Japan. In other words, in these specific episodes at least, the carry trade was likely just one method of expressing broader uncertainty and then fear against US assets. To my view, that is an enormous statement itself given the rather deserved disdain for the yen.

    We knew liquidity globally was under great strain in the weeks prior to this Monday’s stock participation, but the yen, franc and gold also showed clearly that general fear was moving into that situation as well; that is, obviously, a shift and an unwelcome one given what transpired.

    ABOOK Aug 2015 Fear Gold August

    Is it over? From these indications it may not be, at least not yet fully. Gold has been higher today (both through the AM and PM fixes) while the yen is still lingering around 121 rather than the 124-125 range prior to the PBOC’s defeat. Stocks may be more sanguine, but in the bubble age that is an almost permanent feature making them the last in line of the liquidity train to “get the message” (discounting mechanism? Not for a long time). It would be reasonable to assume then, despite the “dollar’s” more immediate pause across the financial system this week, not everything has resumed ignoring these deeper funding issues. That may, of course, dissipate next week or however long into the immediate future, but for now, having been subjected to a very serious move, the “system” doesn’t seem quite ready yet to just move on (interesting also that UST’s were bid starting yesterday afternoon until this morning; 10s were 2.20% in yield around 1 pm yesterday and falling to 2.13% before reversing yet again around 10 am).

    In many ways, you expect gold to behave in this manner even against its more nefarious “dollar” connections that have for a few years now been pulling it steadily lower – there was always a safety bid awaiting some more aggressive disruption. To see the yen and the franc participate too, and to such a heavy reversal, seems to suggest just how far into the interior of even the domestic foundation this “run” progressed. We knew it was a grave period by the very fact of knocking the PBOC so unsteady as it did, but these other moves add unconditional confirmation of what it really was.

  • This Is What Happened The Last Time Malaysia Faced A Currency Crisis

    Earlier today, we highlighted the street protests currently underway in the Malaysian capital of Kuala Lumpur where tens of thousands of Malaysians are calling for the ouster of Prime Minister Najib Razak whose government has been accused of obstructing an investigation into how some $700 million from the Goldman-backed 1Malaysia Development Berhad mysteriously ended up in Najib’s personal bank account.

    Of course political turmoil isn’t Malaysia’s only problem. Two weeks ago, in the wake of the yuan devaluation, a $10 billion bond maturity sparked the largest one-day plunge for the ringgit in two decades, serving notice that whispers about a replay of the currency crisis that gripped the country in 1997/98 were about to become shouts.

    Sure enough, Malaysia – whose FX reserves fell under $100 billion late last month leaving it with dry powder sufficient to cover only 6 months of imports and putting its short-term external debt cover at just 1X – is now at the center of the Asia Financial Crisis 2.0 discussion and central bank head Zeti Akhtar Aziz has been at pains to reassure the market that a replay of 1998’s “draconian” crisis fighting measures is not in the cards. 

    Because it appears the situation is set to deteriorate meaningfully in the near term, and because the country’s political situation could serve to undermine already fragile confidence, we thought it an opportune time to revisit exactly what happened two decades ago. For the breakdown, we go to BofAML.

    *  *  *

    From BofAML

    Capital controls – the drastic option

    Concerns that Bank Negara Malaysia may re-introduce capital controls is resurfacing after the ringgit plunged past RM4 against the US dollar, with FX reserves dropping below the $100bn psychological threshold. The MYR has depreciated by 12% against the US dollar since the start of the year and by about 26% from its peak in August last year. BNM’s FX reserves fell to $96.7bn at end-July, falling below the $100bn threshold and down by about $9bn in July alone. At the peak, FX reserves were $141bn in May 2013.

    During [the crisis], the ringgit collapsed by about 89% from peak-to-trough at its worst (to 4.71 from 2.49 against the USD). The ringgit has depreciated some 26% in the current crisis. During that episode, the KLCI fell by about 79% from peak-to-trough (from 1,271 to 263) at its worst. The KLCI today has fallen by only about 12% from its recent peak. Nevertheless, downside risks remain given looming Fed rate hikes, China’s RMB devaluation and the political crisis. 

    But depletion of FX reserves is more severe this time, down $44.7bn so far from the recent peak in May 2013, versus $8.2bn during the Asian crisis episode. Capital controls enacted in 1998 allowed BNM to rebuild FX reserves quickly, rising +$13bn to $32.6bn in a year (Chart 2).

    This political crisis is probably the worst in Malaysia’s history, with no resolution in sight over the 1MDB scandal and a growing “trust deficit” with PM Najib.

    Former premier Mahathir has criticized the finding that Middle Eastern sources “donated” RM2.6bn ($700m) into the PM’s accounts as “hogwash.”

    Malaysia’s vulnerability is also heightened by higher leverage – household, quasipublic and external – than during the Asian crisis. Household debt is 86% of GDP, almost double that pre-Asian crisis (46%). External debt is 69% of GDP, much higher than the 44% in 1997. Even if half of external debt is MYR-denominated, foreign withdrawals will still pressure the ringgit and FX reserves. Public debt is 54% of GDP today versus 31% in 1997. Inclusive of government guarantees, quasi-public debt rises to 70% of GDP. This moreover do not include the potential liabilities from 1MDB, including “letters of support” to circumvent the use of guarantees. Only corporate debt is lower today, at 86% vs. 105% of GDP in 1997. Government-linked companies, pension and pilgrimage funds are also facing pressures to bail-out 1MDB by taking over its assets, including power plants and property projects. With the Prime Minister more focused on 1MDB and survival, the economy is in danger of slipping into another crisis.

  • "Rough Summer" For Small Caps Set To Continue

    Small Cap stocks are in the middle of their worst summer doldrums since 2011 – and in fact for many individual stocks, worst summer since the collapse in 2008/9. While talking heads proclaim these smaller (supposedly more domestically-oriented) stocks a must-own, they have underperformed significantly as the credit cycle turns (thanks to their higher sensitivity to funding costs, among other things). Judging by this week's farce, the supposedly high-beta small caps are being BTFD'd aggressively either and perhaps that is because, since 1926, on average, September and October are the only months in which small-capitalization stocks have posted losses.

     

    Weak Summer…

     

    And Weak Bounce…

     

    And as Bloomberg reports, Fall may be no better…

    Shares of smaller U.S. companies are headed for their biggest monthly decline in almost four years, and history suggests they may not recover their losses any time soon.

     

     

     

    September and October are the only months in which small-capitalization stocks have posted losses on average since 1926, as the chart illustrates. The data was compiled by the University of Chicago’s Center for Research in Security Prices.

     

     

    “It has been a rough summer for small caps,” Steven G. DeSanctis, an equity strategist for Bank of America Corp.’s Merrill Lynch unit, wrote two days ago in a report that cited the chart’s data.

     

    The Russell 2000 Index, whose companies have a $714 million median market value, has fallen 10 percent for August. A loss of that size would be the biggest monthly decline since September 2011. Rising stock volatility and weakness in high-yield bonds indicate a rebound may not come soon, wrote DeSanctis, who is based in New York.

    *  *  *

    Credit continues to flash red…

     

    A pattern we have seen before…

     

    Trade Accordingly…

  • Here's Why The Markets Have Suddenly Become So Turbulent

    Submitted by Charles Hugh-Smith via PeakProsperity.com,

    When stock markets are free-falling 10+% in a matter of days, it’s natural to seek some answers to the question “why now?”

    Some are saying it was all the result of high-frequency trading (HFT), while others point to China’s modest devaluation of its currency the renminbi (a.k.a. yuan) as the trigger.

    Trying to finger the proximate cause of the mini-crash is an interesting parlor game, but does it really help us identify the trends that will shape markets going forward?

    We might do better to look for trends that will eventually drag markets up or down, regardless of HFT, currency revaluations, etc.

    Five Interconnected Trends

    At the risk of stating the obvious, let’s list the major trends that are already visible.

    1. The China Story is Over

    And I don’t mean the high growth forever fantasy tale, I mean the entire China narrative is over:

    1. That export-dependent China can seamlessly transition to a self-supporting consumer economy.
    2. That China can become a value story now that the growth story is done.
    3. That central planning will ably guide the Chinese economy through every rough patch.
    4. That corruption is being excised from the system.
    5. That the asset bubbles inflated by a quadrupling of debt from $7 trillion in 2007 to $28 trillion can all be deflated without harming the wealth effect or future debt expansion.
    6. That development-dependent local governments will effortlessly find new funding sources when land development slows.
    7. That workers displaced by declining exports and automation will quickly find high-paying employment elsewhere in the economy.

    I could go on, but you get the point: the entire Story is over.  (I explained why in a previous essay, Is China’s “Black Box” Economy About to Come Apart? )

    This is entirely predictable. Every fast-growing economy starting with near-zero debt and huge untapped reserves of cheap labor experiences an explosive rise as the low-hanging fruit is plucked and the same abrupt stall and stagnation when the low-hanging fruit has all been harvested, leaving only the unavoidable results of debt-fueled speculation: an enormous overhang of bad debt, malinvestment (a.k.a. bridges to nowhere and ghost cities) and policies that seemed brilliant in the good old days that are now yielding negative returns.

    2. The Emerging Market Story Is Also Done

    Emerging currencies and markets have soared on the back of the China Story, as China’s insatiable demand for oil, iron ore, copper, soy beans, etc. drove global demand to unparalleled heights.

    This demand pushed prices higher, which then pushed production (supply) higher, as the low cost of capital globally enabled marginal resources to be put into production with borrowed money.

    Now that China’s demand has fallen off—by some accounts, China’s GDP is actually in negative territory, despite official claims that it’s still growing at 7% annually—commodity prices have crashed, taking the emerging markets’ stock and currency markets down. (Source)

    Here is a chart of Doctor Copper, a bellwether for industrial and construction demand:

    Here is Brazil’s stock market, which has declined 54% in the past 12 months:

    These are catastrophic declines, and with China’s growth story over, there is absolutely nothing on the global horizon to push demand back up.

    3. Diminishing Returns on Additional Debt

    The simple truth is that expanding debt has fueled global growth. Though people identify China as the driver of global demand for commodities, China’s growth is debt-driven. As noted above, China quadrupled its officially tracked debt from $7 trillion in 2007 to $28 trillion as of mid-2014—an astonishing 282 percent of gross domestic product (GDP).  If we add the estimated $5 trillion of shadow-banking system debt and another year’s expansion of borrowing, China’s total debt of $35+ trillion is in excess of 300% of GDP—levels associated with doomed to default states such as Greece and Spain.

    While China has moved to open the debt spigot in recent days by lowering interest rates and reserve requirements, this doesn’t make over-indebted borrowers good credit risks or more empty high-rises productive investments.

    Borrowed money that poured into ramping up production in emerging nations is now stranded as prices have plummeted, rendering marginal production intensely unprofitable.

    In sum: greatly expanding debt boosted growth virtually everywhere after the Global Financial Meltdown of 2008-2009. That fix is a one-off: not even China can quadruple its $35+ trillion debt to $140 trillion to reignite growth.

    Here is a sobering chart of global debt growth:

     

    4. Limits on Deficit-Spending (Borrowed) Fiscal Stimulus

    When the global economy rolled over into recession in 2008, governments borrowed money by selling sovereign bonds to fund increased state spending.  In the U.S., federal borrowing soared to over $1 trillion per year as the government sought to replace declining private spending with public spending.

    Governments around the world have continued to run large deficits, piling up immense debts since 2008.  The global move to near-zero yields has enabled governments to support these monumental debt loads, but even at near-zero yields, the interest payments are non-trivial. These enormous sovereign debts place some limits on how much governments can borrow in the next global recession—a slowdown many think has already started.

    Here is a chart of U.S. sovereign debt, which has almost doubled since 2008:

    As noted on the chart: what structural inadequacies or problems did governments fix by borrowing gargantuan sums to fund state spending?  The basic answer is: none. All the same structural problems facing governments in 2008 remain untouched in 2015. These include: over-indebtedness, bad debts that haven’t been written down, insolvent banks, soaring social spending as the worker-retiree ratio slips below 2-to-1, externalized environmental damage that has yet to be remediated, and so on.

     

    5. Central Bank Stimulus (Quantitative Easing) as Social Policy Has Been Discredited

    In the wake of the Global Financial Meltdown of 2008-2009, central banks launched monetary stimulus programs aimed at pumping money into the economy via bank lending. The stated goals of these stimulus programs were 1) boost employment (i.e. lower unemployment) and 2) generate enough inflation to stave off deflation, which is generally viewed as the cause of financial depressions.

    While it can be argued that these unprecedented monetary stimulus programs achieved modest successes in terms of lowering unemployment and pushing inflation above the zero line, they also widened wealth and income inequality.

    Even as these programs made modest dents in unemployment and deflation, they pushed asset valuations to the moon—assets largely owned by the few at the top of the wealth pyramid.

    Here is a chart of selected developed economies’ income/wealth skew:

    The widespread recognition that the benefits of central bank stimulus mostly flowed to the top of the pyramid places political limits on future central bank stimulus programs.

    The 2008-09 Fixes Are No Longer Available

    In summary, the fixes for the 2008-09 recession are no longer available in the same scale or effectiveness.  Expanding debt to push up demand and investment, rising state deficit spending, massive monetary stimulus programs—all of these now face limitations. This means the central banks and states have very limited tools to reignite growth as global recession trims borrowing, investment, hiring, sales and profits.

    What Ultimately Matters: Capital Flows

    In Part 2: What Happens Next Will Be Determined By One Thing: Capital Flows, we’ll look at the one dynamic that ultimately establishes assets prices: capital flows.

    I personally don’t think the world has experienced a period in which capital preservation has become more important than capital appreciation since the last few months of 2008 and the first few months of 2009.  Other than these five months, the focus has been on speculating to obtain the highest possible yield/appreciation.

    This suggests to me that the next period of risk-off capital preservation will last a lot longer than five months, and perhaps deepen as time rewards those who adopted risk-off strategies early on.

    Click here to read Part 2 of this report (free executive summary, enrollment required for full access)

  • The Evolution of America's Energy Supply (1776 – 2014)

    Some context for those who insist renewables will ‘solve’ everything…

     

    Source: Visual Capitalist

    The early settlers to North America relied on organic materials on the surface of land for the vast majority of their energy needs. Wood, brush, and other biomass fuels were burned to warm homes, and eventually to power steam engines. Small amounts of coal were found in riverbeds and other such outcrops, but only local homes in the vicinity of these deposits were able to take advantage of it for household warmth.

    During the Industrial Revolution, it was the invention of the first coal-powered, commercially practical locomotives that turned the tide. Although wood would still be used in the majority of locomotives until 1870, the transition to fossil fuels had begun.

    Coke, a product of heating certain types of coal, replaced wood charcoal as the fuel for iron blast furnaces in 1875. Thomas Edison built the first practical coal-fired electric generating station in 1882, which supplied electricity to some residents in New York City. It was just after this time in the 1910s that the United States would be the largest coal producer in the world with 750,000 miners and blasting 550 million tons of coal a year.

    The invention of the internal combustion engine and the development of new electrical technologies, including those developed by people like Thomas Edison and Nikola Tesla, were the first steps towards today’s modern power landscape. Fuels such as petroleum and natural gas became very useful, and the first mass-scale hydroelectric stations were built such as Hoover Dam, which opened in 1936.

    The discovery and advancement of nuclear technology led to the first nuclear submarine in 1954, and the first commercial nuclear power plant in the United States in Pennsylvania in 1957. In a relatively short period of time, nuclear would have a profound effect on energy supply, and it today 99 nuclear reactors account for 20% of all electricity generated in the United States.

    In more recent decades, scientists found that the current energy mix is not ideal from an environmental perspective. Advancements in renewable energy solutions such as solar, wind, and geothermal were made, helping set up a potential energy revolution. Battery technology, a key challenge for many years, has began to catch up to allow us to store larger amounts of energy when the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing. Companies like Tesla are spending billions of dollars on battery megafactories that will have a great impact on our energy use.

    Today, the United States gets the majority of its energy from fossil fuels, though that percentage is slowly decreasing. While oil is still the primary fuel of choice for transportation, it now only generates 1% of the country’s electricity through power plants. Natural gas has also taken on a bigger role over time, because it is perceived as being cleaner than oil and coal.

    Today, in 2015, wind and solar power have generated 5% and 1% of total electricity respectively. Hydro generates 7%.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News August 29, 2015

  • We Are All Preppers Now

    Via The Mises Institute,

    Damian McBride is the former head of communications at the British treasury and former special adviser to Gordon Brown, erstwhile Prime Minister of the U.K. Yesterday he tweeted some surprising advice in response to the plunge in global equities markets.;

    Advice on the looming crash, No. 1: get hard cash in a safe place now; don't assume banks & cashpoints will be open, or bank cards will work.

     

    Crash advice No. 2: do you have enough bottled water, tinned goods & other essentials at home to live a month indoors? If not, get shopping.

     

    Crash advice No. 3: agree a rally point with your loved ones in case transport and communication gets cut off; somewhere you can all head to.

    Evidently, McBride interprets the wipe-out of over $3 trillion in total global market cap during the three-day rout as a prelude to a much broader and deeper financial crash that will precipitate civil unrest.

    According to McBride,

     

    We were close enough in 2008 and what's coming is on 20 times that scale.

  • Here's How Long Saudi Arabia's US Treasury Stash Will Last Under $30, $40, And $50 Crude

    On Friday we explained why the most important chart in global finance may well be the combined FX reserves of Saudi Arabia and China plotted against the yield on the 10Y. 

    Here’s the reason that graphic is so critical: Saudi Arabia and China are sitting on the first and third largest stores of reserves, respectively, and if these two countries continue to liquidate those reserves, it will amount to “reverse QE” or, “quantitative tightening” as Deutsche Bank calls it. 

    For Saudi Arabia, the FX reserve pressure comes courtesy of the deathblow the country dealt to the petrodollar system late last year.

    In other words, the pain is largely self-inflicted as the kingdom is determined to “preserve market share” by bankrupting US shale drillers. The attendant decline in oil revenue has resulted in a fiscal deficit on the order of 20% of GDP which, in the absence of sharply higher oil prices must either be financed by drawing down reserves or else through the bond market because between the war in Yemen (which escalated meaningfully on Thursday) and the necessity of maintaining the status quo for a populace that’s become used to a certain level of stability and comfort, fiscal retrenchment is a decisively difficult task. 

    On Thursday, we got the latest data on Saudi Arabia’s FX reserves and, thanks to new debt, the burn rate slowed. Here’s Reuters:

    The speed of decline in Saudi Arabia’s foreign reserves slowed in July after the government began issuing domestic debt to cover part of a budget deficit created by low oil prices, central bank data showed on Thursday.

     

    The world’s largest oil exporter has been drawing down its reserves to cover the deficit. Net foreign assets at the central bank, which acts as the kingdom’s sovereign wealth fund, have been sliding since they reached a $737 billion peak last August.

     

    But the latest data showed net foreign assets shrank only 0.5 percent from the previous month to 2.480 trillion riyals ($661 billion) in July, their lowest level since early 2013. They had dropped 1.2 percent month-on-month in June and at faster rates early this year.

     

    In July, the government began selling bonds for the first time since 2007, placing 15 billion riyals ($4 billion) of debt with quasi-sovereign funds; this month it sold 20 billion riyals of bonds to banks.

     

    The domestic debt sales appear to have reduced the need for the government to cover its deficit by drawing down foreign assets. Authorities have not publicly said how many bonds they will issue in future, but the market is expecting monthly issues of roughly 20 billion riyals through the end of 2015.

     

    The foreign assets are held mainly in the form of foreign securities such as U.S. Treasury bonds – securities totalled $465.8 billion at the end of July – and deposits with banks abroad, which totalled $131.2 billion. The vast majority of the assets are believed to be in U.S. dollars.

    And while taking on debt to offset the reserve burn is a viable strategy, especially when you’re starting from a debt-to-GDP ratio that’s negligible, the reserves are still at risk of running out, even if 50% of spending is financed in the debt markets.

    Here’s more from BofAML on how long the Saudis can hold out under various price points for crude and assuming various mixes of debt financing and spending cuts:

    Safeguarding Fx reserves will require deep budgetary cuts at current oil prices, in our view. Our dynamic analysis suggested that current low oil prices could rapidly erode the sovereign creditworthiness, even as the sovereign balance sheet is at its strongest on an historical basis. Despite the rapid drawdown over 1H15, SAMA’s Fx reserves still stood at c100% of GDP in June, and government deposits at SAMA represented US$294bn or 42% of GDP. Another way to look at sustainability is a static analysis to calculate the number of years required to exhaust government deposits under various oil, spending and financing scenarios.

     

    Based on the narrow definition of resources available to the government, we think that there is no realistic mix of debt financing and spending cuts at US$30/bbl that can decrease pressure on Fx reserves, and pressure on the USD peg would be acute if oil prices were to be sustained at this level. However, at US$40/bbl and US$50/bbl, debt financing and deep capex cuts (to bring spending 25% lower) can keep government deposits at SAMA covering 7 years and 11 years of government spending, respectively. Government spending has historically adjusted to oil prices with a variable lag. It is worth recalling that spending was 50% lower in 1988 compared to its 1981 peak as oil prices tumbled, and government spending in 2000 was at the same levels as that of 1980 in nominal terms.

     


  • The Corruption Of American Freedom

    Authored by Newt Gingrich, originally posted at The Washington Times,

    This is my third column in a row on corruption.

    In the first, I suggested that 75% may be the most important figure in American politics. It is the percentage of Americans who say in the Gallup World Poll that corruption is widespread in government. Given this extraordinary level of contempt for American political and administrative elites, it is no wonder that non-establishment figures like Donald Trump, Ben Carson, and Bernie Sanders are gaining such traction in the presidential nominating contests.

    In the second, I compared the American view of widespread governmental corruption with the view in other countries. It turns out that 82 countries have a better view of their government, although many of them not by much. For example, at 74%, Brazilians’ dissatisfaction with corruption in their government has led to nationwide protests. But there are many countries where the view of government corruption is far less: Germany (38%), Canada (44%), Australia (41%), and Denmark (19%).

    Today I want to offer some historical context for America’s understanding of corruption.

    America’s Founding Fathers had a very precise understanding of corruption. As I describe in my book “A Nation Like No Other,” the Founders used that word less to describe outright criminal behavior than to refer to political acts that corrupt a constitutional system of checks and balances and corrode representative government. They frequently accused the British Parliament of corruption, citing practices such as the crown’s use of “placemen”—members of Parliament who were also granted royal appointments or lucrative pensions by the crown, in exchange for supporting the king’s agenda.

    In “The Creation of the American Republic,” Gordon Wood, a scholar of the American Revolution, explains the Founders’ idea of corruption:

    “When the American Whigs described the English nation and government as eaten away by “corruption,” they were in fact using a technical term of political science, rooted in the writings of classical antiquity, made famous by Machiavelli, developed by the classical republicans of seventeenth-century England, and carried into the eighteenth century by nearly everyone who laid claim to knowing anything about politics. And for England it was a pervasive corruption, not only dissolving the original political principles by which the constitution was balanced, but, more alarming, sapping the very spirit of the people by which the constitution was ultimately sustained.”

    The growing sentiment in colonial America was that its mother country was corrupt. Despite the reforms of the Glorious Revolution [of 1688], the crown had still found a way to “corrupt” the supposedly balanced English government. Wood sums it up:

    “England, the Americans said over and over again, “once the land of liberty—the school of patriots—the nurse of heroes, has become the land of slavery—the school of parricides and the nurse of tyrants.” By the 1770’s the metaphors describing England’s course were all despairing: the nation was fast streaming toward a cataract, hanging on the edge of a precipice; the brightest lamp of liberty in all the world was dimming. Internal decay was the most common image. A poison had entered the nation and was turning the people and the government into “one mass of corruption.” On the eve of the Revolution the belief that England was “sunk in corruption” and “tottering on the brink of destruction” had become entrenched in the minds of disaffected Englishmen on both sides of the Atlantic.”

    If the Gallup World Poll had been around in the early 1770s, one wonders what percentage of colonial Americans would have said they believed there was widespread corruption in government. Whatever the percentage might have been, we know where colonial America’s disgust with British corruption led: a revolution that replaced a monarchy with a Republic.

    The American Founders were determined to create a Republican form of government that would pit special interests against each other so that constitutional outcomes would represent the common good. As Weekly Standard writer Jay Cost writes in his new book, “A Republic No More: Big Government and the Rise of American Political Corruption,” “[p]olitical corruption is incompatible with a republican form of government. A republic strives above all else to govern for the public interest; corruption, on the other hand, occurs when government agents sacrifice the interests of everybody for the sake of a few.”

    Cost is so good at describing the problem of corruption that I wish to quote him at length below. Read his explanation and ask yourself whether Cost is describing your views about corruption and government.

    “And so we return to one of the earliest metaphors we used to define corruption: it is like cancer or wood rot. It does not stay in one place in the government; it spreads throughout the system. When a faction succeeds in getting what it wants at the expense of the public good, it is only encouraged to push its advantage. By the same token, politicians who aid them and reap rewards for it have an incentive to do it some more, and to improve their methods to maximize their payoffs. Moreover, these successes inspire other politicians and factions to try their hands at raiding the treasury to see if they can do it, too. Thus, a vicious cycle is created that erodes public faith in government, which further contributes to the cycle. When people stop believing that anything can be done to keep the government in line, they stop paying attention carefully or maybe cease participating altogether.

     

    “Ultimately, the public is supposed to be the steward of the government, but how well can it perform that task when it no longer believes doing so is worth its while? How does a democratic government prosper over the long term if the citizenry does not trust the government to represent its interests? How will that not result in anything but the triumph of factionalism over the common good?

     

    The legitimacy of our government is supposed to derive from the people, and the people alone, who consent to the government because, they believe, it represents their interests. In its ultimate form, corruption eviscerates that sacred notion. The people stop believing that the government represents their interests, and the government in turn begins to operate based upon something other than consent. Put simply, corruption strikes at the heart of our most cherished beliefs and assumptions about republican government. That makes it extremely dangerous to the body politic, regardless of what the Bureau of Economic Analysis says about the rate of GDP growth.”

    What Jay Cost describes so well about the erosion of the common good is the underlying explanation of why 75% of Americans say that corruption is widespread in government. It also may explain why voters have elected so many governors recently who had no previous experience in government and why voters are seriously looking at presidential candidates with the same outsider status. Perhaps they hope these outsiders can rid us of corruption by being from outside the system.

    Our form of government today allows revolution through the ballot box rather than on the battlefield. But nonetheless, the message for our political elites today is much the same as it was in 1776: They ignore the people’s contempt at their own risk.

     

  • The One Chart The Military-Industrial Complex Is Hoping Mean Reverts

    While most of the world will be hoping the following chart never (ever) mean-reverts to its previous historically devastating highs, there is one group that is 'banking' on it… The Military-Industrial Complex…

     

    Source: @MaxCRoser

    Of course, as Ron Paul recently explained recently, the current enemy of choice is Russia:

    "The people have to have the propaganda convert them into someone they hate, so they can hate…so you had to have a Saddam Hussein, an Ayatollah, or somebody else, and right now it’s Russia."

    Paul goes on to note that while the Cold War may have fueled the need for American military spending, its end has left Washington without a clear enemy to demonize. The US government is now spreading disinformation about subjects like the Ukraine crisis in order to paint Russia as a villain.

    “All of a sudden the Cold War’s over, and there’s a full explanation of what’s going on in Ukraine, and it’s not all the Russians’ fault, I tell you,” Paul said. “But we have to have an enemy to keep on churning this.”

     

    “Could you believe that maybe the military-industrial complex might have something to do with this?” he added. “Because they probably don’t deliberately say well this started a war, but this started some aggravation which ended up in a war much bigger.”

    But we give the last word to Dwight Eisenhower…

     

    Nothing has changed in 54 years… in fact it has just got worse.

  • Why The Recurring Economic Crises?

    Authored by Murray Rothbard via The Mises Institute,

    A selection from Chapter 42 of Economic Controversies.

    Why, then, does the business cycle recur? Why does the next boom-and-bust cycle always begin? To answer that, we have to understand the motivations of the banks and the government. The commercial banks live and profit by expanding credit and by creating a new money supply; so they are naturally inclined to do so, “to monetize credit,” if they can. The government also wishes to inflate, both to expand its own revenue (either by printing money or so that the banking system can finance government deficits) and to subsidize favored economic and political groups through a boom and cheap credit. So we know why the initial boom began. The government and the banks had to retreat when disaster threatened and the crisis point had arrived. But as gold flows into the country, the condition of the banks becomes sounder. And when the banks have pretty well recovered, they are then in the confident position to resume their natural tendency of inflating the supply of money and credit. And so the next boom proceeds on its way, sowing the seeds for the next inevitable bust.

    Thus, the Ricardian theory also explained the continuing recurrence of the business cycle. But two things it did not explain.

    First, and most important, it did not explain the massive cluster of error that businessmen are suddenly seen to have made when the crisis hits and bust follows boom. For businessmen are trained to be successful forecasters, and it is not like them to make a sudden cluster of grave error that forces them to experience widespread and severe losses.

     

    Second, another important feature of every business cycle has been the fact that both booms and busts have been much more severe in the “capital goods industries” (the industries making machines, equipment, plant or industrial raw materials) than in consumer goods industries. And the Ricardian theory had no way of explaining this feature of the cycle.

    The Austrian, or Misesian, theory of the business cycle built on the Ricardian analysis and developed its own “monetary overinvestment” or, more strictly, “monetary malinvestment” theory of the business cycle. The Austrian theory was able to explain not only the phenomena explicated by the Ricardians, but also the cluster of error and the greater intensity of capital goods’ cycles. And, as we shall see, it is the only one that can comprehend the modern phenomenon of stagflation.

    Mises begins as did the Ricardians: government and its central bank stimulate bank credit expansion by purchasing assets and thereby increasing bank reserves. The banks proceed to expand credit and hence the nation’s money supply in the form of checking deposits (private bank notes having virtually disappeared). As with the Ricardians, Mises sees that this expansion of bank money drives up prices and causes inflation.

    But, as Mises pointed out, the Ricardians understated the unfortunate consequences of bank credit inflation. For something even more sinister is at work. Bank credit expansion not only raises prices, it also artificially lowers the rate of interest, and thereby sends misleading signals to businessmen, causing them to make unsound and uneconomic investments.

    For, on the free and unhampered market, the interest rate on loans is determined solely by the “time preferences” of all the individuals that make up the market economy. For the essence of any loan is that a “present good” (money which can be used at present) is being exchanged for a “future good” (an IOU which can be used at some point in the future). Since people always prefer having money right now to the present prospect of getting the same amount of money at some point in the future, present goods always command a premium over future goods in the market. That premium, or “agio,” is the interest rate, and its height will vary according to the degree to which people prefer the present to the future, i.e., the degree of their time preferences.

    People’s time preferences also determine the extent to which people will save and invest for future use, as compared to how much they will consume now. If people’s time preferences should fall, i.e., if their degree of preference for present over future declines, then people will tend to consume less now and save and invest more; at the same time, and for the same reason, the rate of interest, the rate of time-discount, will also fall. Economic growth comes about largely as the result of falling rates of time preference, which bring about an increase in the proportion of saving and investment to consumption, as well as a falling rate of interest.

    But what happens when the rate of interest falls not because of voluntary lower time preferences and higher savings on the part of the public, but from government interference that promotes the expansion of bank credit and bank money? For the new checkbook money created in the course of bank loans to business will come onto the market as a supplier of loans, and will therefore, at least initially, lower the rate of interest. What happens, in other words, when the rate of interest falls artificially, due to intervention, rather than naturally, from changes in the valuations and preferences of the consuming public?

    What happens is trouble. For businessmen, seeing the rate of interest fall, will react as they always must to such a change of market signals: they will invest more in capital goods. Investments, particularly in lengthy and time-consuming projects, which previously looked unprofitable, now seem profitable because of the fall in the interest charge. In short, businessmen react as they would have if savings had genuinely increased: they move to invest those supposed savings. They expand their investment in durable equipment, in capital goods, in industrial raw material, and in construction, as compared with their direct production of consumer goods.

    Thus, businesses happily borrow the newly expanded bank money that is coming to them at cheaper rates; they use the money to invest in capital goods, and eventually this money gets paid out in higher wages to workers in the capital goods industries. The increased business demand bids up labor costs, but businesses think they will be able to pay these higher costs because they have been fooled by the government-and-bank intervention in the loan market and by its vitally important tampering with the interest-rate signal of the marketplace—the signal that determines how many resources will be devoted to the production of capital goods and how many to consumer goods.

    Problems surface when the workers begin to spend the new bank money that they have received in the form of higher wages. For the time preferences of the public have not really gotten lower; the public doesn’t want to save more than it has. So the workers set about to consume most of their new income, in short, to reestablish their old consumer/saving proportions. This means that they now redirect spending in the economy back to the consumer goods industries, and that they don’t save and invest enough to buy the newly produced machines, capital equipment, industrial raw materials, etc. This lack of enough saving-and-investment to buy all the new capital goods at expected and existing prices reveals itself as a sudden, sharp depression in the capital goods industries. For once the consumers reestablish their desired consumption/investment proportions, it is thus revealed that business had invested too much in capital goods (hence the term “monetary overinvestment theory”), and had also underinvested in consumer goods. Business had been seduced by the governmental tampering and artificial lowering of the rate of interest, and acted as if more savings were available to invest than were really there. As soon as the new bank money filtered through the system and the consumers reestablish their old time-preference proportions, it became clear that there were not enough savings to buy all the producers’ goods, and that business had misinvested the limited savings available (“monetary malinvestment theory”). Business had overinvested in capital goods and underinvested in consumer goods.

    The inflationary boom thus leads to distortions of the pricing and production system. Prices of labor, raw materials, and machines in the capital goods industries are bid up too high during the boom to be profitable once the consumers are able to reassert their old consumption/ investment preferences. The “depression” is thus seen— even more than in the Ricardian theory—as the necessary and healthy period in which the market economy sloughs off and liquidates the unsound, uneconomic investments of the boom, and reestablishes those proportions between consumption and investment that are truly desired by the consumers. The depression is the painful but necessary process by which the free market rids itself of the excesses and errors of the boom and reestablishes the market economy in its function of efficient service to the mass of consumers. Since the prices of factors of production (land, labor, machines, raw materials) have been bid too high in the capital goods industries during the boom, this means that these prices must be allowed to fall in the recession until proper market proportions of prices and production are restored.

    Put another way, the inflationary boom will not only increase prices in general, it will also distort relative prices, will distort relations of one type of price to another. In brief, inflationary credit expansion will raise all prices; but prices and wages in the capital goods industries will go up faster than the prices of consumer goods industries. In short, the boom will be more intense in the capital goods than in the consumer goods industries. On the other hand, the essence of the depression adjustment period will be to lower prices and wages in the capital goods industries relative to consumer goods, in order to induce resources to move back from the swollen capital goods to the deprived consumer goods industries. All prices will fall because of the contraction of bank credit, but prices and wages in capital goods will fall more sharply than in consumer goods. In short, both the boom and the bust will be more intense in the capital than in the consumer goods industries. Hence, we have explained the greater intensity of business cycles in the former type of industry.

    There seems to be a flaw in the theory, however; for, since workers receive the increased money in the form of higher wages fairly rapidly, and then begin to reassert their desired consumer/investment proportions, how is it that booms go on for years without facing retribution: without having their unsound investments revealed or their errors caused by bank tampering with market signals made evident? In short, why does it take so long for the depression adjustment process to begin its work? The answer is that the booms would indeed be very short lived (say, a few months) if the bank credit expansion and the subsequent pushing of interest rates below the free-market level were just a one-shot affair. But the crucial point is that the credit expansion is not one shot. It proceeds on and on, never giving the consumers the chance to reestablish their preferred proportions of consumption and saving, never allowing the rise in cost in the capital goods industries to catch up to the inflationary rise in prices. Like the repeated doping of a horse, the boom is kept on its way and ahead of its inevitable comeuppance by repeated and accelerating doses of the stimulant of bank credit. It is only when bank credit expansion must finally stop or sharply slow down, either because the banks are getting shaky or because the public is getting restive at the continuing inflation, that retribution finally catches up with the boom. As soon as credit expansion stops, the piper must be paid, and the inevitable readjustments must liquidate the unsound overinvestments of the boom and redirect the economy more toward consumer goods production. And, of course, the longer the boom is kept going, the greater the malinvestments that must be liquidated, and the more harrowing the readjustments that must be made.

     

  • US Falls Behind Canada, Finland, And Hong Kong In Human Freedom Index

    Submitted by MPN News Desk via TheAntiMedia.org,

    The United States lags far behind other developed countries in terms of personal, civil and economic freedoms, according to a study released this month. Its neighbor to the north, for example, ranked 14 spots ahead of the so-called “Land of the Free.”

    Three international think tanks — the U.S.-based Cato Institute, Canada’s Fraser Institute, and Germany’s Liberales Institut at the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom — released the Human Freedom Index earlier this month. In addition to major civil liberties, the study considers safety and rule of law, relative size of government and capitalist values like the soundness of money, property rights, and access to international trade. The authors used a total of 70 data sources ranging from 2008 to 2012, the most recent year for which all necessary data is currently available.

    According to the report,

    “The top 10 jurisdictions in order were Hong Kong, Switzerland, Finland, Denmark, New Zealand, Canada, Australia, Ireland, the United Kingdom, and Sweden.”

    The U.S. ranks 20th, while Myanmar, Congo and Iran round out the bottom of the list of 152 countries.

     

    Commenting on Canada’s high ranking compared to the U.S., Fred McMahon, the editor of the study, told the Toronto Sun:

    “Canada doesn’t lead in a single area, but it’s high on all areas, like economic freedom … We have a very strong rule of law, good on safety and security. You can’t really have freedom without safety and security. And of course, in what you might call political freedoms and associations, speech and so on, we’re also top of the class.”

    McMahon cited the U.S. war on terror, recent changes to property rights, and the ongoing effects of the 2008 financial crisis for the country’s poor ranking. “The U.S. has declined incredibly over the past decade- and-a-half,” he told the Sun last week, adding:

    “The U.S. is known as the ‘Land of liberty’ and Canada is known as ‘The land of good governance,’ so it’s a little surprising that a country whose motto hinges on good government as a motto is well-ahead of a country whse motto hinges on liberty.”

    Hong Kong’s high ranking may seem surprising, but the index does not attempt to measure democracy, and this year’s report doesn’t take into account recent pro-democracy protests in the country and the subsequent government crackdown.

    This wasn’t the only recent study to take issue with civil liberties in America. In February, Reporters Without Borders announced that the U.S. had dropped three places in its “World Press Freedom Index” as a result of a “‘war on information’ by the Obama administration” and a crackdown on reporters’ abilities to freely report on events like the Ferguson protests, where trespassing charges were recently leveled against two journalists for their work documenting last year’s uprising following the death of Michael Brown.

  • California Droughtrage – LA County Supervisors Have Cars Washed 3 Times A Week

    Great news – Californians have managed to reduce water usage by 31% in July, surpassing the mandated 25% reduction amid the worst drought in centuries. However, this dramatic reduction is in now way thanks to local government in Los Angeles, where, as Daily News reports, the majority of LA County supervisors have their take-home cars washed two or three times a week, service records show, and actually washed them more frequently than before Governor Brown's orders.

     

     

    California decreased its total water use by 31.3 percent in July, surpassing a goal set by Gov. Jerry Brown four months ago to cut urban water use by 25 percent, according to figures released Thursday, but, as Daily News report, no thanks whatsoever to LA County Board of Supervisors…

    Despite living in one of the most car-centric and image-conscious cities in the world, many Los Angeles drivers have cut their carwashes during the crippling drought.

     

    Not so for the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors.

     

    The majority of the supervisors wash their take-home cars two or three times a week, service records show, and actually washed them more frequently after Gov. Jerry Brown ordered a 25 percent cut in urban water use. As the county’s washes continue to consume tap water, some other local governments have pledged to skip washes for months or are using recirculated water.

     

    “When government takes the initiative, it really says something about their leadership,” said Rachel Stich, spokeswoman for Los Angeles Waterkeeper, an environmental group that started a pledge drive for dirty cars. “If they’re going to be asking their residents to conserve water, everybody needs to be stepping up.”

    Meanwhile, city officials in Long Beach, Santa Monica, Burbank, Malibu and San Gabriel have all pledged to stop washing their cars for two months, as part of the L.A. Waterkeeper drive.

    And in the final irony,

    County officials are studying how to save water at their carwashes, a representative said.

     

    Top county officials get their cars washed in the basement of the Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration downtown, at one of three carwashes run by the county government. They can receive a car allowance, or have the government purchase them a vehicle, which is then washed, maintained and fueled by taxpayers.

    *  *  *

    Once again – do as I say, not as I do!

  • All Of Our Hopes & Dreams Come Down To 0.25%

    Submitted by Simon Black via SovereignMan.com,

    Charles Dickens opened his 1859 masterpiece A Tale of Two Cities with one of the most famous introductions in literary history:

    “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times… “

    This line is notoriously incomprehensible to high school students around the world.

    But as paradoxical as it sounds, it truly hits the nail on the head in describing social inequality.

    Dickens wrote his book about the struggles in England and France just prior to and during the French Revolution.

    For the aristocracy it was the best of times.

    These people were born into a life of unparalleled prestige and luxury simply by accident of birth, without ever having to work a day in their lives.

    The working class, on the other hand, toiled away in starvation devoid of any opportunity, freedom, or hope.

    For them, it was the worst of times.

    Right now the Fed is going to meet in Jackson Hole, Wyoming to discuss what they’re going to do about interest rates.

    Interest rates have been kept at zero for years, and now there is talk that they might raise rates to 0.25%.

    This is far from a guaranteed thing. In fact, one of the most influential members of the Fed has already stated that with stocks swooning they likely won’t raise rates after all.

    That tells you everything you need to know about the Fed. They’re not there for the economy; they’re there to keep stocks in a bubble.

    Through their interventions they’ve created massive risks in the financial system, from which the tiniest elite has received disproportionate benefit.

    Over the last four years, the top 80 billionaires saw their wealth increased by 50%, while the incomes for the rest of the population remained stagnant.

    Adjusted for inflation, the average worker is actually far worse off than they were 15 years ago.

    They are the ones who have had to suffer the consequences of the Fed’s actions.

    They’ve endured gyrating financial markets, banks that are pitifully capitalized, and insolvent national pension funds—taking all of the risk, but none of the reward.

    It might not be the worst of times, but with inequality rising, it’s getting there.

    There’s nothing wrong with inequality itself.

    There are no two human beings on the planet who are equal. In fact, even trying to strive for equality is both impossible and really boring.

    We all have different talents and different productive abilities.

    I’m never going to run as fast as Usain Bolt, and I’m just going to have to live with that.

    The issue arises when people are able to disproportionately benefit without having to lift a finger at the expense of the rest thanks to a corrupt financial system.

    When an entire class of people is able to grow wealthier to the tune of trillions of dollars, simply because central bankers print money and stick everyone else with the bill—that creates huge problems.

    Right now, while the Fed is meeting in Jackson Hole, there is a group of activists also meeting there to protest against Fed policy.

    100,000 people have signed a petition telling the Fed not to raise interest rates.

    They claim that the recovery has only helped Wall Street and the wealthy, whereas for the working class wages haven’t gone up at all. And they’re right.

    But what is really sad about this is the fact they’re begging the Fed to not raise rates until wages have gone up.

    All these people have their hopes and dreams tied on a quarter of a percent.

    That’s how ridiculous things have become.

    People are so horrified that if money isn’t absolutely free that all hell will break loose—that people are going to go broke, the market’s going to crash, and that there won’t be any jobs.

    That’s a pretty sad state of affairs, and it is by no stretch of the imagination the foundation for a free and prosperous nation.

    It is the height of central planning and it is a form of economic tyranny.

    Fortunately, this system is on the way out.

    Nations are going bankrupt, entire banking systems are nearly insolvent, and national pension funds are already broke.

    Governments and central banks have backed themselves into a corner with no way out.

    Just look at China: one of the most authoritarian governments in the world can’t control its own market.

    And that’s what’s so exciting.

    When everything they try isn’t working, it’s clearly time to hit the reset button.

    And for those who are ready for it, this will bring a whole new world of opportunities.

    Dickens closed his book with a poignant quote that I think it very fitting here:

    “I see a beautiful city and a brilliant people rising from this abyss, and, in their struggles to be truly free, in their triumphs and defeats, through long years to come, I see the evil of this time and of the previous time of which this is the natural birth, gradually making expiation for itself and wearing out.”

  • Boeing Tests X-Box-Controlled Laser Cannon

    Drones have been turning up in strange places lately.

    For instance, back in April, a mailman delivered a campaign reform letter to Congress by landing a drone on the Capitol lawn and just a few days later, a radioactive drone turned up on top of Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s office (Kuroda paradropping yen?). 

    Then, in May, a drone showed up in Rosa Parks Circle in Grand Rapids, Michigan and literally rained down money from the heavens. 

    Meanwhile, earlier this month, a Delta flight and a JetBlue flight had close encounters of the drone kind over JFK, avoiding collisions by just 100 feet. 

    Well apparently Boeing had had just about enough of people “flying their drones where they shouldn’t” (to quote Wired) because the company has now developed a drone-killing laser cannon which it tested in New Mexico earlier this week. Here’s more from Wired:

    The aerospace company’s new weapon system, which it publicly tested this week in a New Mexico industrial park, isn’t quite as cool as what you see in Star Wars—there’s no flying beams of light, no “pew! pew!” sound effects. But it is nonetheless a working laser cannon, and it will take your drone down.

     

    People keep flying their drones where they shouldn’t. In airport flight paths. Above wildfires. Onto the White House lawn. Luckily, there haven’t been any really bad incidents—that is, no one has been killed by a civilian quadcopter or plane, yet.

     

    But governments and militaries around the world are terrified by the prospect of drones carrying explosives or chemical weapons (and now, pornography) into places where they shouldn’t.

     

    There are lots of theories on the best way to deal with the drone threat. An Idaho company has developed special anti-drone shotgun shells. Some agencies are working on jamming technology to block communication from the operator to the aircraft. Firefighters in New York kept it simple, aiming their hose at a pesky drone hovering near a house fire.

     

    Forget all that. Boeing thinks the best way to kill a drone is to zap it with a precision laser, burn a hole in it, and bring it down. So it created a weapon system to do just that—and the result could someday be installed everywhere from LaGuardia to the Pentagon.

    But as Wired goes on to note, Boeing appears to have taken all the fun out of the whole idea of a “laser cannon”: 

    No explosions, no visible beam. It’s more like burning ants with a really, really expensive magnifying glass than obliterating Alderaan.

    Ok, so that doesn’t sound very exciting, is there anything fun about this thing? 

    The laser is controlled with a standard Xbox 360 controller (“If it breaks, just head to the barracks to get a replacement!”) and a laptop with custom targeting software. 

    That’s more like it – here’s a military grade, precision laser cannon that has that video game feel to it, which we imagine will come in handy when the Pentagon decides it’s time to test this thing out on targets which are, how should we put this… oh, yeah.. human combatants. 

    Of course, considering how lucrative sales to foreign countries are for America’s military industrial complex, our only question now is how long it will be before someone “loses” a laser cannon in the Middle East only to see it used by former CIA “strategic assets” to down a Predator. 

  • How Trump Continues To Lead In The Polls

    Recent polls indicate that, despite public outcry against his incendiary comments on women and minorities, Donald Trump is still the leading Republican candidate.

     

    Here are some reasons Trump stays so popular with his supporters:

    • Highly relatable lack of qualifications for holding government office
    • Americans’ appreciation for classic underdog story of man who started with only several hundred million dollars and went on to make several billion dollars
    • Only candidate to publicly state willingness to make America great again
    • Exploits other Republican candidates’ weaknesses by allowing them to open their mouths and speak on issues
    • Very, very handsome
    • Voters eager to see presidential library with three infinity pools and rooftop driving range
    • Bolstered by impassioned endorsement from Donald Trump
    • Eccentric, megalomaniac billionaire still more relatable to average American than anyone willing to dedicate life to politics
    • Appeals to widespread desire to see nation implode sooner rather than later

    Source: The Onion

     

  • Pentagon’s New “Law of War” Manual “Reduces Us to the Level of Nazis”

    The Pentagon’s new Law of War Manual – a 1,200-plus page document issued in June by the Defense Department’s Office of the General Counsel – is barbaric.

    The Manual is so bad that one of the leading experts on the law of war (Dr. Francis Boyle) – who wrote the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, the American implementing legislation for the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention, served on the Board of Directors of Amnesty International, and teaches international law at the University of Illinois, Champaign – says :

    This Law of War Manual reduces us to the level of Nazis. There’s no other word for it.

    Boyle also says the Manual:

    Reads like it was written by Hitler’s Ministry of War.

    Why is the Manual so bad?

    Manual Authorizes Slaughter of Innocent Civilians

    Because – according to Boyle – the Manual allows massacres of civilian populations. The most comprehensive previous such document – the 1956 Pentagon field manual – assumed that any deliberate targeting of civilians was illegal and a war crime.

    Reporters Can Be Assassinated

    And the Manual treats allows reporters to be treated as “unprivileged combatants”, who can be assassinated.

    Boyle points out that this retroactively legalizes assassination of reporters, such as Al Jazeera reporters during Iraq war. Boyle notes that even a SPY would be treated better, and given a trial.

    (As we’ve previously noted, the U.S. government treats real reporters as terrorists. Because the core things which reporters do could be considered terrorism, in modern America, journalists are sometimes targeted under counter-terrorism laws.)

    Manual Authorizes Barbarous War Crimes

    Boyle also says the Manual authorizes the following barbarous war crimes:

    (1) Warfare with nuclear weapons. Specifically, the manual states:

    There is no general prohibition in treaty or customary international law on the use of nuclear weapons.

    This flies in the face of the United Nations Charter, which – as noted by the World Court in its Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons – makes even threatening to use nuclear weapons a war crime.

    This is also particularly worrisome because – as documented in
    Towards a World War III Scenario, by Michel Chossudovsky –  the U.S. is so enamored with nuclear weapons that it has authorized low-level field commanders to use them in the heat of battle in their sole discretion … without any approval from civilian leaders.

    (2) Depleted uranium. The use of depleted uranium can cause cancer and birth defects for decades (see this, this, this, this, this, this and this).

    (3) Landmines.

    (4) Cluster bombs.

    (5) Napalm, which is banned under Protocol III of the 1980 UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.

    (6) Expanding hollow-point bullets, banned under the 1868 St. Petersburg declaration.

    (7) Herbicides, like Agent Orange in Vietnam.

    The Good News

    The good news – according to Dr. Boyle – is that both Congress and the president have power to revoke the Manual.

    So – if we stand up and raise holy hell – we might be able to walk back from the fascist path we’re heading down.  And we can prove that we’re not the rogue nation that the rest of the world thinks we are.

  • These Four Currency Pegs Are Most Likely To Fall

    Ever since Kazakhstan stormed onto the radar screens of a whole host of mainstream financial market commentators who might not have previously known that there was a place called Kazakhstan, everyone wants to know which currency peg will fall next. 

    Over the past week, we’ve taken a look at the riyal, the dirham, and of course, the Hong Kong dollar. Below, find a new chart from Bloomberg which attempts to show which pegs are most vulnerable based on the following six statistics: 1) Oil rents as a percent of GDP; 2) the current account balance as a percent of GDP; 3) external debt as a percent of GNI; 4) total reserves in terms of months of imports; 5) total reserves as a percent of external debt; 6) the change in the real effective exchange from 2010 to 2014. 

  • Nassim Taleb's Fund Made $1 Billion On Monday; This Is How The Other "Hedge" Funds Did

    You can’t say Nassim Taleb didn’t warn you: the outspoken academic-philosopher, best known for his prediction that six sigma “fat tail”, or black swan, events happen much more frequently than they should statistically (perhaps a main reason why there is no longer a market but a centrally-planned cesspool of academic intervention) just had a black swan land smack in the middle of the Universa hedge fund founded by ardent Ron Paul supporter Mark Spitznagel, and affiliated with Nassim Taleb.

    The result: a $1 billion payday, translating into a 20% YTD return, in a week when the VIX exploded from the teens to over 50, and which most other hedge funds would love to forget.

    The WSJ reports:

    Universa Investments LP gained roughly 20% on Monday, according to a person familiar with the matter, a day when the market collapsed more than 1,000 points in its largest ever intraday point decline. Universa’s profits—some realized and some on paper—amounted to more than $1 billion in the past week, largely on Monday, as its returns for the year climbed to roughly 20% through earlier this week.

     

    “This is just the beginning,” said Universa founder Mark Spitznagel, a longtime collaborator with Mr. Taleb, who advises Universa, lectures at New York University and is known for his pessimistic forecasts about the global economy. Mr. Spitznagel himself has spent the last several years warning of a coming correction, one he viewed as inevitable given accommodative policies by central banks around the world.

     

    The markets are overvalued to the tune of 50% and I’ve been saying that for some time,” said Mr. Spitznagel.

     

    Universa gained renown for its outsize gains in 2008, racking up more than 100% profits for many of its clients. In 2011, it notched around 10% to 30% gains for clients. During the years in between it posted steady, small losses.

    The firm focuses on finding cheap, shorter-dated options on the S&P 500 and other instruments it expects to rise in value amid a notable downturn.

     

    During the past week, the value of such options that Universa bought over the past one to two months jumped, said people familiar with the matter.

     

    The Miami-based Universa and some other “black swan” hedge funds that seek to reap big rewards from sharp market downturns have emerged as winners amid the world-wide volatility of the past week, say their investors, racking up double digit gains in roughly the past week.

    Incidentally, this is precisely what a “hedge” fund should do: protect against massive, “fat tail” days like this Monday; instead they merely ride the beta train with the most leverage possible, hoping that the Fed will prevent any events that actually need hedging, and blow up in a fiery crash any time the market tumbles. Needless to say this makes most of them utterly useless, especially since one can just buy the SPY for almost nothing, and avoid paying the hefty 2 and 20 (or 3 and 45) fee, which until recently was merely there to fund trading based on inside information aka “expert networks” and “idea dinner” thesis clustering.

    And speaking of non-hedging “hedge” funds, the table below lays out the performance of some of the most prominent names through either Friday of last week, or as of mid-week. You will notice three things: i) a lot of minus signs for entities that supposedly “hedge” market drops, ii) Bill Ackman’s Pershing Square, which until last month was among the best performers, was – as of Wednesday – down for the year, and iii) Ray Dalio’s “risk parity” quickly has become “risk impairty” in an environment where both stocks were sold by the boatload, at the same time that China was dumping US treasurys – a scenario no “risk parity” fund is prepared for.

  • "No Recovery For You!" Brazil Officially Enters Recession, Goldman Calls Numbers "Disquieting"

    Well, you know what they say: when it rains it pours, especially when you’re the poster child for an epic emerging market unwind and you’re suffering through the worst stagflation in over a decade while trying to clean up the feces ahead of the summer Olympics.. or something. 

    Make no mistake, Brazil is in a tough spot.

    Here’s a list of problems: 1) collapsing commodity prices, 2) the worst inflation-growth outcome in over a decade, 3) deficits on both the fiscal and current accounts, 4) street protests calling for the President to be sacked, 5) a plunging currency, 6) allegations of rampant government corruption. And we could go on. 

    On Friday, the latest quarterly GDP print shows the country sliding into recession (of course these determinations are always backward looking and just about every indicator one cares to observe seems to show that the economy is closer to depression than it is to the early stages of recession) as output contracted 1.9% in Q2. Here’s the summary from Barclays:

    Q2 15 real GDP in Brazil surprised on the downside, contracting -1.9% q/q sa and compatible with a y/y print of -2.6%. This follows a downwardly revised -0.7% q/q sa Q1 real GDP print (previous: -0.2%), and also a flat real GDP print in Q4 14 (previous: 0.3% q/q sa). As a matter of fact, the past three quarters were revised to the downside, which now implies a strong negative carry-over for this year: if real GDP is flat in H2 15, the annual growth would be -2.3%.

     

    Relative to our forecast, household consumption, fixed-assets investments and imports all surprised on the downside. These components reflect the adverse conditions for domestic demand, as a reflection of higher inflation, interest rates, fall in income and weaker currency. 

    And from Goldman:

    The forecasted deeper 2015 recession will contaminate the 2016 growth outlook. Given the worse-than-expected 2Q figure and the downward revision to 1Q sequential growth, our profile for 2H2015 growth points now to a 2.6% contraction of real GDP in 2015 (down from our previous -2.1% forecast) and worsens the statistical carry-over for growth in 2016 to -0.8%. That is, were the economy to stay flat throughout 2016 at the expected 4Q2015 level, real GDP would contract by 0.8% in 2016. Hence, we are now forecasting real GDP to contract 0.4% in 2016 (down from the previous -0.25% forecast). This is consistent with average quarterly real GDP growth of 0.10%-0.20%, a path that is still subject to obvious downside risks given the prevailing high level of macro and political uncertainty and recognized negative skew in the distribution of domestic and external risks.

     


    The latest on the political front is that President Dilma Rousseff has 15 days to explain to the the Federal Accounts Court why everyone seems to think that she intentionally delayed nearly $12 billion in social payments last year in an effort to make the books look better than they actually were. And while we won’t endeavor to weigh in one way or another on that issue, what we would say is that if someone in Brazil is doctoring this year’s books, they aren’t doing a very good job because things just seem to keep going from bad to worse. 

    Case in point, on Friday, Brazil said its primary budget deficit was R10 billion in July, far wider than expected. The takeaway: “no 2015 primary surplus for you!

    Here’s Goldman with the breakdown:

    The consolidated public sector posted a worse than expected R$10.0bn deficit in July, driven by the weak performance of both the central and regional governments. The central government posted a R$6.0bn deficit in July and the states and municipalities a larger than expected R$3.2bn deficit. Finally, the state-owned enterprises added another R$810mn to the overall deficit.

     

    On a 12-month trailing basis the consolidated public sector recorded a 0.9% of GDP primary deficit in July, worse than the 0.6% of GDP deficit recorded in December and, therefore, increasingly distant from the new unimpressive +0.15% of GDP surplus target. Hence, it is increasingly likely that we may observe a second consecutive year of primary fiscal deficits.

     

    The overall public sector fiscal deficit (primary surplus minus interest payments) widened to a very large 8.81% of GDP, from 6.2% of GDP in the 12 months through December 2014. The net interest bill is running at 7.92% of GDP in the 12 months through July.

     

    Gross general government debt worsened to 64.6% of GDP, up from 58.9% of GDP at end 2014 and 53.3% of GDP in 2013.

     

    The twin combined fiscal and current account deficits now exceed a disquieting 13.2% of GDP.

     

    Overall, we have yet to detect a visible turnaround in the fiscal picture. The overall fiscal deficit is tracking at a disquieting 8.8% of GDP, driven in part by the surging net interest bill, which was exacerbated by the large losses on the central bank stock of Dollar-swaps. We expect the gradual fiscal consolidation process to last at least 3-4 years, perhaps longer.

     

     

    As Barclays recently argued, a downgrade to junk is now just “a matter of time,” a development which may well usher in a new era in which the world’s emerging economies begin to backslide into “frontier” status, and as we put it earlier this month, after that it’ll be time to break out the humanitarian aid packages.

    *  *  *

    Bonus: Charting a Brazilian nightmare

    Bonus Bonus: “That aint no unpopular President, THIS is an unpopular President”…

    Stay positive Brazil…


  • Weekend Reading: Just A Correction, Or Something Else

    Submitted by Lance Roberts via STA Wealth Management,

    Earlier this week I posted two pieces of analysis with respect to the recent dive in the markets. The first discussed the possibility that this is just a correction within an ongoing bull market. The second delved into the possibility that a new cyclical bear market has begun. Only time will tell which is truly the case.

    However, in ALL cases, the initial decline led to a subsequent bounce and ultimately retested previous lows. As shown in the chart below, this was the case in 2010 and 2011 which were ultimately followed by Federal Reserve interventions that helped the bull market regain its footing.

    SP500-2010-2011-Crash-082515

    The question is whether, with economic growth rates slowing and deflationary pressures building, will the Fed again intervene by postponing rate hikes and injecting liquidity? Or, is this recent correction just the beginning of something larger? Only time will tell for certain. However, there is mounting evidence that we are indeed closer to the end of this bull market cycle than the beginning.

    This weekend's reading list is a smattering of views from bulls, to bears and everything in between as to the recent correction. Is it just a correction to be followed by a resumption of the bull market? Or something else?


    THE LIST

    1) Panic Attack Or Start Of A Bear Market by Ed Yardeni via Dr. Ed's Blog

    There have been lots of panic attacks since the start of the bull market in early 2009. The first four of them occurred from the second through the fourth years of the current bull market, and they were full-fledged corrections. They were all triggered by worries that a recession was imminent, with anxiety focused on three major and varying concerns: a double-dip in the US, a disintegration of the Eurozone, and a hard landing in China–all having the potential to cause a global recession either individually or in combination. When those fears dissipated, relief rallies ensued."

    Yardeni-SPX-082715

    Read Also: Was Monday's Plunge Capitulation, Nah! by Simon Constable via Forbes

     

    2) Dog Days Of Summer Not Over Yet by Jeff Hirsch via Almanac Trade Tumblr

    "The Dog Days are not over for the market. This hazy, hot and sultry time during July and August were named the Dog Days of summer in antiquity by stargazers in the Mediterranean as the time period before and after the conjunction of Sirius, the Dog Star of the constellation Canis Major (Big Dog) and the sun. Back in the day the Dog Days were often plagued with, fever, disease and discomfort.

     

    Selling continues to plague the stock market and we expect selling will continue through September, the other worst month of the year along with its neighbor August. September is the worst month of the longer term since 1950. Around this time last year I was on CNBC and the other commentator in the segment, Dan Greenhaus, Chief Global Strategist, BTIG (Great guy and analyst whom we respect and does great work), keenly pointed out the S&P 500 had been up in 8 of the previous 10 years from 2004 to 2013. So maybe September was not bad for the market anymore."

    Read Also: 10 Things To Consider About Recent Market Panic by John Ogg via 24/7 Wall Street

     

    3) What Happens Next Is Important by Adam Grimes via AdamHGrimes.com

    "In October 2014, the selloff in stocks was strong enough (i.e., generated enough downside momentum) that we might reasonably have looked for another leg down. If that scenario was in play, what we "should have" seen was a fairly slow bounce, setting up some kind of flag/pullback, that would pretty quickly break to new lows. If that had happened, there was a possibility that we'd see continued legs of selling and the eventual breakdown of trends on higher timeframes. This is a good roadmap for how lower timeframe trends can have an impact on higher timeframes.

     

    Instead, what happened? The market turned around, rocketed higher, and we knew, literally within the space a few days, that this wasn't an environment in which we were likely to find good shorts. Instead of the slow bounce, we got a hard bounce and the market quickly went to new highs. Following the decline, that type of bounce was unusual, but it was a clear message from the market."

    what-mightve-been

    Read Also: Some Good Things About Crashes by Matt Levine via Bloomberg

     

    4) 99.7% Chance We're In A Bear Market by Myles Udland via Business Insider

    "In his latest note to clients, Edwards warns that the recent snapback rallies we've seen in the stock market are merely headfakes and that stocks are probably headed lower.

     

    In his note, Edwards references a model developed by his colleague Andrew Lapthorne, which incorporates macroeconomic and fundamental equity variables, and which currently indicates a 99.7% probability that we are in a bear market."

    Edwards-BearMarket-Prob-082715

    Also Read: Here's Why The Stock Market Correction Isn't Over Yet by Anora Mahmudova via MarketWatch

    But Also Read: Most Top Flight Market Timers Are Bullish by Mark Hulbert via MarketWatch

     

    5) When There Is No Place To Hide by Ben Carlson via A Wealth Of Common Sense

    "Some people assume that because nearly all risk assets fall at the same time that markets are becoming more and more intertwined with one another. While I think that globalization and the free flow of information could potentially be speeding up market cycles, risk assets have been highly correlated during stock market corrections for some time now. This is nothing new. Here are the historical numbers that show how different stock markets and market caps have performed during past large losses in the S&P 500:"

    Corrections-II1

    Read Also: It's Different This Time…But Its Happened Before by Erik Swarts via Market Anthropology


    Other Reading

    Like 2008 Never Happened by Jeffrey Snider via Alhambra Partners

    The Difference Between Traders And Investors by Cam Hui via Humble Student Of The Markets

    Timing The Markets With Value And Trend by Meb Faber via Meb Faber Research

    Interview With Jim Grant: Market A Hall Of Mirrors via ZeroHedge

    Are Central Banks Corrupted? By Paul Craig Roberts via The Economic Populist

    Fact vs Fiction: Low Oil Prices And Houston Housing by Aaron Layman via Arron Layman.com

    A Laugh For A Tough Week

    Everyone Who Started Watching MadMoney In 2005 Now Billionaires via The Onion


    "You take the blue pill, the story ends. You wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes."Morpheus, The Matrix

    Have a great weekend.

  • Biggest Short Squeeze Since 2008 Bank Bailout And Epic VIX Rigging Sends Stocks Green For The Week

    UNRIGGED!!

    VIX ETFs were screwed with…

     

    To ensure S&P closed Green!!!

     

    *  *  *

    After a week like that, we think everyone needs some downtime… relax… (NSFW)

     

    Before we get to stocks, oil is the big news this week… as a short-squeeze morphed into leaked news which became the real news of a Saudi invasion of Yemen…

     

    This is the biggest weekly gain for WTI since Feb 2011 (when politicial unrest surged in MidEast and Northern Africa with Libya at the heart)

     

    As the Oil-USD correlation regime has flipped dramatically post-FOMC Minutes…

     

    Sparking a huge squeeze higher in Energy stocks…

    8 of the 10 biggest gainers in SPDR oil and gas exploration ETF are refiners which are more like inverse bets on oil (crude is an input thus betting on dropping oil prices flowing through to margins)… so the ultimate irony is XLE is surging on negative oil bets and dragging oil higher.

    Because that has worked out so well before…

    As Credit Suisse noted – nothing has changed with the fundamentals.

    *  *  *

    Volume today in stocks was abysmal…

     

    Energy's ramp supported much of the gains in the broad indices…and with panic buiyi9ng at the close thanks to XIV manipulation

     

    A look at The Dow futures gives a sense of the panic.. and the resistance that it can't break…

     

    Futures for the week show the craziness of the moves… DUDLEY IS THE NEW BULLARD!!!

     

    VIX was all kinds of messy this week – slammed lower into the close to guarantee a green close for stocks

     

    But VXX shorts were dramatially squeezed every day… this was VXX's biggest weekly gain since May 2010.. and the biggest 2-week rise (up 68%) ever…

     

    56 members of the S&P 500 gained more than 5% this week!!!

     

    And "Most Shorted" had their best (or worst) 3-day surge since Nov 26th 2008 – i.e. the biggest short squeeze since post-Lehman creation of TALF, bailout of Citi, froced acquisiion of BofA and Merrill, and Fed buying GSE debt

     

    The last time shorts were squeezed this much, this happeened…

    The Bottom Line: Window Dressing (Most Momentum) and Squeezes (Most Shorted) provided all the ammo needed to create the illusion that all is well

    *  *  *

    Treasury yields had an ugly week as investors were awakened to just what China's devaluation dilemma means… Rising odds of a Sept hike (rom Fischer) sent the long-end lower and front-end higher today…

     

    The USD Index was up around 1.3% on the week – the best week in the last 6 weeks led by AUD and EUR weakness…

     

    Commodities were mixed on the week with USD strength sending PMs lower but growth hyper, squeezes, and war driving copper and crude higher…

     

    Charts: Bloomberg

    Bonus Chart: Briefly this week, US equities reflected their short-term macro fundamentals…

     

    Bonus Bonus Chart: This is the data The Fed is dependent on…

  • Fed Kocherlakota: 2015 Rate Rise Not Appropriate, Open To More Stimulus

    EMOTION MOVING MARKETS NOW: 11/100 EXTREME FEAR

    PREVIOUS CLOSE: 12/100 EXTREME FEAR

    ONE WEEK AGO: 5/100 EXTREME FEAR

    ONE MONTH AGO: 21/100 EXTREME FEAR

    ONE YEAR AGO: 33/100 FEAR

    Put and Call Options: EXTREME FEAR During the last five trading days, volume in put options has lagged volume in call options by 22.79% as investors make bullish bets in their portfolios. However, this is still among the highest levels of put buying seen during the last two years, indicating extreme fear on the part of investors.

    Market Volatility: FEAR The CBOE Volatility Index (VIX) is at 28.99, 77.76% above its 50-day moving average and indicates that investors are concerned about the near-term values of their portfolios.

    Stock Price Strength: EXTREME FEAR The number of stocks hitting 52-week lows is slightly greater than the number hitting highs and is at the lower end of its range, indicating extreme fear.

    PIVOT POINTS

    EURUSD | GBPUSD | USDJPY | USDCAD | AUDUSD | EURJPY | EURCHF | EURGBPGBPJPY | NZDUSD | USDCHF | EURAUD | AUDJPY 

    S&P 500 (ES) | NASDAQ 100 (NQ) | DOW 30 (YM) | RUSSELL 2000 (TF) Euro (6E) |Pound (6B)

    EUROSTOXX 50 (FESX) | DAX 30 (FDAX) | BOBL (FGBM) | SCHATZ (FGBS) | BUND (FGBL)

    CRUDE OIL (CL) | GOLD (GC)

     

    MEME OF THE DAY – I JUST LOVE MY NEW SWEATER

     

    UNUSUAL ACTIVITY

    WLL vol pop to highs Activity in the SEP 17 CALLS 1800+ @$1.30

    LL Jan 15 PUT Activity 10k @$3.30 on offer

    SSTK SEP 35 CALLS 1300+ @$.75 ON offer

    TCK Nov 9 CALL Activity @$.25 right by offer 5000 Contracts

    RE Director Purchase 5,000 @$169.5 Purchase 5,000 @$170.00

    More Unusual Activity…

    HEADLINES

     

    Fed VC Fischer: Still too early to tell if September hike will happen

    Fed Kocherlakota: 2015 rate rise not appropriate, open to more stimulus

    Fed Mester: US economy can support rate increase

    Fed Bullard: Rate hike would signal confidence, unfazed by mkt turmoil

    Fed’s Lockhart: Market vols makes him less certain on Sept hike

    Atlanta Fed GDPNow tracker updated to 1.2% (prev. 1.4%)

    US Personal Income (MoM) Jul: 0.40% (est 0.40%; prev 0.40%)

    US Personal Spending (MoM) Jul: 0.30% (est 0.40%; rev prev 0.30%)

    US PCE Core (YoY) Jul: 1.20% (est 1.30%; prev 1.30%)

    German CPI YoY (Aug P): 0.2% (est 0.10%, prev 0.20%)

    German CPI MoM (Aug P): 0% (est -0.10%, prev 0.20%)

    SNB Jordan: Swiss franc significantly overvalued, ready to intervene

     

    GOVERNMENTS/CENTRAL BANKS

    Fed VC Fischer: Still too early to tell if September hike will happen –CNBC

    Fed Kocherlakota: 2015 rate rise not appropriate, open to more stimulus –CNBC

    Kocherlakota would prefer a hike in second half of 2016 –FBN

    Fed Mester: US economy can support rate increase –WSJ

    Fed Bullard: US rate hike would signal confidence –FT

    Fed Bullard unfazed by market turmoil –Rtrs

    Fed’s Lockhart: Market vols makes him less certain on Sept hike, though every meeting is live –MNI

    Atlanta Fed GDPNow tracker updated to 1.2% (prev. 1.4%)

    SNB Jordan: Swiss franc significantly overvalued

    SNB Jordan: SNB stands ready to intervene

    Japan EcoMin Amari: Canada elections, US primaries, may affect momentum on TPP talks –Kyodo

    Greece’s Syriza to win election but face setback, polls show –Rtrs

     

    GEOPOLITICS

    Merkel, Hollande, Putin plan weekend call on Ukraine –BBG

     

    FIXED INCOME

    BONDS COMMENT: Reflation threat to bonds as money supply catches fire in Europe –Telegraph

    Two departures in Swiss debt capital markets –IFR

    Merck jumps in first with jumbo M&A trade –IFR

    COMMENT: Treasury Market Is Offering Stock Picks: AT&T, Verizon Are a Buy –WSJ

     

    FX

    USD: Dollar on track to finish turbulent week higher against euro, yen –MW

    CAD: USDCAD retreats from as oil jumps to $45 –FXStreet

    GBP: Pound falls vs euro as UK growth slows in Q2 –BBG

    CNY COMMENT: China’s ongoing FX trilemma and its possible consequences –Alphaville

    AUD: Aussie lifted by commodities –Australian

    NZD: Kiwi heading for 3.1pc weekly drop after China slump –NZH

     

    ENERGY/COMMODITIES

    CRUDE: WTI futures settle 6.25% higher at $45.22 per barrel –Livesquawk

    CRUDE: Brent futures setlle 5.25% higher at $50.05 per barrel –Livesquawk

    CRUDE: Arab Opec producers brace for oil-price weakness for rest of 2015 –Rtrs

    CRUDE: Crude short squeezed –Forex.com

    METALS: Gold sets up for first gain in five sessions –MW

     

    EQUITIES

    FLOW: US funds cut recommended global equity exposure again –Rtrs

    M&A: Mylan shareholders back Perrigo takeover, tender offer up next –Rrts

    BANKS: BofA shareholders should vote to separate the CEO and chairman roles –BBG

    GAMING: Battle for Bwin reflects rising stakes –FT

    TRADING: Charles Schwab trading system issue resolved –FT

    TECH: Facebook must obey German law even if free speech curtailed –Rtrs

     

    EMERGING MARKETS

    CHINA: Citi: China Will Respond Too Late to Avoid Recession –BBG

    CHINA: POLL: PBOC to cut rates again by end of Dec –ForexLive

    CHINA: PBOC Conducted CNY60 Bln 7-Day SLO Op. At 2.35% Today –BBG

    BRAZIL: Brazil economy dips more than expected –FT

     

    S&P affirms Ukraine CC, outlook still negative –Livesquawk

     

  • America (In 1 License Plate)

    Presented with no comment…

     

     

    Source: The Burning Platform blog

  • Explaining The Stock Market Rebound In 1 Simple Chart

    Many were stunned at the pace of the v-shaped recovery in US equity markets this week after Monday and Tuesday's carnage. However, as the following chart makes very clear, there was good reason for it… Having overshot to the downside of "Fed-Balance-Sheet-Implied" levels but around 100 S&P points, the broad index ripped back higher to almost perfectly settle at "Fed Fair Value" – between 1980 and 2000. But, there is a rather ominous event occuring in 2016 that is out of The Fed's control that implies S&P 1,800 unless QE4 is unleashed.

     

    Fed balance sheet implies an S&P level around 1990…

     

    What happens next? Well, Scotiabank's Guy Haselmann has some thoughts…

    The Fed's balance sheet has $400 billion of maturities to deal with in early 2016 which the market place is not paying enough attention to.

     

    I believe the Fed will want to allow as much of this as possible to roll off (i.e. the balance sheet will shrink).  The decline in the Feds balance sheet is a defacto tightening.  

     

    The Fed may be reluctant to do both, i.e. hike, while also allowing the balance sheet to shrink too quickly.   They could hike and do some re-investment, but it may be strange re-invest a large portion at the same time that they are hiking.

     

    I believe market turmoil and balance sheet maturities will cause a period of (hike) pauses in 2016.  If this is true, Treasury market yields may not rise as high as some pundits are warning.

    A $400 billion reduction – which is inevitable unless The Fed unleashes a new QE – means S&P drops to 1800… and further…

    Charts: Bloomberg

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News August 28, 2015

  • Refugees Expose Europe's Lack Of Decency

    Submitted by Raul Ilargi Meijer via The Automatic Earth blog,

    I want to say something about the issue of the refugees -never ever again migrants- that are swamping Europe. So much has been said about them, and so much has happened since I made my first notes, but not a soul has put their finger on the sore spot, and the real story. At least not that I’ve seen.

    That real story is the painfully woefully inadequate -and I’m being painfully polite here- failure of Brussels and Berlin and Paris in responding to what’s been unfolding. And don’t get me started about London; there’s nothing coming from Britain these days that’s even worth talking about. When you dare talk about a ‘swarm of migrants’, you’re no longer part of the conversation.

    And it’s not as if what Europe has perpetrated upon the Greek economy, and the Greek people who depend on it, isn’t enough. It is more than enough. Only, nobody seems to be willing to understand this, to let it sink in to its fullest. But that’s still kind of alright; financial policies are not the EUs biggest failure.

    Even if even Varoufakis insists on being part of the EU -albeit a reformed one-. You can’t reform the EU. It’s allergic to any reform that would take even just a few of its powers away. That is embedded in its model. Varoufakis doesn’t sufficiently get this: you can’t any longer just change a few puppets in Brussels. Its alleged democracy is no longer anything but thin and peeling veneer.

    It’s like the old Groucho joke, that he wouldn’t want to be part on any club that would have him as a member. It’s exactly that, actually. If you want to survive in Europe, let alone with dignity and values, it cannot be done inside the EU. And the refugee crisis tells us why, even more than the Greek crisis has.

    What Brussels lacks most of all is morals, decency and compassion. It is a bureaucracy that has no human values. And this is expressed, in a painful and deadly way, not only in the streets of Athens, though it’s plenty glaringly clear there too, but even more in how the so-called Union “deals with” (that is, it doesn’t) the Mediterranean refugee issue.

    We can take a philosophical approach to this, which can be interesting, though it doesn’t change a thing. We can for instance theorize about how a country, a society, a culture, that is hundreds or thousands of years old, and has gone through numerous natural and man-made disasters in its history, like so many in Europe, will have a response formulated for the next batch of mayhem, and on how to deal with those who are the victims of said mayhem.

    That is what we see in how Italy and Greece have been trying to deal with the flood of refugees sailing off from Lybia and Turkey towards their shores. Both countries – or at least substantial segments of them – have gone out of their way to save refugees. Then late last year the EU -ostensibly- took over. But the EU has done next to nothing. It has paid lip service only. Which has cost thousands of human lives this year alone. And still nothing happens.

    Now, now, some of them are waking up. The EU agency that is supposed to deal with it, Frontex, has announced it’s going to step up efforts to halt refugees from entering Europe. Just like it did when it took over from Italy and Greece, and the main idea was to send in the military to blow up the boats of the ugly and evil people smugglers.

    Hungary is building a wall. Macedonia fired tear gas and stun grenades. The Czechs have said they’re going to send in the army. Police dogs and batons have become a common sight wherever the refugees are. Who are forced to walk a thousand miles or more, children and women and everyone. It’s a picture of disgrace. And the disgrace belongs to all of us.

    EC head Juncker, after breaking a months long silence on the topic, declared this week that there’s no need for an Immigration Summit. All EU countries need to do is comply with existing regulations. Which, if I may remind you, were ‘agreed’ upon in a time when there was no such thing as the present influx of people.

    What Europe should do, or rather should have done, because I guarantee you it’s too late now, is send as many people as needed to make sure people would stop drowning. To make sure the media would stop using the term ‘migrants’. To show Europe cares, and it alleged leaders first of all. To make sure there would be space and provisions for all who undertook the perilous journey, women, children, men, every single one.

    Europe instead has only tried to ignore the issue, hoping it would go away by itself. This has cost at least 17,000 lives so far. And they know it. Here is a picture of a 100-meter list of 17,306 migrants who have died attempting to reach Europe, a list which was recently unveiled at the EU Parliament:

    They know, and they’ve known for a long time. But still the UN said this week that Greece should do more. Greece? And Juncker says a summit is not needed. Juncker is supposed to be one of the main leaders of Europe. If we didn’t already know before, we now know for sure he’s no leader. Merkel? Haven’t seen her until this week when she said the situation is unworthy of Europe. But if anything, it’s unworthy of Merkel. She’s supposed to be a leader in Europe, and she’s very obviously not.

    There’s a huge amount of people in Brussels and various European capitals who are posing as ‘leaders’, and all of them have fallen way short. All of them, Merkel, first, need to shut up and act now. Not tell other nations, or her own co-Germans, that they should be ashamed. Merkel should be ashamed of herself first. And we know that there are elections coming up, but we’re talking about human lives here, for sweet Jesus’s sake. What’s wrong with you, Angela, and all those like you? What part of you guys is even human anymore? Is only your ego left?

    The EU, unlike Greece and Italy, has no history, no society, and above all no culture. The way it reacts to the refugee issue tells its entire empty story. All of it. Brussels doesn’t do anything at all in the face of thousands of people drowning. It waits for Greece to deal with the problem, which is obviously far too great for the Greeks to solve by themselves. And besides, the EU a year ago insisted on taking over rescue operations from Rome and Athens. This has brought about a strange and eery and deadly kind of Mexican stand-off.

    The EU has already failed, dramatically and irreparably, in this regard. The only help refugees get is from Italy, Greece and private parties. It’s so bad that if Greece would take “full care” of the refugees entering the country -and that’s assuming it could-, there’d be even much less hope of Brussels ever lifting a finger.

    In this fashion, the EU doesn’t just leave the refugees to their fate, it uses them as bait, as hostages, in its fight over financial and political power with Alexis Tsipras and the Syriza government. And though of course multiple voices try to lay the blame on Tsipras, that’s not where it belongs. Even if he could, he couldn’t. The only solution is for Greece to get out of the EU(ro) and restore dignity and humanity within its own borders.

    For make no mistake, if you elect to remain part of the EU, and you let Juncker and Merkel speak in your name, then the blood of all those needlessly lost lives is also on your hands. That goes for every European citizen as much as it goes for the hapless heartless leaders they have elected.

    For one thing, I can’t for the life of me understand why there are not thousands of young Dutch and German and British and French people, organized and all, in Athens, and on the Greek islands. While there are plenty of them there to get a bloody suntan on their “well-deserved vacation” while people are perishing within eyesight, and complain about their holidays being spoiled. Not all of them, I know, but c’mon, get a life! There are people dying every single day, and just because your so-called leaders let them drown doesn’t mean you should too.

    Do you even know what “a life” is anymore, either yours or that of someone else? Have you ever known? A life means caring about other people. A life is not trying to make sure your own ass can sit as pretty as it can.

    As for finding a solution to the refugee issue, Europe has done nothing to find one. The EU still wants the problem to just go away, and it wants the refugees to just go away. But it won’t and they won’t.

    Yes, we have a mass migration on our hands. And these are invariably hard to deal with. But our first priority should always be to approach the people involved with decency and compassion. And that is not happening. We are approaching them with the opposite of decency. With stun grenades and police dogs. And with misleading terminology such as ‘migrants’.

    The EU doesn’t seem to have any idea what’s causing the wave of refugees entering ‘its’ territory. When the refugees themselves state “we’re here because you destroyed our countries”, Brussels will simply say that is not true. That kind of admission is way beyond the consciousness of the ‘leadership’. But it’s a denial that won’t get them anywhere.

    Meanwhile, this issue, like so many others, is being used as a reason to plea for more EU:

    Summer Crisis Tests Europe’s New Nationalisms

    Dimitris Avramopoulos, the EU home affairs commissioner, argued last week [that] the very reach of the migration crisis shows the limits of national solutions. That, he said, puts pressure on governments to agree in Brussels to collective measures – even, he stressed, when they are not popular.

    It’s an empty hollow plea. Why agree to give up more sovereignty if Brussels only uses its growing powers to do nothing? Europeans who give in to this kind of thing give up much more than sovereignty; they give up their decency and human values too.

    The refugee issue can and will not be solved by the EU, or inside the EU apparatus, at least not in the way it should. Nor will the debt issue for which Greece was merely an ‘early contestant’. The EU structure does not allow for it. Nor does it allow for meaningful change to that structure. It would be good if people start to realize that, before the unholy Union brings more disgrace and misery and death upon its own citizens and on others.

    However this is resolved and wherever the refugees end up living, we, all of us, have the obligation to treat them with decency and human kindness in the meantime. We are not.

  • Lies You Will Hear As The Economic Collapse Progresses

    Submitted by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,

    It is undeniable; the final collapse triggers are upon us, triggers alternative economists have been warning about since the initial implosion of 2008. In the years since the derivatives disaster, there has been no end to the absurd and ludicrous propaganda coming out of mainstream financial outlets and as the situation in markets becomes worse, the propaganda will only increase. This might seem counter-intuitive to many. You would think that the more obvious the economic collapse becomes, the more alternative analysts will be vindicated and the more awake and aware the average person will be. Not necessarily…

    In fact, the mainstream spin machine is going into high speed the more negative data is exposed and absorbed into the markets. If you know your history, then you know that this is a common tactic by the establishment elite to string the public along with false hopes so that they do not prepare or take alternative measures while the system crumbles around their ears. At the onset of the Great Depression the same strategies were used. Consider if you've heard similar quotes to these in the mainstream news over the past couple months:

    John Maynard Keynes in 1927: “We will not have any more crashes in our time.”

     

    H.H. Simmons, president of the New York Stock Exchange, Jan. 12, 1928: “I cannot help but raise a dissenting voice to statements that we are living in a fool’s paradise, and that prosperity in this country must necessarily diminish and recede in the near future.”

     

    Irving Fisher, leading U.S. economist, The New York Times, Sept. 5, 1929: “There may be a recession in stock prices, but not anything in the nature of a crash.” And on 17, 1929: “Stock prices have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau. I do not feel there will be soon if ever a 50 or 60 point break from present levels, such as (bears) have predicted. I expect to see the stock market a good deal higher within a few months.”

     

    W. McNeel, market analyst, as quoted in the New York Herald Tribune, Oct. 30, 1929: “This is the time to buy stocks. This is the time to recall the words of the late J. P. Morgan… that any man who is bearish on America will go broke. Within a few days there is likely to be a bear panic rather than a bull panic. Many of the low prices as a result of this hysterical selling are not likely to be reached again in many years.”

     

    Harvard Economic Society, Nov. 10, 1929: “… a serious depression seems improbable; [we expect] recovery of business next spring, with further improvement in the fall.”

    Here is the issue – as I have ALWAYS said, economic collapse is not a singular event, it is a process. The global economy has been in the process of collapse since 2008 and it never left that path. Those who were ignorant took government statistics at face value and the manipulated bull market as legitimate and refused to acknowledge the fundamentals. Now, with markets recently suffering one of the greatest freefalls since the 2008/2009 crash, they are witnessing the folly of their assumptions, but that does not mean they will accept them or apologize for them outright. If there is one lesson I have learned well during my time in the Liberty Movement, it is to never underestimate the power of normalcy bias.

    There were plenty of “up days” in the markets during the Great Depression, and this kept the false dream of a quick recovery alive for a large percentage of the American population for many years. Expect numerous “stunning stock reversals” as the collapse of our era progresses, but always remember that it is the overall TREND that matters far more than any one positive or negative trading day (unless you open down 1000 points as we did on Monday), and even more important than the trends are the economic fundamentals.

    The establishment has made every effort to hide the fundamentals from the public through far reaching misrepresentations of economic stats. However, the days of effective disinformation in terms of the financial system are coming to an end. As investors and the general public begin to absorb the reality that the global economy is indeed witnessing a vast crisis scenario and acknowledges real numbers over fraudulent numbers, the only recourse of central bankers and the governments they control is to convince the public that the crisis they are witnessing is not really a crisis. That is to say, the establishment will attempt to marginalize the collapse signals they can no longer hide as if such signals are of “minimal” importance.

    Just as occurred during the onset of the Great Depression, the lies will be legion the closer we come to zero hour. Here are some of the lies you will likely hear as the collapse accelerates…

    The Crisis Was Caused By Chinese Contagion

    The hypocrisy inherent in this lie is truly astounding, to say the least, considering it is now being uttered by the same mainstream dirtbags who only months ago were claiming that China's financial turmoil and stock market upset were inconsequential and would have “little to no effect” on Western markets.

    I specifically recall these hilarious quotes from Barbara Rockefeller in July:

    Something else that doesn’t matter much is the Chinese equity meltdown—again. China may be big and powerful, but it lacks a retail base and fund managers experienced in price variations, never mind a true rout…”

     

    Doom-and-gloom types have been saying for a long time that we will get a stock market rout when the Fed finally does move to raise rates. But as we wrote last week, history doesn’t bear out the thesis, not that you can really count on history when the sample size is one or two data points…”

    Yes, that is a bit embarrassing. One or two data points? There have been many central bank interventions in history. When has ANY central bank or any government ever used stimulus to manipulate markets through fiat infusion and zero interest fueled stock buybacks or given government the ability to monetize its own debt, and actually been successful in the endeavor? When has addicting markets to stimulus like a heroin dealer ever led to “recovery”? When has this kind of behavior ever NOT created massive fiscal bubbles, a steady degradation of the host society, or outright calamity?

    Suddenly, according to the MSM, China's economy does affect us. Not only that, but China is to blame for all the ills of the globally interdependent economic structure. And, the mere mention that the Fed might delay the end of near zero interest rates in September by a Federal Reserve stooge recently sent markets up 600 points after a week-long bloodbath; meaning, the potential for any interest rate increase no mater how small also has wider implications for markets.

    The truth is, the crash in global stocks which will undoubtedly continue over the next several months despite any delays on ZIRP by the Fed is a product of universal decay in fiscal infrastructure. Nearly every single nation on this planet, every sovereign economy, has allowed central and international banks to poison every aspect of their respective systems with debt and manipulation. This is not a “contagion” problem, it is a systemic problem to every economy across the world.

    China's crash matters not because it is causing all other economies to crash. It matters because China is the largest importer/exporter in the world and it is a litmus test for the financial health of every other country. If China is failing, it means we are not consuming, and if we are not consuming, then we must be broke. China's crash portends our own far worse economic conditions. THAT is why western markets have been crumbling along with China's despite the assumptions of the mainstream.

    China's Rate Cuts Will Stop The Crash

    No they won't. China has cut rates five times since last November and this has done nothing to stem the tide of their market collapse. I'm not sure why anyone would think that a new rate cut would accomplish anything besides perhaps a brief respite from the continuing avalanche.

    It's Not A Crash, It's Just The End Of A “Market Cycle”

    This is the most ignorant non-explanation I think I have ever heard. There is no such thing as a “market cycle” when your markets are supported partially or fully by fiat manipulation. Our market is in no way a free market, thus, it cannot behave like a free market, and thus, it is a stunted market with no identifiable cycles.

    Swings in markets of up to 5%-6% to the downside or upside (sometimes both in a single day) are not part of a normal cycle. They are a sign of cancerous volatility that comes from an economy on the brink of disaster.

    The last few years have been seemingly endless market bliss in which any idiot day trader could not go wrong as long as he “bought the dip” while Fed monetary intervention stayed the course. This is also not normal, even in the so-called “new normal”. Yes, the current equities turmoil is an inevitable result of manipulated markets, false statistics, and misplaced hopes, but it is indeed a tangible crash in the making. It is in no way an example of a predictable and non-threatening “market cycle”, and the fact that mainstream talking heads and the people who parrot them had absolutely no clue it was coming is only further evidence of this.

    The Fed Will Never Raise Rates

    Don't count on it. Public statements by globalist entities like the IMF on China, for example, have argued that their current crisis is merely part of the “new normal”; a future in which stagnant growth and reduced living standards is the way things are supposed to be. I expect the Fed will use the same exact argument to support the end of zero interest rates in the U.S., claiming that the decline of American wealth and living standards is a natural part of the new economic world order we are entering.

    That's right, mark my words, one day soon the Fed, the IMF, the BIS and others will attempt to convince the American people that the erosion of the economy and the loss of world reserve status is actually a “good thing”. They will claim that a strong dollar is the cause of all our economic pain and that a loss in value is necessary. In the meantime they will, of course, downplay the tragedies that will result as the shift toward dollar devaluation smashes down on the heads of the populace.

    A rate hike may not occur in September. In fact, as I predicted in my last article, the Fed is already hinting at a delay in order to boost markets, or at least slow down the current carnage to a more manageable level. But, they WILL raise rates in the near term, likely before the end of this year after a few high tension meetings in which the financial world will sit anxiously waiting for the word on high. Why would they raise rates? Some people just don't seem to grasp the fact that the job of the Federal Reserve is to destroy the American economic system, not protect it. Once you understand this dynamic then everything the central bank does makes perfect sense.

    A rate increase will occur exactly because that is what is needed to further destabilize U.S. market psychology to make way for the “great economic reset” that the IMF and Christine Lagarde are so fond of promoting. Beyond this, many people seem to be forgetting that ZIRP is still operating, yet, volatility is trending negative anyway. Remember when everyone was ready to put on their 'Dow 20,000' hat, certain in the omnipotence of central bank stimulus and QE infinity? Yeah…clearly that was a pipe dream.

    ZIRP has run it's course. It is no longer feeding the markets as it once did and the fundamentals are too obvious to deny.

    The globalists at the Bank for International Settlements in spring openly deemed the existence of low interest rate policies a potential trigger for crisis. Their statements correlate with the BIS tendency to “predict” terrible market events they helped to create while at the same time misrepresenting the reasons behind them.

    The point is, ZIRP has done the job it was meant to do. There is no longer any reason for the Fed to leave it in place.

    Get Ready For QE4

    Again, don't count on it. Or at the very least, don't expect renewed QE to have any lasting effect on the market if it is initiated.

    There is truly no point to the launch of a fourth QE program, but do expect that the Fed will plant the possibility in the media every once in a while to mislead investors. First, the Fed knows that it would be an open admission that the last three QE's were an utter failure, and while their job is to dismantle the U.S. economy, I don't think they are looking to take immediate blame for the whole mess. QE4 would be as much a disaster as the ECB's last stimulus program was in Europe, not to mention the past several stimulus actions by the PBOC in China. I'll say it one more time – fiat stimulus has a shelf life, and that shelf life is over for the entire globe. The days of artificially supported markets are nearly done and they are never coming back again.

    I see little advantage for the Fed to bring QE4 into the picture. If the goal is to derail the dollar, that action is already well underway as the IMF carefully sets the stage for the Yuan to enter the SDR global currency basket next year, threatening the dollar's world reserve status. China also continues to dump hundreds of billions in U.S. treasuries inevitably leading to a rush to a dump of treasuries by other nations. The dollar is a dead currency walking, and the Fed won't even have to print Weimar Germany-style in order to kill it.

    It's Not As Bad As It Seems

    Yes, it is exactly as bad as it seems if not worse. When the Dow can open 1000 points down on a Monday and China can lose all of its gains for 2015 in the span of a few weeks despite institutionalized stimulus measures lasting years, then something is very wrong. This is not a “hiccup”. This is not a correction which has already hit bottom. This is only the beginning of the end.

    Stocks are not a predictive indicator. They do not follow positive or negative fundamentals. Stocks do not crash before or during the development of an ailing economy. Stocks crash after the economy has already gone comatose. Stocks crash when the system is no longer salvageable. Since 2008, nothing in the global financial structure has been salvaged and now the central banking edifice is either unable or unwilling (I believe both) to supply the tools to allow us even to pretend that it can be salvaged. We're going to feel the hurt now, all while the establishment tells us the whole thing is in our heads.

     

  • THe EMPReSS MoNeY PRiNTeR…

    THE EMPRESS MONEY PRINTER

  • The Scariest Number For The Oil Industry: $550 Billion

    Just over half a trillion dollars: that’s how much cash oil industry companies will need to repay in maturing debt over the next 5 years.

    Specifically, according to BMI Research cited by Bloomberg, there is $72 billion in oil-related debt maturing this year, $85 billion in 2016 and $129 billion in 2017, and a total of $550 billion in bonds and loans through 2020.

    This is a problem because while paying annual interest is one thing and easily manageable, rolling over debt when it is yielding over 10% – as is the case for over 168 global companies, or triple last year’s number – is virtually impossible. It is an even bigger problem when considering the recent surge in energy company net debt/EBITDA (shown below in red) which has recently hit an all time high, surpassing the oil sector crisis of 1999, dragging energy sector credit risk and spreads with it to all time highs.

     

    In fact, unless oil soars higher and miraculously concludes a second dead cat bounce, there will be hundreds of companies which are simply unable to refinance, and have no choice but to default. Considering that 20% of total debt due in 2015 belongs to US drillers (with Chinese companies coming in second with 12%), what was until last week perceived a junk bond crisis, and has been largely forgotten this week following the artificial, central-bank inspired price-action euphoria when in reality absolutely nothing has changed on the cash flow scene, expect the hangover of the post month-end window dressing orgy to come down like a ton of bricks.

    The reason: fundamentals continue to go from bad to worse, and its not just the fwd P/E chart we won’t tire of showing

    … as Bloomberg adds, some earnings metrics are already breaching the lows of the 2008 financial crisis. The profit margin for the 108-member MSCI World Energy Sector Index, which includes Exxon Mobil Corp. and Chevron Corp., is the lowest since at least 1995, the earliest for when data is available.

    “There are several credits which simply won’t be able to refinance and extend maturities and they may need to raise additional equity,” said Eirik Rohmesmo, a credit analyst at Clarksons Platou Securities AS in Oslo. “The question is: would they be able to do that with debt at these levels?”

    The answer is no, as we showed ten days ago.

    It gets worse:

    Some U.S. producers gained breathing space by leveraging their low-cost assets to raise funds earlier this year and repay debt, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. wrote in a Aug. 6 report. This helped companies shore up their capital and reduce debt-servicing costs.

     

    That may no longer be an option because energy companies have been the worst performers in the past year among 10 industry groups in the MSCI World Index.

     

    Credit-rating downgrades are putting additional strain on the ability of oil companies to raise money cheaply. Standard & Poor’s cut the rating of Eni SpA, Italy’s biggest oil company, in April, while Moody’s Investors Service downgraded Tullow Oil Plc’s debt in March.
    Spokesmen for Eni and Tullow declined to comment.

    It is the small companies who will face the creditor firing squad first:

    “Clearly, those companies with debt to pay will have one eye firmly on oil prices,” said Christopher Haines, a senior oil and gas analyst at BMI in London. “With revenues collapsing and debt soon to mature, a growing number of companies may find themselves unable to meet repayment schedules.”

    The only loophole: if oil somehow does rebound to $60 or above, which absent a Saudi collapse or a Chinese recovery, will not happen for a while. If not, the current period of calm, where companies are racing for the producing bottom, will very soon come to an end as will the disposable cash of the energy industry. At that point the administration will have to make a choice: bail out the energy sector or reap the consequences.

  • Yuan Strengthens Most Since March, China Unveils New Bailout Source After Rescue Fund Runs Out Of Fire-Power

    Update: China readies new bailout mechanism – pooling CNY2 Trillion of Pension funds for "investment"

    Straight from Japan's playbook…

    • *CHINA TO START PENSION FUNDS INVESTMENT AFTER FUNDS POOLED: MOF
    • *CHINA DRAFTING RULES ON POOLING, TRANSFERRING PENSION FUNDS: YU
    • *ABOUT 2T YUAN FROM CHINA PENSION FUNDS CAN BE INVESTED: YU
    • *CHINA CAN ENSURE STABLE LONG TERM RETURN ON PENSION FUNDS: YU
    • *CHINA TO CAP RISK EXPOSURE IN PENSION FUNDS INVESTMENT: YU
    • *CHINA FINANCE MINISTRY OFFICIAL YU WEIPING COMMENTS AT BRIEFING

    How can we be so positive that this is another bailout – simple!

    • *CHINA PENSION FUNDS' ROLE IS NOT TO RESCUE STOCK MARKET: YU

    They denied it was! Of course even more worrying – is this a Greece-esque pooling of pension funds in a desperate grab for cash across the nation?

    We are sure that will work out great!!

    *  *  *

    As we detailed earlier…

    A busy night in AsiaPac before China even opens. Vietnam had a failed bond auction, Japanese data was mixed (retail sales good, household spending bad, CPI just right), Moody's downgrades China growth (surprise!), China re-blames US for global market rout, and then the big one hits – China's bailout fund needs more money (applies for more loans from banks) – in other words – The PBOC just got a margin call. China margin debt balance fell for 8th straight day (although the short-selling balance picked up to 1-week highs). China unveiled some economic reforms – lifting tax exemption and foreign real estate investment rules. PBOC fixesds the Yuan 0.15% stronger – most since March, but even with last night's epic intervention, SHCOMP looks set for its worst week since Lehman.

     

    Vietnam is in trouble…

    • *VIETNAM FAILS TO SELL ANY OF 3T DONG BONDS OFFERED AUG. 27

    The first of many failed auctions for EM we suspect.

    • But Some good news:
    • *VIETNAM TO RELEASE 18,500 PRISONERS ON 70TH NATIONAL DAY

    *  *  *

    Japanese data was mixed,..

    • *JAPAN JULY OVERALL CONSUMER PRICES RISE 0.2% Y/Y (in line)
    • *JAPAN JULY RETAIL SALES RISE 1.6% Y/Y (better than expedted)
    • *JAPAN JULY HOUSEHOLD SPENDING FELL 0.2% Y/Y (much worse than expedted rise)

    So Goldilocks – enough to keep BoJ in the game (as Reuters reports)

    Japan's core consumer inflation was flat in the year to July and household spending unexpectedly fell, casting deeper doubt on the central bank's forecast that a solid economic recovery will help accelerate inflation to its 2 percent target.

     

    While the Bank of Japan has said it will look through the effect of slumping oil costs on inflation, the weak figures will keep it under pressure to expand its massive stimulus programme.

     

    Separate data showed household spending fell 0.2 percent in the year to July, confounding a median market forecast for a 1.3 percent rise and reinforcing concerns about the strength of Japan's recovery.

    And then there's China…

    Before we get started, we thought the following comparison of two stock indices today was in order… one is from a totally manipulated market that proclaims itself 'open' and 'free' with nothing to fear because "the underlying economy is doing great"… and the other is China…

    Notice how the ramp was almost identical in style also – an initial burst, modst pull back, then big push, then rest, then final surge into close

    But then again we already explained how past is prologue in this Nasdaq vs SHCOMP world.

    And remember – it's not China's fault…

    • *CHINA STOCK ROUT NOT THE REASON FOR GLOBAL MKT PLUNGE:SEC. NEWS

    And then Moody's did the unpossible…

    • *MOODY'S CUTS CHINA '16 GDP GROWTH FORECAST TO 6.3% FROM 6.5%

    But the biggest news is…

    • *CHINA'S RESCUE FUND APPLIES FOR MORE LOANS FROM BANKS: CAIXIN
    • China Securities Finance may have applied for 1.4 trillion yuan ($219 billion) of borrowing in the interbank market, Caixin reported, citing unidentified bank officials. The government should adopt a proactive fiscal policy and further ease monetary policy, the Economic Daily wrote in a front-page commentary.

    Which means the bailout fund needs a bailout after blowing its load last night.

    Deleveraging continues:

    • *SHANGHAI MARGIN DEBT BALANCE FALLS FOR EIGHTH STRAIGHT DAY
    • *SHANGHAI MARGIN DEBT BALANCE FALLS TO LOWEST IN EIGHT MONTHS

    Though we note that the short-selling balance rose to one-week highs.

    Even with last night's epic intervention, Chinese stocks look set for the worst week since Lehman…

     

    Although they are up at the open…extending gains from the US session…

    • *FTSE CHINA A50 SEPT. FUTURES RISE 1.7%

    But are fading off early highs.

    And in what appears another reform aimed at improving the economy, China lifts some restrictions…

    China's central tax authority has published a list of tax breaks for which qualifying businesses and other enterprises will no longer be required to seek prior approval to enjoy.

    And…

    The mainland has relaxed foreign investment restrictions in its once-sizzling real estate market as worries mount on capital flight in the wake of a weakening yuan and slowing economic growth.

     

    Six governing ministries, including the central bank and the commerce ministry, issued a statement scrapping previous rules that required foreign property investors to pay the full amount of registered capital for their mainland entities to mainland authorities before borrowing any loans or applying for foreign exchange transactions.

     

    "The move seems to be aimed at discouraging capital outflow after the devaluation of the yuan," said Alan Chiang, head of residential in the Greater China region for global property consultancy DTZ.

    Which we are sure will not be taken advantage of.

    Finally The Yuan – which remember is not being devalued – was fixed 0.15% stronger…

    • *CHINA SETS YUAN REFERENCE RATE AT 6.3986 AGAINST U.S. DOLLAR
    • *CHINA RAISES YUAN FIXING MOST SINCE MARCH

     

    Problems continue to mount for the Chinese economy…

    • *CHINA JULY INDUSTRIAL COMPANIES' PROFIT FALLS 2.9% Y/Y

    After a 0.3% drop in June, it's getting worse.

    *  *  *

    Charts: Bloomberg

  • China Gets Creative, Turns To Swaps To Manage Yuan

    Managing markets is hard – especially when you’re doing it on a daily basis while attempting to maintain some semblance of credibility in the face of accusations that, even in a centrally planned world, your particular brand of interventions are so egregious as to stray outside the bounds of manipulated market decorum.

    That’s the rather precarious situation that China finds itself in while trying to manage a yuan devaluation that, on the surface anyway, was supposed to represent a move towards liberalization but in fact is requiring more intervention than ever and now threatens to drain the world’s largest store of FX reserves while simultaneously sucking liquidity from the market and working at cross purposes with multiple policy rate cuts. 

    In situations like these, sometimes you have to get creative which is why we weren’t entirely surprised on Thursday when trader chatter indicated that at least one big Chinese bank (on behalf of the PBoC of course) was stomping around in the onshore swaps market and indeed, as you can see from the following chart, there’s something odd going on here, and although we can’t reconcile their numbers, we have included some commentary from WSJ as well.

    From WSJ:

    The People’s Bank of China intervened in the market for U.S. dollar-yuan foreign-exchange swaps, causing their price to fall sharply, a movement that implies a stronger Chinese currency and lower interest rates in the world’s No. 2 economy in the future, said the people.

     

    Thanks to what each of the three people described as “massive” orders from a few commercial banks acting on the PBOC’s behalf, the so-called one-year dollar-yuan swap spread—in rough terms, a measure of the implied future differential between Chinese and U.S. interest rates—plunged to 1200 points from 1730 points Wednesday.

     

    In the offshore market, the spread dropped to 1950 points from 2310 points Tuesday, following the onshore move.

     

    A drop in the spread for dollar-yuan swaps, which consist of a spot trade and an offsetting forward transaction, would also imply a weaker spot exchange rate at a predetermined future date.

     

    “The central bank chose a rarely used tool this time—the FX swaps—to intervene and it did so via a couple of midsize banks, instead of the usual big state lenders that serve as its agent banks,” one of the people said.

     

    “In a way, it’s more effective for the central bank to manage people’s outlook of the yuan in the swap market due to the latter’s forward-looking nature,” said one of the people. “It’s likely partly in response to aggressive yuan selloffs in the offshore market.”

  • The Great Wall Of Money

    Excerpted from Hindesight Letters (authored by Ben Davis),

    The Great Wall Of Money.

    China is in severe trouble and that trouble has already been reverberating around EM exporters for a number of years. It is just one of many dollar currency peg countries that have experienced tightening conditions because of higher US interest rate guidance and dollar strength. An unwelcome addition to their own domestic issues, but always a circular outcome, as they are inextricably linked to the US by their Bretton Woods II relationship. By devaluing and thus de-stabilising the 'nominal' anchor for Asian exchange rates, they will crush the growth engine of the developed countries on whose consumption they so rely on.

    Since 2009, we have forecast and documented the unwinding of the Bretton Woods II currency system. Financialisation of our economies and markets, which escalated post-2008 at the instigation of governments and central bankers, is going to go into full reverse for all asset classes. Economies and markets are so entwined that a drop in asset classes will lead the world back into recession. In 2013, we believed the odds had tilted firmly towards increasing debt deflation at the hands of China. Large current account deficits had led to unsustainable debt creation, and as a consequence the trade deficit countries were the first to experience a severe financial crisis. However, on the other side of the equation, the surplus countries were now experiencing their reaction to the crisis.

    In November 2013, we wrote: "The deleveraging process which began in 2008 has been a slow burner but is likely now in full swing. The deflationary risks are very high. China is the driver. All eyes on China."

    We conceive that this slow-burner of deleveraging, which has occurred since the 2008 crisis, is potentially about to engulf all asset prices. We are beginning to think the unthinkable – that just maybe asset prices will back up 20 to 30% and fast and that through the autumn we could experience even greater price depreciation.

    Almost 8 years on from the GFC, the Dow Jones Industrials are perched on the edge of a sharp drop. Will the Ghost of 1937 revisit us eight years on from the Great Crash of 1929, when U.S. stocks and the world economy got roiled all over again? This is already unfolding as we speak. Sean Corrigan's macro analysis in our ‘MidWeek Macro Musings and Money, Macro and Markets’ at HindeSightletters.com has highlighted where the fissures are opening in the global economy and markets. We are posting samples of our work from May to July in this letter to share with you how we began to believe that a global asset crash was at hand.

    The Yuan movement may well send more Chinese capital floating across the globe into financial assets and real estate, such as those at Pink Floyd's and London's iconic Battersea Power Station, but it will be short-lived. The debt deleveraging which has been engulfing Emerging Markets has just begun to turn into a ranging inferno, which will eventually burn down all, especially overpriced global assets.

    Since the GFC, 'The Great Wall of Money' that Bretton Woods II has furnished via its vendor-financing relationship, has masked the deleveraging of our world economy. The Great Wall is about to collapse and fall.

    *  *  *

    The full article is available and ready to download from Hindesight's homepage, or simply click the front cover below for the PDF

    In it we discuss the following in a load more detail:

    A Probable Trinity – In October 2010, we began our oft repeated narrative about the vulnerability of the Bretton Woods II monetary system in the provocatively entitled letter – 'The World Monetary Earthquake – The Dash from Cash' (The Orient Perspective).


    Yuan More Time – Despite PBoC protestations, this Chinese currency move is not a one off event. There will be many more devaluations because, as you will read, FX reserves can abate rapidly. Besides which, we believe the markets have them on the back foot.


    Taels from Cathay – As Sean (Corrigan) put it in the July/Aug Money Macro & Markets (MMM): "Wherever you look around the fringes of China—and, by extension, Greater Asia—it is hard to avoid evidence of the woes being suffered.


    The Great Wall of Money FALLS – We wrote in a recent Investor Letter: "What is increasingly evident is that market participants are increasingly embroiled in a reflexive relationship between central bank actions, guidance and price action. The more the market moves contrary to central bank desires – i.e. downwards – the more the central bank injects the bubble money and reassures markets with the promise of more infusions of its rich elixir.”


    Anglo Saxon APP'mosphere Polluted – A strong dollar currency has created headwinds for the U.S. economy through a range of channels. The latest actions of the Chinese central bank will intensify the negative impact by fostering more dollar appreciation. The U.S. already runs a significant trade deficit with China that will only be exacerbated now. The dollar has already become too restrictive and the global carry trade, which borrowed capital from the East (and lately Europe), was parked in the U.S. and other safe Anglo-Saxon currencies and markets. This capital is very vulnerable.


    Chinese Smog Pollutes Albion – The resource sector collapse and the likely end of a 32-year-cycle in 2011 has signalled that these countries are near the end of receiving the foreign capital with which they balance their books. Bar a flurry of Chinese flight capital, housing prices will begin to revert to their mean as the debt deleveraging impulse sends the Chinese smog over Albion and its commonwealth compadres.


    ReMeBer Gold? This year, I spoke to RealVision TV and stated that the market was trend-ready in gold and that, as managers of a long-only gold fund, we were trying to be agnostic and position ourselves for a break either way. I did, however, mention that when our models are trend-ready, we often get a false sharp break one way first, only to see a snap back within a few days or weeks.


  • US Automaker Panic Button Looms After China's Top Carmaker Warns Of "Grim" Outlook

    Just two weeks ago we explained in a few simple charts why US auotmakers have a major problem looming over them. Today, as Reuters reports, that "if we build them, they will come" strategy has imploded as China's largest automaker warns "the domestic market situation in the second half of the year remains grim." With Q2 US GDP driven by a massive inventory surge, and the majority of that from autos, any hope for a sales rebirth to burn through that over-burden is a long-lost dream now as SAIC sees little to no growth over 2014.

    As we previously noted, Automakers just unleashed a massive production surge to keep the dream alive…

     

    With inventories at record highs (having risen for 61 straight months)…

     

    Which would be fine if sales were keeping up – but they are not…

     

    And now the subprime auto loan market is set to collapse… And further, exactly as we warned, the region where sales were supposed to soar is collapsing… As Reuters reports,

    China's largest automaker SAIC Motor Corp Ltd warned on Thursday of a grim outlook for the overall vehicle market in the second half of the year, as the slowest economic growth in 25 years and a downturn in the stock market puts off buyers.

     

    Vehicle sales in China, the world's largest car market, rose a meagre 0.4 percent in the first seven months and are predicted to grow 3 percent this year, less than half the 2014 growth rate, the China Association of Automobile Manufacturers said.

     

    The forecast by SAIC, which has joint ventures with Volkswagen AG and General Motors Co in addition to making its own brand of vehicles, follows similar warnings of a slowdown in sales from several automakers.

     

    "In the short term, although the domestic market situation in the second half of the year remains grim, following the macro economy's stabilized recovery, there are still structural growth opportunities," the company said in its earnings statement.

     

    SAIC forecast overall sales of passenger and commercial vehicles in China to total 24.1 million this year, a slight increase from 2014. It did not elaborate.

    *  *  *
    We're gonna need a bigger bailout…

  • It's Official: China Confirms It Has Begun Liquidating Treasuries, Warns Washington

    On Tuesday evening, we asked what would happen if emerging markets joined China in dumping US Treasurys. For months we’ve documented the PBoC’s liquidation of its vast stack of US paper. Back in July for instance, we noted that China had dumped a record $143 billion in US Treasurys in three months via Belgium, leaving Goldman speechless for once. 

    We followed all of this up this week by noting that thanks to the new FX regime (which, in theory anyway, should have required less intervention), China has likely sold somewhere on the order of $100 billion in US Treasurys in the past two weeks alone in open FX ops to steady the yuan. Put simply, as part of China’s devaluation and subsequent attempts to contain said devaluation, China has been purging an epic amount of Treasurys. 

    But even as the cat was out of the bag for Zero Hedge readers and even as, to mix colorful escape metaphors, the genie has been out of the bottle since mid-August for China which, thanks to a steadfast refusal to just float the yuan and be done with it, will have to continue selling USTs by the hundreds of billions, the world at large was slow to wake up to what China’s FX interventions actually implied until Wednesday when two things happened: i) Bloomberg, citing fixed income desks in New York, noted “substantial selling pressure” in long-term USTs emanating from somebody in the “Far East”, and ii) Bill Gross asked, in a tweet, if China was selling Treasurys.

    Sure enough, on Thursday we got confirmation of what we’ve been detailing exhaustively for months. Here’s Bloomberg:

    China has cut its holdings of U.S. Treasuries this month to raise dollars needed to support the yuan in the wake of a shock devaluation two weeks ago, according to people familiar with the matter.

     

    Channels for such transactions include China selling directly, as well as through agents in Belgium and Switzerland, said one of the people, who declined to be identified as the information isn’t public. China has communicated with U.S. authorities about the sales, said another person. They didn’t reveal the size of the disposals.

     

    The latest available Treasury data and estimates by strategists suggest that China controls $1.48 trillion of U.S. government debt, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. That includes about $200 billion held through Belgium, which Nomura Holdings Inc. says is home to Chinese custodial accounts.

     


     

    The PBOC has sold at least $106 billion of reserve assets in the last two weeks, including Treasuries, according to an estimate from Societe Generale SA. The figure was based on the bank’s calculation of how much liquidity will be added to China’s financial system through Tuesday’s reduction of interest rates and lenders’ reserve-requirement ratios. The assumption is that the central bank aims to replenish the funds it drained when it bought yuan to stabilize the currency.

    Now that what has been glaringly obvious for at least six months has been given the official mainstream stamp of fact-based approval, the all-clear has been given for rampant speculation on what exactly this means for US monetary policy. Here’s Bloomberg again:

    China selling Treasuries is “not a surprise, but possibly something which people haven’t fully priced in,” said Owen Callan, a Dublin-based fixed-income strategist at Cantor Fitzgerald LP. “It would change the outlook on Treasuries quite a bit if you started to price in a fairly large liquidation of their reserves over the next six months or so as they manage the yuan to whatever level they have in mind.”

     

    “By selling Treasuries to defend the renminbi, they’re preventing Treasury yields from going lower despite the fact that we’ve seen a sharp drop in the stock market,” David Woo, head of global rates and currencies research at Bank of America Corp., said on Bloomberg Television on Wednesday. “China has a direct impact on global markets through U.S. rates.”

    As we discussed on Wednesday evening, we do, thanks to a review of the extant academic literature undertaken by Citi, have an idea of what foreign FX reserve liquidation means for USTs. “Suppose EM and developing countries, which hold $5491 bn in reserves, reduce holdings by 10% over one year – this amounts to 3.07% of US GDP and means 10yr Treasury yields rates rise by a mammoth 108bp ,” Citi said, in a note dated earlier this week. 

    In other words, for every $500 billion in liquidated Chinese FX reserves, there’s an attendant 108bps worth of upward pressure on the 10Y. Bear in mind here that thanks to the threat of a looming Fed rate hike and a litany of other factors including plunging commodity prices and idiosyncratic political risks, EM currencies are in free fall which means that it’s not just China that’s in the process of liquidating USD assets. 

    The clear takeaway is that there’s a substantial amount of upward pressure building for UST yields and that is a decisively undesirable situation for the Fed to find itself in going into September. On Wednesday we summed the situation up as follows: “one of the catalysts for the EM outflows is the looming Fed hike which, when taken together with the above, means that if the FOMC raises rates, they will almost surely accelerate the pressure on EM, triggering further FX reserve drawdowns (i.e. UST dumping), resulting in substantial upward pressure on yields and prompting an immediate policy reversal and perhaps even QE4.” 

    Well now that China’s UST liquidation frenzy has reached a pace where it could no longer be swept under the rug and/or played down as inconsequential, and now that Bill Dudley has officially opened the door for “additional quantitative easing”, it would appear that the only way to prevent China and EM UST liquidation from, as Citi puts it, “choking off the US housing market,” and exerting a kind of forced tightening via the UST transmission channel, will be for the FOMC to usher in QE4.

  • Global Grain Stocks At 30 Year Highs Mean Food Deflation Is Next

    Everywhere you look there’s still more evidence that the world economy is grappling with a  global deflationary supply glut.

    To be sure, this wasn’t supposed to happen. 

    Trillions in central bank cash and seven years of ZIRP across DMs was supposed to give a defibrillator shock to global demand and trade. Instead, the wealth effect never trickled down (surprise!) and wide open capital markets only served to keep insolvent producers in business, contributing to still more supply as everyone hangs on until the bitter end. As China’s slowdown continues unabated, the commodity hoarding becomes more evident and indeed on Thursday, The International Grains Council reported that global grain stocks are forecast to hit 447 million metric tons, the highest level in 29 years. 

    From the report:

    End-season grain stocks in 2015/16 (aggregate of respective local marketing years) are now placed at 447m t, up fractionally y/y. While carryovers of wheat, barley, sorghum and oats are expected to increase, maize inventories are seen retreating slightly from last year’s levels. Trade in the year ending June 2016 is forecast to be down by 2% y/y. As China has recently been a heavy importer of feedstuffs, including sorghum, barley and DDG, traders are wary of potential changes to state support mechanisms, which could alter buying patterns. 

    And more from Bloomberg:

    Wheat and corn futures in Chicago are heading for a third year of losses after back-to-back bumper global harvests and world wheat production this year will match last season’s record 720 million tons, the IGC said. European wheat crops escaped damage from heat this summer, and prospects for the U.S. corn harvest have improved, said Amy Reynolds, a senior economist at the council.

     

    Corn futures declined 6.2 percent this year on the Chicago Board of Trade and wheat slipped 17 percent. The commodity is trading about 6 percent above a five-year low set in May.

     

    France, the European Union’s largest wheat grower, will harvest 41 million tons of the grain, the IGC said. That’s higher than FranceAgriMer’s outlook earlier this month for a record 40.4 million tons. Surging supplies of grain have filled up silos in Rouen and Dunkirk and sent futures in Paris to a nine-month low.

    So in the end, it’s simply more oversupply in the face of still depressed demand with no hope of a turnaround on the horizon as China lands hard and consumers are constrained by lackluster wage growth and subpar DM economic “recoveries.” 

    We’ll close with what we said on Sunday in “Global Trade In Freefall: Container Freight Rates From Asia To Europe Crash 60% In Three Weeks“:

    For now, however, printing money no longer equates to boosting global trade. In fact, easy monetary policy now appears to be backfiring, as even the “market” has figured out.

     

    So, sarcasm aside, what really happens next, to both shipping, trade, the global economy and markets? Sadly, unless central planning finally works after 7 years of failing ever upward… this.

    *  *  *

    Full IGC report:

    gmrsumme

  • It's Not A Devaluation If The Ministry Of Truth Says So: China's "Style Council" Takes On Currency Trading

    If these are the directives China’s Ministry of Truth, in this case the China Daily “style council”, gives out to editors to pretend that the Yuan devaluation is not, in fact, a devaluation we can’t wait to find out just how long Steve Liesman will need to teach everyone in Beijing that QE, when the PBOC inevitably announces it, is really just a blessing in disguise for the middle class.

    h/t Matthew Taub

  • The Best Explanation If Exposed As An Ashley Madison Member…

    … comes from Dan Loeb of Third Point, who as Gawker points out admits to being a member of the hacked cheating website: due diligence.

    To wit:

    “As my family, friends and business colleagues know, I am a prolific web surfer. Did I visit this site to see what it was all about? Absolutely – years ago, at the time I was invested in Yahoo and IAC and was endlessly curious about apps and websites. Did I ever engage or meet with anyone through this site? Never. That was never my intention — as evidenced by the fact that I never provided a credit card to set up an account.”

    Indeed, as the author points out, this is an “entirely plausible excuse for being on Ashley Madison” especially for someone who was financially affiliated with comparable websites. In fact, for anyone on Wall Street caught on Ashley Madison and having to explain to their significant other why they were on (a website where some 95% of the members were many to begin with) the explanation is all too simple: to test out the platform and its profitability ahead of their imminent (and now permanently scrapped) IPO. Period, end of story.

    Unless the story doesn’t end there, like in this case: “it doesn’t explain why someone who had no intention of engaging with other adulterers described himself as looking for “discreet fun with 9 or 10,” as indicated in his profile data.

    I asked Loeb why he’d entered his desire for “discreet fun” into a website he had no intention of using. He replied: “That field was part of going on the site and I gave a brief line that sounded plausible.”

     

    Loeb’s statement also doesn’t explain why he checked his private messages on an account he never used to “engage” with anyone. The profile data shows that the last time he did so was on December 9, 2013—eight months after he joined Ashley Madison.

    Here is what a better explanation may have sounded like: “I am a billionaire: does it look like I need to secretly hook up on an anonymous website when I can go out and have any woman I want?”

  • Guest Post: The Donald Exposed (A Reality Check For Trumpeteers)

    Submitted by Jim Quinn via The Burning Platform blog,

    It is pure idiocy to support a man simply because he is outspoken, or says popular things, or has mastered the art of titillation. Have you people forgotten Chris Christie??

    • Some say “People are rallying behind him not because they agree with him, but merely because they find him to be the most truthful.” About … what truth?? The man vacillates between whatever “truth” is the most popular.
    • Others think the guy is great because he’s rich … as if that’s a legitimate marker.
    • Many like him because Trump is supposedly different; — “I’ve argued for six months, trump is our UKIP, our five star, our national front. Someone’s got to do the dirty work. You wouldn’t hire a choir boy to break kneecaps. It’s gonna take a real bull.”
    • Trump is also liked because he is “not them”. “Them” being all the other rich, deceitful, lying fucks running for POTUS. No, The Donald is “different” in this alternate universe!
    • Many people have become single issue voters, and love Trump’s illegal immigration stance, and to hell with everything else … even if it means more loss of liberty, as long as we’re “safe” from the brown taco-munchers crossing our southern border.
    • Lastly, there are a certain segment of voters who say – “How much worse could Trump be compared to President Zero and the First Grifter family?”. To which I shake my head in disbelief and where I want to scream out; “Are you fucking kidding me???!! You really don’t think it can get worse????”. Apparently, these scholars have never heard of Adolph, Josef, or Mao.

    Here’s a typical Trumpeteer Worship Meeting. I wonder if the fawning bimbo realizes that in a Nov. 1992 interview in New York magazine Mr. Trump said about women; – “You have to treat ’em like shit.”

    It’s all emotional bullshit because what one hardly ever reads about from these Trumpeteer Marionettes is an actual discussion about Trump on the issues. It’s more important to squeeze out yet another orgasmic fountain of joy because he threw out some Univision reporter; “Oh, look! Isn’t zee Donald just Wunderbar!!”

    Screw that. So, let’s look at what The Donald believesby his own words. And, although I can, I will not spoon-feed you links to his quotes. If you think I’m lying, look up the quotes yourself. You might actually learn something about the Donald in the process.

    THE POLICE STATE: —- “…. we have to give power back to the police, because we have to have law and order. We have to give strength and power back to the police.”. He absolutely loves the Department Of Homeland Security. It will be the centerpiece of his immigration policy, and will become more onerous and evil than ever. This is how crazy it will get. Earlier this month, the National Zoo’s female giant panda gave birth to twin cubs. He called them “anchor babies”. I’m not kidding, and neither was Donald. He asked the National Zoo to turn over the twin cubs to the Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) so that they can be deported back to China. “We have to equally enforce our immigration laws. We should treat animals in the same way we treat humans.  We should not allow people or animals to abuse our immigration system by coming to the United States and having babies.” Deporting anchor pandas …. God help America!!

    THE MILITARY: — Openly states that we must have American troops on the ground in Iran, Iraq, and the “Islamic State” in parts of Syria and Iraq. Way back in 1987 on Meet The Press, he said we should use the firing of a single bullet as a reason to invade Iran, seize its oil, and “let them have the rest” of their country. Proudly stated this past August 10th on Morning Joe –— “I am the most militaristic person there is.”  If that doesn’t convince you that America’s endless wars will not cease under his administration, then I don’t know what will. But, he’s not militaristic when it comes to himself. He avoided the Vietnam draft by claiming a medical exemption …. bone spurs.

    KILLING WHISTLE-BLOWERS: —- “I think Snowden is a terrible threat, I think he’s a terrible traitor, and you know what we used to do in the good old days when we were a strong country — you know what we used to do to traitors, right?”

    GUNS: —- “I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun”

    YOUR BANK ACCOUNT: — To reduce federal debt Trump said the federal government should directly loot the bank accounts of private citizens ….. he said it would be a “one-time tax”, yeah whatever —— and would only affect the very rich. Yeah, right. That’s the standard procedure for oppression of everyone’s rights, sooner or later. First, soak “the rich”, and when that inevitably fails, then they come after YOU.

    YOUR PROPERTY RIGHTS: — You better hope your home isn’t on some land Trump wants to develop. Trump used eminent domain to seize an elderly widow’s Atlantic City home in order to build a limousine parking lot for his clients. “Everybody coming into Atlantic City sees that property, and it’s not fair to Atlantic City and the people. They’re staring at this terrible house instead of staring at beautiful fountains and beautiful other things that would be good.” Good for The Donald, not so good for the old lady.

    THE FREE MARKET: — The Donald is a pure statist, through and through. Has zero problems with using the government to prop up corporations, including banks. Advocated for TARP. Said the Big Three auto companies should NEVER be allowed to fail. “You cannot lose the auto companies” Clamored for a government takeover of healthcare in the 1990s …. “We must have universal health care”

    ECONOMY: — Trump promises to be “the greatest jobs President that God has ever created.”  Of course, we have no fucking clue how he will do this. Maybe you Trumpeteers can help out .. not with YOUR ideas but, actual quotes from your hero, cuz I can’t find a single quote of substance.  Don’t believe me? Check out The Donald’s latest video just released. No substance, 100% pure bullshit. But, I bet it makes you Trumpeteers feel all goooood and fuzzy inside. “Murika! Hell yeah!!”

    FREE TRADE: — The Plan: slap tariffs on everyone you don’t like, and hire smart people. Problem solved!! “Free trade can be wonderful if you have smart people but we have people that are stupid. We have people that aren’t smart, and we have people that are controlled by special interests, and it’s just not gonna work.” And, “I have lobbyists that can produce anything for me, they’re great.” Wants a 35% tax at the Mexican border, a 20% tax on all imports from anywhere, and promises to repatriate all “jobs stolen by China” with a heavy tax on Chinese goods … amount yet to be determined. No nation will retaliate and everything will be A-OK.

    TAKING OIL FROM OTHER COUNTRIES: — Trump on the O’Reilly show; — “To the victor belongs the spoils. So when we go to Iraq, we spend $1.4 trillion so far and thousands of lives are lost, right? And not to mention all the poor guys and gals with one arm and no arm and all the facts, right? You stay and protect the oil and you take the oil and you take whatever is necessary for them and you take what’s necessary for us and we pay our self back $1.5 trillion or more. We take care of Britain, we take care of other countries that helped us and we don’t be so stupid.”

    ISRAEL: — Netanyahu will get a four year long blowjob from the Donald. I don’t know to what degree we are controlled by Israel, but whatever it is, it will ONLY INCREASE.  If the Donald is elected president, the United States will have its first Jewish daughter in the White House. X-ray scanners will reveal the status of penises, and only those who have snipped the dick will be allowed entrance into the Holy of Holies.

    THE CONSTITUTION & THE FED: — Not enough data. Go ahead and do a search “Donald Trump quotes about the Constitution”. Bupkus! You won’t find a single Ron Paul-ish article anywhere, or even any quotes. It’s as if he doesn’t care about the Constitution, or even knows anything about it. The same with The Fed. One can safely assume that hopes about abolishing the Fed, or even auditing it, are off the table. Trump will maintain that status quo … if not increase the power of The Fed since the Donald is at heart a Big Government guy who thinks he can control everything by simply issuing commands. Not to mention The Great Unknown: to what extent is Trump and his vast wealth beholden to banks? Who “owns” whom??

    SUPPORTING SCUMBAGS —- Trump has spent a big fortune supporting and/or buying-off a Who’s Who of American Scum; Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Tom Daschle, Joe Biden, John McCain, Newt Gingrich, Charlie Rangel, Ed Rendell, Rahm Emanuel,  Karl Rove’s SuperPAC American Crossroads, and over $100,000 to the Bill and Hillary Clinton Foundation. Negotiation skills are pretty easy when it basically consists of buying off people.

    “I’M RICH!!”: — Sure, compared to us. BUT … he’s “only” ranked as 414th richest man in the Forbes 2015 Richest People list! They estimate his net worth at about $4.2 billion …. a far cry from his braggadocio claims of being worth $10 billion. And a far cry from Bill Gate’s net worth of about $80 billion. And THAT’S who people like Trump compare themselves to … others, like themselves. And Trump barely makes a ripple in a room full of billionaires. With an ego as large as his, that probably eats away at him. Therefore, I call into question the whole meme that Trump isn’t in it for the money, or that he can’t be bought. You just wait and see. If Trump gets elected, he will leave office much richer, as he gets laws passed that benefit HIM. A thinking person should question if Trump’s motives are to “make America great again” or, if he just wants to enrich himself. Lastly, his exaggerated claims regarding his wealth just point to him being yet another Liar-In-Chief. But, as Americans, we’re used to that by now after eight years of Oreo, aren’t we?

    PERSONAL LIFE: — Trump’s family values include years of keeping a mistress, Marla Maples, and who, after not having marital relations with his wife for more than 16 months, flew into a rage, tore hair from her head, and violated her sexually. Abandoned his daughter with Maples, providing financial support, and nothing else. Beyond any shadow of a doubt it is a known fact that he has mob connections … and has a documented history of cheating workers and vendors, and skirting the law via bribes and payoffs.

    *  *  *

    Now, just in case you think I’m of the opinion that The Donald is all bad ….

    IMMIGRATION: — He is 100% correct regarding the problem of illegal immigration. But, his solution to rounding up the millions already here will turn this country into even more of a Police State. His belief that we can force Mexico to pay for a fence is patently fucking insanely absurd. Even more insane is the belief that a fence would be effective … unless one is willing to plant thousands of land mines, and willing to execute border hoppers. But, even land-mines didn’t keep East Germans from fleeing. It’s also a shame that some people are too goddamned stupid to understand that what keeps some people OUT, keeps even more people (YOU!!) in, and that you’re halfway to an entire nation imprisoned. Up next? Fence out Canada to complete the prison. And, you’re ignorant as hell if you think that’s impossible, forever. Even when Trump rightfully identifies a problem, his solution to the problem is childish.

    ENVIRONMENT: — Trump has called Globull Warming “bullshit”.

    EDUCATION: — “Common Core has to be ended. …. It’s a disaster.” And, “Cut the Department of Education way, way down.”

    DRUGS: — He’s in favor of legalizing drugs and using tax revenue to fund drug education. I guess SSS won’t vote for him. Nevertheless, in his tolerance, he fired a Miss USA crown winner due to her drug over-indulgence.

    *  *  *

    OK, YOUR TURN!! I know why you like Donald. He’s a rich celebrity, and Americans just loooove their celebrities. Just check out all the Trash Rags at your grocery checkout line. You love his claim that he can’t be bought, even if it’s probably a lie. You love his image of the White Knight riding to the rescue, a real Marlboro Man hero. You love his bombastic in-your-face persona, even though you surely know in your heart that national and international politics aren’t effectively conducted that way. And, you absolutely love his entertainment value …. as do I. But, is that all you got?? Surely, you have something of substance to convince us doubters that he is worthy of occupying the White House. I’ll be waiting ….

    NOW THAT YOU HAVE A BETTER IDEA OF WHERE THE DONALD STANDS ON THE ISSUES ….. WHERE WOULD YOU PLACE HIM ON THIS CHART?

     

    MY CONCLUSION: — While Mr. Trump is on the correct side on a few issues, it doesn’t make up for his being on the wrong side in so many others. In the above chart, The Donald is clearly on the far left side on almost all issues. In other words, he is no different than the Same Old Crap Sandwich you’ve been fed for decades now. Yet, you Trumpeteers believe he’s The Great White Hope. Yeah, well, hope in one hand and shit in the other, and see which one fills up faster.

    Both his words and actions prove his rejection of the free market and a propensity for confiscating wealth and placing it in the hands of corporate elites and government bureaucrats. But, key to me is that he has no respect for individual rights. His non-existent stance for the Constitution is extremely problematic. Whether he has any adherence to liberty and justice is questionable at best considering his support of the most vile politicians in the nation, while running around with mobsters. This is no reformer!

    People say a politician’s moral life is of no consequence in leading a nation. This ignores the fact that a politician’s life is consumed with making DECISIONS, and what a man (or, woman) chooses is largely based on that person’s character. It is impossible to make decisions in a moral vacuum. The fact that Trump’s personal life has been one comprised by one immoral decision after another — including three marriages, infidelities, and four bankruptcies — indicate to me that he does not have the qualities of being an effective humble public servant. Rather, he possesses a tremendous ego and a disturbing lust for power. Why can’t people see this? You who say he can’t be worse than the crap we’ve had with the evil Troika of Bush(es), Clinton, and Obama, please stop kidding yourselves. This man possesses an extraordinary damage potential, worse than you’ve ever seen, if he ever directly wielded the power of the presidency.

    In a March 1990 Playboy interview Mr. Trump said; — “I know what sells and I know what people want.” The Donald is still using that strategy in 2015, and he’s playing you Trumpeteers for fools.

    Look, if you guys want to elect someone who squints a lot and says stupid shit, may I suggest you consider David Puddy? He’s not as rich, but he’ll do far less damage to this country.

  • "Computer Glitch" Plaguing ETFs Is "Unrelated" To Monday's Flash Crash, BNY Swears

    On Wednesday, we asked if Monday’s catastrophic ETF collapse which saw over 200 funds fall by at least 10% was just a warmup for a meltdown of even greater proportions. 

    The problem, you’ll recall, was that in the midst of Monday’s flash-crashing mayhem, a number of ETFs traded at a remarkable discount to fair value. Essentially, market makers looked to have simply walked away (there’s your HFT “liquidity provision” in action) or else put in absurdly low bids in order to avoid getting steamrolled when the constituent stocks came off halt. The wide divergences weren’t arbed for whatever reason and the result was an epic breakdown of the ETF pricing mechanism. 

    As we wrote on Wednesday, this was proof positive that contrary to popular belief (which, incidentally, is itself contrary to common sense in this case), an ETF cannot be more liquid than the assets it references and when liquidity dries up in the underlying as it did on Monday, the market structure is clearly inadequate to cope. 

    But don’t worry, because the problem has been identified.

    It’s simply a “computer glitch” at Bank of New York Mellon. Here’s WSJ:

    A computer glitch is preventing hundreds of mutual and exchange-traded funds from providing investors with the values of their holdings, complicating trading in some of the most widely held investments.

     

    The problem, stemming from a breakdown early this week at Bank of New York MellonCorp., the largest fund custodian in the world by assets, prompted emergency meetings Wednesday across the industry, people familiar with the situation said. Directors and executives at some fund sponsors scrambled to manually sort out pricing data and address any legal ramifications of material mispricings, those in which stated asset values differed from the actual figures by 1% or more.

     

    A swath of big money managers and funds was affected, ranging from U.S. money-market mutual funds run by Goldman Sachs Group Inc., exchange-traded funds offered by Guggenheim Partners LLC and mutual funds sold by Federated Investors. Fund-research firm Morningstar Inc. said 796 funds were missing their net asset values on Wednesday. 

    Ok, got it. So basically, if you want to know what the NAV of your fund is, you’ve got to go stock-by-stock and calculate it the old fashioned way. And what, you might ask, does this mean for investors in these most liquid of all securities? 

    The effects of the breakdown are threefold: It has made ETFs more costly to trade, hindered investors’ ability to trade accurately in and out of popular investment vehicles, and forced fund companies to scurry to price securities.

    Here we see the hallmarks of liquidity: i) rising trading costs, ii) an acute inability to trade in and out of the market accurately, and iii) issuers that have no idea what’s going on. 

    And how about HFTs, who, you’re reminded, insist that they provided liquidity during Monday’s chaos? 

    Several traders said they were forced to calculate their own net asset value for ETFs and that they widened the spreads, or the difference, between listed buying and selling prices to accommodate for the higher risk of trading.

     

    “We measure our edge in terms of subpennies,” one trader said. “We can’t afford to be off by a penny.”

    So if we had to venture a guess as to what might have happened here, it might go something like this: once the halts got started, it became impossible to calculate ETF NAV causing “liquidity providers” to widen out their bid- asks in order to protect themselves against NAV uncertainty, and that, in turn, caused anyone who had a market order in to hit the bid at absurdly low prices, taking out stops, and before you knew it, the rampant confusion simply caused Bank of New York Mellon’s/ SunGard’s platform to malfunction. 

    Of course we’ll never know what really happened, but what we can say is that if the following is true, it would be some damn coincidence:

    The outage wasn’t related to the market turbulence Monday that included the largest-ever intraday point decline in the Dow Jones Industrial Average, the bank said. 

    *  *  *

    Incidentally, the official word is that the problem was caused by “an operation systems change performed on Saturday.” Read the note below and decide for yourself.

    SunGard BNY Mellon InvestOne External Statement_FINAL

  • Aug 28 – Fed George: Prepared for Rate Hike, Despite Selloff
     

     

    EMOTION MOVING MARKETS NOW: 12/100 EXTREME FEAR

    PREVIOUS CLOSE: 5/100 EXTREME FEAR

    ONE WEEK AGO: 11/100 EXTREME FEAR

    ONE MONTH AGO: 17/100 EXTREME FEAR

    ONE YEAR AGO: 33/100 FEAR

    Put and Call Options: EXTREME FEAR During the last five trading days, volume in put options has lagged volume in call options by 14.54% as investors make bullish bets in their portfolios. However, this is still among the highest levels of put buying seen during the last two years, indicating extreme fear on the part of investors.

    Market Volatility: EXTREME FEAR The CBOE Volatility Index (VIX) is at 26.10, 63.20% above its 50-day moving average and indicates that investors are concerned about the near-term values of their portfolios.

    Stock Price Strength: EXTREME FEAR The number of stocks hitting 52-week lows is slightly greater than the number hitting highs and is at the lower end of its range, indicating extreme fear.

    PIVOT POINTS

    EURUSD | GBPUSD | USDJPY | USDCAD | AUDUSD | EURJPY | EURCHF | EURGBPGBPJPY | NZDUSD | USDCHF | EURAUD | AUDJPY 
     

    S&P 500 (ES) | NASDAQ 100 (NQ) | DOW 30 (YM) | RUSSELL 2000 (TF) Euro (6E) |Pound (6B) 

    EUROSTOXX 50 (FESX) | DAX 30 (FDAX) | BOBL (FGBM) | SCHATZ (FGBS) | BUND (FGBL) 

    CRUDE OIL (CL) | GOLD (GC) 

     

    MEME OF THE DAY – IT’S THE JERKS 

     

    UNUSUAL ACTIVITY

    LVS SEP 40 PUT ACTIVITY on offer @$.80 4500+ Contracts

    GPRO OCT 48 PUT ACTIVITY @$5.00 right by offer 1944 Contracts

    HZNP SEP 30 CALLS block @$1.45 on offer 3900 Contracts

    CBS OCT 47.5 CALL Activity @$1.20 on offer 3700+ Contracts

    ABT SEP 44 CALL ACTIVITY ON THE OFFER @$1.05-1.06 5100+  Contracts

    RYAM Director Purchase 5,000 @$6.9

    TEP Director Purchase 9,000 @$44.5

    ABUS Director Purchase 1,000 @$6.95

    CVX Executive Vice President Purchase 2,000 @$ 73.529  Purchase 500  @$72.37

    More Unusual Activity…

    HEADLINES

     

    PBOC Yao: Fed should delay hike, could push some EM into crisis –Rtrs

    US GDP Annualized (QoQ) Q2 S: 3.70% (est 3.20%; prev 2.30%)

    US GDP Price Index (QoQ) Q2 S: 2.10% (est 2.00%; prev 2.00%)

    US Personal Consumption (QoQ) Q2 S: 3.10% (est 3.10%; prev 2.90%)

    US Core PCE (QoQ) Q2 S: 1.80% (est 1.80%; prev 1.80%)

    Fed George: Prepared for rate hike, despite selloff –CNBC

    Fed George: Market strains warrant caution on rate hikes –Rtrs

    Atlanta Fed Q3 GDPNow Forecast (27 Aug): +1.4% (prev +1.3%)

    US Pending Home Sales (MoM) Jul: 0.50% (est -1.00%; rev prev -1780%)

    US Pending Home Sales NSA (YoY) Jul: 7.20% (est 8.30%; prev 11.10%)

    US Kansas City Fed Manufacturing Activity Aug: -9 (est -4, prev -7)

    US EIA NatGas Storage Change Aug-21: 69 (est. 60, prev. 53)

    US Initial Jobless Claims Aug-22: 271K (est 274K; prev 277K)

    US Continuing Claims Aug-15: 2269K (est 2248K; rev prev 2256K)

    Abbott lines up $25bn bid for St Jude –FT

     

    GOVERNMENTS/CENTRAL BANKS

    PBOC Yao Yudong: Fed should delay hike, could push some EM into crisis –Rtrs

    Fed George: Prepared for rate hike, despite selloff –CNBC

    Fed George: Market strains warrant caution on rate hikes –Rtrs

    Atlanta Fed Q3 GDPNow Forecast (27 Aug): +1.4% (prev +1.3%)

    Fed buys $6.6bn MBS in the week, sells none –Livesquawk

    El-Erian: QE4 isn’t on the cards –BBG View

    ECB Coeure: The euro is irreversible despite its faults –Rtrs

    BoE publishes concerns over bond liquidity –FT

    BoE Gov Carney’s rate rise comments prompted homebuying in July –CityAM

    BoJ Kuroda: BoJ can still achieve inflation target –BBG

    BoJ Kuroda: China slowdown unlikely to hit Japan exports much –Rtrs

    ESM Regling: Threat of Grexit is still there –BI

    Germany approves Greek bailout, Athens prepares to tighten belt –Dispatch Times

    GEOPOLITICS

    Chinese Navy conducting live-fire drills in East China Sea –Xinhua via BBG

    Russia to assume UN Security Council chairmanship on 1 September –TASS

    FIXED INCOME

    Fed RRP draws $71.3bn, 34 bidders (prev $68.7bn, 31 bidders) –Livesquawk

    OVERNIGHT: China said to sell Tsys as dollars needed to back yuan –BBG

    China confirms it warned US it would sell Tsys at $50bn per month –ZH

    BankRate: US mortgage rates fall amid wild up-and-down market swings

    Analysts: Bund yield seen staying below 1% until March –BBG

    Eonia closes at -0.127% (prev 0.129%) –Livesquawk

    FX

    USD: Dollar rises on solid growth, jobless claims numbers –WSJ

    JPY: Yen weaker as dollar srtonger on US data –Rtrs

    EUR: Euro as new haven moves opposite to stocks by most in decade –BBG

    GBP: Pound gains vs euro as focus turns to cbank policy –BBG

    GBP: Pound sees fortunes reverse this week –MW

    COMMODITY FX: Commodity Currencies Rise Amid Risk Appetite –LSE

    AUD: Westpac says Australian Dollar’s artificial support will fade –PSL

    CNY OVERNIGHT: China said to sell Tsys as dollars needed to back yuan –BBG

    ENERGY/COMMODITIES

    CRUDE: WTI futures settle 10.25% higher at $42.56 per barrel –Livesquawk

    CRUDE: Brent futures settle 10.25% higher at $47.56 per barrel –Livesquawk

    CRUDE: Oil rebounds to trade back above $40 a barrel –MW

    METALS: Gold prices fall on robust US GDP data –WSJ

    METALS: Copper soars over 4% as base metals stage stunning recovery in London trade –BS

    COMMODS: Commodities strike six-year lows, set to enter new cycle –F24

    COMMODS COMMENT: TD: ‘Sell energy’ trade has it wrong on nat gas stocks –FP

    EQUITIES

    M&A: Abbott lines up $25bn bid for St Jude –FT

    M&A: Abbott says it is not pursuing St. Jude –MW

    COMMENT: Shiller: Rising Anxiety That Stocks Are Overpriced –NYT

    EARNINGS: Dollar General earnings above expectations, sales miss –WSJ

    EARNINGS: Tiffany Q2 Sales Down 2%, Earnings Fall 16% –Forbes

    AUTOS: Tesla rallies after top rating from consumer reports –MW

    INDUSTRIALS: Boeing hits 777X jet milestone, says program on schedule –Rtrs

    FUNDS: Fidelity is considering dropping two giant partners –CNBC

    CRA: Fitch Upgrades Best Buy’s IDR to ‘BBB-‘; Outlook Stable

    TECH: Google says EU antitrust charges are unfounded –Rtrs

    TECH: Apple fast closing in on wearable device maker Fitbit –IDC

    TECH: Apple to debut new iPhone 9 Sept –FT

    EMERGING MARKETS

    China will struggle to meet fiscal revenue targets in 2015 –Xinhua via BBG

    OVERNIGHT: PBOC said to have intervened in CNY swap market –WSJ

    BAML: Sell into the rally, the Shanghai Composite is going to tank –BI

    Ukraine NBU cuts rates by 3ppts to 27% –IFX

     

    Ukraine agrees to 20% principal writedown with main creditors –BBG

  • Biggest 2 Day Surge In History Saved As Epic 3pm 'VIXtermination' Ramp Undoes "Quant Omen" Tumble

    No lesser Fed-questioner than Pedro da Costa provides the visual entertainment for today…

    But then, with 30 mins to go….

     

    While stocks is "wot reelly mattahs" today's move in crude oil was simply epic…biggest single day surge since March 12th 2009 – this is a 6 sigma move based on the vol of the last 6 years (the equivalent of passing a man in the street who is 6'11" tall)

     

    The Dow just went from its biggest 2-day point loss to the biggest 2-day point gain… this is not going to normalize quickly…and sure enough once JPMorgan unleashed their reality omen, and Plosser pointed the finger at GDP and a 'decent' economy, everything fell…only to be rescued in the last 30 mins by a VIXtermination

     

    Quite a week… well over 7500 Points in the The Dow…

     

    While the volatility comparisons are all tothe 2008/9 period, we noted another more accurate comparison… This surge looks like the August 2007 period when Geithner leaked the news of a 50bp discount rate cut and enabled the last hoorah for banks to unwind over-extended longs into retail greater fools…

     

    And there is no volume in this bounce at all…

     

    VIX remains in backwardation… but plunged today at the front-end…beforee ripping back higher after JPM/Plosser

     

    After its biggest 2-day rise ever, today's retracement was of similar extreme size to other events over the last 10 years…before it broke higher

     

    *  *  *

    The day was very wild…

    Starting with stocks, we contonued to ramp after China unleashed exuberant plunge protection into their close… a 5.3% bounce into the close!

     

    And US equities kept running all day as business media cheerleaded mom-and-pop " did you miss your chance to buy low?" – until JPMorgan unleashed some facts and Fed's Plosser peed in the party punch… and then VIX was punched lower in a panic-buying last 30 mins…

     

    So US Stocks LIFTED 2.3% in last 30 mins… in context China LIFTED its stock market 5% – so Ken Henry must do better.

     

    Just look at the noise in VIX in the last 30 mins…

     

    Thanks to the biggest 2-day short squeeze in 4 years…

     

    The equity exuberance was not experienced in credit land…

     

    Today's rip was driven by energy stocks which in turn were driven by total idicoy as above in Crude…

     

    Because how manhy times has buying the dip in Energy stocks completely and utterly failed…

     

    Thinking out loud on levels…

     

    On the week, everything was awesome to start… but then the Quant Omen hit… but then again – there is always panic-selling driven by VIX collapse…

     

    But we thought it notable that Small Caps and Nasdaq rolled over after touchingthe opening gap down levels fromlast Friday's tumble…

     

    The Nasdaq managed to get green year-to-date, but everything else remains red…

     

    Treasury yields rallied as stocks fell in the afternoon – closing around unch on the day…

     

    The US Dollar strengthened once again on the day but faded post EU Close with USDJPY dropping after JPM dropped its reality bomb…

     

    Commodities were where the real action was today…

     

    With crude the standout craziness…

     

    But copper and Silver also surged…

     

    But But But… the clever chap on CNBC yesterday said "this proves investors confidence in the market is back"??

    Charts: Bloomberg

  • Remembering The Summer Of 1929

    Submitted by Jesse via The Burning Platform blog,

    This is one of the best documentaries on the Crash of 1929 if you wish to get a feel for the times.   You may find it interesting to watch the whole thing below.I have posted the entire documentary twice before:  once, on the 80th anniversary of Black Thursday in 2009, and once before in December of 2007.

    I remember the Summer of 1929 being described as unusually hot, with the stock market going up and down like a roller coaster, making investors and pundits almost dizzy.  That is, until the great push up to the very height of the market in early September.

    It was the laissez-faire abuses of the 1920’s, the reign of supply side economics,  the institutionalized political corruption of easy money, an oversized,  overly influential and powerful financial/industrial sector that set the stage for the terrible Depression of the 1930’s.

    It also gave rise to the many reforms introduced by the FDR administration.

    Most of which have been steadily overturned, one by one, by the big money interests who care for nothing but themselves, and would do it again, and again, if allowed to do so.

    Most of the scams of the moneyed interests are remarkably simple, and the same over time.  At least they are once you scrape away the jargon, the bells and whistles, and paid for policy theories of pedigreed prostitutes.

    The titans of Wall Street are no smarter than many smart people who do much more difficult jobs and lead simple, honest lives. But they are driven, they are insatiable, and they are shameless.

    Enough people are easily fooled in each generation by well scripted ideological PR campaigns, clever revisions and misrepresentations of history, and the steady drumbeat of slogans and propaganda to allow the same old scams and abuses to come back again.  And unfortunately even very smart and powerful and greatly advantaged people are always willing to do anything for money.

    Here is a link to the transcript of this documentary.

    Narrator: At sea and on land, everyone seemed to be making money. It was a stampede of buying. And major speculators like John Jacob Rascob whipped up the frenzy. He told readers of The Ladies’ Home Journal that now everyone could be rich. September 2nd, Labor Day. It was the hottest day of the year. The markets were closed and people were at the beach. A reporter checked in with astrologer Evangeline to ask about the future of stock prices. Her answer: the Dow Jones could climb to heaven. The very next day, September 3rd, the stock market hit its all-time high.

     

    Ben Karol, Former Newspaper Delivery Boy: My father and I had an ongoing discussion about the stock market. And I used to say, “Pop, everybody’s getting rich but you. You know, you work so hard and you’re never going to make a nickel. All you do is you keep delivering these newspapers and that’s about it. The guy who’s shining shoes is in the stock market, the grocery clerk is in the stock market, the school teacher’s in the stock market. The teller at the bank is in the stock market. Everybody’s in the stock market. You’re the only one that’s not in the stock market.” And he used to sit and laugh and say, “You’ll see. You’ll see. You’ll see.”

     

    Narrator: On September 5th, economist Roger Babson gave a speech to a group of businessmen. “Sooner or later, a crash is coming and it may be terrific.” He’d been saying the same thing for two years, but now, for some reason, investors were listening. The market took a severe dip. They called it the “Babson Break.” The next day, prices stabilized, but several days later, they began to drift lower. Though investors had no way of knowing it, the collapse had already begun

     

    Narrator: In the weeks to follow, the market fluctuated wildly up and down. On September 12th, prices dropped ten percent. They dipped sharply again in the 20s. Stock markets around the world were falling, too. Then, on September 25th, the market suddenly rallied.

     

    Reuben L. Cain, Former Stock Salesman: I remember well that I thought, “Why is this doing this?” And then I thought, “Well, I’m new here and these people” — like every day in the paper, Charlie Mitchell would have something to say, the J.P. Morgan people would have something to say about how good things were — and I thought, “Well, they know a lot more about this market than I do. I’m fairly new here and I really can’t see why it’s going up.” But then, when they say it can’t go down or if it does go down today, it’ll go back tomorrow, you think, “Well, they really are like God. They know it all and it must be the way it’s going because they say so.”

     

    Narrator: As the market floundered, financial leaders were as optimistic as ever, more so. Just five days before the crash, Thomas Lamont, acting head of the highly conservative Morgan Bank, wrote a letter to President Hoover. “The future appears brilliant. Our securities are the most desirable in the world.” Charles Mitchell assured nervous investors that things had never been better.

     

    Craig Mitchell, Son of Charles E. Mitchell: Practically every business leader in America, and banker, right around the time of 1929, was saying how wonderful things were and the economy had only one way to go and that was up.

     

     

    “Running for President under the slogan “Rugged Individualism” made it difficult for Hoover to promote massive government intervention in the economy. In 1930, succumbing to pressure from American industrialists, Hoover signed the Hawley-Smoot Tariff which was designed to protect American industry from overseas competition. Passed against the advice of nearly every prominent economist of the time, it was the largest Tariff in American history. (at that time the US was a large export economy with a trade surplus).

     

    Believing in a balanced budget, Hoover’s 1931 economic plan cut federal spending and increased taxes, both of which inhibited individual efforts to spur the economy.

     

    Finally in 1932 Hoover signed legislation creating the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. This act allocated a half billion dollars for loans to banks, corporations, and state governments. Public works projects such as the Golden Gate Bridge and the Los Angeles Aqueduct were built as a result of this plan.

     

    Hoover and the RFC stopped short of meeting one demand of the American masses — federal aid to individuals. Hoover believed that government aid would stifle initiative and create dependency where individual effort was needed. Past governments never resorted to such schemes and the economy managed to rebound. Clearly Hoover and his advisors failed to grasp the scope of the Great Depression.”

     

  • What China's Treasury Liquidation Means: $1 Trillion QE In Reverse

    Earlier today, Bloomberg – citing the ubiquitous “people familiar with the matter” – confirmed what we’ve been pounding the table on for months; namely that China is liquidating its UST holdings. 

    As we outlined in July, from the first of the year through June, China looked to have sold somewhere around $107 billion worth of US paper. While that might have seemed like a breakneck pace back then, it was nothing compared to what would transpire in the last two weeks of August. Following the devaluation of the yuan, the PBoC found itself in the awkward position of having to intervene openly in the FX market, despite the fact that the new currency regime was supposed to represent a shift towards a more market-determined exchange rate. That intervention has come at a steep cost – around $106 billion according to Soc Gen. In other words, stabilizing the yuan in the wake of the devaluation has resulted in the sale of more than $100 billion in USTs from China’s FX reserves. 

    That dramatic drawdown has an equal and opposite effect on liquidity. That is, it serves to tighten money markets, thus working at cross purposes with policy rate cuts. The result: each FX intervention (i.e. each round of UST liquidation) must be offset with either an RRR cut, or with emergency liquidity injections via hundreds of billions in reverse repos and short- and medium-term lending ops. 

    It appears that all of the above is now better understood than it was a month ago, but what’s still not well understand is the impact this will have on the US economy and, by extension, on US monetary policy, and furthermore, there seems to be some confusion as to just how dramatic the Treasury liquidation might end up being. 

    Recall that China’s move to devalue the yuan and this week’s subsequent benchmark lending rate cut have served to blow up one of the world’s most popular carry trades. As one currency trader told Bloomberg on Tuesday, “it’s a terrible time to be long carry, increased volatility — which I think we’ll stay with — will continue to be terrible for carry. The period is over for carry trades.

    Here’s a look at how a rules-based carry strategy designed to capture yield differences would have fared in the universe of G10 CCYs (note the blow ups around the SNB’s franc shocker and the yuan deval):

    In short, the music stopped on August 11 and to the extent that anyone was still dancing going into this week, the PBoC’s decision to cut the lending rate along with RRR buried the trade once and for all.  

    Estimating the size of that trade should be a good indicator for just how expensive it will be – i.e. how much in Treasurys China will have to liquidate – to keep the yuan stable. The question, as BofAML puts it, is this: “can China afford the unwinding of carry trades?”

    The first step is estimating the total size of the trade. Although estimates vary, BofAML puts the figure at between $1 trillion and $1.1 trillion. Here’s more: 

    As analyzed above, the size of RMB carry could be quite high and thus exert downward pressure on RMB. But the PBoC should have scope to defend its currency if necessary. The PBoC’s toolbox includes its $3.65tn FX reserves (at end-July), as well as measurements to tighten FX controls on individuals, corporate and banks, if necessary, including imposing stricter requirements on NOP, among others. 

     

    That said, we doubt if the PBoC will persistently intervene as rapid decline of FX reserves undermines market confidence anyway and imposes challenges to the PBoC. Alternatively, the PBoC could impose stricter FX controls but that would be considered as a backward move of capital account opening up. Nevertheless, we believe the PBoC intervention will still have spillover effects on the market. 

    In other words, if this entire $1 trillion trade gets unwound, China will need to offset the pressure by either i) draining its reserves, or ii) taking a big step backwards on capital account liberalization. The latter option would be bad news for Beijing’s efforts to liberalize markets and land the yuan in the SDR basket. 

    Of course, as noted yesterday and as tipped by SocGen earlier this week, the liquidation of $1 trillion in FX reserves would put enormous pressure on domestic liquidity, tightening money markets meaningfully, and forcing the PBoC to cut RRR 10 times (assuming 50 bps intervals). As BofA notes, China can’t “afford another liquidity squeeze like June 2013 given very poor sentiment nowadays and China’s economic downturn.”

    Putting the pieces together here – and here is the critically important takeaway – we know that the size of the RMB carry trade could be as high as $1.1 trillion. If that entire trade is unwound, it would require China to liquidate a commensurate amount of its reserves in order to keep control of the yuan – or else resort to FX controls. Here’s the point: if China were to liquidate $1 trillion in reserves (i.e. USTs), it would effectively offset 60% of QE3.

    Furthermore, based on Citi’s review of the academic literature which shows that for every $500 billion in EM reserves liquidated, the yield on the US 10Y rises 108bps, if the PBoC were to use its reserves to offset a hypothetical unwind of the entire RMB carry trade, it would put around 200 bps of upward pressure on 10Y yields.

    So in effect, China’s UST dumping is QE in reverse – and on a massive scale. Facing this kind of pressure the FOMC will at the very least need to exercise an exorbitant amount of caution before tightening policy and at the most, embark on another round of asset purchases lest China’s devaluation and attendant FX interventions should be allowed to decimate whatever part of the US “recovery” is actually real. 

  • The Fed's Hands Are Tied Unless an Complete Meltdown Hits

    The last 12 months has seen a sharp shift in tone regarding criticism of the Fed. Up until 2014, the mainstream financial media’s view of the Fed and its policies was that they had saved the financial system in 2008 and generated an economic "recovery."

     

    Anyone with a working brain knew this was bogus: you cannot solve a debt crisis by issuing more debt. But because the financial media makes its money from financial firms’ advertising Dollars, it (the media) was happy to promote the narrative that the Fed was omniscient and expertly adept at managing the economy.

     

    Then things began to change.

     

    First in the summer of 2014, Congress moved to introduce new oversight of the Fed’s policies, particularly regarding its control of interest rates.

     

    Then the Fed was ensnared in a “leak” scandal indicating it had been providing insider information to key individuals before the public (the Fed has been leaking information for years… but the fact it became common knowledge was new).

     

    And then a growing number of commentators began to point out that the Fed’s QE programs didn’t actually do anything for the general economy, but did increase wealth inequality.

     

    It is this last item that has proven to be the most problematic for the Fed… particularly now that the markets are collapsing with interest rates already at zero.

     

    The Fed has openly stated that QE was a success because it pushed stocks higher. However, it’s hard to swallow this when stocks erase ALL of their post-QE 3 gains in a matter of four days.

     

     

    In simple terms, the market collapse of the last week has proven point blank that the Fed’s theories are bogus and not based on reality. Moreover, now that the financial media has begun to promote the narrative that QE creates wealth inequality, any new QE program would be seen as a bailout of the wealthy.

    This means the Fed will be unable to directly intervene to prop the markets up. We get evidence of this from the fact that NO Fed officials appeared yesterday to provide verbal intervention for the markets.

    Every other time the markets has broken down in the last six years, a Fed President appeared to talk about some new policy to prop the markets up.

    NOT THIS TIME. The Fed's silence signals that things have changed in a big way. Smart investors should start preparing now. This mess is not over by any stretch.

    If you’ve yet to take action to prepare for the second round of the financial crisis, we offer a FREE investment report Financial Crisis "Round Two" Survival Guide that outlines easy, simple to follow strategies you can use to not only protect your portfolio from a market downturn, but actually produce profits.

    You can pick up a FREE copy if you …

    Click Here Now!

    Best Regards,

    Graham Summers

    Chief Market Strategist 

    Phoenix Capital Research

     

     

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News August 27, 2015

  • Western Democracy Is An Endangered Species On Its Way To Extinction

    Submitted by Paul Craig Roberts,

    The British Labour Party no longer represents the working class. Under UK prime minister Tony Blair, the Labour Party became a vassal of the One Percent. The result has been a rebellion in the ranks and the rise of Jeremy Corbyn, a principled Labourite intent on representing the people, a no-no in Western “democracies.”

    Corbyn is too real for the Labour Party Blairites, who hope to be rewarded with similar nest eggs as Blair for representing the capitalist One Percent. So what is the corrupted Labour Party doing to prevent Corbyn’s election?

    The answer is that it is denying the vote to Corbyn supporters. You can read the story here:
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/britains-labour-party-purge-is-underway-preventing-supporters-from-voting-for-jeremy-corbyn/5471194

    The illegal Egyptian military dictatorship that overthrew on Washington’s orders the first democratically elected government in Egyptian history has issued an edict prohibiting journalists from contradicting the military dictatorship. In brief, the dictatorship installed by Washington has outlawed facts.

    Washington rejected the government that the Egyptian people elected, because it appeared that the democratically elected government would have a foreign policy that was at least partially independent of Washington’s. Remember, according to the neocons who, together with Israel, control US foreign policy, countries with independent foreign policies, such as Iran, Russia, and China, are America’s “greatest threats.”

    The Egyptian military thugs, following Washington’s orders, have more or less eliminated all of the leadership of the political party that was democratically elected. The party was called the Muslim Brotherhood. In the presstitute Western media, the political party was described more or less as al Qaeda, and how are the ignorant, brainwashed, and propagandized Americans to know any difference? Certainly neither “their” government nor the presstitute media will ever tell them.

    With the military dictatorship’s edict, independent news reporting no longer exists in Egypt. Washington is pleased and rewards the dictatorship with bags full of money paid by the hapless and helpless American taxpayers.

    Americans should keep in mind that most of the dollars that they pay in income tax are spent either spying upon themselves and the world or killing people in many countries. Without resources taken from American taxpayers millions of women, children, and village elders would still be alive in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, Ukraine, South Ossetia, and other countries. America is the greatest exporter of violence the world has ever known. So wear your patriotism on your sleeve and be proud. You are a depraved citizen of the world’s worst killer nation. Compared to the USA, Rome was a piker.

    France herself seems to be collapsing as a democracy and no longer respects her own laws. According to this report from Kumaran Ira on World Socialist Website https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/08/19/fkil-a19.html ,

    “In the name of the “war on terror,” the French state is dramatically accelerating its use of clandestine operations to extra-judicially murder targeted individuals. French President François Hollande reportedly possesses a “kill list” of potential targets and constantly reviews the assassination program with high-ranking military and intelligence officers.

     

    “This program of state murder, violating basic constitutional rights in a country where the death penalty is illegal, underscores the profound decay of French bourgeois democracy. Amid escalating imperialist wars in France’s former colonial empire and deepening political crisis at home, the state is moving towards levels of criminality associated with the war against Algerian independence and the Vichy regime of Occupied France.”

    Where do you suppose the socialist president of France got his idea of an illegal and unconstitutional “kill list”? If you answer from “America’s First Black President,” you are correct.

    The French people should be outraged that “their” president is nothing more than a murderer and an agent of Washington. But they aren’t. False flag operations have made them fearful. The French like other Western peoples, have ceased to think.

    *  *  *

    Every western democracy is gone with the wind. Washed up, Finished. Every value that defined Western civilization and made it great has been flushed by power and greed and arrogance.

    Proconsuls have replaced democracy.

    I certainly do not believe that Western civilization was ever pure as snow and devoid of sins and crimes against humanity. But it is a fact that in Western civilization, despite the numerous injustices, reforms were possible that improved life for the lower classes. Reforms were possible that restricted the rapaciousness of the rich and powerful. In the US reforms made the impossible come true: ladders of upward mobility made it possible for members of the lowest economic class to become multimillionaires. And this actually happened.

    The governments in Washington committed many crimes, but on occasion Washington prevented crimes. Remember President Eisenhower’s ultimatum to Washington’s British, French, and Israeli allies to remove themselves from the Suez Canal in Egypt or else.

    Today Washington pushes its allies to commit crimes against humanity. That is what NATO and the National Endowment for Democracy are for.

    In my lifetime Americans have always had a good opinion of themselves. But in the 21st century this good opinion has hyper-jumped into hubris and arrogance. If you haven’t been around very long in terms of a human life, you don’t see this. But older people do.

    Just as the Roman Empire ended in the destruction of the Roman people, the American Empire will end in the destruction of the American people. Judging from histories, Roman citizens were superior to American citizens; yet, Rome failed.

    Americans shouldn’t expect any other outcome. The price to be paid for insouciance, self-satisfaction, and complicity is high.

  • Japan's Kuroda Denies Existence Of Currency War As China Devalues Yuan To Fresh 4 Year Lows, Injects CNY150bn Liquidity

    The night began much like any other morning in Asia – with pure comedy gold from Japanese leadership with BOJ's Kuroda saying he is "not concerned about currency wars, there is no currency war," adding that he has "no plans for further easing." That coincided with a drift lower in Japanese stocks from the US close – but mots of Asian stock markets were green buoyed by America's victory against malicious sellers for the first time in a week. Meanwhile, in China, margin debt drops to a 7-month lows (but is still up 133% YoY). But as rumor-mongers face death squads and any broker caught not buying with both hands and feet faces prison, it is no surprise that Chinese stocks are higher in the pre-open (A50 +5%, CSI +2.7%) but large corporate bond issues are being canceled willy nilly even as China devalues Yuan to fresh 4-year lows (6.4085) and adds CNY150bn liquidity.

     

    First we turn to Japan…

    Some comedy genius from Japan's central banker

    • *KURODA: NOT CONCERNED ABOUT CURRENCY WAR, IS NO CURRENCY WAR
    • *KURODA: CENTRAL BANKS NOT TARGETING EXCHANGE RATES
    • *KURODA: SOME IN MARKET TOO PESSIMISTIC ABOUT CHINA ECONOMY
    • *KURODA: FX POLICY IN JAPAN IS UP TO FINANCE MINISTRY

    Well yeah apart from China (directly intervening to devalue), Japan (printing $80bn a month doesn't count), Kazakhstan (devalue 25% or die)…

     

    but none of the EMs should worry…

    • *KURODA: UNDERSTANDS CONCERNS EXPRESSED BY EMERGING ECONOMIES

    And then he dropped this little gem…

    • *KURODA: NO PLANS FOR FURTHER EASING

    Which sparked a little run…

    Don't worry, we got this (just like the PBOC)..

    • *KURODA: CAN AVOID ANY SERIOUS FINANCIAL INSTABILITY DURING QQE

    What a farce – and these are the people "in charge!!"

    *  *  *

    Having got that off our chest, we pivot to China…

    Some more good news… the deleveraging continues…

    • *SHANGHAI MARGIN DEBT BALANCE FALLS TO LOWEST IN SEVEN MONTHS

    But its still up a stunning 133% YoY…

     

    But with witch hunts growing, is it any wonder today's US rally is being escalated in China…

    • *FTSE CHINA A50 SEPT. FUTURES RALLY 5.5%

     

    But not everything is awesome…

    • *CHINA CSI 300 STOCK-INDEX FUTURES EXTEND GAINS TO 2.7%

     

    But let's get some context for this bounce in light of the last 3 days' utter collapse…

    • *CHINA SHANGHAI COMPOSITE SET TO OPEN UP 1.7% TO 2,978.03

     

    But everything is not awesome in bond land…

    • *XIAMEN HAICANG INVESTMENT CANCELS BOND SALE ON MKT VOLATILITY
    • *XIAMEN HAICANG INVESTMENT CANCELS 1B YUAN BOND SALE

    And even with everything awesome in stocks, it appears The PBOC still needed to devalue to frsh 4 year lows,…

    • *CHINA SETS YUAN REFERENCE RATE AT 6.4085 AGAINST U.S. DOLLAR

     

    and inject more liquidity…

    • *PBOC TO INJECT 150B YUAN WITH 7-DAY REVERSE REPOS: TRADERS

    The biggest injection since Nov 2012…

    But they have other problems for now…

    • *SHANGHAI WARNS CHILDREN, ELDERLY STAY INDOORS ON POLLUTION
    • *SHANGHAI AIR `HEAVILY POLLUTED' AS OF 9 A.M.: MONITORING CENTER

    And finally another probe…

    • *TIANJIN PORT SAYS CHAIRMAN UNDER PROBE
    • *TIANJIN PORT SAYS CO. KNOWS ABOUT CHAIRMAN PROBE FROM XINHUA
    • *TIANJIN PORT SUSPENDS TRADING IN HONG KONG: 3382 HK

    As Reuters reports,

    Chinese police have arrested 12 people suspected of involvement in this month's massive explosions in the city of Tianjin that killed 139 people and devastated the port area, the state-run Xinhua news agency said on Thursday.

     

    Among those arrested were the chairman, vice-chairman and three deputy general managers of the logistics company that had been storing the chemicals that blew up, the agency said, quoting police. It did not say who the rest were.

     

    The news comes a day after China sacked the head of its work safety regulator for suspected corruption.

    The witch-hunting, blame-mongering, and scape-goating will go on until morale improves.

     

    Charts: Bloomberg

  • North Dakota Becomes First State To Legalize Drones Weaponized With Tasers, Tear Gas, Rubber Bullets & Sound Cannons

    Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

    It is now legal for law enforcement in North Dakota to fly drones armed with everything from Tasers to tear gas thanks to a last-minute push by a pro-police lobbyist.

     

    With all the concern over the militarization of police in the past year, no one noticed that the state became the first in the union to allow police to equip drones with “less than lethal” weapons. House Bill 1328 wasn’t drafted that way, but then a lobbyist representing law enforcement—tight with a booming drone industry—got his hands on it.

     

    – From the Daily Beast article: First State Legalizes Taser Drones for Cops, Thanks to a Lobbyist

    You could see the writing on the walls years ago. In an increasingly authoritarian, lawless, surveillance state like America, it was always inevitable that drones would be weaponized. In North Dakota, this is now a reality.

    Although I haven’t written much about domestic drones as of late, I published many articles on the topic several years ago. In the 2012 piece, Drones in America? They are Already Here…I warned:

    Like with any new technology, drones can be put to good use or to evil use.  Just like nuclear power can harness energy or destroy humanity altogether, drones could do a lot of good, but the problem is that the government is clearly moving more and more towards a surveillance state so we must be extra careful.  Stay vigilant.

    Apparently, North Dakotans weren’t particularly vigilant, and now the state has become the first in the nation to legalize weaponized drones; not a distinction they should be proud of. What started out as a bill to require police using drones for surveillance obtain warrants, turned into a law that puts tasers and tear gas on them. Go ‘Merica.

    The Daily Beast reports:

    It is now legal for law enforcement in North Dakota to fly drones armed with everything from Tasers to tear gas thanks to a last-minute push by a pro-police lobbyist.

     

    With all the concern over the militarization of police in the past year, no one noticed that the state became the first in the union to allow police to equip drones with “less than lethal” weapons. House Bill 1328 wasn’t drafted that way, but then a lobbyist representing law enforcement—tight with a booming drone industry—got his hands on it.

     

    The bill’s stated intent was to require police to obtain a search warrant from a judge in order to use a drone to search for criminal evidence. In fact, the original draft of Rep. Rick Becker’s bill would have banned all weapons on police drones.

     

    Then Bruce Burkett of North Dakota Peace Officer’s Association was allowed by the state house committee to amend HB 1328 and limit the prohibition only to lethal weapons. “Less than lethal” weapons like rubber bullets, pepper spray, tear gas, sound cannons, and Tasers are therefore permitted on police drones.

     

    Even “less than lethal” weapons can kill though. At least 39 people have been killed by police Tasers in 2015 so far, according to The Guardian. 

    And just in case you’re wondering why North Dakota rolled over so easily. The state is desperate for “economic growth,” even if that growth expands GDP via fascist panopticon surveillance.

    Drones in North Dakota are a profitable enterprise in a state hit hard by the oil bust. Companies that market machines for agricultural and commercial use have been popping up in industrial parks on the outskirts of Grand Forks for the better part of the last three years. The university, one of the city’s largest employers, even offers a four-year degree in drones. The Air Force has partnered with the private sector to create a drone research and development park, too.

     

    Drones are overwhelmingly seen as a good thing in North Dakota, which is perhaps why few noticed when HB 1328 passed with a clause allowing them to be armed with non-lethal weapons.

    Because it’s imperative to national security that we make this, so much easier…

    Screen Shot 2015-08-26 at 10.09.29 AM

    Great work North Dakota. Let’s hope the rest of us aren’t so hopelessly stupid.

  • China's Great Wall Of Worry – Goldman Warns China Options Signal Caution Ahead

    Via Goldman Sachs,

    China has been the epicenter of recent market concerns as global markets focus on China's growth trajectory. Equity markets have been hit hard. The Shanghai Composite is down -43% since its peak on June 12th; with -21% of that down-move coming over the last five trading days. HSCEI is down -32% since June 12th, -12% over the past week. On August 25th the PBOC announced a series of moves including lowering the benchmark lending and deposit rate by 25 bps and the reserve requirement ratio by 50 bps.

    What is the options market telling us? HSCEI implied volatility > 40, term structure inversion and high skew, all signal caution.

    HSCEI: 1m implieds 43, term structure sharply inverted. HSCEI 1m implied volatility jumped 16 points over the last week and as of Tuesday August 25 market close stood at 43, its highest level since Aug-11. A similar story for FXI, where 1m implieds were up 21 points in a week, peaked at 49, and then dropped to 45 after the PBOC announcement and subsequent FXI rally. The HSCEI and FXI term structures are both sharply inverted, continuing to signal caution.

    Skew spiked: Earlier in the year, as the rally in Chinese equities was in full force, higher demand for upside calls rather than downside put hedges led to a rarity in the options market. HSCEI, HSI, and FXI were the only major global indices with negative skew. Since mid-April, skew on these indices has done a 180 degree turn, and after a sharp spike, is now positive and fast approaching highs last seen in 2011-2012.

    *  *  *

    Trade accordingly…

  • Deflationary Collapse Ahead?

    Submitted by Gail Tverberg via OurFiniteWorld.com,

    Both the stock market and oil prices have been plunging. Is this “just another cycle,” or is it something much worse? I think it is something much worse.

    Back in January, I wrote a post called Oil and the Economy: Where are We Headed in 2015-16? In it, I said that persistent very low prices could be a sign that we are reaching limits of a finite world. In fact, the scenario that is playing out matches up with what I expected to happen in my January post. In that post, I said

    Needless to say, stagnating wages together with rapidly rising costs of oil production leads to a mismatch between:

    • The amount consumers can afford for oil
    • The cost of oil, if oil price matches the cost of production

    This mismatch between rising costs of oil production and stagnating wages is what has been happening. The unaffordability problem can be hidden by a rising amount of debt for a while (since adding cheap debt helps make unaffordable big items seem affordable), but this scheme cannot go on forever.

    Eventually, even at near zero interest rates, the amount of debt becomes too high, relative to income. Governments become afraid of adding more debt. Young people find student loans so burdensome that they put off buying homes and cars. The economic “pump” that used to result from rising wages and rising debt slows, slowing the growth of the world economy. With slow economic growth comes low demand for commodities that are used to make homes, cars, factories, and other goods. This slow economic growth is what brings the persistent trend toward low commodity prices experienced in recent years.

    A chart I showed in my January post was this one:

    Figure 1. World Oil Supply (production including biofuels, natural gas liquids) and Brent monthly average spot prices, based on EIA data.

    Figure 1. World Oil Supply (production including biofuels, natural gas liquids) and Brent monthly average spot prices, based on EIA data.

    The price of oil dropped dramatically in the latter half of 2008, partly because of the adverse impact high oil prices had on the economy, and partly because of a contraction in debt amounts at that time. It was only when banks were bailed out and the United States began its first round of Quantitative Easing (QE) to get longer term interest rates down even further that energy prices began to rise. Furthermore, China ramped up its debt in this time period, using its additional debt to build new homes, roads, and factories. This also helped pump energy prices back up again.

    The price of oil was trending slightly downward between 2011 and 2014, suggesting that even then, prices were subject to an underlying downward trend. In mid-2014, there was a big downdraft in prices, which coincided with the end of US QE3 and with slower growth in debt in China. Prices rose for a time, but have recently dropped again, related to slowing Chinese, and thus world, economic growth. In part, China’s slowdown is occurring because it has reached limits regarding how many homes, roads and factories it needs.

    I gave a list of likely changes to expect in my January post. These haven’t changed. I won’t repeat them all here. Instead, I will give an overview of what is going wrong and offer some thoughts regarding why others are not pointing out this same problem.

    Overview of What is Going Wrong

    1. The big thing that is happening is that the world financial system is likely to collapse. Back in 2008, the world financial system almost collapsed. This time, our chances of avoiding collapse are very slim.
    2. Without the financial system, pretty much nothing else works: the oil extraction system, the electricity delivery system, the pension system, the ability of the stock market to hold its value. The change we are encountering is similar to losing the operating system on a computer, or unplugging a refrigerator from the wall.
    3. We don’t know how fast things will unravel, but things are likely to be quite different in as short a time as a year. World financial leaders are likely to “pull out the stops,” trying to keep things together. A big part of our problem is too much debt. This is hard to fix, because reducing debt reduces demand and makes commodity prices fall further. With low prices, production of commodities is likely to fall. For example, food production using fossil fuel inputs is likely to greatly decline over time, as is oil, gas, and coal production.
    4. The electricity system, as delivered by the grid, is likely to fail in approximately the same timeframe as our oil-based system. Nothing will fail overnight, but it seems highly unlikely that electricity will outlast oil by more than a year or two. All systems are dependent on the financial system. If the oil system cannot pay its workers and get replacement parts because of a collapse in the financial system, the same is likely to be true of the electrical grid system.
    5. Our economy is a self-organized networked system that continuously dissipates energy, known in physics as a dissipative structureOther examples of dissipative structures include all plants and animals (including humans) and hurricanes. All of these grow from small beginnings, gradually plateau in size, and eventually collapse and die. We know of a huge number of prior civilizations that have collapsed. This appears to have happened when the return on human labor has fallen too low. This is much like the after-tax wages of non-elite workers falling too low. Wages reflect not only the workers’ own energy (gained from eating food), but any supplemental energy used, such as from draft animals, wind-powered boats, or electricity. Falling median wages, especially of young people, are one of the indications that our economy is headed toward collapse, just like the other economies.
    6. The reason that collapse happens quickly has to do with debt and derivatives. Our networked economy requires debt in order to extract fossil fuels from the ground and to create renewable energy sources, for several reasons: (a) Producers don’t have to save up as much money in advance, (b) Middle-men making products that use energy products (such cars and refrigerators) can “finance” their factories, so they don’t have to save up as much, (c) Consumers can afford to buy “big-ticket” items like homes and cars, with the use of plans that allow monthly payments, so they don’t have to save up as much, and (d) Most importantly, debt helps raise the price of commodities of all sorts (including oil and electricity), because it allows more customers to afford products that use them. The problem as the economy slows, and as we add more and more debt, is that eventually debt collapses. This happens because the economy fails to grow enough to allow the economy to generate sufficient goods and services to keep the system going–that is, pay adequate wages, even to non-elite workers; pay growing government and corporate overhead; and repay debt with interest, all at the same time. Figure 2 is an illustration of the problem with the debt component.
      Figure 2. Repaying loans is easy in a growing economy, but much more difficult in a shrinking economy.

      Figure 2. Repaying loans is easy in a growing economy, but much more difficult in a shrinking economy.

    Where Did Modeling of Energy and the Economy Go Wrong?

    1. Today’s general level of understanding about how the economy works, and energy’s relationship to the economy, is dismally low. Economics has generally denied that energy has more than a very indirect relationship to the economy. Since 1800, world population has grown from 1 billion to more than 7 billion, thanks to the use of fossil fuels for increased food production and medicines, among other things. Yet environmentalists often believe that the world economy can somehow continue as today, without fossil fuels. There is a possibility that with a financial crash, we will need to start over, with new local economies based on the use of local resources. In such a scenario, it is doubtful that we can maintain a world population of even 1 billion.
    2. Economics modeling is based on observations of how the economy worked when we were far from limits of a finite world. The indications from this modeling are not at all generalizable to the situation when we are reaching limits of a finite world. The expectation of economists, based on past situations, is that prices will rise when there is scarcity. This expectation is completely wrong when the basic problem is lack of adequate wages for non-elite workers. When the problem is a lack of wages, workers find it impossible to purchase high-priced goods like homes, cars, and refrigerators. All of these products are created using commodities, so a lack of adequate wages tends to “feed back” through the system as low commodity prices. This is exactly the opposite of what standard economic models predict.
    3. M. King Hubbert’s “peak oil” analysis provided a best-case scenario that was clearly unrealistic, but it was taken literally by his followers. One of Hubbert’s sources of optimism was to assume that another energy product, such as nuclear, would arise in huge quantity, prior to the time when a decline in fossil fuels would become a problem.
      Figure 2. Figure from Hubbert's 1956 paper, Nuclear Energy and the Fossil Fuels.

      Figure 3. Figure from Hubbert’s 1956 paper, Nuclear Energy and the Fossil Fuels.

      The way nuclear energy operates in Figure 2 seems to me to be pretty much equivalent to the output of a perpetual motion machine, adding an endless amount of cheap energy that can be substituted for fossil fuels. A related source of optimism has to do with the shape of a curve that is created by the sum of curves of a given type. There is no reason to expect that the “total” curve will be of the same shape as the underlying curves, unless a perfect substitute (that is, having low price, unlimited quantity, and the ability to work directly in current devices) is available for what is being modeled–here fossil fuels. When the amount of extraction is determined by price, and price can quickly swing from high to low, there is good reason to believe that the shape of the sum curve will be quite pointed, rather than rounded. For example we know that a square wave can be approximated using the sum of sine functions, using Fourier Series (Figure 4).

      Figure 3. Source: Wolfram Mathworld.

      Figure 4. Sum of sine waves converging to a square wave. Source: Wolfram Mathworld.

    4. The world economy operates on energy flows in a given year, even though most analysts today are accustomed to thinking on a discounted cash flow basis.  You and I eat food that was grown very recently. A model of food potentially available in the future is interesting, but it doesn’t satisfy our need for food when we are hungry. Similarly, our vehicles run on oil that has recently been extracted; our electrical system operates on electricity that has been produced, essentially simultaneously. The very close relationship in time between production and consumption of energy products is in sharp contrast to the way the financial system works. It makes promises, such as the availability of bank deposits, the amounts of pension payments, and the continuing value of corporate stocks, far out into the future. When these promises are made, there is no check made that goods and services will actually be available to repay these promises. We end up with a system that has promised very many more goods and services in the future than the real world will actually be able to produce. A break is inevitable; it looks like the break will be happening in the near future.
    5. Changes in the financial system have huge potential to disrupt the operation of the energy flow system. Demand in a given year comes from a combination of (wages and other income streams in a given year) plus the (change in debt in a given year). Historically, the (change in debt) has been positive. This has helped raise commodity prices. As soon as we start getting large defaults on debt, the (change in debt) component turns negative, and tends to bring down the price of commodities. (Note Point 6 in the previous section.) Once this happens, it is virtually impossible to keep prices up high enough to extract oil, coal and natural gas. This is a major reason why the system tends to crash.
    6. Researchers are expected to follow in the steps of researchers before them, rather than starting from a basic understudying of the whole problem. Trying to understand the whole problem, rather than simply trying to look at a small segment of a problem is difficult, especially if a researcher is expected to churn out a large number of peer reviewed academic articles each year. Unfortunately, there is a huge amount of research that might have seemed correct when it was written, but which is really wrong, if viewed through a broader lens. Churning out a high volume of articles based on past research tends to simply repeat past errors. This problem is hard to correct, because the field of energy and the economy cuts across many areas of study. It is hard for anyone to understand the full picture.
    7. In the area of energy and the economy, it is very tempting to tell people what they want to hear. If a researcher doesn’t understand how the system of energy and the economy works, and needs to guess, the guesses that are most likely to be favorably received when it comes time for publication are the ones that say, “All is well. Innovation will save the day.” Or, “Substitution will save the day.” This tends to bias research toward saying, “All is well.” The availability of financial grants on topics that appear hopeful adds to this effect.
    8. Energy Returned on Energy Investment (EROEI) analysis doesn’t really get to the point of today’s problems. Many people have high hopes for EROEI analysis, and indeed, it does make some progress in figuring out what is happening. But it misses many important points. One of them is that there are many different kinds of EROEI. The kind that matters, in terms of keeping the economy from collapsing, is the return on human labor. This type of EROEI is equivalent to after-tax wages of non-elite workers. This kind of return tends to drop too low if the total quantity of energy being used to leverage human labor is too low. We would expect a drop to occur in the quantity of energy used, if energy prices are too high, or if the quantity of energy products available is restricted.
    9. Instead of looking at wages of workers, most EROEI analyses consider returns on fossil fuel energy–something that is at least part of the puzzle, but is far from the whole picture. Returns on fossil fuel energy can be done either on a cash flow (energy flow) basis or on a “model” basis, similar to discounted cash flow. The two are not at all equivalent. What the economy needs is cash flow energy now, not modeled energy production in the future. Cash flow analyses probably need to be performed on an industry-wide basis; direct and indirect inputs in a given calendar year would be compared with energy outputs in the same calendar year. Man-made renewables will tend to do badly in such analyses, because considerable energy is used in making them, but the energy provided is primarily modeled future energy production, assuming that the current economy can continue to operate as today–something that seems increasingly unlikely.
    10. If we are headed for a near term sharp break in the economy, there is no point in trying to add man-made renewables to the electric grid. The whole point of adding man-made renewables is to try to keep what we have today longer. But if the system is collapsing, the whole plan is futile. We end up extracting more coal and oil today, in order to add wind or solar PV to what will soon become a useless grid electric system. The grid system will not last long, because we cannot pay workers and we cannot maintain the grid without a financial system. So if we add man-made renewables, most of what we get is their short-term disadvantages, with few of their hoped-for long-term advantages.

    Conclusion

    The analysis that comes closest to the situation we are reaching today is the 1972 analysis of limits of a finite world, published in the book “The Limits to Growth” by Donella Meadows and others. It models what can be expected to happen, if population and resource extraction grow as expected, gradually tapering off as diminishing returns are encountered. The base model seems to indicate that a collapse will happen about now.

    Figure 5. Base scenario from 1972 Limits to Growth, printed using today's graphics by Charles Hall and John Day in "Revisiting Limits to Growth After Peak Oil" http://www.esf.edu/efb/hall/2009-05Hall0327.pdf

    Figure 5. Base scenario from 1972 Limits to Growth, printed using today’s graphics by Charles Hall and John Day in “Revisiting Limits to Growth After Peak Oil” http://www.esf.edu/efb/hall/2009-05Hall0327.pdf

    The shape of the downturn is not likely to be correct in Figure 5.  One reason is that the model was put together based on physical quantities of goods and people, without considering the role the financial system, particularly debt, plays. I expect that debt would tend to make collapse quicker. Also, the modelers had no experience with interactions in a contracting world economy, so had no idea regarding what adjustments to make. The authors have even said that the shapes of the curves, after the initial downturn, cannot be relied on. So we end up with something like Figure 6, as about all that we can rely on.

    Figure 6. Figure 5, truncated shortly after production turns down, since modeled amounts are unreliable after that date.

    Figure 6. Figure 5, truncated shortly after industrial output per capita (grey) and food per capita turns down, since modeled amounts are unreliable after that date.

    If we are indeed facing the downturn forecast by Limits to Growth modeling, we are facing  a predicament that doesn’t have a real solution. We can make the best of what we have today, and we can try to strengthen bonds with family and friends. We can try to diversify our financial resources, so if one bank encounters problems early on, it won’t be a huge problem. We can perhaps keep a little food and water on hand, to tide us over a temporary shortage. We can study our religious beliefs for guidance.

    Some people believe that it is possible for groups of survivalists to continue, given adequate preparation. This may or may not be true. The only kind of renewables that we can truly count on for the long term are those used by our forefathers, such as wood, draft animals, and wind-driven boats. Anyone who decides to use today’s technology, such as solar panels and a pump adapted for use with solar panels, needs to plan for the day when that technology fails. At that point, hard decisions will need to be made regarding how the group will live without the technology.

    We can’t say that no one warned us about the predicament we are facing. Instead, we chose not to listen. Public officials gave a further push in this direction, by channeling research funds toward distant theoretically solvable problems, instead of understanding the true nature of what we are up against. Too many people took what Hubbert said literally, without understanding that what he offered was a best-case scenario, if we could find something equivalent to a perpetual motion machine to help us out of our predicament.

  • Dow Follows Biggest Crash Since Lehman With Third Biggest One Day Surge Ever As China Dumps Treasurys

    Another dead cat bounce… but this one didn't completely collapse… which means…

    Victory!!!

     

    As Nasdaq gets back into the green for the week!! Mission Accomplished…

     

    As post-European close panic-buying hit US Stocks…

     

    And Bonds were brutalized today as the realization that China is selling spreads… This is the worst 2-day percentage  yield rise for 30Y bonds since Oct 2011.

    And bond liquidity was absymal….

    Another day, another overnight ramp on vapor-thin volume to maintain the illusion into the US open…

    And then the panic-buying ensued.

    CNBC cheerleaders out en masse today once again… which made one tweeter think…

    But thanks to USDJPY, eveything was awesome…

     

    Volume was weaker than it has been in the flush…

    NOTE – today saw another lower high!! Be Careful

     

    Today was the biggest short squeeze since mid Dec 2014…

     

    Perhaps a little context is required for this 'healthy correction'… Todsay is The Dow's biggest point gain since Oct 2008 (and biggest percentage gain since Nov 2011)

     

    AAPL's best day since April 2014…

     

    And VIX saw its signal early on and pushed down to meet it… VIX crashes below 30 once again…

     

    Meanwhile – have no fear, The VIX Term Structure is 'normal'….

    Chatter that credit risk has turned are overstated… as counterparty risk seems notably bid still…

     

     

    But the S&P has caught down to the weakness in the credit cycle…

     

    EUR weakness and Cable hammered drove the USD Index higher on the day and back into the green for the week…

     

    Commodities were all sold with silver and gold worst hit. The PMs did stabilize a little after Europe closed as copper & crude kept sliding…

     

    WTI ended at the lows of the day with a $38 handle once again  (despite weak production and a big draw)…

     

    We leave you with this comment from one bruight CNBC anchor, smiling gormelssly at thblionkg green lights…

    "Concfidence In The Market Has Been Restored"

    So no need for 'Markets In Turmoil" shows anymore then?

    Charts: Bloomberg

    Bonus Chart: A Change In Trend Is Coming…

  • "Would You Finance Your Kicks?": Shoe-Backed Securities Are On The Way

    Meet “Affirm“, a startup from PayPal co-founder Max Levchin whose mission is, according to the “company” section of their website, “[to use] modern technology to re-imagine and re-build core components of financial infrastructure from the ground up… focusing on improving the lives of everyday consumers with less expensive, more transparent financial products.”

    Can’t decipher that? That’s ok, neither can we. 

    Fortunately, Affirm sums it up more succinctly in the “buy with Affirm” section: “pay over time for your most important purchases.”

    Now we understand. Essentially, what Affirm does is “connect directly with online stores” and then loans you money to buy things from said stores. 

    But not just any things. 

    “Important things.” 

    Like $1,000 Air Jordans. 

    Here’s Hypebeast:

    Longing for that rare pair of kicks that you need to have but can’t cough up the money? That doesn’t have to be a problem anymore, because Flight Club is now offering financing options for up to a year. Leaders in the consignment game, paying for these pricey kicks has always been an issue especially with younger consumers as prices can go up into the thousands. Much like buying other pricey items such as cars, houses or jewelry, you’re now able to finance goods (borrow money) from a credit company as long as you agree to pay it all back, with interest. Partnering with AFFIRM, Flight Club kicks such as the ”Fragment” Air Jordan 1 is at $123.01 USD a month, while the Nike Air MAG is at $702.90 USD a month. This seems much better than coughing up the total amount at check. The process seems simple enough:

     

    Enjoy your purchase immediately, with no hidden fees. Provide some basic information and get instant approval to split your purchase (up to $10,000) into 3, 6, or 12 monthly payments with rates from 10-30% APR. Just select Pay with AFFIRM at checkout.

    Hypebeast then asks: “would you finance your kicks?” 

    And while we’ll plead the fifth on that question, it’s only natural for us to speculate that given the success of recent ABS offerings from Springleaf and OneMain, and given the fact that “other” consumer loan-backed ABS supply is expected to come in at around $30 billion this year, it may be only a matter of time before pools of loans for shoes are run through the Street’s securitization machine and sold to investors as a tradable security and on that note, we’ll leave you with the following original schematic for tranching loans-for-kicks:

    (Note: this assumes that the more expensive the financed pair of kicks, the more creditworthy the borrower)


  • China & The Return Of The "Yellow Peril" – The Muddled Economics Of Scapegoating

    Submitted by Justin Raimondo via AntiWar.com,

    As the US stock market was dropping 1,000 points on Monday morning, US commentators were pinning the blame on China. The Chinese economy, they said, was slowing down: what had been the “engine” of worldwide economic expansion was running out of fuel. The clear implication was that China’s rulers were somehow responsible for the sudden evaporation of over $2 trillion in assets over three days of the market plunge.

    This focus on China as the foreign culprit behind America’s economic woes is being broadcast far and wide by Donald Trump, the mercurial demagogue who has put foreigner-bashing at the center of the political discourse. China’s rulers are “smart,” he says, while ours are “dumb.” Chinese leader Xi Jinping is slated to visit the United States and The Donald doesn’t want him to be feted at a fancy White House dinner: instead, he wants to feed him a Big Mac from McDonald’s  because China has “sucked all of our jobs.”

    Our jobs. Our inflated stock market prices. An American politician can’t lose by appealing to our sense of entitlement, and Trump certainly knows how to play that tune. Americans are never to blame for the consequences of their own folly: it’s always somebody else’s fault. That’s why the need for a scapegoat is a staple of American politics: today it’s the Mexicans and the Chinese, during the cold war era it was the Russians and the Japanese. Remember when it was cheap Japanese goods that were “stealing” our markets?

    The portrayal of China as this sleeping giant that is now awakening to take over the world – and take our jobs – is, like most such conceptions, a total delusion. The Peoples Republic of China is weak in almost every sense: politically, economically, and militarily, the PRC is a paper tiger – as Mao Tse-tung liked to characterize the US – and its rulers are sitting atop a volcano.

    Yes, China has made great strides since the dark days of the Cultural Revolution and the Mao era: having abandoned communism and gone in for a form of state capitalism, the leaders of the no-longer-Communist Party of China have unleashed the natural entrepreneurial spirit of their people. In doing so, however, they have also unleashed the “creative destruction” that comes with capitalism – and, perhaps, they have also ensured their own destruction.

    Of course the Chinese commies haven’t instituted laissez-faire: their “capitalism” resembles our own times ten, i.e., it is what we call crony-capitalism. It is driven, in short, by politics, not by the spontaneous order of the market: it is monopolistic, not competitive. The big industries are controlled by China’s version of the One Percent: the “princelings,” the children of the Communist Party elite who are flaunting their wealth and privileges in a society still officially committed to the egalitarianism of the Mao era. This is a surefire recipe for social unrest, and in spite of the Communist Party’s tight rein on the media we are beginning to see evidence of social turmoil boiling up to the surface. Although China is regularly characterized as a “totalitarian” state by human rights activists, there are an estimated 90,000 “mass incidents” – raucous protests that often turn into riots – each year.

    The reasons for this are as multitudinous as the local issues that have been vexing China’s lower and middle classes – housing, land issues, official corruption, rising crime rates – but all are related to the system China’s rulers have constructed in the years after the fall of the “Gang of Four” and the discrediting of Maoist ultra-leftism. It is the same system that exists in our own country magnified a hundred times: state-privileged politically-driven capitalism.

    Under this system, the Communist Party elite has “privatized” a large percentage of the means of production and turned it over to … themselves. Utilizing the Party’s control of the economy, these state-controlled (and some ostensibly “private”) companies dominate the commanding heights of the Chinese economy. As a corollary development, economic liberalization has created burgeoning upper and middle class sectors with buying power far beyond the reach of China’s rural peasant masses.

    In short, economic inequality has skyrocketed, and, in the context of China’s history, this represents a dire threat to the political class: after all, Maoism is still the official ideology of the Chinese Communist Party, albeit greatly modified in the years since Mao’s death. The distance between official ideals and everyday reality grows ever greater, and this is a major problem for China’s rulers as protests become more frequent and more violent.

    While China’s ruling elite presents a unified face to the world, the Communist Party – like all parties everywhere – is rife with factionalism, and the effects of behind-the-scenes maneuvering is exacerbated by the country’s legendary opacity. One never knows who or what is on top in the upper reaches of the Chinese elite, and the result is uncertainty and instability.

    This inherent instability is enhanced by a systemic problem. In imitating Western-style capitalism, the Chinese have combined Keynesian pump-priming – flooding the country with freshly-printed money – with Maoist-style central planning. It is Krugmanism combined with the old Soviet-type Five Year Plan. Certain favored industries are targeted for growth, with quotas set and inevitably fulfilled, and this has resulted in the creation of a series of bubbles – in real estate, investment, and credit – that are fated to pop.

    The portrayal of China as a giant – either as a benign one, in the form of an economic powerhouse that will provide a ready market for Western exports, or as an economic and military threat that is taking “our jobs” and potentially replacing the US as the dominant military power – is in itself a bubble, a myth on the brink of exploding. In reality, the Peoples Republic is a makeshift construction with a very fragile foundation, one that could give way at any time. And there is plenty of seismic movement beneath the surface of Chinese society: a rising middle class whose expectations cannot be met, a volatile peasant mass, corruption on such a scale that it has become the norm, and a rising nationalism that the Communist Party elite fears even as it tries to manipulate it for its own purposes.

    Too big to control, too volatile to be predictable, and too full of contradictions to achieve stability, China is a society that is on the edge of coming completely unglued. So the Donald Trumps of this world are wrong, as usual, in conjuring a vision of the Yellow Peril. China isn’t eating our lunch: indeed, their own “iron rice bowl” – the old Maoist guarantee of full employment and state support for the masses – is in the process of being melted down. Which means we might expect a demagogue to arise out of the ensuing chaos, one who attacks “foreign devils,” appeals to populist prejudices, and aspires to “Make China Great Again” – a Chinese version of Donald Trump.

    Trump’s bombastic anti-Chinese rhetoric – China “will bring us down,” be bloviates – is ironic to the nth degree. Appealing to the typical American conceit that nothing that ever happens to us is our own fault, Trump’s scapegoating is a reflection of widespread economic ignorance. For the reality is that the policies of our own rulers limn those of the Chinese: pump-priming the currency, flooding the US economy with money, and creating massive bubbles is something they learned from us. And those policies are having the same effect here as they are having in China.

    This piles irony on top of irony, for it provides more grist for the Trumpian mill of scapegoating, economic protectionism, and nonsensical denunciations of the “Yellow Peril.” Yes, the wheel turns around and around, a veritable perpetual motion machine of prejudice, ignorance, and malice.

    The program of Trumpismo – trade barriers, foreigner-bashing, and the myth of a Lost Greatness – is a recipe for war. If goods – and people – don’t cross borders, then armies soon will. If “foreigners” are blamed for America’s problems, then it won’t be long before we’re taking up arms against them. As the “Make America Great Again” crowd grows in strength, a country that measures “greatness” in terms of military strength is bound to turn to war as a panacea for all its ills.

     

  • Americans Are "Fired Up" About First Commercially Available Flamethrowers

    On the heels of the shooting at Sandy Hook back in 2012, the gun control debate in America reached a fever pitch. Of course all of the attention and subsequent lawmaker scrutiny had the predictable effect of boosting demand for firearms, as many feared their Second Amendment rights were soon to be curtailed. 

    Gun control was back in the national spotlight last month, after the tragic massacre at an African American church in Charleston, and no sooner had that begun to fade from America’s collective memory than we witnessed yet another shooting, this time in a movie theatre in Louisiana. 

    Then, on Wednesday morning, a “disgruntled” newsman filmed himself shooting and killing a cameraman and another reporter then posted the shocking video on both Twitter and Facebook. The shooter was African American and cited the Charleston shootings as a motive. Obviously, this means it’s only a matter of days (or hours) before the gun control debate kicks into hyperdrive, sparking further fears of federal firearm confiscation. 

    And while it’s semi automatic handguns and assault rifles that have been at the center of the debate thus far, there’s another type of weapon that, although currently legal, may come under scrutiny soon, which is leaving some enthusiasts “fired up” so to speak, about getting in before regulations close the market: flamethrowers

    Here’s more from arstechnica:

    In the wake of two companies now selling the first commercially available flamethrowers in the United States, at least one mayor has called for increased restrictions on their use. And to no one’s surprise, the prospect of prohibition has now driven more sales.

     

    “Business is skyrocketing higher than ever due to the discussion on prohibition,” Chris Byars, the CEO of the Ion Productions Team based in Troy, Michigan, told Ars by e-mail.

     


     

    I’m a huge supporter of personal freedom and personal responsibility. Own whatever you like, unless you use it in a manner that is harmful to another or other’s property. We’ve received a large amount of support from police, fire, our customers, and interested parties regarding keeping them legal.”

    Yes, support from “police” and “fire,” which is both disturbing and odd all at once given that, respectively i) no one wants to confront a trigger happy police officer wielding a flamethrower and, ii) traditionally, firemen are in the business of extinguising fires, not starting them.

    In any event, back to arstechnica:

    Byars added that the company has sold 350 units at $900 each, including shipping, in recent weeks. That’s in addition to the $150,000 the company raised on IndieGoGo.

     

    The Ion product, known as the XM42, can shoot fire over 25 feet and has more than 35 seconds of burn time per tank of fuel. With a full tank of fuel, it weighs just 10 pounds.

     


     

    Another company—XMatter, based in Cleveland, Ohio—sells a similar device for $1,600 each, but it weighs 50 pounds. However, this device has approximately double the range of the XM42. Quinn Whitehead, the company’s co-founder, did not immediately respond to Ars’ request for comment.

    Why does one need a handheld flamethrower, you ask? Here are some “ideas” from the Ion Productions’ official XM42 website:

    • start your bonfire from across the yard
    • kill the weeds between your cracks in style
    • clearing snow/ice
    • controlled burns/ground-clearing of foliage/agricultural
    • insect control

    As Ion goes on to point out (correctly, we might add), there are “endless possibilities for entertainment and utility.” 

    And don’t worry all you lefties out there, in the FAQ section the answer to the question “Is there a left handed model?” is emphatically “yes.”

    Amusingly, flamethrowers – which, on a literal interpretation, would seem to be the very definition of the term “fire-arm” – are not actually counted as such by the ATF:

    “These devices are not regulated as they do not qualify as firearms under the National Firearms Act,” Corey Ray, a spokesman with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, told Ars by e-mail.

    Asked what the point of building and selling flamethrowers is, Byars said simply: “It’s awesome.”

    Meanwhile, Warren, Michigan Mayor Jim Fouts isn’t so sure and because we like to encourage people to decide for themselves on the merits of contentious issues, we’ll close with the following rather amusingly deadpan bit from Fouts, explaining his position, and leave it to readers to discuss:

    “My concern is that flamethrowers in the wrong hands could cause catastrophic damage either to the person who is using it or more likely to the person who is being targeted. This is a pretty dangerous mix because it’s a combination of butane and gasoline which is highly flammable. Anybody who aims this at someone else or something happens and it happens close to them is going to be close to be incinerated.”

    *  *  *

  • What An Actual Leader Might Say

    Submitted by Paul Rosenberg via Free-Man's Perspective,

    In the current deluge of wannabe leaders clamoring for attention and trying to convince us that they are the boss who should be applying rules to us, it strikes me that all of them are looking backward and none are looking forward. (I do not consider “My administration will give you more bennies” to be seriously forward-looking.)

    So, since none of this crowd is going to venture anywhere outside of their hermetically sealed status quo, I’d like to give you an example of something a real leader might say.

    Late summer 2015, Anytown, USA: A small platform stands at the edge of a cornfield. A very average-looking person steps up to a microphone and speaks:

    Friends,

    I stand here, not to praise you, but to acquaint you with reality, at least as well as I am able. Perhaps that means I should be killed or at least run out of town. But if that’s so, then so be it. I am tired of living a life other than my own – the pre-scripted, advertiser-generated life that is shoved before my eyes day by day. And I suspect that some of you are tired of it as well.

    Please allow me to begin by pointing out that all the fights from all the platforms this election cycle will concern trivialities – Team Red versus Team Blue – and competing varieties of fears – terrorists versus outlawed unions versus less free stuff versus whatever works in your little corner of the world. At most, these are fights over personalities – He’s an arrogant ass, she’s a conniving witch, and so on  – all of which really come down to, “My opponent is scarier than I am.”

    None of these bobbleheads will ask the questions that matter: Who are we? What do we want? Where should we be headed?

    You see, once we get past all the publicized fears – some real, but most imaginary – the dialog we’re having, if we care to admit it, is mostly self-praise. We laud our great “democracy,” even though not one in a thousand can define it. Or we brag about our wonderful “freedom” but avoid defining it, knowing that our definition wouldn’t stand up to the test. Freedom is “what we have,” and further questions are evidence of stupidity, bordering on treason.

    The truth is that we’ve trained ourselves to evade reality. Praising ourselves is so much easier: Team America!

    By doing this, my friends, we’ve been blind to the greatest opportunity that has ever stood before a human generation: If we wanted to, we could quickly and easily step into a golden age. In fact, we’ve been doing just that, half by accident, for a long time. If we bothered to work at it, even halfheartedly, we’d go down in history as the generation that transformed humanity forever.

    But perhaps most of us wouldn’t like that. And if so, that’s our choice to make. My objection is that no one bothers to talk about it.

    I’d like for you, for just a few seconds, to take a look at two graphs, which I pulled out of Julian Simon’s The State of Humanity. The first graph shows how much wheat is not grown, because our production capacity is so much greater than our demand for wheat.

    graph1

    This second one shows the price of wheat measured in wages.

    graph2

    And I have others like this, for other commodities.

    There is one message that comes screaming through here, and it’s one that I know can be deeply troubling. Nonetheless, that message is true: Scarcity on planet Earth is dying.

    I’ll pause to allow you a small freakout over that, to let all those prerecorded messages run screaming through your mind.

    You see, our ruling systems have been built on the assumption of scarcity, and the idea that scarcity may be failing throws us into crisis.

    Isn’t it odd that good news should upset us?

    Scarcity, sadly, became more than a sad fact to us; it became a psychological necessity. But what if we no longer need to fight over resources? Is that a concept that we should rush to eliminate?

    And in actual fact, there are fewer and fewer starving people all the time, and most of those are starving because of political distortions, not because of insufficient production technology.

    All of this reminds me of a comment from Buckminster Fuller that I like to condense:

    I decided man was operating on a fundamental fallacy: that he was destined to be a failure. I decided that man was, in fact, designed to be an extraordinary success. His characteristics were magnificent; what he needed was to discover the comprehensive patterns operating in the universe.

    So, what if humanity is designed to be an extraordinary success? Why should this thought repel us, even before we honestly consider it?

    You see, these are things we need to discuss.

    We are, whether we like it or not, stepping out of scarcity, and it seems to me that we should decide whether or not that’s a good thing.

    Our problem – our real problem, if we can muster the courage to admit it – is that we’re living with space-age technology and bronze-age rulership. But we can get past this problem if we wish, and we can easily meet all of humanity’s basic needs… if we wish.

    But perhaps we don’t want to. Maybe it’s more important to us that we should be the biggest dog in town and that everyone else should be a little yap-yap dog.

    And if that’s the case, we need to admit it to ourselves. Perhaps we’ll decide that what we really need is to be the dominant dog, and that all the morality stuff we talk about – golden rules and loving our neighbors – was all juvenile blather; that what we really want is to dominate everyone else.

    And if that’s the case, we should get busy rebuilding our civilization in the form of the Roman Empire. We should get serious about beating the hell out of everyone else… at least until a new Christ comes along (or perhaps just people who remember the old one) and convinces our subjects that there’s a better way to live.

    But in the meantime, we could kick the crap out of a billion brown people for a century or two, minimum. That’s our choice to make, of course, I’m only suggesting that we be forthright about it.

    So, my friends, let me conclude by saying this:

    If what we really want is to be the big dog, to feast on the fact that we’re able to kick all the smaller dogs around, then let’s do it. Let’s go full-Caesar on ’em. Let’s conquer everything, steal what we like, and live it up.

    Or, if that’s not what we really want, then let’s get the golden age started; let’s dump the hierarchies that steal half our earnings and labor to keep fear alive. Let’s build and plant and thrive; and let’s welcome others to thrive with us.

    Thank you for not shooting me.

  • What Would Happen If Everyone Joins China In Dumping Treasurys?

    On Tuesday evening in “Devaluation Stunner: China Has Dumped $100 Billion In Treasurys In The Past Two Weeks,” we quantified the cost of China’s near daily open FX operations in support of the yuan. 

    As BNP’s Mole Hau put it on Monday, “whereas the daily fix was previously used to fix the spot rate, the PBoC now seemingly fixes the spot rate to determine the daily fix, [thus] the role of the market in determining the exchange rate has, if anything, been reduced in the short term.” And a reduced role for the market means a larger role for the PBoC and that, in turn, means burning through more FX reserves to steady the yuan.

    Translation and quantification (with the latter coming courtesy of SocGen): as part of China’s devaluation and subsequent attempts to contain said devaluation, China has sold a gargantuan $106 (or more) billion in US paper just as a result of the change in the currency regime. 

    Notably, that means China has sold as much in Treasurys in the past 2 weeks – over $100 billion – as it has sold in the entire first half of the year. Today, we got what looks like confirmation late in the session when Bloomberg, citing fixed income desks, reported “substantial selling pressure in long end Treasuries coming from Far East.”

    The question or rather, the series of questions, that need to be considered going forward are: 

    “What happens when China liquidates all of its Treasury holdings is anyone’s guess, and an even better question is will anyone else decide to join China as its sells US Treasurys at a never before seen pace, and best of all: will the Fed just sit there and watch as the biggest offshore holder of US Treasurys liquidates its entire inventory…”

    And make no mistake, these are timely questions, because the combination of collapsing commodity prices, China’s devaluation, and the threat of a Fed hike have put enormous pressure on EM currencies the world over and that, in turn, means a drawdown of EM FX reserves and pressure on DM bonds. As JP Morgan put it last month, “the sharp reversal in EM FX reserve accumulation between Q1 and Q2 is consistent with the sharp reversal in DM core bond markets. Core bond market yields collapsed in Q1 but saw a big rise in Q2. This is a good reminder of how important FX reserve managers remain in driving core bond markets.”

    Indeed. And just how important, you ask, is that for US Treasurys and, in turn, for Fed policy going forward? For the answer, we go to Citi:

    Taken in isolation, a reserves drop of 1% of USD GDP (=$178bn) would infer a rise in 10y UST yields by 15-35bp based on a range of academic studies.

    And more to the point:

    Suppose EM and developing countries, which hold $5491 bn in reserves, reduce holdings by 10% over one year. This amounts to 3.07% of US GDP and means 10yr Treasury yields rates rise by a mammoth 108bp (35bp*3.07).

    In other words, if EM currencies remain under pressure – and there is every reason to believe that they well – the reserve drawdown necessary to stabilize currencies and maintain unsustainable pegs means more Treasury liquidation and massive upward pressure on yields. Here’s a look at EM reserve accumlation vs. the yield on the 10Y (inverted):

    As for what this means in the US, we go to Citi one more time:

    These moves are unlikely to happen in a vacuum. For instance, any move by these magnitudes would choke off the US housing market and see the Fed stand still or ease. 

    Of course one of the catalysts for the EM outflows is the looming Fed hike which, when taken together with the above, means that if the FOMC raises rates, they will almost surely accelerate the pressure on EM, triggering further FX reserve drawdowns (i.e. UST dumping), resulting in substantial upward pressure on yields and prompting an immediate policy reversal and perhaps even QE4.

    And as we never, ever tire of reminding readers, it all harkens back to last November

  • Jim Grant Warns "The Fed Turned The Stock Market Into A 'Hall Of Mirrors'"

    The question we appear to be getting answered this week is, as Grant's Interest Rate Observer's Jim Grant so poetically explains, "how much of this paper moon market is real, and how much is governmental whipped cream?" In this brief but, as usual, perfectly to the point interview with Reason.com's Matt Welch, Grant asks (and answers), "are prices meant to be imposed from on high, or discovered by individuals acting spontaneously in markets?" noting that, while many readers here may know the answer, "they’re regrettably in the minority." The always entertaining Grant then goes on to discuss the underlying causes of the recent market turbulence, why we don’t really "have interest rates anymore."

    "One thing to recall is that markets are meant to be two-way propositions – they go up, they go down – but it has been almost four years since we have seen a 10% correction… what's unusual is not the occasional down day but The Great Sedation that preceded."

     

    "Confoundingly to me, people have come to be quite accepting of the value attached by fiat to these pieces of paper we call currency."

    Well worth the price of admission during a week when financial markets start to show their true colors…

  • "I Fear For The Chinese Citizen"

    Submitted by Raul Ilargi Meijer via The Automatic Earth blog,

    Look, it’s very clear where I stand on China; I’ve written a lot about it. And not just recently. Nicole Foss, who fully shares my views on the topic, reminded me the other day of a piece I wrote in July 2012, named Meet China’s New Leader : Pon Zi. China has been a giant lying debt bubble for years. Much if not most of its growth ‘miracle’ was nothing but a huge credit expansion, with an outsize role for the shadow banking system.

    A lot of this has remained underreported in western media, probably because its reporters were afraid, for one reason or another, to shatter the global illusion that the western financial fiasco could be saved from utter mayhem by a country producing largely trinkets. Even today I read a Bloomberg article that claims China’s Q1 GDP growth was 7%. You’re not helping, boys, other than to keep a dream alive that has long been exposed as false.

    China’s stock markets have a long way to fall further yet. This little graph from the FT shows why. The Shanghai Composite closed down another 1.27% today at 2,927.29 points. If it ‘only’ returns to its -early- 2014 levels, it has another 30% or so to go to the downside. If inflation correction is applied, it may fall to 1,000 points, for a 60% or so ‘correction’. If we move back 10 or 20 years, well, you get the picture.

    That is a bursting bubble. Not terribly unique or mind-blowing, bubbles always burst. However, in this instance, the entire world will be swept out to sea with it. More money-printing, even if Beijing would attempt it, no longer does any good, because the Politburo and central bank aura’s of infallibility and omnipotence have been pierced and debunked. Yesterday’s cuts in interest rates and reserve requirement ratios (RRR) are equally useless, if not worse, if only because while they may provide a short term additional illusion, they also spell loud and clear that the leadership admits its previous measures have been failures. Emperor perhaps, but no clothes.

    Every additional measure after this, and there will be many, will take off more of the power veneer Xi and Li have been ‘decorated’ with. Zero Hedge last night quoted SocGen on the precisely this topic: how Beijing painted itself into a corner on the RRR issue, while simultaneously spending fortunes in foreign reserves.

    The Most Surprising Thing About China’s RRR Cut

    [..] how does one reconcile China’s reported detachment from manipulating the stock market having failed to prop it up with the interest rate cut announcement this morning. The missing piece to the puzzle came from a report by SocGen’s Wai Yao, who first summarized the total liquidity addition impact from today’s rate hike as follows “the total amount of liquidity injected will be close to CNY700bn, or $106bn based on today’s onshore exchange rate.” And then she explained just why the PBOC was desperate to unlock this amount of liquidity: it had nothing to do with either the stock market, nor the economy, and everything to do with the PBOC’s decision from two weeks ago to devalue the Yuan. To wit:

    In perspective, the PBoC may have sold more official FX reserves than this amount since the currency regime change on 11 August.

    Said otherwise, SocGen is suggesting that China has sold $106 billion in Treasurys in the past 2 weeks! And there is the punchline. It explains why the PBOC did not cut rates over the weekend as everyone expected, which resulted in a combined 16% market rout on Monday and Tuesday – after all, the PBOC understands very well what the trade off to waiting was, and it still delayed until today by which point the carnage in local stocks was too much. Great enough in fact for China to not have eased if stabilizing the market was not a key consideration.

    In other words, today’s RRR cut has little to do with net easing considerations, with the market, or the economy, and everything to do with a China which is suddenly dumping a record amount of reserves as it scrambles to stabilize the Yuan, only this time in the open market!

    The battle to stabilise the currency has had a significant tightening effect on domestic liquidity conditions. If the PBoC wants to stabilise currency expectations for good, there are only two ways to achieve this: complete FX flexibility or zero FX flexibility. At present, the latter is also increasingly unviable, since the capital account is much more open. Therefore, the PBoC has merely to keep selling FX reserves until it lets go.

    And since it can’t let go now that it has started off on this path, or rather it can but only if it pulls a Swiss National Bank and admit FX intervention defeat, the one place where the PBOC can find the required funding to continue the FX war is via such moves as RRR cuts.

    Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, too, touches on the subject of China’s free-falling foreign reserves.

    China Cuts Rates To Stem Crisis, But Doubts Grow On Foreign Reserve Buffer

    The great unknown is exactly how much money has been leaving the country since the PBOC stunned markets by ditching its dollar exchange peg on August 11, and in doing so set off a global crash. Some reports suggest that the PBOC has already burned through $200bn in reserves since then. If so, this would require a much bigger cut in the RRR just to maintain a neutral setting. Wei Yao said the strategy of the Chinese authorities is unworkable in the long run.

     

    If they keep trying to defend the exchange rate, they will continue to bleed reserves and will have to keep cutting the RRR in lockstep just to prevent further tightening. They may let the currency go, but that too is potentially dangerous. She said China can use up another $900bn before hitting safe limits under the IMF’s standard metric for developing states.

     

    “The PBOC’s war chest is sizeable, but not unlimited. It is not a good idea to keep at this battle of currency stabilisation for too long,” she said. Citigroup has also warned that China’s reserves – still the world’s largest at $3.65 trillion but falling fast – are not as overwhelming as they appear, given the levels of short-term external debt. The border line would be $2.6 trillion. “There are reasons to question the robustness of China’s reserves adequacy. By emerging market standards China’s reserves adequacy is low: only South Africa, Czech Republic and Turkey have lower scores in the group of countries we examined,” it said.

    It is a dangerous game they play, that much should be clear. And you know what China bought those foreign reserves with in the first place? With freshly printed monopoly money. Which is the same source from which the Vinny the Kneecapper shadow loans originated that every second grandma signed up to in order to purchase ghost apartments and shares of unproductive companies.

    And that leads to another issue I’ve touched upon countless times: I can’t see how China can NOT descend into severe civil unrest. The government at present attempts to hide its impotence and failures behind the arrest of all sorts of scapegoats, but Xi and Li themselves should, and probably will, be accused at some point. They’ve gambled away a lot of what made their country function, albeit not at American or European wealth levels.

    If the Communist Party had opted for what is sometimes labeled ‘organic’ growth (I’m not a big afficionado of the term), instead of ‘miracle’ Ponzi ‘growth’, if they had not to such a huge extent relied on Vinny the Kneecapper to provide the credit that made everything ‘grow’ so miraculously, their country would not be in such a bind. It would not have to deleverage at the same blinding speed it ostensibly grew at since 2008 (at the latest).

    There are still voices talking about the ‘logical’ aim of Beijing to switch its economy from one that is export driven to one in which the Chinese consumer herself is the engine of growth. Well, that dream, too, has now been found out to be made of shards of shattered glass. The idea of a change towards a domestic consumption-driven economy is being revealed as a woeful disaster.

    And that has always been predictable; you can’t magically turn into a consumer-based economy by blowing bubbles first in property and then in stocks, and hope people’s profits in both will make them spend. Because the whole endeavor was based from the get-go on huge increases in debt, the just as predictable outcome is, and will be even much more, that people count their losses and spend much less in the local economy. While those with remaining spending power purchase property in the US, Britain, Australia. And go live there too, where they feel safe(r).

    I fear for the Chinese citizen. Not so much for Xi and Li. They will get what they deserve.

  • Fed Dudley: We Are A Long Way From More QE

    EMOTION MOVING MARKETS NOW: 5/100 EXTREME FEAR

    PREVIOUS CLOSE: 3/100 EXTREME FEAR

    ONE WEEK AGO: 11/100 EXTREME FEAR

    ONE MONTH AGO: 7/100 EXTREME FEAR

    ONE YEAR AGO: 36/100 FEAR

    Put and Call Options: EXTREME FEAR During the last five trading days, volume in put options has lagged volume in call options by 10.90% as investors make bullish bets in their portfolios. However, this is still among the highest levels of put buying seen during the last two years, indicating extreme fear on the part of investors.

    Market Volatility: EXTREME FEAR The CBOE Volatility Index (VIX) is at 30.32 and indicates that investors remain concerned about declines in the stock market.

    Stock Price Strength: EXTREME FEAR The number of stocks hitting 52-week lows is slightly greater than the number hitting highs and is at the lower end of its range, indicating extreme fear.

    PIVOT POINTS

    EURUSD | GBPUSD | USDJPY | USDCAD | AUDUSD | EURJPY | EURCHF | EURGBPGBPJPY | NZDUSD | USDCHF | EURAUD | AUDJPY 

    S&P 500 (ES) | NASDAQ 100 (NQ) | DOW 30 (YM) | RUSSELL 2000 (TF) Euro (6E) |Pound (6B)

    EUROSTOXX 50 (FESX) | DAX 30 (FDAX) | BOBL (FGBM) | SCHATZ (FGBS) | BUND (FGBL)

    CRUDE OIL (CL) | GOLD (GC)

     

    MEME OF THE DAY – IT’S THE JERKS

     

    UNUSUAL ACTIVITY

    LVS SEP 40 PUT ACTIVITY on offer @$.80 4500+ Contracts

    GPRO OCT 48 PUT ACTIVITY @$5.00 right by offer 1944 Contracts

    HZNP SEP 30 CALLS block @$1.45 on offer 3900 Contracts

    CBS OCT 47.5 CALL Activity @$1.20 on offer 3700+ Contracts

    ABT SEP 44 CALL ACTIVITY ON THE OFFER @$1.05-1.06 5100+  Contracts

    RYAM Director Purchase 5,000 @$6.9

    TEP Director Purchase 9,000 @$44.5

    ABUS Director Purchase 1,000 @$6.95

    CVX Executive Vice President Purchase 2,000 @$ 73.529  Purchase 500  @$72.37

    More Unusual Activity…

     

    HEADLINES

     

    Fed Dudley: September rate rise less compelling

    Fed Dudley: We are a long way from more QE

    US July Building permits revised up to -15.5% at 1.130 units

    OIS price 30% chance of Sept hike (26% yesterday)

    OIS price 62% chance of Dec hike (54% yesterday)

    NY Fed Economists say 89% of slack has been wrung out of US economy

    Fed increasing Scrutiny of bank payment systems

    ECB Praet: Downside risks to inflation path, ECB ready to act

    ECB Hansson: Greek outlook brightening

    Tsy yields rise after lacklustre 2y FRN and 5y auctions

    Monsanto drops $46bn takeover bid for Syngenta

    Schlumberger to buy Cameron International in $14.8bn deal

     

    GOVERNMENTS/CENTRAL BANKS

    Fed Dudley: September rate rise less compelling –FT

    Fed Dudley: We are a long way from more QE –ForexLive

    Fed interest rate hike falls rapidly down the probability scale –FT

    NY Fed Economists say 89% of slack has been wrung out of US economy –Liberty Street

    Federal Reserve Increasing Scrutiny of Bank Payment Systems –WSJ

    BOC COMMENT: Global Fin Mkt Woes Shldn’t Drive A Sept BOC Rate Cut –MNI

    ECB Praet: Downside Risks To Infl Path, ECB Ready To Act –MNI

    ECB Hansson: Greek outlook brightening –BS

    Greece raisis E22.3bn in state revenues (Jan-Jul) vs exp of E25.772bn –KTG

    EU’s Dombrovskis expects Greek progress regardless of government –Kathimerini

    French FinMin Sapin: Tax Cuts Possible But Lower Deficit A Priority –MNI

    GEOPOLITICS

    US Pres Obama on cusp of winning Iran nuclear vote –FT

    FIXED INCOME

    Treasury yields rise as auction gets lukewarm response –CNBC

    2Y FRN auction sees small tail as dealer takedown highest since Dec 2014 –Livesquawk

    German Yield Falls From 3-Week High as Selloff Seen Excessive –BBG

    Abengoa bonds and CDS jump on rights talk –IFR

    Philippines mulls project bonds –IFR

    FX

    USD: Dollar retreats as Fed’s Dudley cautions on rates –FT

    JPY: Yen stronger vs dollar on dovish Dudley comments –FXstreet

    GBP: Sterling lower after inflation expectations decline –FXstreet

    AUD: AUD/USD oscillates above 0.7100 –FXstreet

    AUD COMMENT: Westpac: Australian Dollar’s Recent Support is Superficial –Westpac

    ZAR: SARB chief rules out defence of rand –FT

    ENERGY/COMMODITIES

    COMMODS: Commodities fall as China jitters persist –Rtrs

    US DOE Crude Oil Inventory Change (WoW) (Aug): -5452K (est 1450K, prev 2620K)

    US DOE Distillate Inventory Change (WoW) (Aug):256K (est 600K, prev 326K)

    US DOE Cushing OK Crude Inventory Change (WoW) (Aug):1660k (est -950K, prev -2708K)

    US DOE Gasoline Inventory Change (WoW) (Aug):1436K (est 1020K, prev 594K)

    WTI futures settle 1.8% lower at $30.60 per barrel –Livesquawk

    Brent futures settle 0.2% lower at $43.14 per barrel –Livesquawk

    Fitch: Low Prices Stretch Small EMEA Oil Companies’ Liquidity

    NATGAS: Natural Gas Holds Steady on Warmer Forecasts –WSJ

    NATGAS: US natural gas glut prompts price warning –FT

    METALS: Base Metals Close Down As China Concerns Return –WSJ

    METALS: Gold Lower as Investors Reassured By Upbeat US Data –WSJ

    EQUITIES

    M&A: Schlumberger to buy Cameron International in $14.8bn deal –FT

    M&A: Monsanto drops takeover bid for Syngenta –WSJ

    O&G: Oil drop casts cloud over Sinopec profits –FT

    BANKS: Bankers bonuses suffer biggest fall in a decade –FT

    BANKS: RBC reports higher energy-sector bad loans but profit rises –Rtrs

    TECH: PayPal expands One Touch program to new markets in Europe –Rtrs

    EMERGING MARKETS

    Fitch: Pessimism on China’s Short-Term Macro Outlook Overdone

    S&P: Weak company profits fuel China correction

  • How The US Economy Underwent Half A Rate Hike In The Past Week Without The Fed's Permission

    Perhaps the single biggest catalyst for today’s ramp (in addition to the biggest short squeeze of 2015) were the following three soundbites from Bill Dudley:

    • CASE FOR SEPT RATE HIKE LESS COMPELLING,
    • I REALLY HOPE WE CAN RAISE RATES THIS YEAR, and yet
    • FED’S DUDLEY SAYS “WE ARE A LONG WAY FROM” ADDITIONAL QUANTITATIVE EASING

    … which to everyone was a tacit admission that the door to more QE is already open, and just needs a stronger push.

    But the one line that should have been everyone’s focus is the following:

    • DUDLEY: STOCK DROP HAS LITTLE SHORT TERM EFFECT ON U.S. ECON

    The reason why this is interesting, is that Goldman’s alumnus at the NY Fed admitted that stock prices – artificial as they may be – are not only a “policy” matter to manipulate consumer psychology and confidence, but have an actual, empirical and quantifiable aspect in to the tightness (or ease) of financial conditions, and thus to the broader economy via all traditional monetary tranmission mechanisms.

    In fact, as none other than Dudley’s former employer, Goldman Sachs, quantifies it, a 10% market drop has the same impact as a 15 bps rate hike. As a reminder, the Fed has been vacilating for the past year whether or not to hike rates by a paltry 25 bps (just so it can then lower rates by 25 bps and launch QE).

    Academic research on stock price effect on policy rates

     

    In other words, in the past week, ever since the Fed’s FOMC minutes which sent the S&P tumbling from 2100 to their lows in the overnight session, some 13% lower, the US economy underwent the functional equivalent of a 15 bps rate hike, or more than half the rate hike that the Fed has been so terrified to engage in for years.

    Here is Goldman’s explanation:

    A review of the economic literature on the monetary policy reaction to stock market changes suggests that a 10% decline in equity prices lowers the fed funds rate by 15bps at the next meeting compared with what it would otherwise be.

     

    [S]tock price changes have a larger effect on expected policy rates, particularly in high-volatility regimes. It is also notable that most of the studies that have examined multiple sample periods find that the Fed’s reaction to equity prices was stronger in the pre-Greenspan era and weaker more recently. Studies that exclude the 1987 stock market crash also find a weaker reaction function. Taken together, these lines of research suggest that if the reaction function that prevailed over the last few decades still holds, a 10% decline in stock prices should result in a fed funds rate about 15bps lower after the next meeting than it would otherwise be.

     

    As a rough check, we can also estimate the effect of the stock price decline on the output gap via wealth effects. Scaling household equity and mutual fund holdings as of the end of Q1 by returns since then, a 10% decline in stock prices would reduce household financial assets by approximately $1.9 trillion. In previous research, we have assumed that each dollar change in financial wealth impacts consumption by $0.02, suggesting that a 10% decline in equities should reduce consumption by about 0.2% of GDP. Running this effect through a conventional Taylor rule would suggest that a 10% decline in equity prices, assuming it does not reverse in the near-term, would call for a fed funds rate 10bps to 20bps lower (depending on the coefficient chosen on the output gap) or roughly the same as the effect implied by the median result shown in Exhibit 1.

    While one can debate the numbers, the above analysis reveals three things:

    1. A rate hike is never, ever positive for stocks, because if one does the presented analysis in reverse, all else equal, the tightening of financial conditions by 25 bps would have a comparable and negative impact on stocks (unclear if as big as a 10% correction although certainly possible) as the resulting implied tightening in conditions.
    2. The market effectively forced more than half a 25 bps interest rate increase in the past week, or about 15 bps to be precise, something which in addition to the much dreaded Fed hike of 25 bps would mean that the Fed is tightening much faster than it wants. In other words the market called the Fed’s bluff, and based on Dudley’s comment today, the Fed folded.
    3. If the market really wants to assure that there is no September, or December, rate hike, then it has to tumble by just the amount needed to assure a 25 bps tightening effect is implicitly achieved. Which means drop by 16.666%.

    The irony is that by soaring as much as it did, with the Dow recording its third biggest surge in history, the September rate hike is right back in play. In fact, should the S&P rise another 100-150 points, one can be absolutely certain that Yellen will do what he had planned to do before the recent global risk contagion.

    Which puts the market in a big quandary: keep buying, and assure the rate hike the will send it plunging, or tumble, avoid a rate hike, and then rise.

    The answer, for better or worse, is in the gallium arsenide hands of a few billion HFT momentum-igniting algos.

  • Why Deez Nuts Is Actually Critically Important For The Future Of The Country

    Submitted by Jake Anderson via TheAntiMedia.org,

    Last week, the nation shared a moment of levity when North Carolina officials reported that Deez Nuts, the satirical electoral creation of a 15-year-old teen from Iowa, received 9% of the vote in a new poll. The number placed him in third place behind Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump and ahead of GOP candidates Carly Fiorina, Mike Huckabee, and Scott Walker. Earlier polls had shown Deez Nuts garnering 8% in Minnesota and 7% in Iowa.

    Most Americans embraced the news as little more than a tongue-in-cheek verification of our collective malaise with the political establishment, an indictment of our deep unease and dissatisfaction with the frontrunners in the 2016 presidential election. Even when The Guardian declared that Deez Nuts was officially “the most successful independent candidate for president in two decades,” few deigned to describe it as anything approximating the start of a populist revolution.

    Still, one might argue that the success of 15-year-old Brady Olsen — aka Deez Nuts — from Wallingford, Iowa, embodies more than simply a successful lampooning of the American political system. There are legitimate reasons to view this development as the opening salvo in an upheaval of the way Americans elect presidents. Does this sound hyperbolic? Let me take it a step further: Deez Nuts is actually critically important for the future of the country… and here’s why:

    1. Politicians may be forced to acknowledge the failed system…and apologize

    The fanfare behind Deez Nuts will cause politicians to take a second look at their own campaigns. Why? First, they will be forced to answer questions about Deez Nuts. At first, they will shrug and laugh these questions off. However, it’s important to note that Deez Nuts polled at 9% with virtually no media coverage. Imagine what will happen when these numbers grow and there’s every reason to believe they will. Faith in government and the two-party system is at an all time low. There is widespread distrust in government agencies, institutions, and politicians’ ability or willingness to represent the people.

    Most importantly, on Friday, Public Policy Polling announced it will soon begin to include Deez Nuts in national polls. If his numbers stay steady at a national level, there’s good reason to believe candidates could be asked about him during the debates, especially if Jon Stewart moderates one. This will bring to the surface a readily acknowledged truth: the system has failed and it must be reformed. Such a widespread concession forces a reformist policy angle on every single candidate who wants to have a chance in the general election.

    2. He provides an outlet for disenfranchised non-voters to make a real statement

    American business magnate Russell Simmons recently endorsed Deez Nuts for President, tweeting out, “Ask not what deez nuts [sic] can do for you, instead ask yourself what you can do for deez nuts [sic].”

    Similarly, the Rent is Too Damn High Guy, Jimmy McMillan, has come out in support. McMillan explained his position:

    “Deez Nuts would be great because the children need to get involved. They need to tell these other candidates, these old men who are taking the country down the hell hole, that something needs to change. The youths are hurting — they can’t get jobs, they can’t buy a home — and these old people are doing nothing for them.”

    We may have never seen such popular excitement over a “sham candidate” before. The reason is because Deez Nuts is not a sham candidate. Brady Olsen has an actual agenda that he wants to push, which is primarily targeted at exposing the real sham: the two-party system in American politics. And Olsen has been strategic about his approach. When asked by Rolling Stone about Public Policy Polling’s use of his names in the polls, Olsen said he specifically wanted his name pitted “against low-pollers, like [Deez Nuts] vs Lindsey Graham vs Lincoln Chafee, to see how desperate voters would be in that situation.”

    Olsen is just as thoughtful when it comes to political calculations. While the teenager identifies as a libertarian, he admits his ideology falls somewhere between democratic socialist Bernie Sanders and Gary Johnson. This shows that Deez Nuts understands his position as an independent candidate with populist power, a reformist with the heart of a revolutionary.

    Disenfranchised voters are nothing new in 2015, but this time around there is a social media-emboldened central rallying cry that seems to be discernible and digestible across a wide platform of demographics and ideologies. The strength of the humor in his satirical foundation also helps to buoy Deez Nuts. Thanks to the Internet, particularly social media, the disillusioned snark of the masses has been catalyzed and, if properly organized and leveraged, could wield unprecedented power on mainstream politics and the heretofore unquestioned media narrative, which more and more people are realizing is crafted in collusion with the corporate-owned political establishment.

    3. Deez Nuts is a grass roots populist movement against the two-party system

    For most of his political career, Bernie Sanders registered as an Independent. In his run for president, he has capitulated to being a Democrat. Despite his revolutionary rhetoric, Sanders still plans to work within the two-party system. While it is telling that Bernie Sanders wasn’t even listed on the North Carolina poll where Deez Nuts received 9%, his success as a galvanizing populist isn’t entirely relevant anyway and certainly does not put him at odds with Deez Nuts. In other words, while it’s important that Sanders continues to rally voters, it is equally important that those same voters understand the importance of Deez Nuts and why Sanders is so restricted in the first place. It’s because, for all intents and purposes, Sanders is still considered a third party candidate, which is exactly the reason why the Deez Nuts is vital. Tellingly, Nuts has inspired a recent wave of similar joke presidential candidates, highlighting just how pervasive disillusionment with the electoral and political system has become.

    The Deez Nuts movement is a platform by which a wide variety of both voters and non-voters can critique the system in a way that is not only measurable, but deeply disruptive. However, it’s not particularly time-sensitive it could continue on for years, even decades, and will only grow with organization and sophistication. Eventually, a voter base that is simultaneously decentralized yet targeted toward one specific issue could present a major challenge to the two-party system, forcing networks to not only regularly allow third parties into all presidential debates, but to give them equal time and fair treatment. Whether Brady Olsen emerges to be a successful spokesman for this movement or not doesn’t even matter at this point. The power of Deez Nuts resides in it being a leaderless movement with one specific purpose: breaking the two-party system.

    4. Deez Nuts could force major mainstream concessions, such as an overturning of Citizens United

    With widespread popular support comes power. There is a very real sense in which a high-polling Nuts will translate into actionable reform to the system. For example, the jestful heart and soul of the movement itself is that the two-party system is broken, primarily because corporate money and crony capitalism have rendered representative democracy dysfunctional. One of the most cloying wrenches clogging our political system right now is the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling, by which Super Pacs and corporations have flooded elections with unprecedented amounts of campaign funds.

    Could the Deez Nuts candidacy force the establishment to readjust in order to avoid an outright collapse of the political system? If this were the case, the establishment might push a sacrificial concession out to the hungry masses in order to placate their anger. With the proper organization and coaching, Deez Nuts might be able to call for the head of Citizens United, which, incidentally, Bernie Sanders plans to decapitate if elected.

    5. Deconstruct scripted policy positions as anemic and not representing the people

    Perhaps the biggest cause behind the unlikely success of Deez Nuts is how transparent the failings of representative democracy have become in recent decades. Indeed, people are so desperate for honesty from a presidential candidate that herds of misguided voters are willing to tolerate the racist, sexist rants of  sociopathic plutocrat Donald Trump — just for a whiff of unscripted candor.

    In the current online viral landscape, in which Deez Nuts is in more demand on Google than Hillary Clinton, a 15-year-old teenage boy has tapped into the zeitgeist and now sits poised at the breaking point of an electorate so sick of anemic policy positions over substantive real talk, they would rather vote for a vulgar, nihilistic moniker than a career politician.

    Who knows? If the popularity grows to a certain point, perhaps it’s conceivable someone will organize a citizens’ debate at which Deez Nut could actually participate. While a 15-year-old is not going to be elected president any time soon, it’s not too difficult to imagine a push to see an informed, eloquent representative of youth the future of the country square off with the very oligarchical despots angling to rob him of his future through climate change inaction, economic collapse, and federally organized student loan theft.

    6. Even if you don’t vote, you can use Deez Nuts to grease the wheels of a symbolic movement

    There is an increasingly large contingent of intelligent American citizens who are philosophically opposed to voting, believing that it lends support to a irredeemably corrupt system that enables perpetual war, taxpayer funding of the military industrial complex, corporatocracy, destructive trade agreements like the TPP, and the racist Drug War that feeds the prison system.

    It’s hard to argue that non-voters are wrong in their vitriol against casting a ballot, though this author still retains belabored, agonized faith in an American revolution that will be aided by ushering malleable candidates into compromised positions of power.

    That is possibly the greatest asset of Deez Nuts: the character can be leveraged by both voters and non-voters towards the same purpose: exposing the ineptitude of the system and using a cultural meme to create a groundswell of public support against the two-party system, which is sometimes called a polyarchy, or “inverted totalitarianism.”  

    In other words, even if you don’t vote, support the Deez Nuts campaign. Taken further, is a vote for Deez Nuts really even a vote? There’s an argument to be made that voting for Deez Nuts is actually a vote for non-voting, as the person is trying to elect a straw candidate that can’t possibly hold office and is in fact a satire of the voting system itself.

    Am I using doublespeak? Let me rephrase the position: non-voters should champion the cause of Deez Nuts as an open mockery of the very system in which they refuse to vote. It is, in some respects, a vote for anarchy, for non-hierarchal symbols of subversion to authority. Vote or don’t vote, but Deez Nuts is the variable for which many agorists, anarchists, and socialists alike have been waiting: a tool of subversive satire that shows how late capitalist representative democracy does not work when the representatives are bought and sold by corporate auctioneers.

    7. It is culture jamming at the highest level

    A reappropriated billboard that reveals a truth about a corporation, a viral meme that takes a politician’s words and overlays them with a graphic to suggest the real meaning hidden underneath “culture jamming” is a verdant form of subversive activism.

    Rarely has there been an opportunity to culture jam at this level. Sure, you can protest and interrupt a speech, you can make a mashup video of the corporate-funded candidates eating their words, but not in recent history has there been a chance to culture jam an actual election by clogging its polls with an artificial candidate whose mere existence and name lampoons the entire system. Use this opportunity — wisely.

    And Deez Nuts, if you find yourself a bit confused or looking for direction, feel free to reach out: we’re good listeners.

  • Fiscally Irresponsible?

    “Can you believe how fiscally irresponsible ‘those’ other guys are?”

     

     

    Source: Investors.com

  • China Loses All Control: Arrests Journalist, Financial Executive Over Market Crash

    For two months, China has been on a quest to control both the stock market itself and the narrative around the stock market. 

    After an unwind in the CNY1 trillion back alley margin lending complex sparked a late June selloff, China cobbled together a plunge protection team run by China Securities Finance (an arm of CSRC) and began intervening in the market.

    That effort has cost an estimated CNY900 billion so far.

    On July 20, Caijing magazine suggested that CSF was setting up to scale back the market interventions which many believed had kept the SHCOMP from collapsing altogether. Here’s what happened next:

    That suggestion caused futures to slide in China and in short order, the “rumor” was denied by CSRC. Now, the reporter who penned that story has been arrested for, as Bloomberg put it earlier today, “spreading fake stock and futures trading information.”

    This comes on the heels of a move by Beijing earlier this week to suppress discussion of Monday’s market rout, which, along with the selloffs it triggered in bourses across the globe, was dubbed “Black Monday.”

    Of course this isn’t the first time – and it probably won’t be the last – that China has cracked down on the media for “subversive” coverage of financial markets. Early last month, Beijing reportedly banned the use of the phrases “equity disaster” and “rescue the market.” That said, throwing reporters in jail marks a new escalation in the war on financial reporters, or, as the managing editor of The South China Morning Post put it, “you already know it’s risky to be political journalists in China – Now financial reporter is risky job too.”

    But reporters weren’t the only ones getting arrested in China overnight in connection with the country’s stock market collapse. As we tipped on Tuesday evening, China has also arrested CITIC Securities Managing Director Xu Gang.

    Here’s his profile, via Bloomberg:

    Mr. Gang Xu serves as the Managing Director at CITIC Securities Company Limited. Mr. XU serves as Chairman of the brokerage development at CITIC Securities Co., and head of the research department with responsibility for brokerage business as well as research. Mr. Xu joined CITIC Group in 1998 and served as Senior Manager, Deputy General Manager and Executive Director in departments such as the asset management department, the financial products development team, the research department and the equity sales and trading department. Mr. Xu serves as Vice Chairman of Analysis Commission of SAC. Mr. Xu serves as Director of CITIC Wantong Securities Co., Ltd. He holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Planned Economics in 1991 from Renmin University of China, a Master’s Degree in Economics in 1996, and a Ph.D. in Political Economics in 2000 from Nankai University.

     


    And some context on CITIC’s market share:

     


    Details around the arrest are sparse, with Caixain saying only that the investigation revolves around “illegal trading,” and indeed, it’s certainly possible that Beijing is simply out to send a message by arresting a high profile investment banker for no reason at all. 

    That said, it’s worth noting that earlier this month, CITIC suspended its short selling business in an effort to “comply with urgent changes in exchange rules.” 

    So perhaps Mr. Gang Xu failed to fully “comply”, in the process becoming no better than a sinister foreign short-selling speculator.

    Or perhaps it’s much simpler than that. Perhaps he just sold something.

    And while US regulators aren’t big on throwing powerful bankers in jail, when it comes to censoring the media for spreading “false information” about markets and those who control them, America isn’t much better than China:

  • Why This Time Could Be Different

    Submitted by Lance Roberts via STA Wealth Management,

    In yesterday's post, I discussed the current correction within the context of previous "bull market" corrections. Specifically, the corrections in 1987, 1998, 2010 and 2011.

    However, today, I want to look at the current correction in the context of previous starts to "bear markets" and subsequent recessions.

    As I said previously, we never truly know for sure where we are within a given market cycle. This is why it is often fruitless to try and predict future outcomes as you will often be wrong more than right. However, by analyzing past market behavior we can often develop an understanding of what to expect so that appropriate, and timely, reactions can be made. 

    Currently, the "bulls" are "hopeful" that the worst is now behind us and that the meager rate of economic growth in the U.S. will be enough to sustain the bull market through at least the rest of this year. They could be right, particularly given support by the Federal Reserve of not hiking interest rates in September and potentially discussing more accommodative policy actions if needed. While it has certainly been beneficial over the last few years to give sway to the "bullish" view, it has historically been disastrous to become blinded by it.

    As I will discuss today, from both a fundamental and technical perspective, there is mounting evidence that this correction may not be just a "bump in the bullish road," but rather something more important. While I am not suggesting that we are about to enter into the next great "financial crisis," I am suggesting that investors carrying excess levels of portfolio risk may wind up being rather disappointed.

    Fundamentally Speaking

    Valuations

    As I stated yesterday, earnings growth is deteriorating, and valuation expansion has ceased. As I addressed in "Shiller's CAPE – Is There A Better Measure:"

    "The need to smooth earnings volatility is necessary to get a better understanding of what the underlying trend of valuations actually is. For investor's periods of 'valuation expansion' are where the bulk of the gains in the financial markets have been made over the last 114 years. History shows, that during periods of 'valuation compression' returns are much more muted and volatile.

     

    Therefore, in order to compensate for the potential 'duration mismatch' of a faster moving market environment, I recalculated the CAPE ratio using a 5-year average as shown in the chart below."

    PE-Ratio-5yr-CAPE-082515

    "There is a high correlation between the movements of the CAPE-5 and the S&P 500 index. However, you will notice that prior to 1950 the movements of valuations were more coincident with the overall index as price movement was a primary driver of the valuation metric. As earnings growth began to advance much more quickly post-1950, price movement became less of a dominating factor. Therefore, you can see that the CAPE-5 ratio began to lead overall price changes.

     

    As I stated in yesterday's missive, a key 'warning' for investors, since 1950, has been a decline in the CAPE-5 ratio which has tended to lead price declines in the overall market."

    Economic Growth

    Just recently the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) downwardly revised their always over-inflated economic forecast. (As an aside, this is the same organization that has never gotten any of their forecasts correct. In 2000, they projected a $1 Trillion budget surplus in 2010 versus a $1 Trillion deficit reality.)  To wit:

    "Federal budget analysts dropped their estimates for U.S. economic growth after another disappointing first quarter, extending a string of downward revisions to initial forecasts that have been a hallmark of the current expansion.

     

    U.S. gross domestic product is now expected to increase 2% this year, down from a January estimate of 2.9%, the Congressional Budget Office said on Tuesday. The report revised up slightly the GDP forecasts for 2016 to 3.1% from 2.9%, and for 2017 to 2.7% from 2.5%."

    Well, at least hope springs eternal at the CBO. 

    However, the importance of the downward revision to economic growth is market crashes combined with declining economic growth rates have historically marked the beginning of more substantial bear markets.

    SP500-GDP-Bull-Bear-082515

    Breakeven Inflation Rates

    In a strongly growing economy, that would support sustained earnings growth and higher valuations, expectations of rising inflation would be found. There is historically a strong link between inflation expectations and the S&P 500. That was until the start of QE-3 in December of 2012 which flooded the financial markets with liquidity sending asset prices surging without a subsequent pickup in economic growth.

    As shown in the chart below, the decline in inflation expectations suggests that the economy is running at a far slower pace than headline statistics suggest. As a consequence, the detachment of the financial markets from economic realities leaves investors at risk of a more substantial correction.

    Inflation-5-10yr-Breakevenrates-082615

    Technically Speaking

    From a technical viewpoint, the markets are currently behaving in a manner that has been more closely associated with the beginning of previous bear market declines.

    The chart below shows only two moving averages of the S&P 500 index. The short term two-week moving average is in blue as opposed to the one-year moving average in red. Historically, when these two moving averages have crossed it has been representative of a more severe market correction or bear market. This is with the exception of the 2011 correction which was halted by the intervention of the Federal Reserve's second round of quantitative easing.

    SP500-Technical-082615

    While the moving averages have not crossed as of yet, there WILL do so in the next few days. Very likely, the only thing that would stop a bigger correction from that point would be the onset of another Federal Reserve intervention.

    Momentum

    As I discussed previously in "Think Like A Bear, Invest Like A Bull:"

    "The effect of momentum is arguably one of the most pervasive forces in the financial markets. Throughout history, there are episodes where markets rise, or fall, further and faster than logic would dictate. However, this is the effect of the psychological, or behavioral, forces at work as "greed" and "fear" overtake logical analysis."

    Currently, momentum has clearly broken in the market as shown below. The break in momentum has not only been a good signal to reduce equity risk exposure during bull markets, but also a warning signal of impeding bear markets. 

    SP500-Technical-082615-1

    The Elephant In The Room

    From both and fundamental and technical viewpoint, there is mounting evidence that the current decline might just be sending a signal that there is more going on here than just an "overdue correction in a bull market." While it is too soon to know for sure, there seems to be little risk in being more conservative within portfolio allocations currently until the market environment clears.

    However, the proverbial "elephant" is margin debt. As I have stated previously:

    "While 'this time could certainly be different,' the reality is that leverage of this magnitude is 'gasoline waiting on a match.' When an event eventually occurs, that creates a rush to sell in the markets, the decline in prices will reach a point that triggers an initial round of margin calls. Since margin debt is a function of the value of the underlying "collateral," the forced sale of assets will reduce the value of the collateral further triggering further margin calls. Those margin calls will trigger more selling forcing more margin calls, so forth and so on.

    Notice in the chart that margin debt reductions begins innocently enough before accelerating sharply to the downside."

    Margin-Debt-082415

    No one knows for sure where how far the market needs to fall before "margin calls" are triggered. However, if that point is eventually reached, there will be very little investors can do to shield themselves from the decline.

    Yes, if you become more conservative now, you might just miss some of the recovery if the market can regain its bullish stance. Of course, it is relatively easy to re-enter the markets when the picture become clearer. However, those that refuse to accept the notion that it is possible the bull market just ended will once again see irreparable damage done to their retirement savings once again.

    While it is correct that given enough "time" the markets will eventually recover previous losses, the "time" lost to save, invest and grow funds to meet your retirement goals will not.

    Just something to think about.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News August 26, 2015

  • Meanwhile In Greece, Pension Funds Tap Emergency Loans

    This has not been a great year to be a pensioner in Greece. 

    Over the course of the country’s fraught bailout talks, Greece’s pension system was frequently in the troika’s crosshairs. As for PM Alexis Tsipras, pension cuts were generally considered to be a so-called “red line” and intractable disagreements over pension reform quite frequently resulted in the total breakdown of negotiations. 

    Meanwhile, the increasingly untenable financial situation and acute liquidity squeeze very often meant that payments to pensioners were in doubt, even as Athens went out of its way to assure the public that whatever funds were left in Greece’s depleted coffers would go to public sector employees before they would go to EU creditors or to Christine Lagarde. 

    The situation reached it’s “heartbreaking” low point on July 1 when Greek banks that had been shuttered after the institution of capital controls opened for a few hours to ration payments to long lines of pensioners who were forced to effectively beg for €120. 

    In theory, the bailout agreement – while promising more austerity and more pressure on the bloated pension system – should at least guarantee that there will be money in the banks to make monthly payments, but that assumption now looks to be in doubt because as Kathimerini reports, both IKA and ETAA are tapping a contingency fund that guarantees social security programs for fear that the provisions of the bailout will not provide for sufficient enough savings to fund the remainder of this year’s payouts. Here’s the story:

    Greece’s state insurance funds are resorting to external loans to cover their needs as fears grow that the measures of the third bailout will not be enough to cover the rest of 2015’s liquidity needs.

     

    The Unified Fund for the Self-Employed (ETAA) received funding from the Generational Solidarity Insurance Fund (AKAGE) to cover its legal and notary workers’ branch. A similar application for 180 million euros has been approved by the board of the country’s biggest insurance fund, the Social Insurance Institute (IKA).

     

    A ministerial decision by Labor Minister Giorgos Katrougalos and Alternate Finance Minister Dimitris Mardas foresees economic assistance to the tune of 20 million euros from AKAGE to ETAA to cover part of the latter’s deficit.

    Of the course the punchline to the idea that funds from AKAGE will be used “to cover part of ETAA’s deficit” is this:

    The deficit of AKAGE is expected to grow due to the dramatic increase in unemployment, political and economic uncertainty, capital controls, the measures of the third memorandum and the early elections, which are expected to impact on the revenues of insurance funds this autumn.

    So in short, the pension funds are broke as is the contingency fund meant to guarantee payouts from those funds. 

    So Greece, we truly do wish you the best of luck and as you head back to the polls next month, don’t forget, if things get really bad, you can always storm the mint

  • Denver Police Arrest "Jury Nullification" Activist For Passing Out Informational Pamphlets

    Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

    Screen Shot 2015-08-24 at 4.06.59 PM

    Most of you will be familiar with the concept of jury nullification. Unfortunately, the vast majority of Americans are not. This is precisely why Mark Iannicelli set up a “Jury Info” booth outside the Lindsay-Flanigan Courthouse in Denver. In a nutshell, jury nullification is the idea that jurors can “can ignore the law and follow their conscience when they believe the law would dictate a miscarriage of justice.” In other words, jurors have the right to judge the law as well as the facts. As you will see in the video at the end, this concept has centuries of precedence in these United States behind it.

    When you recognize the vast power that such a concept holds, you recognize why it would be so hated by statists and authoritarians across the land. That is precisely why Mr. Iannicelli was arrested and charged with handing out information.

    For a little background, read the following from the Denver Post:

    Denver prosecutors have charged a man with seven counts of jury tampering after they say he tried to influence jurors by passing out literature on jury nullification on Monday.

    Mark Iannicelli, 56, set up a small booth with a sign that said “Juror Info” in front of the city’s Lindsay-Flanigan Courthouse courthouse, prosecutors say. 

     

    The Denver District Attorney’s Office says Iannicelli provided jury nullification flyers to jury pool members.

    Jury nullification is when jurors believe a defendant is guilty of the charges but reject the law and return a not guilty verdict.

    In response to what appears to be a clear attack on freedom of speech, the Denver Post editorial board published an admirable defense of Mr. Iannicelli several weeks after his arrest. Here are a few excerpts:

    It is astonishing that Denver police would arrest someone for handing out political literature outside a courthouse.

     

    It’s even more astonishing that prosecutors would charge that person with seven felony counts of jury tampering.

     

    Now, fortunately,  civil rights attorney David Lane has filed a lawsuit in federal court on behalf of other jury nullification activists. They want an injunction to stop the city from violating their First Amendment rights should they too wish to pass out literature.

     

    They deserve to get one.

     

    Jury nullification is understandably controversial — and is especially resented by courts and prosecutors. It is the notion that jurors can ignore the law and follow their conscience when they believe the law would dictate a miscarriage of justice. But it is hardly a new concept.

     

    In the 19th century, Northern juries refused to convict abolitionists for harboring runaway slaves. In the 20th century, juries often balked at enforcing Prohibition and later, on occasion, at what they considered overly harsh drug laws or laws governing sexual behavior.

     

    Jury nullification had a darker strain, too, as Southern juries would sometimes refuse to convict white defendants guilty of racial violence.

     

    The point is that jury nullification is not some crank theory concocted out of the blue.

     

    As First Amendment scholar Eugene Volokh has written, “It’s clear that it’s not a crime for jurors to refuse to convict even when the jury instructions seem to call for a guilty verdict.”

     

    Those who believe the public needs to know about this possibility should have every right to publicize their views — even outside a courthouse.

     

    Their jury nullification literature, as it happens, merely offered general statements, such as, “Juror nullification is your right to refuse to enforce bad laws and bad prosecutions.”

     

    Four years ago, prosecutors in New York City charged a retired chemistry professor with jury tampering after he stood outside a federal courthouse handing out information on jury nullification. But Judge Kimba M. Wood of federal district court wouldn’t buy it. She ruled that prosecutors needed to show the protester meant to influence jurors in a specific case, and dismissed all charges.

    Denver officials should be held to no less of a standard.

    So where do things stand now?

    The good news is that Denver’s city attorney has come to the aid of the activists, setting up a fight between him and the district attorney. Once again, from the Denver Post:

    Denver’s city attorney has directed the police and sheriff’s department to stop arresting people passing out jury nullification literature in front of the courthouse.

     

    The order was revealed Friday in U.S. District Court during a hearing involving a lawsuit against the city and Denver police chief Robert White.

     

    The lawsuit was filed earlier this month on behalf of activists who want to distribute jury nullification information outside the Lindsey-Flanigan courthouse. They sued after two others who were handing out pamphlets were  charged with seven counts of jury tampering by District Attorney Mitch Morrissey.

     

    The lawsuit argues that the arrests are a violation of free speech rights and asks for a federal injunction against further arrests.

     

    The lawsuit also named Denver Chief Judge Michael Martinez, who on Thursday issued an order barring demonstrations, protests, distributing literature, proselytizing and other activities on the courthouse grounds.

     

    City Attorney Scott Martinez said his staff argued that the Denver judge’s order was overly broad. They also argued against arrests targeting people handing out jury nullification literature.

     

    The city attorney’s office also has taken a position that their actions do not violate state law.

     

    “We agree that the court house steps are a public forum and that people can pass out information, including pamphlets, in accordance with the First Amendment,” the city attorney said.

     

    The city attorney’s position is unusual in that it is siding with the very people who are suing the city. It also pits the city attorney’s office against the district attorney’s office, which filed criminal charges.

    Well done Mr. Martinez.

    If you want a little more info on jury nullification, check out the following video featuring a much younger Ron Paul:

     

    Part 2:

    *  *  *

    For related articles, see:

    The War on Free Speech – U.S. Department of Justice Subpoenas Reason.com Over Comment Section

    French Authorities Demonstrate Defense of Free Speech by Arresting 54 People for Free Speech

    Statists Declare War on Free Speech – College Students Banned from Handing Out Constitutions in Hawaii

  • Is Asia Set For Another Financial Crisis? Here's Goldman's Take

    As the emerging market meltdown accelerates, plunging half of EM equity bourses into bear market territory and wreaking unspeakable havoc on currencies from LatAm to Asia-Pac, analysts and commentators alike have scrambled to find historical analogs that can serve as a guidepost when assessing the damage and, more importantly, predicting where things go from here. 

    One historical episode that’s received quite a bit of attention in the wake of the yuan deval is the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997/1998 and indeed, FX strategists from across the bulge bracket have done their best to catalogue the similarities (e.g. low real rates, increasing debt, exogenous shock factor, commodity transmission mechanism, similarities between Japanese and Chinese REER appreciation in the lead up, etc.) and point out the differences. 

    For commentary from Morgan Stanley and BofAML, see “The Ghost Of 1997 Beckons, Can Asia Escape?.”

    Below, find excerpts from Goldman’s take.

    *  *  *

    From Goldman

    Asian FX weakness is stirring memories of the Asian Financial Crisis (AFC) and raising questions on how Asia’s fundamentals look now, compared with the mid-1990s. 

    Given that Asia’s current account positions are in much better shape now than the mid-1990s – and indeed since the ‘taper tantrum’ period in 2013, given the notable improvement in the current account deficits of India and Indonesia – focus is on the challenges to Asia’s external balances that may emerge from portfolio outflows. 

    Foreigners also hold substantial proportions of outstanding debt in some markets – around 40% in Malaysia and Indonesia. 

    Given the size of foreign holdings of Asian equity and debt, should foreigners reduce their portfolio holdings by 2-3% over the course of a month, it would broadly offset the region’s current account surpluses, leaving their external balances in a shakier position. During the ‘taper tantrum’ period, foreigners sold markedly more than 3% of their portfolio holdings through June and July 2013, highlighting the risk that portfolio outflows could cause further Asian currency weakness. The small current account deficits in India and Indonesia make their respective currencies most vulnerable. The high concentration of foreign holdings of Malaysian and Indonesian debt suggests that the MYR and IDR could be vulnerable to notable foreign selling of local currency debt.

    Recent Asian currency weakness has increased the focus on Asia’s external debt levels given that currency depreciation raises the cost of servicing the debt. Post the Global Financial Crisis (GFC), external debt has risen in India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and Taiwan, but has fallen in the Philippines and Korea. Malaysia has the highest level of external debt in the region at over 60% of GDP.

    External debt is above the levels recorded prior to the AFC in Malaysia, Taiwan and Korea, but below AFC levels elsewhere. Indeed, Malaysia’s external debt is equivalent to the peaks reached in Indonesia and the Philippines prior to the AFC.

    Across the region, foreign currency denominated debt makes up at least 50% of external debt, rising to close to 100% in the Philippines. However, maturity also matters: the level of short-term external debt is judged to be the most vulnerable part of external debt given that it may need to be rolled over in a period of market tension. Short-term external debt makes up around 50% of external debt in Malaysia and China, but less than one-third elsewhere. 

    The ability of a central bank to lean against FX volatility depends on whether or not the country in question has an adequate amount of FX reserves. FX reserves have fallen across the region due to valuation losses on the non-Dollar holdings and/or for intervention purposes. In some cases, this drop has been notable – by 31% in Malaysia, since the middle of 2013 and by 17% in Thailand since early 2011. Indonesian FX reserves have fallen by 7% since February. We examine the adequacy of Asia’s FX reserves on several typical metrics:

    Import cover is defined as the number of months imports can be sustained should all inflows cease. The IMF uses three months’ import coverage as the benchmark for reserves. FX reserves across Asia more than satisfy this criterion. Regional import coverage tends to be between 6 and 10 months, with a high of 22 months for China and a low of 6 months for Malaysia.

    The ratio of reserves to short-term debt: the most widely used metric for reserve adequacy is the Greenspan-Guidotti rule of 100% coverage of short-term debt. The rationale is that countries should have enough reserves to resist a significant withdrawal of short-term foreign capital. The level of Malaysia’s short-term debt is equivalent to the level of FX reserves. 

    The ratio of reserves to broad money is less frequently used a measure of adequate FX reserves. This metric is designed to capture the risk of capital flight, in particular outflows of deposits of domestic residents. The upper limit of a prudent range for reserve holdings is 20%. Reserves in China and Korea do not cover 20% of broad money (they only cover 18% of broad money), but everywhere else the coverage is well above 20%.

    Broadly, Asian FX reserves can be judged to be adequate, with the exception of Malaysia, where FX reserves now barely cover short-term debt.

    In comparison to their status prior to the Asian Financial Crisis, Asia’s fundamentals are (broadly) in better shape. Consequently, we are unlikely to see explosive FX weakness. But other factors are at play, including large debt overhangs in some countries, the sharp decline in commodity prices and political uncertainty in some countries. On the other side of the FX equation, we expect US Dollar strength to continue on the back of solid US growth and the prospect of Fed tightening in coming months. We therefore expect Asian currencies to continue to depreciate. 

  • China Devalues Yuan To Fresh 4-Year Lows, Arrests Top Securities Firm Exec As Stocks Slide Despite Rate Cuts

    Update: Chinese stocks are seeing no lift whatsoever from the rate cuts…

    CSI-300 is fading fast…

     

    And

    • *SHANGHAI COMPOSITE INDEX SLIDES 3.3%
    • *SUGA: HOPE CHINA RATE CUT WILL CONTRIBUTE TO CHINA GROWTH

     

    Confusion reigns at Bloomberg also… (look at URL – original title, and compared to title posted at 8pmET)…

    And now…

    h/t Beermunk

    As we detailed earlier:

    The Asia morning begins mixed in stock markets, The PBOC explains itself "this is not a shift in monetary policy," – except it is the first such set of measures since 2008, further deleveraging as China margin debt drops CNY1 Trillion from June peak to lowest since March, Regulators begin probing securities firms (and their malicious short sellers), Index futures trading fees will be raised and trading positions restricted. Stocks are limping only modestly higher (after the rate cuts) as Yuan is fixed at 6.4043 – the lowest since August 2011.

     

    Yuan fix weaker for 2nd day to new 4 year lows…

    • *CHINA SETS YUAN REFERENCE RATE AT 6.4043 AGAINST U.S. DOLLAR
    • *CHINA LOWERS YUAN FIXING TO WEAKEST SINCE AUG. 2011

     

    Before China opens, it's worth noting that all the post-China close, pre-China open exuberance from the PBOC multiple rate cut has been eviscerated…

     

    So The PBOC explains why it did something it hasn't done since 2008…

    • *PBOC'S MA SAYS RATE CUTS NOT A SHIFT OF MONETARY POLICY: XINHUA
    • *PBOC'S MA SAYS RATE CUTS TO KEEP MODERATE CREDIT GROWTH: XINHUA
    • *PBOC'S MA SAYS CHINA MONETARY POLICY REMAINS PRUDENT: XINHUA

    The rate cut did have some impact…

    • *CHINA ONE-YEAR IRS FALLS 7 BPS TO 2.47%
    • *CHINA ONE-YEAR IRS HEADS FOR BIGGEST DROP SINCE JUNE
    • *CHINA SEVEN-DAY REPO RATE DROPS 25 BPS TO 2.30%

    And stocks are only marginally higher..

    • *CHINA'S CSI 300 STOCK-INDEX FUTURES RISE 0.7% TO 2,852
    • *CHINA SHANGHAI COMPOSITE SET TO OPEN UP 0.5% TO 2,980.79

    And bearin mind that…

    • *ABOUT 17% OF MAINLAND STOCKS STILL HALTED FROM TRADING

    Some more good news as deleveraging continues… lowest since March 2015

    • *CHINA MARGIN TRADING DEBT DROPS 1 TRILLION YUAN FROM JUNE PEAK
    • *SHANGHAI MARGIN DEBT BALANCE HALVES FROM JUNE RECORD HIGH – Balance is lowest since Jan. 12

    But more restrictions are put in place:

    • CHINA TO RAISE TRANSACTION FEES ON STOCK INDEX FUTURES TRADING – EXCHANGE STATEMENT
    • CHINA TO RESTRICT TRADING POSITIONS IN STOCK INDEX FUTURES – EXCHANGE STATEMENT

    As things are not going well in the Communist intervention – so the probes begin (as ForexLive reports)

    The South China Morning Post report that four brokers say the CSRC is probing their business

    • Haitong Securities, GF Securities, Huatai Securities and Founder Securities
    • All made stock exchange statements that they had received notices from the China Securities Regulatory Commission
    • For suspected failure to review and verify clients' identities

    Along similar lines, Xinhua reported:

    • 8 people from Citic Securities were being investigated for  possible involvement in illegal securities trade
    • A staff member from Caijing magazine was also being probed for spreading rumours
    • A current and a former staff member at the CSRC  were also being investigated for suspected insider trading

    *  *  *

    This morning, as China wakes up…

     …And realizes that PBOC policy changes have not been working.  As BofAML explained,

    The combined rate and RRR cuts announced today, clearly targeted to boost A-share market sentiment in our view, may provide some temporary sentiment relief. However, we doubt that this represents the bottom of the market…

     

    It appears to us that the government has significantly reduced its direct purchase in the market in recent days and is now trying to replace the direct intervention with the softer, more market oriented, and indirect support. We doubt this will work beyond a few days. As a result, we recommend selling into any rebound. A few things worth highlighting:

    • Psychologically, the cuts may have some impact in the short term because they are the first combined interest rate and universal RRR cuts since Dec 2008, after a sharp market fall. Nevertheless, we doubt the impact will be significant as they are already the eighth cut to either rate or RRR since late 2014.
    • The key overhangs of the A-share market are stretched valuation and high leverage. It’s our view that the only way that the government can hold up the market is by being the buyer of last resort, i.e., the direct support that the government appears to be withdrawing
    • From real economy’s perspective, we doubt monetary loosening is the solution to China main problem – overcapacity/a lack of consumption, and leverage. All it does may be to encourage property speculation, likely using more leverage
    • If the government fails to defend the A-share market ultimately, the key risk we should watch out for is financial system instability.

    It's not just BofA that is not buying it… As Bloomberg reports, China’s latest cuts in RRR and interest rates will limited boost to stks, according to most analysts and economists. Move is mainly aimed at supporting economy, not starting another mkt rescue.

    DEUTSCHE BANK
    Move largely in-line with expectations, reaffirmed leadership’s policy priority is growth support: strategist Yuliang Chang
    Stk mkt appears oversold amid “jittery” sentiment
    Recommends investors buy H-shrs to position for macro improvement

     

    EVERBRIGHT SEC.
    Cuts should not be interpreted as beginning of fresh round of strong mkt rescue; move may help stabilize capital mkts though boost to stk mkt will be limited: chief economist Xu Gao
    Cuts won’t be able to reverse mkt trend; focus seen returning to macro fundamentals amid valuation bubble burst, deleveraging, pressure from exit of earlier rescue policies
    Need for govt to intervene in stk performance greatly reduced after decline in leveraged positions; stk mkt declines posing less threat to financial stability
    Mkt rescue policies exited steadily, though at slower pace

     

    GUOTAI JUNAN SEC.
    Cuts to improve overly pessimistic mkt sentiment, reduce possibility of further accelerated decline in mkt: analysts led by Qiao Yongyuan
    Shanghai Composite may trade in range 2,800-3,200 pts
    Sees relative gains in:
    Stks with high div.: transport, home appliances, auto, financials, property
    Low valuation with earnings support: food & beverage, power
    Beneficiaries of fiscal policies: rail transit

     

    JPMORGAN
    Cuts to bring temporary support for stk mkt; earlier correction in stks partly due to disappointment over later- than-expected RRR cut: chief China economist Zhu Haibin
    Absence of govt support during recent mkt declines indicate changes in intervention strategy, which is focused more on mkt mechanism restoration than maintaining index level

     

    MACQUARIE
    Central bank reacted to shore up confidence in stk mkt to stop panic: analysts led by Larry Hu

     

    UBS
    Cuts signal authorities’ determination of arresting passive tightening and safeguarding financial stability, should help boost sentiment in financial mkts: economists led by Wang Tao

     

    BNP PARIBAS
    Cuts look like response to panic selling in A-shr mkt, main aim is to support economy: analyst Judy Zhang
    Banks to be key beneficiaries of cuts as earnings more sensitive to asset quality improvement than NIM contraction
    H-shr-listed China banks present attractive risk/reward for long-term investors

     

    CICC
    Monetary easing good for valuation recovery in property stks: analysts led by Yu Zhang
    Strong momentum in property sales to continue into Sept., Oct. after reduction in mortgage repayment
    Buy CR Land, COLI on dips; sees >30% upside in H-shr property players

    *  *  *

    Putting China's demise into context – off the March 2009 lows…

     

    And here's a gentle reminder of who to listen to from now (or not!)…

    Charts: Bloomberg

  • "Biggest Rally Of 2015" Crashes Into Biggest Reversal Since Lehman

    Did you drink the Kool-Aid?

     

    It appears not everyone did… The first 6-day losing streak for the S&P 500 since July 2012…

    The S&P 500 has gapped up +3% and closed down on the day only once since the inception of the futures, 10/16/08 (h/t @sentimenttrader)

     

    Call that a bounce-back…?

     

    Across asset-classes the last 2 days have been 'eventful' to say the least…

     

    The Dow is down almost 700 points from the post-PBOC highs!!!

     

    Stocks bounced, half-heartedly… but Nasdaq was on target for its best day of the year… (and best since the first trading day of 2013's meltup) before they puked it all back in the last hour…

     

    Cash indices remain red on the week as once again Nasdaq was driven up to unchanged before the selling pressure resumed..

     

    While we are well aware of the 'hope' priced into this rebound, the actual gains from the China rate cut

     

    VIX was total chaos…

     

    None other than Eric Hunsader summed it all up perfectly…

    What was really driving stocks today was simple – USDJPY fun-durr-mentals…

     

    Utes were worst today (as rates soared) and Tech remains the winner on the week – though all S&P sectors are under water…

     

    Still financials did not look overly excited…

     

    Treasury yields were battered higher today – biggest rise in 10Y yields (13bps) since Feb 2015…the late-day selloff in stocks put a modest bid into bonds… We can't help but wonder if this move is rate-lock-buying ahead of panic-last-minute corporate issuance before rates go up in Spetember

     

    The US Dollar was bid as EUR weakened but JPY was critical…

     

    Commodities were mixed with crude and copper bouncing back in anticipation and comfort at the rate cut as PMs dumped as the USD levitated…

     

    Charts: Bloomberg

    Bonus Chart: We're Gonna Need Another Rate Cut…

    Bonus Bonus Chart: Is China really to blame?

     

    Bonus Bonus Bonus Chart: Trade Accordingly…

  • Saudi Arabia Paying American Lobbyists To Spread Anti-Iran Propaganda

    Submitted by Carey Wedler via TheAntiMedia.org,

    Though the Saudi Arabian government publicly declared its tentative support for the widely-praised Iran nuclear deal last month, new reports reveal it is secretly funding propaganda efforts to undermine it. A new group called the American Security Initiative has spent over $6 million on advertisements criticizing the deal — using money supplied by the Saudi monarchy.

    The president of the American Security Initiative Norm Coleman is a former Republican senator who now runs the lobbying firm, Hogan Lovells. He is a registered lobbyist for Saudi Arabia and his firm is on retainer for the Saudi monarchy at a rate of $60,000 per month.

    According to The Intercept, “In July 2014, Coleman described his work as ‘providing legal services to the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia’ on issues including ‘legal and policy developments involving Iran and limiting Iranian nuclear capability.’”

    Other founders of the American Security Initiative include former Senator Joe Lieberman ( a Democrat) and former Senator Saxby Chambliss (a Republican), who works at DLA Piper, yet another firm hired to lobby on behalf of the Saudi monarchy. Opposition to the deal enjoys bipartisan support.

    The lobbying effort has run commercials in nine states — Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Indiana, Maryland, Montana, North Dakota, Virginia, and West Virginia — and was initiated in partnership with a group called Veterans Against the Deal. One ad features a maimed Iraq War veteran who ominously warns that “Every politician who is involved in this will be held accountable. They will have blood on their hands.

    The Iran deal is set to be voted on in September, but the Saudi government has a vested interest in its failure. This is not only because of longstanding divides between Sunni and Shiite factions, but because relief from economic sanctions on Iran could increase Iran’s oil exports and threaten Saudi dominance of the market, which has already started to wane. Further, as The Intercept observed, “The crises in Syria and in Yemen have become proxy wars between the two nations as Saudi Arabia and Iran are playing an active role in fueling opposing sides in both conflicts.

    Last month, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter announced that the Saudi government had abandoned many of its apprehensions toward the deal, moving to endorse it. However, according to Reuters, an official from the Saudi government revealed that he behind the scenes, the deal is still very much scorned. “We have learned as Iran’s neighbors in the last 40 years that goodwill only led us to harvest sour grapes,” he said on the condition of anonymity.

    Though the Saudi monarchy has been widely criticized for its inhumane policies —including everything from brutal beheadings to life-threatening lashes inflicted on bloggers — the government continues to exert powerful influence over American leadership (according to Wikileaks, it has paid for media influence in other countries, as well). It rivals the Israeli lobby, which has also invested heavily in demonizing the Iran nuclear agreement. Last month, Israeli lobbying group AIPAC spent $20 million in 20 states to advertise against the agreement. Opposition to the deal comes even as the crux of the accord cripples Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

    The glaring, underlying irony of the deal is that three of its biggest opponents — a bipartisan assembly of American lawmakers, the Saudi monarchy, and the Israeli government — are a far greater threat to peace than the admittedly oppressive Iranian government. The lawmakers who oppose the deal are the same ones who advocate perpetual American war, which has killed countless innocent civilians. Saudi airstrikes against the Houthi insurgency in Yemen are repeatedly slaughtering civilians. Israel’s ongoing occupation of Palestine creates a steady stream of needless innocent deaths.

    In the face of the new revelations about Saudi manipulation of public perception surrounding the Iran deal, statements from the monarchy are now tinged with irony:

    Given that Iran is a neighbour, Saudi Arabia hopes to build with her better relations in all areas on the basis of good neighborliness and non-interference in internal affairs,” a Saudi official said last month.

  • CNBC: No Need For A Fork – It’s Done

    Submitted by Mark St. Cyr

    CNBC: No Need For A Fork – It’s Done

    Yesterday I wrote on what I considered a very strange development that took place on CNBC™ in regards to one of the morning shows where Jim Cramer produced, then read on-air, an email he received (and stated only he had) from Tim Cook of Apple™ about China’s health as far as he saw it. As I wrote yesterday this hit me in that “Wait, what?” type moment. So much so I instinctively hit the record button as to watch it later to make sure I truly did hear correctly. For the implications would be far from subtle. Why?

    Never mind whether it may have legal ramifications or not for the moment. What was said, how it was obtained, and exactly who knew what, when, and where struck me as an obvious “something just doesn’t seem right here.” No SEC or law degree needed. Just common sense.

    Add to this was also the timing. Right before the open where liquidity has shown to be at its most vulnerable (meaning lack there of) where it’s basically the window where HFT, headline reading algos feast upon stop runs and more clearing out what many consider the “order book” of the market every morning. This phenom has been detailed in near scholarly work by Eric Scott Hunsader at a company called Nanex™.

    So with this understanding; anyone with a modicum of insight as to what these “markets” have now become listened to this email exchange and could draw conclusions near immediately what would follow such a revelation. And sure enough it seemed to do exactly what one inferred as the market steamrolled back 1000 Dow points in what seemed mere minutes, with HFT’s gorging on any and all orders available. (It’s been reported yesterday was one of HFT’s most profitable days just for some context.)

    The issue? A lot (and I’ll wager to say – a whole lot) of the remaining Mom and Pop retail customers with their 401K’s that are still left in this market, if they weren’t steamrolled themselves, may have been scarred with orders they thought protected their stops, only to find the rules allowed those “stops” to turn into market orders (i.e., what ever someone wants to pay) and were filled at levels they never dreamed of selling or buying at.

    Some of these types of order fills have been reported to have transpired at cents on the dollar. (i.e., you wanted to sell at $1 to preserve your money and during the chaos – your order was filled and sold at .05 cents or vice versa) It’s said some of the egregious ones have been broken (e.g., cancelled) however, we can all imagine there are a far greater number that will not. i.e., you wanted to sell at $1 and it was filled at .35 cents as an example. I guess you would be asked to take solace in that – at least you did better than a nickel. Feel better?

    As I said yesterday I hadn’t watched a morning show on CNBC in years and have stated my reasons ad nauseam over those years. Yet, I would guess, just like you, with such turmoil currently taking place you may have also decided to flip over and see what two cents they might be adding to the discussion. So, like yesterday, I once again did just that: only to have all my past revelations reassured as to thwart any doubt that watching this channel is an absolute waste of time. And, in my opinion: does more harm than give insight into the markets for any of today’s very few retail investors. (One caveat: I do watch their Asia Squawk™ programming)

    When I tuned in I happened on what I thought was perfect timing because the guest was Joseph Saluzzi, partner/co-founder of Themis Trading™. There probably isn’t a person more abreast in everything HFT than Mr. Saluzzi. The other trait he has that’s desperately needed in today’s environment is: he can make the complexities of HFT and its effect on the markets understandable to the lay person. So with that in mind I thought what an opportunity to expand further insight into what I’m sure are many frightened retail investors as to understand what these “markets” have morphed into. For the topic was HFT, the sell-off, and liquidity.

    And what took place? Nothing more than irrelevant causational assumptions asked by one of the hosts. And, as Mr. Saluzzi tried to explain the why’s of the inherent dangers – he was either talked over (as in questioned) as if what he was saying wasn’t addressing the issue. Or worse – seemed to be dismissed in a tone or tenor of  “Thanks, for that info – we’ll let you know next time we need another 5 minutes of dead air to fill.” What a freakin’ shame is all that came to my mind.

    What an absolute missed opportunity to ask some real pointed questions in regards to what truly is making these markets, in my opinion; unstable.

    Here you had a person that could answer any question one needed enlightening on when it comes to HFT and liquidity issues, that can explain it in understandable sound bites that are informed as well as actionable – and they seemed not only to care less – but rather – cared more about how quickly the segment could be over. I guess HFT and liquidity isn’t news that needs to be reported with any depth or insight to its viewers. After all, maybe that is the case – no viewers.

    Or, maybe there’s another viewer. One especially suited, and Pavlovian in nature that feeds on the information that now is disseminated there: The HFT, algorithmic, headline reading machines themselves.

    After all, if Mom and Pop (what’s left of them) aren’t watching any longer as proved via their last Neilsen™ ratings (last as in they no longer report them.) then I guess you turn to the one viewer that desperately needs “headlines” to work with: The HFT cabal themselves. After all, who needs viewers when there’s a market moving mass of machines just waiting for the right headline to cross the network?

    The problem with this is two-fold. Whether it’s intentional or accidental. The more Mom and Pop tunes out – the less to feed on for the HFT’s till eventually there’s no one left to feed on except for themselves – and I believe you are witnessing in real-time this exact phenom which will be brought on not only quicker, but with more ferocity moving forward. For Mom and Pop are not coming back to either the “markets” or CNBC. They’re done.

    And just as an addendum to my article yesterday. It seems I wasn’t the only one who said “Wait, what?”  ZeroHedge™ asked the same question and posted it at about the same time I did in far greater detail. Then later in the evening I was sent a note sending me to the New York Times™. It seems the issues I raised are indeed worth questioning. From the article:

    Bill Singer, a regulatory lawyer, said he expected the S.E.C. to investigate the context of the email and provide guidelines as to whether companies can disclose financial information this way to selected news reporters.

     

    “I can see here that Cook is literally dancing on the edge of a razor,” he said. “At the end of the day it’s one of the largest companies in the world telling one reporter via a private email that our ongoing quarter is actually going to surprise people, and I consider that material.”

    As I stated then as I do now, it raises a lot of questions to exactly “who” is the target audience. Mom and Pop retail that were basically the bread and butter reasons for the channel and programming? Or, someone (or something) other?

    A reasonable question I’ll contend when one audience is still rushing to the exits as shown in any credible inflow/outflow analysis. While for all intents and purposes is also no longer considered “market moving” participants. While the other: moves the markets at whim for the select few still participating.

    I contend HFT already has a “captured” audience, and doesn’t need to pay advertising fees on-top of their subsequent co-location and other incidentals. They don’t need the lights, sets, and hosts on a near 24 hour basis to give them pragmatic “financial insights.” Yet, the very life blood that made these markets (the retail 401K holder) is exactly the one that does. And from what I witnessed, they’re not only not getting it, when they try one last time they understand – there’s none to be had and hit the off button realizing how much time they just wasted. Or worse: their money.

    Someone needs to remember “Last one out – please turn off the lights.” For inasmuch of what I witnessed today, using myself as an example. If this is what remains going forward? No one’s coming back.

  • The Latest Currency War Entrant: India Warns May Retaliate To Chinese Devaluation

    When China moved to devalue the yuan earlier this month, it was seen by virtually everyone for exactly what it was: a tacit admission that the country’s economy was in freefall and a desperate attempt to boost exports stinging from REER appreciation of more than 14% in just a little over twelve months. 

    Of course coming out and accusing China of entering the global currency wars for the sole purpose of supporting the export-driven economy isn’t something that’s politically correct and if you’re China, you want to deflect that criticism so naturally, there was plenty of polite talk about the need to allow the yuan to move in a more market determined way and that rhetoric squares nicely with China’s SDR inclusion hopes. 

    Ultimately though, trade competitiveness is now front and center in everyone’s minds, especially Asia ex-Japan nations who will now see their respective REERs appreciate even as the weaker yuan means demand from the mainland will be suppressed. 

    And while we’ve talked plenty about the impact on Asia-Pac and LatAm (especially Brazil, where the trade ministry immediately acknowledged the adverse effect of the yuan deval), we haven’t yet mentioned India where yesterday, in the midst of the turmoil, Central bank governor Raghuram Rajan sought to calm nervous markets by reassuring the world that India is not, for now anyway, in any danger thanks to ample FX reserves and a low CA. Here’s more from Reuters:

    Central bank governor Raghuram Rajan told a banking conference Asia’s third-largest economy was in a good position relative to other countries to withstand the current global markets volatility.

     

    “India is better placed compared to other countries with low current account deficit, and fiscal deficit discipline, moderate inflation, low short-term foreign currency liabilities, very sizeable base of forex reserves,” he said.

     

    “We will have no hesitation in using our reserves when appropriate to reduce volatility in the rupee.”

     

    The rupee fell to as low as 66.74 per dollar on Monday, its lowest since September 2013, as Asian markets reeled under fears of a China-led global economic slowdown.

     

    The 30-share Sensex dropped 5.94 percent, its biggest daily percentage fall since Jan. 7, 2009. The index fell to as low as 25,624.72 points at one point, its lowest intraday level since Aug. 11, 2014.

    Amusingly, Rajan also pledged to stick to a disciplined monetary policy noting that “rate cuts should not be seen as goodies that the RBI gives out stingily after much public pleading.”

    Be that as it may, economic realities are economic realities and a currency war is a currency war, which is why, we suppose, the Indian government’s chief economic advisor Arvind Subramanian thinks the country might just have to hit back. Here’s Bloomberg:

    India may need to respond to China’s monetary policy stance

     

    India’s exports to be hurt if global slowdown persists, ET Now television channel reports, citing Finance Minister’s Chief Economic Adviser Arvind Subramanian.

    Underscoring this is the following from Deutsche Bank:

    India’s export sector continues to be under pressure, with merchandise exports contracting yet again in July by 10.3%yoy. The weakness in India’s exports is striking (this is the eighth consecutive month of decline), not only in terms of past trend, but also from a cross country perspective. Indeed, India’s exports performance has been the weakest in the region thus far in 2015. In the first quarter of the current fiscal year (April-June’15), Indian exports have contracted by 17%yoy, one of the sharpest declines on record. The main reason for such a weak Indian export performance can be attributed to the sharp decline in oil exports (down 51%yoy between April-June’15), which constitute 18% of total exports. 


    Another factor that could likely explain the weak performance of exports is the probable overvaluation of the rupee. As per RBI’s 36-country trade based real effective exchange rate, rupee remains overvalued at this juncture and this could be impacting exports to some extent, in our view. 

     


     

    Currency competitiveness is an important factor in influencing exports performance, but global demand is even more important, in our view, to support exports momentum. As can be seen from the chart [below], global demand remains soft at this stage which continues to be a key hurdle for exports momentum to gain traction.

     

    And that, in turn, helps to explain this (from Citi):

    The likelihood of a rate cut at the RBI policy review on September 29 has risen given the downside surprise from July CPI inflation and the disinflationary impulse from the continued slide in commodity prices. But market pricing does not seem too far from that outcome. 1y ND-OIS is pricing in about 80% probability of a 25bp rate cut in September (and unchanged rates thereafter). 

    So while we wait to see if indeed India decides to return fire, the ECB isn’t biting. Or at least that’s the line from Vice President Vitor Constancio who, as MNI reports, “on Tuesday signalled that he saw no reason for the ECB to step up policy support, as it was too early to assess what impact economic turmoil in China and renewed oil prices declines would have on medium-term price stability.” 

    “It is really too early to understand the effect of what is happening, which is now being corrected. Markets are now correcting the initial overreaction to the events in China. [The] yuan devaluation is not a major factor” for the euro-area inflation outlook, Constancio continued. So while Europe may be putting on a brave face for the time being, if exports from the currency bloc’s economic growth engine (Germany) begin to take a hit from the weaker yuan, we shall see how calm the ECB remains.

  • Devaluation Stunner: China Has Dumped $100 Billion In Treasurys In The Past Two Weeks

    On August 11, China devalued its currency, and in the subsequent 3 days the onshore Yuan, the CNY, tumbled by some 4% against the dollar. Then, as if by magic, the CNY stabilized when China started intervening massively, only this time not through the fixing, but in the actual FX market.

    This means that while China has previously been dumping reserves as a matter of FX policy, after August 11 it was intervening directly in the FX market, with the intervention said to really pick up after the FOMC Minutes on August 19, the same day the market finally topped out, and has tumbled into a correction since then. The result was the same: massive FX reserve liquidations to defend the currency one way or the other.

    And yet something curious emerges when comparing the traditionally tight, and inverse, relationship between the S&P and the Treausry long-end: the drop in yields has not been anywhere near as profound as the tumble in stocks. In fact, the 30 Year is wider now than where it was the day China announced the Yuan devaluation.

    Why is that?

    We hinted at the answer on two occasions earlier (here and here) and yet the point is so critical, and was missed by virtually all readers, that it deserves to be repeated once again: as part of China’s devaluation and subsequent attempts to contain said devaluation, it has been purging foreign reserves at an epic pace. Said otherwise, China has sold an epic amount of Treasurys in the past two weeks.

    How epic? We turn it over to SocGen once again:

    The PBoC cut the RRR for all banks by 50bp and offered additional reductions for leasing companies (300bp) and rural banks (50bp). All these will take effect as of 6 September, and the total amount of liquidity injected will be close to CNY700bn, or $106bn based on today’s onshore exchange rate.  In perspective, the PBoC may have sold more official FX reserves than this amount since the currency regime change on 11 August.

    There you have it: in the past two weeks alone China has sold a gargantuan $106 (or more) billion in US paper just as a result of the change in the currency regime!

    But wait, there’s more: recall that one months ago we posted that “China’s Record Dumping Of US Treasuries Leaves Goldman Speechless” in which we reported that China has sold some $107 billion in Treasurys since the start of 2015.

    When we did that article, we too were quite shocked at that number. However, we – just like Goldman – are absolutely speechless to find out that China has sold as much in Treasurys in the past 2 weeks, over $100 billion, as it has sold in the entire first half of the year!

    In retrospect, it is absolutely amazing that the 10 and 30 Year Bonds have cratered considering the amount of concentrated selling by China.

    But the bigger question is how much more does China have left to sell, if this pace of outflows continues. Here is SocGen again:

    From an operational perspective, China’s FX reserves are estimated to be two-thirds made up of relatively liquid assets. According to TIC data, China held $1,271bn US treasuries end-June 2015, but treasury bills and notes accounted for only $3.1bn. The currency composition is said to be similar to the IMF’s COFER data: 2/3 USD, 1/5 EUR and 5% each of GBP and JPY. Given that EUR and JPY depreciation contributed the most to the RMB’s NEER appreciation in the past year, it is plausible that

    the PBoC may not limit its intervention to selling only USD-denominated assets.

     

    * * *

     

    China’s FX reserves are still 134% of the recommended level, or in other words, around $900bn (1/4 of total) and can be used for currency intervention without severely impacting China’s external position.

    Should the current pace of liquidity outflows continue, and require the dumping of $100 billion in FX reserves, read US Treasurys, every two weeks this means China has, oh, call it some 18 weeks of intervention left.

    What happens when China liquidates all of its Treasury holdings is anyone’s guess, and an even better question is will anyone else decide to join China as its sells US Treasurys at a never before seen pace, and best of all: will the Fed just sit there and watch as the biggest offshore holder of US Treasurys liquidates its entire inventory…

  • "It's Not The US Economy, It's Just Stocks Stupid!!"

    Well… Maybe it was the US economy all along?

     

     

    Just ask Jack Bouroudjian from 2,000 Points ago: August 19th – Chair Yellen, please take your victory lap…

    Remember, bull markets don’t end because the central bank starts to raise rates — they end when the central bank stops raising rates.

    Or maybe when the world realizes the entire rally is smoke an mirrors…

    Charts: Bloomberg

  • ReTuRN OF THe GRiM MaRKeT ReaPeR

    RETURN OF THE GRIM MARKET REAPER

     

    I looked, and behold, an ashen horse; and he who sat on it had the name Market Collapse; and Zero Hedge was following with him.

  • What Can the Fed Do to Hold Back the Crisis? Not Much.

    The financial system is in uncharted waters… and it's not clear that the Fed has a clue how to navigate them.

    A number of key data points suggest the US is entering another recession. These data points are:

    1)   The Empire Manufacturing Survey

    2)   Copper’s sharp drop in price

    3)   The Fed’s own GDPNow measure

    4)   The plunge in corporate revenues

    Why does this matter? After all, the US typically enters a recession every 5-7 years or so.

    This matters because interest rates are currently at zero. Never in history has the US entered a recession when rates were this low. And it spells serious trouble for the financial system going forward.

    Firstly, with rates at zero, the Fed has little to no ammo to combat a contraction. Some Central Banks have recently cut rates into negative territory. However, this is politically impossible in the US, particularly with an upcoming Presidential election.

    This ultimately leaves QE as the last tool in the Fed’s arsenal to address an economic contraction.

    However, at $4.5 trillion, the Fed’s balance sheet is already so monstrous that it has become a systemic risk in of itself. And the Fed knows this too… Janet Yellen, before she became Fed Chair, was worried about how the Fed could safely exit its positions back when its balance sheet was only $1.3 trillion during QE 1 in 2009.

    Moreover, it’s not clear that the Fed could launch another QE program at this point. For one thing there is that aforementioned upcoming Presidential election. Another QE program would just be fuel for the fire that is growing public anger with Washington’s meddling in the economy. And this would lead to greater scrutiny of the Fed and its decision making.

    Even if the Fed were to launch another QE program in the next 15 months, it’s not clear how much it would accomplish. A psychological shift has hit the markets in which investors’ faith in Central Bank policy is no longer sacrosanct.

    Consider China, where despite rampant money printing, the stock market has continued to implode, crashing to new lows. China’s Central Bank is pumping $29 billion into its stock markets per day.  This bought a few weeks of a bounce before Chinese stocks continued to collapse.

     

     

    In short, as we predicted, Central Banks will indeed be powerless to stop the next Crisis as it spreads. The Fed could potentially go “nuclear” with a massive QE program if the markets fall far enough, but this would only accelerate the pace at which investors lose confidence in Central Banks’ abilities to rein in the carnage.

    Smart investors should start preparing now. What happened on Monday was just a taste of what's coming…

    If you’ve yet to take action to prepare for the second round of the financial crisis, we offer a FREE investment report Financial Crisis "Round Two" Survival Guide that outlines easy, simple to follow strategies you can use to not only protect your portfolio from a market downturn, but actually produce profits.

    You can pick up a FREE copy if you …

    Click Here Now!

    Best Regards

    Graham Summers

    Chief Market Strategist

    Phoenix Capital Research

     

  • New UN Privacy Chief Proclaims – UK Digital Surveillance Is "Worse Than Orwell"

    Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

    Cannataci says we are dealing with a world even worse that anything Orwell could have foreseen. “It’s worse,” he said. “Because if you look at CCTV alone, at least Winston was able to go out in the countryside and go under a tree and expect there wouldn’t be any screen, as it was called. Whereas today there are many parts of the English countryside where there are more cameras than George Orwell could ever have imagined. So the situation in some cases is far worse already.

     

    – UN Privacy chief, Joseph Cannataci

    The UN special rapporteur on privacy, Joseph Cannataci, pulls no punches when it comes to privacy. It’s hard to disagree with what he has to say.

    From the Guardian:

    The first UN privacy chief has said the world needs a Geneva convention style law for the internet to safeguard data and combat the threat of massive clandestine digital surveillance.

    Speaking to the Guardian weeks after his appointment as the UN special rapporteur on privacy, Joseph Cannataci described British surveillance oversight as being “a joke”, and said the situation is worse than anything George Orwell could have foreseen.

     

    He added that he doesn’t use Facebook or Twitter, and said it was regrettable that vast numbers of people sign away their digital rights without thinking about it.

     

    One thing that is certainly going to come up in my mandate is the business model that large corporations are using

     

    “Some people were complaining because they couldn’t find me on Facebook. They couldn’t find me on Twitter. But since I believe in privacy, I’ve never felt the need for it,” Cannataci, a professor of technology law at University of Groningen in the Netherlands and head of the department of Information Policy & Governance at the University of Malta, said.

     

    Appointed after concern about surveillance and privacy following the Edward Snowden revelations, Cannataci agreed that his notion of a new universal law on surveillance could embarrass those who may not sign up to it. “Some people may not want to buy into it,” he acknowledged. “But you know, if one takes the attitude that some countries will not play ball, then, for example, the chemical weapons agreement would never have come about.”

     

    Cannataci came into his new post in July after a controversial spat involving the first-choice candidate, Katrin Nyman-Metcalf, who the Germans in particular thought might not be tough enough on the Americans.

     

    But for Cannataci – well-known for having a mind of his own – it is not America but Britain that he singles out as having the weakest oversight in the western world: “That is precisely one of the problems we have to tackle. That if your oversight mechanism’s a joke, and a rather bad joke at its citizens’ expense, for how long can you laugh it off as a joke?”

     

    However, Cannataci says we are dealing with a world even worse that anything Orwell could have foreseen. “It’s worse,” he said. “Because if you look at CCTV alone, at least Winston [Winston Smith in Orwell’s novel 1984] was able to go out in the countryside and go under a tree and expect there wouldn’t be any screen, as it was called. Whereas today there are many parts of the English countryside where there are more cameras than George Orwell could ever have imagined. So the situation in some cases is far worse already.

     

    “The way we handle it is going to be the difference. But Orwell foresaw a technology that was controlling. In our case we are looking at a technology that is ever-developing, and ever-developing possibly more sinister capabilities.” Because of this, the Snowden revelations were very important, he said.

     

    “We have a number of corporations that have set up a business model that is bringing in hundreds of thousands of millions of euros and dollars every year and they didn’t ask anybody’s permission. They didn’t go out and say: ‘Oh, we’d like to have a licensing law.’ No, they just went out and created a model where people’s data has become the new currency. And unfortunately, the vast bulk of people sign their rights away without knowing or thinking too much about it,” he said. 

    Now that we’ve got that out of the way…

    Yes, the UK is particularly bad when it comes to privacy, as has been noted on many occasions. See:

    Top Computer Security Expert Warns – David Cameron’s Plan to Ban Encryption Would “Destroy the Internet”

    The Mindset of UK Prime Minister David Cameron – It’s Not Enough to Follow the Law, You Must Love Big Brother

    Britain’s “War on Terror” Insanity Continues – David Cameron Declares War on Encryption

    “Minority Report”-esque Big Brother Billboards are Coming to England

    Press Rebellion in the UK – British Media Launches Protest Against Spying, as GCHQ Places Investigative Journalism in Same Category as Terrorism

  • Is China Quietly Targeting A 20% Devaluation?

    When China took the “surprising” (to anyone who was naive enough to think that the country’s economy isn’t in absolute free fall) step of resorting to a dramatic yuan devaluation on the heels of multiple ineffectual policy rate cuts, Beijing pitched the move as a “one-off” effort to erase a ~3% persistent dislocation in the market. 

    Seeing the effort for what it most certainly was – a tacit admission of underlying economic malaise and a last ditch effort to rescue the export-driven economy via an epic beggar thy neighbor along with the whole damn EM neighborhood competitive devaluation – analysts were quick to note that the PBoC may ultimately be targeting a 10% or more depreciation in order to provide a sufficient boost to exports. 

    Well, official protestations to the contrary, it appears as though even some Party agencies are assuming a much weaker yuan both over the near- and medium-term. Here’s Bloomberg:

    Some Chinese agencies involved in economic affairs have begun to assume in their research that the yuan will weaken to 7 to the dollar by the end of the year, said people familiar with the matter.

     

    The research further factors in the yuan falling to 8 to the dollar by the end of 2016, according to the people, who asked not to be identified because the studies haven’t been made public. 

     

    Those projections — which suggest a depreciation of more than 8 percent by Dec. 31 and about 20 percent by the end of 2016 — were adopted after the currency was devalued this month and compare with analysts’ forecasts for the yuan to reach 6.5 to the dollar by the end of this year.

     

    While the rate used in the research isn’t a government target, it suggests China may allow the yuan to fall further after a depreciation in which the currency was allowed to weaken by nearly three percent on Aug. 11 and 12. The yuan weakened for a second day in Shanghai to 6.4124.

     

    “It wouldn’t be totally unreasonable for China to allow a weakening like this,” said Zhou Hao, an economist at Commerzbank AG in Singapore, referring to the 7 level against the dollar at the end of this year. “A certain level of depreciation can be accepted according to China’s international payments situation, but it may bring unforeseeable pressure on foreign debt repayments and capital outflows.”

     

    The rate used in the research constitutes reference levels used for economic assessments and projections, according to the people. The PBOC didn’t respond to a fax seeking comment.

    A dollar-yuan rate of 7 would be a more than 8 percent depreciation from Tuesday’s level. At an Aug. 13 briefing on the yuan, PBOC Deputy Governor Yi Gang dismissed the idea that China would devalue the yuan by 10 percent to boost exports, calling it “nonsense.”

    Yes, “nonsense”, just like how Chinese QE “doesn’t exist” despite the fact that untold billions in stocks have been transferred from CSF to the sovereign wealth fund just so the PBoC can continue to insist that its balance sheet isn’t expanding. 

    In any event, a more dramatic devaluation may ultimately be necessary not only to boost exports, but to alleviate the necessity of interveing constantly to arrest the yuan’s slide. As BNP’s Mole Hau put it in a note out Monday, “what appears to have happened is that, whereas the daily fix was previously used to fix the spot rate, the PBoC now seemingly fixes the spot rate to determine the daily fix, [thus] the role of the market in determining the exchange rate has, if anything, been reduced in the short term.” Which explains why the FX reserve drain may well be continuing unabated causing the massive liquidity crunch that’s forced the PBoC to inject hundreds of billions of liquidity via reverse repos and ultimately forced today’s RRR cut. 

    Of couse as we said earlier today, “while global markets received China’s announcement with their typical ‘a central bank just came to our rescue’ exuberance, the reality is that as least today’s RRR cut will have zero impact on spurring aggregate demand, and is merely a delayed response to FX interventions that have already taken place [which means] for China to net ease, it will have to do more, much more [but] ironically, doing so, will merely accelerate the capital outflows as a result of the ongoing plunge in the CNY, which leads to the circular logic of China’s intervention … the more it intervenes in an attempt to stabilize every aspect of its economy and finance, the more it will have to intervene, until either it wins, or something snaps.”

    Ultimately, that “something” may end up being the daily yuan management effort because the intervention game is getting expensive and incremental easing will only make it more so.

    A free float may be the better option and if the passages excerpted above from Bloomberg are any indication, the yuan is going to be much, much lower by the end of next year one way or another. The only question is how much pain China incurs on the way there. We’ll close with the following quote from SocGen:

    If the PBoC wants to stabilise currency expectations for good, there are only two ways to achieve this: complete FX flexibility or zero FX flexibility. At present, the latter is also increasingly unviable, since the capital account is much more open. Therefore, the PBoC has merely to keep selling FX reserves until it lets go.

  • 1929 And Its Aftermath – A Contra-Keynesian View Of What Really Happened

    Submitted by Murray N. Rothbard via The Mises Institute,

    [First published in Inquiry, November 12, 1979.]

    A half-century ago, America — and then the world — was rocked by a mighty stock-market crash that soon turned into the steepest and longest-lasting depression of all time.

    It was not only the sharpness and depth of the depression that stunned the world and changed the face of modern history: it was the length, the chronic economic morass persisting throughout the 1930s, that caused intellectuals and the general public to despair of the market economy and the capitalist system.

    Previous depressions, no matter how sharp, generally lasted no more than a year or two. But now, for over a decade, poverty, unemployment, and hopelessness led millions to seek some new economic system that would cure the depression and avoid a repetition of it.

    Political solutions and panaceas differed. For some it was Marxian socialism — for others, one or another form of fascism. In the United States the accepted solution was a Keynesian mixed-economy or welfare-warfare state. Harvard was the focus of Keynesian economics in the United States, and Seymour Harris, a prominent Keynesian teaching there, titled one of his many books Saving American Capitalism. That title encapsulated the spirit of the New Deal reformers of the ’30s and ’40s. By the massive use of state power and government spending, capitalism was going to be saved from the challenges of communism and fascism.

    One common guiding assumption characterized the Keynesians, socialists, and fascists of the 1930s: that laissez-faire, free-market capitalism had been the touchstone of the US economy during the 1920s, and that this old-fashioned form of capitalism had manifestly failed us by generating, or at least allowing, the most catastrophic depression in history to strike at the United States and the entire Western world.

    Well, weren’t the 1920s, with their burgeoning optimism, their speculation, their enshrinement of big business in politics, their Republican dominance, their individualism, their hedonistic cultural decadence, weren’t these years indeed the heyday of laissez-faire? Certainly the decade looked that way to most observers, and hence it was natural that the free market should take the blame for the consequences of unbridled capitalism in 1929 and after.

    Unfortunately for the course of history, the common interpretation was dead wrong: there was very little laissez-faire capitalism in the 1920s. Indeed the opposite was true: significant parts of the economy were infused with proto–New Deal statism, a statism that plunged us into the Great Depression and prolonged this miasma for more than a decade.

    In the first place, everyone forgot that the Republicans had never been the laissez-faire party. On the contrary, it was the Democrats who had always championed free markets and minimal government, while the Republicans had crusaded for a protective tariff that would shield domestic industry from efficient competition, for huge land grants and other subsidies to railroads, and for inflation and cheap credit to stimulate purchasing power and apparent prosperity.

    It was the Republicans who championed paternalistic big government and the partnership of business and government while the Democrats sought free trade and free competition, denounced the tariff as the “mother of trusts,” and argued for the gold standard and the separation of government and banking as the only way to guard against inflation and the destruction of people’s savings. At least that was the policy of the Democrats before Bryan and Wilson at the start of the 20th century, when the party shifted to a position not very far from its ancient Republican rivals.

    The Republicans never shifted, and their reign in the 1920s brought the federal government to its greatest intensity of peacetime spending and hiked the tariff to new, stratospheric levels. A minority of old-fashioned “Cleveland” Democrats continued to hammer away at Republican extravagance and big government during the Coolidge and Hoover eras. Those included Governor Albert Ritchie of Maryland, Senator James Reed of Missouri, and former Solicitor General James M. Beck, who wrote two characteristic books in this era: The Vanishing Rights of the States and Our Wonderland of Bureaucracy.

    But most important in terms of the depression was the new statism that the Republicans, following on the Wilson administration, brought to the vital but arcane field of money and banking. How many Americans know or care anything about banking? Yet it was in this neglected but crucial area that the seeds of 1929 were sown and cultivated by the American government.

    The United States was the last major country to enjoy, or be saddled with, a central bank. All the major European countries had adopted central banks during the 18th and 19th centuries, which enabled governments to control and dominate commercial banks, to bail out banking firms whenever they got into trouble, and to inflate money and credit in ways controlled and regulated by the government. Only the United States, as a result of Democratic agitation during the Jacksonian era, had had the courage to extend the doctrine of classical liberalism to the banking system, thereby separating government from money and banking.

    Having deposed the central bank in the 1830s, the United States enjoyed a freely competitive banking system — and hence a relatively “hard” and noninflated money — until the Civil War. During that catastrophe, the Republicans used their one-party dominance to push through their interventionist economic program. It included a protective tariff and land grants to railroads, as well as inflationary paper money and a “national banking system” that in effect crippled state-chartered banks and paved the way for the later central bank.

    The United States adopted its central bank, the Federal Reserve System, in 1913, backed by a consensus of Democrats and Republicans. This virtual nationalization of the banking system was unopposed by the big banks; in fact, Wall Street and the other large banks had actively sought such a central system for many years. The result was the cartelization of banking under federal control, with the government standing ready to bail out banks in trouble, and also ready to inflate money and credit to whatever extent the banks felt was necessary.

    Without a functioning Federal Reserve System available to inflate the money supply, the United States could not have financed its participation in World War I: that war was fueled by heavy government deficits and by the creation of new money to pay for swollen federal expenditures.

    One point is undisputed: the autocratic ruler of the Federal Reserve System, from its inception in 1914 to his death in 1928, was Benjamin Strong, a New York banker who had been named governor of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Strong consistently and repeatedly used his power to force an inflationary increase of money and bank credit in the American economy, thereby driving prices higher than they would have been and stimulating disastrous booms in the stock and real-estate markets. In 1927, Strong gaily told a French central banker that he was going to give “a little coup de whiskey to the stock market.” What was the point? Why did Strong pursue a policy that now can seem only heedless, dangerous, and recklessly extravagant?

    Once the government has assumed absolute control of the money-creating machinery in society, it benefits — as would any other group — by using that power. Anyone would benefit, at least in the short run, by printing or creating new money for his own use or for the use of his economic or political allies.

    Strong had several motives for supporting an inflationary boom in the 1920s. One was to stimulate foreign loans and foreign exports. The Republican party was committed to a policy of partnership of government and industry, and to subsidizing domestic and export firms. A protective tariff aided inefficient domestic producers by keeping out foreign competition. But if foreigners were shut out of our markets, how in the world were they going to buy our exports? The Republican administration thought it had solved this dilemma by stimulating American loans to foreigners so that they could buy our products.

    A fine solution in the short run, but how were these loans to be kept up, and, more important, how were they to be repaid? The banking community was also confronted with the curious and ultimately self-defeating policy of preventing foreigners from selling us their products, and then lending them the money to keep buying ours. Benjamin Strong’s inflationary policy meant repeated doses of cheap credit to stimulate this foreign lending. It should also be noted that this policy subsidized American investment banks in making foreign loans.

    Among the exports stimulated by cheap credit and foreign loans were farm products. American agriculture, overstimulated by the swollen demands of warring European nations during World War I, was a chronically sick industry during the 1920s. It had awakened after the resumption of peace to find that farm prices had fallen and that European demand was down. Rather than adjusting to postwar realities, however, American farmers preferred to organize and agitate to force taxpayers and consumers to keep them in the style to which they had become accustomed during the palmy “parity” years of the war. One way for the federal government to bow to this political pressure was to stimulate foreign loans and hence to encourage foreign purchases of American farm products.

    The “farm bloc,” it should be noted, included not only farmers; more indirect and considerably less rustic interests were also busily at work. The postwar farm bloc gained strong support from George N. Peek and General Hugh S. Johnson; both, later prominent in the New Deal, were heads of the Moline Plow Company, a major manufacturer of farm machinery that stood to benefit handsomely from government subsidies to farmers. When Herbert Hoover, in one of his first acts as president — considerably before the crash — established the Federal Farm Board to raise farm prices, he installed as head of the FFB Alexander Legge, chairman of International Harvester, the nation’s leading producer of farm machinery. Such was the Republican devotion to “laissez faire.”

    But a more indirect and ultimately more important motivation for Benjamin Strong’s inflationary credit policies in the 1920s was his view that it was vitally important to “help England,” even at American expense. Thus, in the spring of 1928, his assistant noted Strong’s displeasure at the American public’s outcry against the “speculative excesses” of the stock market.

    The public didn’t realize, Strong thought, that “we were now paying the penalty for the decision which was reached early in 1924 to help the rest of the world back to a sound financial and monetary basis.” An unexceptionable statement, provided that we clear up some euphemisms. For the “decision” was taken by Strong in camera, without the knowledge or participation of the American people; the decision was to inflate money and credit, and it was done not to help the “rest of the world” but to help sustain Britain’s unsound and inflationary policies.

    Before the World War, all the major nations were on the gold standard, which meant that the various currencies — the dollar, pound, mark, franc, etc. — were redeemable in fixed weights of gold. This gold requirement ensured that governments were strictly limited in the amount of scrip they could print and pour into circulation, whether by spending to finance government deficits or by lending to favored economic or political groups. Consequently, inflation had been kept in check throughout the 19th century when this system was in force.

    But world war ruptured all that, just as it destroyed so many other aspects of the classical-liberal polity. The major warring powers spent heavily on the war effort, creating new money in bushel baskets to pay the expense. Inflation was consequently rampant during and after World War I and, since there were far more pounds, marks, and francs in circulation than could possibly be redeemed in gold, the warring countries were forced to go off the gold standard and to fall back on paper currencies — all, that is, except for the United States, which was embroiled in the war for a relatively short time and could therefore afford to remain on the gold standard.

    After the war, the nations faced a world currency breakdown with rampant inflation and chaotically falling exchange rates. What was to be done? There was a general consensus on the need to go back to gold, and thereby to eliminate inflation and frantically fluctuating exchange rates. But how to go back? That is, what should be the relations between gold and the various currencies?

    Specifically, Britain had been the world’s financial center for a century before the war, and the British pound and the dollar had been fixed all that time in terms of gold so that the pound would always be worth $4.86. But during and after the war the pound had been inflated relatively far more than the dollar, and thus had fallen to about $3.50 on the foreign-exchange market. But Britain was adamant about returning the pound, not to the realistic level of $3.50, but rather to the old prewar par of $4.86.

    Why the stubborn insistence on going back to gold at the obsolete prewar par? Part of the reason was a stubborn and mindless concentration on saving face and British honor, on showing that the old lion was just as strong and tough as before the war. Partly, it was a shrewd realization by British bankers that if the pound were devalued from prewar levels England would lose its financial preeminence, perhaps to the United States, which had been able to retain its gold status.

    So, under the spell of its bankers, England made the fateful decision to go back to gold at $4.86. But this meant that Britain’s exports were now made artificially expensive and its imports cheaper, and since England lived by selling coal, textiles, and other products, while importing food, the resulting chronic depression in its export industries had serious consequences for the British economy. Unemployment remained high in Britain, especially in its export industries, throughout the boom of the 1920s.

    To make this leap backward to $4.86 viable, Britain would have had to deflate its economy so as to bring about lower prices and wages and make its exports once again inexpensive abroad. But it wasn’t willing to deflate since that would have meant a bitter confrontation with Britain’s now-powerful unions. Ever since the imposition of an extensive unemployment-insurance system, wages in Britain were no longer flexible downward as they had been before the war. In fact, rather than deflate, the British government wanted the freedom to keep inflating, in order to raise prices, do an end run around union wage rates, and ensure cheap credit for business.

    The British authorities had boxed themselves in: They insisted on several axioms. One was to go back to gold at the old prewar par of $4.86. This would have made deflation necessary, except that a second axiom was that the British continue to pursue a cheap credit, inflationary policy rather than deflation. How to square the circle? What the British tried was political pressure and arm-twisting on other countries, to try to induce or force them to inflate too. If other countries would also inflate, the pound would remain stable in relation to other currencies; Britain would not keep losing gold to other nations, which endangered its own jerry-built monetary structure.

    On the defeated and small new countries of Europe, Britain’s pressure was notably successful. Using their dominance in the League of Nations and especially in its Financial Committee, the British forced country after country not only to return to gold, but to do so at overvalued rates, thereby endangering those nations’ exports and stimulating imports from Britain. And the British also flummoxed these countries into adopting a new form of gold “exchange” standard, in which they kept their reserves not in gold, as before, but in sterling balances in London.

    In this way, the British could continue to inflate; and pounds, instead of being redeemed in gold, were used by other countries as reserves on which to pyramid their own paper inflation. The only stubborn resistance to the new order came from France, which had a hard-money policy into the late 1920s. It was French resistance to the new British monetary order that was ultimately fatal to the house of cards the British attempted to construct in the 1920s.

    The United States was a different situation altogether. Britain could not coerce the United States into inflating in order to save the misbegotten pound, but it could cajole and persuade. In particular, it had a staunch ally in Benjamin Strong, who could always be relied on to be a willing servitor of British interests. By repeatedly agreeing to inflate the dollar at British urging, Benjamin Strong won the plaudits of the British financial press as the best friend of Great Britain since Ambassador Walter Hines Page, who had played a key role in inducing the United States to enter the war on the British side.

    Why did Strong do it? We know that he formed a close friendship with British financial autocrat Montagu Norman, longtime head of the Bank of England. Norman would make secret visits to the United States, checking in at a Saratoga Springs resort under an assumed name, and Strong would join him there for the weekend, also incognito, there to agree on yet another inflationary coup de whiskey to the market.

    Surely this Strong–Norman tie was crucial, but what was its basic nature? Some writers have improbably speculated on a homosexual liaison to explain the otherwise mysterious subservience of Strong to Norman’s wishes. But there was another, and more concrete and provable, tie that bound these two financial autocrats together.

    That tie involved the Morgan banking interests. Benjamin Strong had lived his life in the Morgan ambit. Before being named head of the Federal Reserve, Strong had risen to head of the Bankers Trust Company, a creature of the Morgan bank. When asked to be head of the Fed, he was persuaded to take the job by two of his best friends, Henry P. Davison and Dwight Morrow, both partners of J.P. Morgan & Co.

    The Federal Reserve System arrived at a good time for the Morgans. It was needed to finance America’s participation in World War I, a participation strongly supported by the Morgans, who played a major role in bringing the Wilson administration into the war. The Morgans, heavily invested in rail securities, had been caught short by the boom in industrial stocks that emerged at the turn of the century. Consequently, much of their position in investment-banking was being eroded by Kuhn, Loeb & Co., which had been faster off the mark on investment in industrial securities.

    World War I meant economic boom or collapse for the Morgans. The House of Morgan was the fiscal agent for the Bank of England: it had the underwriting concession for all sales of British and French bonds in the United States during the war, and it helped finance US arms and munitions sales to Britain and France. The House of Morgan had a very heavy investment in an Anglo-French victory and a German-Austrian defeat. Kuhn, Loeb, on the other hand, was pro-German, and therefore was tied more to the fate of the Central Powers.

    The cement binding Strong and Norman was the Morgan connection. Not only was the House of Morgan intimately wrapped up in British finance, but Norman himself — as well as his grandfather — in earlier days had worked in New York for the powerful investment banking firm of Brown Brothers, and hence had developed close personal ties with the New York banking community. For Benjamin Strong, helping Britain meant helping the House of Morgan to shore up the internally contradictory monetary structure it had constructed for the postwar world.

    The result was inflationary credit, a speculative boom that could not last, and the Great Crash whose 50th anniversary we observe this year. After Strong’s death in late 1928, the new Federal Reserve authorities, while confused on many issues, were no longer consistent servitors of Britain and the Morgans. The deliberate and consistent policy of inflation came to an end, and a corrective depression soon arrived.

    There are two mysteries about the Great Depression, mysteries having two separate and distinct solutions. One is, why the crash? Why the sudden crash and depression in the midst of boom and seemingly permanent prosperity? We have seen the answer: inflationary credit expansion propelled by the Federal Reserve System in the service of various motives, including helping Britain and the House of Morgan.

    But there is another vital and very different problem. Given the crash, why did the recovery take so long? Usually, when a crash or financial panic strikes, the economic and financial depression, be it slight or severe, is over in a few months or a year or two at the most. After that, economic recovery will have arrived. The crucial difference between earlier depressions and that of 1929 was that the 1929 crash became chronic and seemed permanent.

    What is seldom realized is that depressions, despite their evident hardship on so many, perform an important corrective function. They serve to eliminate the distortions introduced into the economy by an inflationary boom. When the boom is over, the many distortions that have entered the system become clear: prices and wage rates have been driven too high, and much unsound investment has taken place, particularly in capital-goods industries.

    The recession or depression serves to lower the swollen prices and to liquidate the unsound and uneconomic investments; it directs resources into those areas and industries that will most-effectively serve consumer demands — and were not allowed to do so during the artificial boom. Workers previously misdirected into uneconomic production, unstable at best, will, as the economy corrects itself, end up in more secure and productive employment.

    The recession must be allowed to perform its work of liquidation and restoration as quickly as possible, so that the economy can be allowed to recover from boom and depression and get back to a healthy footing. Before 1929, this hands-off policy was precisely what all US governments had followed, and hence depressions, however sharp, would disappear after a year or so.

    But when the Great Crash hit, America had recently elected a new kind of president. Until the past decade, historians have regarded Herbert Clark Hoover as the last of the laissez-faire presidents. Instead, he was the first New Dealer.

    Hoover had his bipartisan aura, and was devoted to corporatist cartelization under the aegis of big government; indeed, he originated the New Deal farm-price-support program. His New Deal specifically centered on his program for fighting depressions. Before he assumed office, Hoover determined that should a depression strike during his term of office, he would use the massive powers of the federal government to combat it. No more would the government, as in the past, pursue a hands-off policy.

    As Hoover himself recalled the crash and its aftermath,

    The primary question at once arose as to whether the President and the federal government should undertake to investigate and remedy the evils. … No President before had ever believed that there was a governmental responsibility in such cases. … Presidents steadfastly had maintained that the federal government was apart from such eruptions … therefore, we had to pioneer a new field.

    In his acceptance speech for the presidential renomination in 1932, Herbert Hoover summed it up:

    We might have done nothing. … Instead, we met the situation with proposals to private business and to Congress of the most gigantic program of economic defense and counterattack ever evolved in the history of the Republic. We put it into action. … No government in Washington has hitherto considered that it held so broad a responsibility for leadership in such times.

    The massive Hoover program was, indeed, a characteristically New Deal one: vigorous action to keep up wage rates and prices, to expand public works and government deficits, to lend money to failing businesses to try to keep them afloat, and to inflate the supply of money and credit to try to stimulate purchasing power and recovery. Herbert Hoover during the 1920s had pioneered the proto-Keynesian idea that high wages are necessary to assure sufficient purchasing power and a healthy economy. The notion led him to artificially raising wages — and consequently to aggravating the unemployment problem — during the depression.

    As soon as the stock market crashed, Hoover called in all the leading industrialists in the country for a series of White House conferences in which he successfully bludgeoned the industrialists, under the threat of coercive government action, into propping up wage rates — and hence causing massive unemployment — while prices were falling sharply. After Hoover’s term, Franklin D. Roosevelt simply continued and expanded Hoover’s policies across the board, adding considerably more coercion along the way. Between them, the two New Deal presidents managed the unprecedented feat of making the depression last a decade, until we were lifted out of it by our entry into World War II.

    If Benjamin Strong got us into a depression and Herbert Hoover and Franklin D. Roosevelt kept us in it, what was the role in all this of the nation’s economists, watchdogs of our economic health? Unsurprisingly, most economists, during the depression and ever since, have been much more part of the problem than of the solution. During the 1920s, establishment economists, led by Professor Irving Fisher of Yale, hailed the 20s as the start of a “New Era,” one in which the new Federal Reserve System would ensure permanently stable prices, avoiding either booms or busts.

    Unfortunately, the Fisherites, in their quest for stability, failed to realize that the trend of the free and unhampered market is always toward lower prices as productivity rises and mass markets develop for particular products. Keeping the price level stable in an era of rising productivity, as in the 1920s, requires a massive artificial expansion of money and credit. Focusing only on wholesale prices, Strong and the economists of the 1920s were willing to engender artificial booms in real estate and stocks, as well as malinvestments in capital goods, so long as the wholesale price level remained constant.

    As a result, Irving Fisher and the leading economists of the 1920s failed to recognize that a dangerous inflationary boom was taking place. When the crash came, Fisher and his disciples of the Chicago School again pinned the blame on the wrong culprit. Instead of realizing that the depression process should be left alone to work itself out as rapidly as possible, Fisher and his colleagues laid the blame on the deflation after the crash and demanded a reinflation (or “reflation”) back to 1929 levels.

    In this way, even before Keynes, the leading economists of the day managed to miss the problem of inflation and cheap credit and to demand policies that only prolonged the depression and made it worse. After all, Keynesianism did not spring forth full-blown with the publication of Keynes’s General Theory in 1936.

    We are still pursuing the policies of the 1920s that led to eventual disaster. The Federal Reserve is still inflating the money supply and inflates it even further with the merest hint that a recession is in the offing. The Fed is still trying to fuel a perpetual boom while avoiding a correction on the one hand or a great deal of inflation on the other.

    In a sense, things have gotten worse. For while the hard-money economists of the 1920s and 1930s wished to retain and tighten up the gold standard, the “hard-money” monetarists of today scorn gold, are happy to rely on paper currency, and feel that they are boldly courageous for proposing not to stop the inflation of money altogether, but to limit the expansion to a supposedly fixed amount.

    Those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it — except that now, with gold abandoned and each nation able to print currency ad lib, we are likely to wind up, not with a repeat of 1929, but with something far worse: the holocaust of runaway inflation that ravaged Germany in 1923 and many other countries during World War II. To avoid such a catastrophe we must have the resolve and the will to cease the inflationary expansion of credit, and to force the Federal Reserve System to stop purchasing assets, and thereby to stop its continued generation of chronic, accelerating inflation.

  • So This Is Why The "Smart Money" Was Selling The Most Stocks In History

    Precisely two months ago, we reported something very troubling, namely that “The “Smart Money” Just Sold The Most Stocks In History.” This is what BofA reported at the time: “BofAML clients were big net sellers of US stocks in the amount of $4.1bn, following four weeks of net buying. Net sales were the largest since January 2008 and led by institutional clients—after three weeks of net buying, institutional clients’ net sales last week were the largest in our data history.”

     

    Just to make sure the message was heard loud and clear we followed up ten days later with “The “Smartest Money” Is Liquidating Stocks At A Record Pace: “Selling Everything That’s Not Bolted Down

    We got definitive confirmation that the truly “smartest money in the room”, those who dabble not in the bipolar public markets but in private equity had indeed started “selling everything that is not nailed down” several years ago hitting a climax this past quarter, when Bloomberg reported that two years after Leon Black’s infamous statement, “other private-equity firms are following suit – dumping stakes into the markets at a record clip.”

     

    According to Bloomberg data, firms including Blackstone Group and TPG have been “capitalizing on record stock markets around the world to sell shares, mostly in their companies that have already gone public. Globally, buyout firms conducted 97 stock offerings in the second quarter, more than in any other three-month period.”

    What happened next should not have been a surprise to our readers: as we reported shortly thereafter, the divergence between the “smart money flow” and the S&P 500 – which at this point was merely reflecting HFT momentum ignition traps and the occasional stray retail investor – had reached unseen proportions:

     

    So following the biggest (and only) market correction in years, the biggest weekly surge in the VIX ever, the second wholesale market flash crash in history coupled with the first ever limit down trade in the Nasdaq and the E-Mini, not to mention the biggest intraday bearish reversal since Lehman, it would appear that the “smart money” was aptly named (and hopefully wasn’t selling to you).

    And, lo and behold, following the dramatic market moves of the past two weeks, the S&P has finally caught up with the Smart Money flow.

     

    A quick reminder of the “Smart Money Flow” index in question:

    The Bloomberg Smart Money Flow Index is calculated by taking the action of the Dow in two time periods: the first 30 minutes and the close. The first 30 minutes represent emotional buying, driven by greed and fear of the crowd based on good and bad news. There is also a lot of buying on market orders and short covering at the opening. Smart money waits until the end and they very often test the market before by shorting heavily just to see how the market reacts. Then they move in the big way. These heavy hitters also have the best possible information available to them and they do have the edge on all the other market participants. To  replicate this index, just start at any given day, subtract the price of the Dow at 10 AM from the previous day’s close and add today’s closing price.  Whenever the Dow makes a high which is not confirmed by the SMFI there is trouble ahead.

    Starting sometime in February, the smart money started getting out of Dodge, and yes, “there was troubled ahead.”

  • Aug 26 – Turnaround Tuesday as China Cuts Rates

    EMOTION MOVING MARKETS NOW: 3/100 EXTREME FEAR

    PREVIOUS CLOSE: 3/100 EXTREME FEAR

    ONE WEEK AGO: 14/100 EXTREME FEAR

    ONE MONTH AGO: 10/100 EXTREME FEAR

    ONE YEAR AGO: 34/100 FEAR

    Put and Call Options: EXTREME FEAR During the last five trading days, volume in put options has lagged volume in call options by 10.17% as investors make bullish bets in their portfolios. However, this is still among the highest levels of put buying seen during the last two years, indicating extreme fear on the part of investors.

    Market Volatility: EXTREME FEAR The CBOE Volatility Index (VIX) is at 36.02 and indicates that investors remain concerned about declines in the stock market.

    Stock Price Strength: EXTREME FEAR The number of stocks hitting 52-week lows is slightly greater than the number hitting highs and is at the lower end of its range, indicating extreme fear.

    PIVOT POINTS

    EURUSD | GBPUSD | USDJPY | USDCAD | AUDUSD | EURJPY | EURCHF | EURGBPGBPJPY | NZDUSD | USDCHF | EURAUD | AUDJPY 

    S&P 500 (ES) | NASDAQ 100 (NQ) | DOW 30 (YM) | RUSSELL 2000 (TF) Euro (6E) |Pound (6B)

    EUROSTOXX 50 (FESX) | DAX 30 (FDAX) | BOBL (FGBM) | SCHATZ (FGBS) | BUND (FGBL)

    CRUDE OIL (CL) | GOLD (GC)

     

    MEME OF THE DAY – IT’S THE JERKS

     

    UNUSUAL ACTIVITY

    KING vol pop to highs SEP 14 CALL ACTIVITY @$.20 2000+ Contracts

    PFE NOV 38 CALLS block @$.24 on offer 19713 Contracts

    HZNP SEP 30 CALLS block @$1.45 on offer 3900 Contracts

    UNFI President and CEO Purchase 5,500  @$45.24

    CMRX Director Purchase 1,000 @$47.38

    More Unusual Activity…

     

    HEADLINES

     

    Turnaround Tuesday as China cuts rates

    PBOC cuts rates by 25 bps, RRR by 50 bps

    PBOC: Economy still facing downwards pressure

    China Premier Li: We have the ability to hit annual economic targets

    China Premier Li: No Basis For Continued CNY Depreciation

    Questions over Li Keqiang’s future amid China market turmoil –FT

    US CBO improves deficit view, sub-2% PCE seen to mid-2017

    Fed Discount Rate Mins: 5 Fed banks vote for discount rate hike, 6 vote to hold, 1 votes for cut

    US Consumer Confidence Index Aug: 101.5 (Est 93.4; Rev Prev 91.0)

    US New Home Sales Jul: 507k (Est 510k; Rev Prev 481k)

    US New Home Sales (MoM) Jul: 5.40% (est 5.80%; rev prev -7.70%)

    US FHFA House Price Index (MoM) Jun: 0.20% (Est 0.40%, prev 0.40%)

    US Richmond Index Aug: 0 (est 10; prev 13)

    ECB Constancio: ECB ready to act if inflation outlook changes materially

    ECB Constancio: European stocks are ‘fairly valued’

     

    GOVERNMENTS/CENTRAL BANKS

    Fed Discount Rate Mins: Five Fed banks renew calls for discount rate hike

    Fed Discount Rate Mins: Minneapolis Fed again votes to cut discount rate by 25bps

    Fed Discount Rate Mins: Six banks voted to hold discount rate

    US CBO improves deficit view, sub-2% PCE seen to mid-2017 –MNI

    FED COMMENT: Summers, Dalio raise prospect of QE4 from the Fed –FT

    BoC Schembri: Canada macroprudential housing policy is working –BBG

    ECB Constancio: ECB ready to act if inflation outlook changes materially –Rtrs

    ECB Constancio: Chinese economy is not decelerating strongly –Rtrs

    ECB Constancio says European stocks are ‘fairly valued’ –FT

    ECB: E949.0m borrowed using overnight loan facility –Livesquawk

    ECB: E162.3bn deposited overnight –Livesquawk

    Ifo economist: China to be bigger factor for German business –Rtrs

    Japanese PM Advisor Hamada: BoJ should consider acting if yen rises sharply –WSJ

    Senior Japan ruling party member Toshihiro Nikai calls for fiscal spending amid stocks rout –ET

    Swiss parliament panel grills SNB’s Jordan on negative rates impact –Rtrs

    CHINA

    China cuts RRR ratio by 50 bps to 18%, effective 6 Sept –BBG

    China cuts 1yr deposit rate and lending rate by 25 bps each –BBG

    PBOC Removes fixed deposit rate ceiling for more than 1yr –BBG

    PBOC: Economy still facing downwards pressure –BBG

    PBOC: Cuts will provide long term liquidity –BBG

    PBOC gauges MLF demand this week –BBG

    China plans to cut stamp tax on stock trading to 0.05% –Hexun via BBG

    China Premier Li: We have the ability to hit annual economic targets –MNI via ForexLive

    China Premier Li: No Basis For Continued CNY Depreciation –MNI via ForexLive

    Questions over Li Keqiang’s future amid China market turmoil –FT

    Germany EcoMin Gabriel: German economy has no fear for Chinese turmoil -ForexLive

    France EcoMin Macron: China poses risks to global economic recovery –ForexLive

    FIXED INCOME

    US sells 2-year notes to tepid demand –Rtrs

    Fed RRP $73.2bn, 32 bidders (prev $73.8bn, 32 bidders) –Livesquawk

    Bund hit after China rate cut lessens need for safety –FT

    UK DMO to sell £3.75bn 1.5% 2021 gilt on 2/Sept –Livesquawk

    Eonia settles at -0.135% (prev -0.126%) –Livesquawk

    FX

    USD: Dollar recovers against euro, yen –MW

    EUR: French EconMin Macron: China developments to push up EUR, may ‘handicap’ policymakers –ForexLive

    EUR COMMENT: The Euro Emerges as Unlikely Safe Haven –BBG

    JPY: Japanese PM Advisor Hamada: BoJ should consider acting if yen rises sharply –WSJ

    GBP: Pound bounces back against the euro despite predictions that China crisis could delay UK rate rises –Daily Mail

    ENERGY/COMMODITIES

    CRUDE: WTI futures settle 2.8% higher at $39.31 per barrel –Livesquawk

     

    MARKETS: Commodity prices pushed higher after China cut –FT

    CRUDE: Oil rallies but still near six-and-a-half-year lows –Rtrs

    CRUDE: Iran’s oil investments shrink on crude slump –BBG

    CRUDE COMMENT: Opec ‘feels the heat’ on oil, but will it cut? –CNBC

    CRUDE: BP restarts large crude distillation unit at Whiting –BP

    METALS: Trafigura to exit LME’s metals storage business –FT

    METALS: EU antitrust regulators are probing precious-metals trading following a US investigation –BBG

    EQUITIES

    MARKETS: US stocks soar at open after market tumult –FT

    POLICY: ECB’s Constancio says European stocks are ‘fairly valued’ –FT

    M&A: Nippon Life to pay Y300-Y400bn for Mitsui Life –Nikkei via BBG

    M&A: Monsanto ups bid for Syngenta –CNBC

    EARNINGS: Best Buy shares soar after earnings beat –CNBC

    O&G: BHP Billiton posts worst profit in 11 years, maintains dividend –SMH

    INDUSTRIALS: Boeing looks through turbulence with rosy China view –FT

    FX: GE will seek compensation for FX loan conversion in Poland –BI

    CRA: S&P: United Technologies Corp. Ratings Affirmed Following Announcement Of Sikorsky Sale And Share Buybacks

    EMERGING MARKETS

    CHINA: Shanghai Comp closed down 7.6% before (before PBOC cut rates) –BBC

     

    RUSSIA: Russia Cuts 2015 Outlook But Sees Growth In 2016 –MW

  • Dollar Depeg Du Jour: 32-Year Old Hong Kong FX Regime In The Crosshairs

    On Monday, we brought you two charts which vividly demonstrated market expectations for the abandonment of more currency pegs in the wake of Kazakhstan’s decision to float the tenge and China’s “unexpected” move to devalue the yuan.

    As you can see from the following, the market seems to be convinced that Saudi Arabia and UAE, under pressure from falling crude revenue, will ultimately be either unwilling or unable to maintain their dollar pegs (incidentally, the Saudis did succeed in jawboning USDSAR forwards down 125bps on Tuesday): 

    Of course no discussion of global dollar pegs and entrenched FX regimes would be complete without mentioning the Hong Kong dollar and as you can see, the 12-month forward chart looks remarkably similar to those shown above:

    Needless to say, the dynamic here is complicated by the degree to which Hong Kong is effectively wedded to US monetary policy (which is itself now thoroughly confused), the extent to which HKD has tended to sit at the strong end of the band, economic links to the mainland, exposure to weakening regional currencies via tourism, and expectations of an eventual yuan peg.

    Below, for what it’s worth, is some commentary from the sellside.

    *  *  *

    From Citi

    Our long-standing house view remains that the HKD peg will stay status quo, with an eventual re-peg to RMB when the latter is fully convertible. The LERS has weathered HK through even larger external shocks since 1983, and it is an important sign of stability for businesses in HK, and policymakers of HK and China. The current Linked Exchange Rate System is likely to withstand regional FX moves, but the economy would have to adjust with (1) moderate raw food prices decline with a lag, (2) other second-round price impacts from an overall slower economy, but (3) likely sharper reversals in asset prices appreciation that we have witnessed in recent years (as already started in the equity market, and worries could spread to the property market).

    RMB and other regional FX depreciation will make tourist shopping more expensive…It is important to gauge both tourist arrivals and tourists spending trends — if we start seeing even tourist arrivals fall, then it will be quite worrying, and should force shop rents to fall more broadly and faster.

    From BNP

    Predictably, Hong Kong’s peg with the USD has, once again, come under scrutiny. On the same day Kazakhstan abandoned control of its exchange rate, one-month implied volatility of HKD options spiked to a ten-year high (Chart 1). 

    Periodic bouts of price and pay swings are inevitable, as Hong Kong has effectively delegated the determination of its monetary policy to the US, even when the business cycles of the two economies do not move in tandem. As the Federal Reserve moves ever closer to delivering the first interest rate hike in almost a decade, Hong Kong is condemned to import tighter US monetary policy. In fact, Hong Kong is caught in a pincer movement between a prospective US monetary policy tightening and the continued slowdown and travails of the mainland economy with whom Hong Kong’s economic cycle is increasingly more correlated. Downward pressures on domestic costs and asset prices, including property values, will build, adding to more popular discontent against the peg (Chart 2). 

    But painful as the operation of the peg may be in the short term, there remains a distinct lack of alternatives.  

    From Barclays

    In contrast to other currency pegs, including the VND and SAR, the HKD is not facing depreciation pressures due to the capital outflows but rather the contrary. In fact, over the past year the HKD has been trading near the strong side of the Convertibility Undertaking of 7.75 (Figure 3), despite the rising USD against most majors and EM currencies. Even after the PBoC announced changes to the USDCNY fixing mechanism, after an initial spike spot USDHKD has moved little, although HKD forwards and option vols have moved more sharply in recent days. 

    Importantly, unlike the oil producers, Hong Kong does not face the same extent of downward pressures on its current account and fiscal balances due to the collapse in oil and commodity prices. That said, it is likely that Hong Kong will face more downward pressures on business activity and BoP services receipts due to China’s growth slowdown. This raises the question was to whether the link to the USD and the US monetary policy – especially now that the Fed is closer to tightening – remains relevant for the Hong Kong SAR given the growth drag from China.

    A depreciating CNY could perhaps make it easier for the Hong Kong and Chinese authorities to change the anchor of the HKD currency peg, although there are few signs that a policy change will happen in the near term. The HKMA has said that pegging to a strong and appreciating CNY would pose downward pressures on Hong Kong’s domestic prices (including wages, consumer prices and property prices), or could lead to structural deflationary pressures.

    *  *  *

    Finally, it’s worth noting that, back in 2011, Bill Ackman took to a 150-page presentation to explain why betting on an HKD revaluation was a slam dunk.

    Bonus: History of the peg via Citi


  • Cutting Through The HFT Lies: What Really Happened During The Flash Crash Of August 24, 2015

    One of the fallacies being propagated about yesterday’s flash crash, is that somehow HFTs came riding in as noble white knights and rescued the market from a collapse instead of actually causing it. This particular lie is worth a few quick observations and explanations of what really happened.

    What did not happen, is what Doug Cifu, the CEO of HFT titan Virtu, the firm which as we have profiled repeatedly in the past has lost money on 1 day in 6 years

    told CNBC when he said it wasn’t Virtu’s fault the market did not work for anyone as a result of countless HFT glitches: “we don’t cause volatility, as a market maker we’re absorbing volatility and we think we soften it.”

    The most amusing bit was when Cifu said that “we’re really just in the role of transferring risk from natural buyers to natural sellers.” Considering Virtu and its “special sauce” has never actually taken on risk with its trading record, discussing risk is a little rich for the owner of the Florida Panthers, and here’s why: in a note by Credit Suisse’s Laura Prostic (the typos are because she is in S&T) we now know precisely what happened:

    HFT is typically 50% of overall volm, but they have to walk away in this heightened vol envt, which dramatically reduces liquidity. Hightened vol was mainly unwinding of hedges, not panic.

    Anyone who actually trades (and is not part of the Modern Market initiative) knows that this precisely what happens every time there is a spike in market vol: HFTs simply walk away leading to the dreaded “HFT STOP” moment, creating a feedback loop of even less liquidity, and even more volatility, until circuit breakers are finally hit or asset prices hit limits. Yesterday, for the first time in history, not only the S&P500, but the Nasdaq and the DJIA all hit their particular “limit down” triggers.

    Credit Suisse also directly refutes what Doug Cifu said: HFTs, far from not causing volatility, merely step aside when volatility surges  thus leading to such stunners as VIX soaring above 50 overnight (with the CBOE too ashamed to even report what it would have been in the first 30 minutes of trading).

    This also ties in with the summary in our last night’s post comparing the flash crashes of 2010 and 2015:

    The good news is that with liquidity inevitably collapsing ever further to a state of near singularity with ongoing central bank interventions, and with markets broken beyond repaid, we will very soon have a repeat flash crash like today, one which will provide enough satisfactory answers to the question of just happened that lead to a market that was completely broken for nearly an hour, and where the VIX was so very off the charts, the CBOE was afraid to show it for at least thirty minutes.

     

    One thing is certain though: while the market dies a slow, painful, miserable death, the biggest HFTs will continue pocketing millions. Such as Virtu: “Virtu Financial Inc., one of the world’s largest high-frequency trading firms, was on track to have one of its biggest and most profitable days in history Monday amid a tumultuous 24 hours for world markets, according to its chief executive.”

    As we previously reported, while Virtu may have fabricated its role in yesterday’s events, there was one truth: it had an amazingly profitable day because as a result of the total chaos, HFTs were able to frontrun block orders from a mile away and as a result of soarking bid/ask spreads, Virtu raked in millions by simply capitalizing on the chaos it and its peers have created. As Cifu said then “Our firm is made for this kind of market.” We quickly corrected him: “your firm made this kind of market.”

    But back to the lies: earlier today the WSJ reported the following:

    The speed and depth of the drop harked back to the flash crash of May 2010, when program-driven trading produced a self-reinforcing wave of selling. This time around, high-frequency trading firms like Virtu Financial Inc. and Global Trading Systems LLC were buyers that helped U.S. stocks rebound midday from their early slump.

     

    “We were catching those falling knives,” said Ari Rubenstein, co-founder of Global Trading Systems.

    Actually no. What happened is that in early trading the entire market was in freefall, and the only thing that saved it was the various major market indices hitting their limit down levels for the first time in history – not even during the Flash Crash of 2010 did this happen. The following Nanex chart documents this beyond a doubt.

     

    If HFTs did anything, it was merely to frontrun the buy orders once the selling wave – halted thanks to limit downs being hit – had exhausted itself, and the buying scramble was unleashed around 9:35am leading to a 5% move in less than 10 minutes! It was here that Virtu made its colossal profits, however not from taking the least amount of risk, but merely from frontrunning order flow into a stil chaotic market with gargantuan bid-ask spreads, which incidentally not only does not provide liquidity, but reduces it as it competes with other buy offers for any market offers, also known as “providers” of liquidity, only to immediately flip the transaction to those buyers which Virtu knew with 100% certainty were just behind it. In any other market this would be illegal, except for one in which Reg NMS has made such frontrunning perfectly legal (courtesy of billions spent by the same HFTs who now benefit from it).

    So what was the real contribution of HFTs: an unprecedented failure of ETFs to trade with their underlying securities and vice versa. As we said yesterday: “for minutes at a time, there was an unprecedented disconnect in ETF fair value as hedge funds sold off ETFs however correlation arbitrageurs were unable to capitalize on the discrepancy with the underlying leading to historic, and extremely lucrative divergences.”

    Others added:

    … experts are still scratching their heads over what may have caused these ETFs to nosedive. One possible explanation is that liquidity providers — think high-speed traders and other Wall Street firms — charged with stabilizing the market weren’t there when needed. That’s what happened during the flash crash of 2010. “When markets get hairy, sometimes those liquidity providers step out of the way to avoid getting run over,” said Matt Hougan, CEO of ETF.com.

    So while we await for the first clear break of the ETF model, thanks to none other than HFTs, here is a visual example of what really happened: some 220 ETFs which all fell by 10% yesterday!

     

    But it wasn’t just the “transitory” failure of the ETF model: yesterday the Nasdaq ETF, the QQQ, had its widest 1 minute price swing in history. Yes, the NASDAQ!

     

    And just in case there is still any confusion if yesterday’s event was indeed a flash crash, the answer is yes, most certainly, as can be seen by the 15% tumble in QQQs right at the open. That, ladies and gentlemen, is the definition of a flash crash.

    Again: thank you HFTs.

    With that we leave matters into the SEC’s capable hands which we know will do absolutely nothing until the time comes when the next marketwide crash does not see a promptly rebound, and the time to finally point the finger at the HFTs comes. It’s just a matter of time, plus someone has to be a scapegoat for the real, and biggest, market manipulator in history: the Federal Reserve.

    And since, naturally, the complicit and corrupt SEC won’t do anything, expect another wave of retail investors to drop out of the market forever and to never come back, having seen yet again what a truly broken and rigged casino it has become.

    Finally, while we are delighted that firms like Virtu make outside profits on days in which the market crashes and leads to untold losses for retail investors, we have just one simple request – please don’t take us for fools anymore:  by now everyone knows all of your tricks, and can see right through your bullshit.

    So, dear Virtu, frontrun whoever you have to, other HFTs, hedge funds, mutual funds, or whoever else is left in this quote-unquote market, and have another Madoff year (one with zero trading losses) but you will have to do it without what was once called the “investing public.” They are now permanently gone until two things happen: i) the market is once again a market, not artificially propped up by $14 trillion in central bank liquidity which makes every asset “price” a illusion, and ii) HFT frontrunning is no longer legal, endorsed and blessed by the SEC, the regulators and all law enforcement agencies.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News August 25, 2015

  • The Raging Fire Within

    I’ve been trading the stock market for nearly thirty years, virtually non-stop. Today (that is, Monday, August 24) easily ranks in the top five strangest, craziest days in the thousands upon thousands of trading days I’ve ever witnessed. I felt like I was entering a cage of gorillas that had just ingested a large quantity of PCP. It felt dangerous and really, really unpredictable.

    As I mentioned on my lengthy Saturday post:

    I expect (and, again, hope – – because, God forgive me, I’m actually long five ETFs in size right now) we get a meaningful relief rally, carrying us up to the psychologically-important 17,000 level. At that point, please don’t be anywhere between me and my keyboard, because I am going to be shorting anything with a ticker symbol in size.

    Well, God most certainly did not forgive me. If this permabear’s time machine was working, he’d go back to Thursday morning, warn the slightly-younger Tim to not cover a single position, and further warn him not to buy a single thing.

    Instead, I waited sleeplessly through Sunday night and early Monday morning for the opening bell to see how big a chunk of flesh those longs would take out of my 55 (much smaller) short positions. Well, the “tax” was quite hefty. Hedging as I did wiped out half of the profits I would have had otherwise, just as covering wiped out half my profits the prior Friday. I had relinquished tens of thousands of dollars of extra profit just to be – – well – – “safe.”

    0824-es

    I think we can all agree that approximately nobody anticipated the Dow falling 1,000 points right from the start of Monday morning. Frankly, the kind of “lift” I am seeing at the moment I am typing this (with the ES up 42 points) is more along the lines of what I thought would happen.

    But the past few days have generated countless stories of triumph or woe, because in a market this volatile, you are going to have some accidental millionaires, and you’re going to have some people absolutely wiped out, never to enter the markets again.  Keep in mind the VIX was at 10 – 10!!!!!! – only a few weeks ago, and today it roared into the mid-50s. This is without precedent.

    I tend to think in metaphors and analogs, so here is what I have in mind for your consideration: think about a forest. In a large forest, from time to time, there are naturally-occurring fires. These take place due to, say, a lightning strike, and what happens is that all the dry underbrush lights up and damages the forest to a certain degree. Some trees are killed. Some animals are killed. There is loss.

    But, once the fire burns out of its own accord, life begins anew. The soil is rich with nutrients. More sunlight gets through to the surviving trees, and they flourish. The forest grows stronger. And, sooner or later, another fire will take place, but through this repeating cycle, in spite of Bambi getting killed from time to time, things improve and are relatively stable.

    The same can be said for a financial market which is allowed to rise and fall based on naturally-occurring market forces. Some people get hurt along the way. Some people prosper. But, on the whole, the system works, and it works in such a way that it is fair and, in the grand scheme of things, beneficial.

    What we have, instead, is a forest that hasn’t been allowed to catch fire. The forest has been drenched with water every day, for years on end, to ensure that no spark can take hold. Lightning still takes place, but it is simply snuffed out on wet tinder. The layers of dead limbs, leaves, and other crinkly detritus accumulate on the ground, and soon you have a forest that is several feet deep in tinder.

    So, in this instance, when a spark manages to get through, you don’t have a run-of-the-mill fire: you have an apocalypse. The natural give-and-take of the organic system has been suppressed, and a towering inferno rages with a ferocity that seems surreal. You have, at long last, a calamity on your hands.

    And that, my friends, is that we’ve been witnessing the past few trading days. Fire Marshall Yellen (and retired Fire Marshall Bernanke) have utterly perverted the natural order of things, and we are only now beginning to pay the price. The fire, I firmly believe, has only just started. We will indeed have some violent relief rallies along the way, but as we look at charts like these……….

    0824-hpq

    0824-cx

    ……….my only conclusion is that the sensational bearish setups are firmly in place and, once the bounce is complete, you will be witness to a fury of plunging price quotes that will, in the end, prove that Monday, August 24th, was simply a shot across the bow.

  • Brazil's Economy Is Now A Job Destruction Machine

    In more ways than one (or two, or three) Brazil is the poster child for the global emerging market unwind that, thanks to China’s yuan devaluation, has accelerated dramatically over the course of the last week. 

    To be sure, the combination of slowing demand from China, the (now lower) possibility of a Fed rate hike, and, perhaps most importantly, the end of the commodities supercycle which has seen prices crash to their lowest levels of the 21st century, would be more than enough to put Latin America’s most important economy into a tailspin.

    But unfortunately, a political crisis stemming from allegations of fiscal book cooking and corruption charges tied to Petrobras where President Dilma Rousseff was chairwoman for seven years have exacerbated the country’s woes and recently, Brazilians went (back) to the streets by the hundreds of thousands to call for Rousseff’s impeachment. 

    The fallout for the real economy has been catastrophic and indeed Brazilians suffered through the worst growth-inflation outcome (i.e. stagflation) in over a decade during Q2. Whether or not Rousseff can survive (politically speaking, we hope) and whether or not the government can hit primary fiscal surplus targets is an open question, but as we noted on Thursday, the populace is under tremendous pressure in the meantime with unemployment rising for a seventh consecutive month and soaring to its highest level in half a decade in July.

    On that note, we bring you the following chart and commentary from Barclays which underscores precisely what we said last month, namely that Brazil may well be in the midst a depression:

    In July, 157,905 jobs were eliminated in Brazil, compared to the creation of 11,796 positions in July 2014, according to data from CAGED, Brazil’s employment register. Year-to-date, 547,738 job positions have been eliminated (versus the creation of 504,914 jobs in the same period of 2014). In seasonally adjusted terms, today’s print is compatible with 140,939 job eliminations, pretty close to the historical low of -154,355 in June (Figure 1).

     

    Sector-wise, the industrial and retail sectors accumulate the largest job eliminations, which together sums up to 454k. The construction sector follows with a job destruction of 152k, and the only positive highlight is the agricultural sector, which created 99k formal jobs (Figure 2).

     

    The magnitude of the deterioration of the labor market continues to surprise in Brazil. This week the unemployment rate rose by the fastest pace in the historical series, with the data showing that even more people are looking for job positions, however without finding them (see Brazil unemployment rate: Increased pace of deterioration).

     

    The consequence of this is an even more prolonged recession, as disposable income falls and household consumption contracts. Coupled with business confidence indexes for August showing further drops to minimum-lows, this suggests that the worst in terms of growth is still ahead of us.

    Which means that BofAML is exactly right to say that out of all the charts one cares to examine for Brazil, the most important one may ultimately be this:

  • The Raping Of America: Mile Markers On The Road To Fascism

    Submitted by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

    “Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.”—Martin Luther King Jr.

    There’s an ill will blowing across the country. The economy is tanking. The people are directionless, and politics provides no answer. And like former regimes, the militarized police have stepped up to provide a façade of law and order manifested by an overt violence against the citizenry.

    Despite the revelations of the past several years, nothing has changed to push back against the American police state. Our freedoms—especially the Fourth Amendment—continue to be choked out by a prevailing view among government bureaucrats that they have the right to search, seize, strip, scan, spy on, probe, pat down, taser, and arrest any individual at any time and for the slightest provocation.

    Despite the recent outrage and protests, nothing has changed to restore us to our rightful role as having dominion over our bodies, our lives and our property, especially when it comes to interactions with the government.

    Forced cavity searches, forced colonoscopies, forced blood draws, forced breath-alcohol tests, forced DNA extractions, forced eye scans, forced inclusion in biometric databases—these are just a few ways in which Americans continue to be reminded that we have no control over what happens to our bodies during an encounter with government officials. Thus far, the courts have done little to preserve our Fourth Amendment rights, let alone what shreds of bodily integrity remain to us.

    Indeed, on a daily basis, Americans are being forced to relinquish the most intimate details of who we are—our biological makeup, our genetic blueprints, and our biometrics (facial characteristics and structure, fingerprints, iris scans, etc.)—in order to clear the nearly insurmountable hurdle that increasingly defines life in the United States.

    In other words, we are all guilty until proven innocent.

    Worst of all, it seems as if nothing will change as long as the American people remain distracted by politics, divided by their own prejudices, and brainwashed into believing that the Constitution still reigns supreme as the law of the land, when in fact, we have almost completed the shift into fascism.

    In other words, despite our occasional bursts of outrage over abusive police practices, sporadic calls for government reform, and periodic bouts of awareness that all is not what it seems, the police state continues to march steadily onward.

    Such is life in America today that individuals are being threatened with arrest and carted off to jail for the least hint of noncompliance, homes are being raided by police under the slightest pretext, and roadside police stops have devolved into government-sanctioned exercises in humiliation and degradation with a complete disregard for privacy and human dignity.

    Consider, for example, what happened to Charnesia Corley after allegedly being pulled over by Texas police for “rolling” through a stop sign. Claiming they smelled marijuana, police handcuffed Corley, placed her in the back of the police cruiser, and then searched her car for almost an hour. They found nothing in the car.

    As the Houston Chronicle reported:

    Returning to his car where Corley was held, the deputy again said he smelled marijuana and called in a female deputy to conduct a cavity search. When the female deputy arrived, she told Corley to pull her pants down, but Corley protested because she was cuffed and had no underwear on. The deputy ordered Corley to bend over, pulled down her pants and began to search her. Then…Corley stood up and protested, so the deputy threw her to the ground and restrained her while another female was called in to assist. When backup arrived, each deputy held one of Corley’s legs apart to conduct the probe.

    As shocking and disturbing as it seems, Corley’s roadside cavity search is becoming par for the course in an age in which police are taught to have no respect for the citizenry’s bodily integrity.

    For instance, 38-year-old Angel Dobbs and her 24-year-old niece, Ashley, were pulled over by a Texas state trooper on July 13, 2012, allegedly for flicking cigarette butts out of the car window. Insisting that he smelled marijuana, he proceeded to interrogate them and search the car. Despite the fact that both women denied smoking or possessing any marijuana, the police officer then called in a female trooper, who carried out a roadside cavity search, sticking her fingers into the older woman’s anus and vagina, then performing the same procedure on the younger woman, wearing the same pair of gloves. No marijuana was found.

    David Eckert was forced to undergo an anal cavity search, three enemas, and a colonoscopy after allegedly failing to yield to a stop sign at a Wal-Mart parking lot. Cops justified the searches on the grounds that they suspected Eckert was carrying drugs because his “posture [was] erect” and “he kept his legs together.” No drugs were found.

    Leila Tarantino was subjected to two roadside strip searches in plain view of passing traffic during a routine traffic stop, while her two children—ages 1 and 4—waited inside her car. During the second strip search, presumably in an effort to ferret out drugs, a female officer “forcibly removed” a tampon from Tarantino. Nothing illegal was found. Nevertheless, such searches have been sanctioned by the courts, especially if accompanied by a search warrant (which is easily procured), as justified in the government’s pursuit of drugs and weapons.

    Meanwhile, four Milwaukee police officers were charged with carrying out rectal searches of suspects on the street and in police district stations over the course of several years. One of the officers was accused of conducting searches of men’s anal and scrotal areas, often inserting his fingers into their rectums and leaving some of his victims with bleeding rectums. Halfway across the country, the city of Oakland, California, agreed to pay $4.6 million to 39 men who had their pants pulled down by police on city streets between 2002 and 2009.

    It’s gotten so bad that you don’t even have to be suspected of possessing drugs to be subjected to a strip search.

    In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Florence v. Burlison, any person who is arrested and processed at a jail house, regardless of the severity of his or her offense (i.e., they can be guilty of nothing more than a minor traffic offense), can be subjected to a strip search by police or jail officials without reasonable suspicion that the arrestee is carrying a weapon or contraband.

    Examples of minor infractions which have resulted in strip searches include: individuals arrested for driving with a noisy muffler, driving with an inoperable headlight, failing to use a turn signal, riding a bicycle without an audible bell, making an improper left turn, engaging in an antiwar demonstration (the individual searched was a nun, a Sister of Divine Providence for 50 years). Police have also carried out strip searches for passing a bad check, dog leash violations, filing a false police report, failing to produce a driver’s license after making an illegal left turn, having outstanding parking tickets, and public intoxication. A failure to pay child support can also result in a strip search.

    It must be remembered that the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was intended to prevent government agents from searching an individual’s person or property without a warrant and probable cause (evidence that some kind of criminal activity was afoot). While the literal purpose of the amendment is to protect our property and our bodies from unwarranted government intrusion, the moral intention behind it is to protect our human dignity.

    Unfortunately, the indignities being heaped upon us by the architects and agents of the American police state—whether or not we’ve done anything wrong—don’t end with roadside strip searches. They’re just a foretaste of what is to come.

    As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the government doesn’t need to strip you naked by the side of the road in order to render you helpless. It has other methods, less subtle perhaps but equally humiliating, devastating and mind-altering, of stripping you of your independence, robbing you of your dignity, and undermining your rights.

    With every court ruling that allows the government to operate above the rule of law, every piece of legislation that limits our freedoms, and every act of government wrongdoing that goes unpunished, we’re slowly being conditioned to a society in which we have little real control over our lives. As Rod Serling, creator of the Twilight Zone and an insightful commentator on human nature, once observed, “We’re developing a new citizenry. One that will be very selective about cereals and automobiles, but won’t be able to think.”

    Indeed, not only are we developing a new citizenry incapable of thinking for themselves, we’re also instilling in them a complete and utter reliance on the government and its corporate partners to do everything for them—tell them what to eat, what to wear, how to think, what to believe, how long to sleep, who to vote for, whom to associate with, and on and on.

    In this way, we have created a welfare state, a nanny state, a police state, a surveillance state, an electronic concentration camp—call it what you will, the meaning is the same: in our quest for less personal responsibility, a greater sense of security, and no burdensome obligations to each other or to future generations, we have created a society in which we have no true freedom.

    Government surveillance, police abuse, SWAT team raids, economic instability, asset forfeiture schemes, pork barrel legislation, militarized police, drones, endless wars, private prisons, involuntary detentions, biometrics databases, free speech zones, etc.: these are mile markers on the road to a fascist state where citizens are treated like cattle, to be branded and eventually led to the slaughterhouse.

    If there is any hope to be found it will be found in local, grassroots activism. In the words of Martin Luther King Jr., it’s time for “militant nonviolent resistance.”

    First, however, Americans must break free of the apathy-inducing turpor of politics, entertainment spectacles and manufactured news. Only once we are free of the chains that bind us—or to be more exact, the chains that “blind” us—can we become actively aware of the injustices taking place around us and demand freedom of our oppressors.

  • Chinese Stocks Are Crashing; Yuan Devalues, Deposit Rate Spikes To Record High, Japan Denies "G7 Response" Planned

    Following yesterday's bloodbath (and the continued carnage around the world), AsiaPac stocks are lower with Japan unable to mount any sustained bounce despite every effort to lift JPY. The propaganda-fest is in full swing as Amari claims JPY is safe-haven asset and Aso denies any coordinated G7 response is being planned (which means they are all feverishly trying to figure out how to 'save' the world again from a 4-day stock drop). China is ugly with stocks down hard in the pre-open (CSI-300 -4.3%) as offshore Yuan depo rates spike to 22.9% – a record high – as liquidity outflows must be accelerating (as PBOC adds another CBNY150bn liquidity). China devalues Yuan 0.2% – most in 11 days.

    Carnage –

    • *CHINA SHANGHAI COMPOSITE SET TO OPEN DOWN 6.4% TO 3,004.13
    • *CHINA'S CSI 300 INDEX SET TO OPEN DOWN 6.3% TO 3,070.01

    This is the 5th day of crashing Chinese stocks in a row…

     

    Chinese Stocks are down 14% since Friday!!

     

    Year-to-date, Shangahi is now down 6.2% and CSI-300 (China's S&P) is down a stunning 15%!

     

    Where China will stop (or atleast aim for) – when QE-Lite (PSL) was unleashed…

     

    The Japanese are in full propaganda mode…

    • *SUGA: WATCHING MARKET MOVES ATTENTIVELY
    • *ASO: FX MOVES HAVE BEEN ROUGH ("rough" – well that's one word for complete and utter carnage)
    • *ASO: CONTINUING TO CLOSELY WATCH MARKET MOVES
    • *ASO: I HAVEN'T CONTACTED U.S. TREASURY (which means he has!)
    • *ASO: NOT AT STAGE FOR G-7, G-20 RESPONSE (which means there is)
    • *AMARI: UP TO BOJ TO DECIDE ON ADDL EASING (how's that last QQE2 working out?)
    • *AMARI: YEN IS BEING BOUGHT AS SAFE ASSET (nope it's a forced carry unwind sorry!)
    • *AMARI:YEN SEEN AS SAFE ASSET SHOWS VALUATION OF JAPAN ECONOMY (what utter crap!)

    So we await the coordinated response to the global vicious circle of carry unwinds and forced liquidations… but remember, RRR cuts so far have done absolutely nothing to hold back wave after wave of frenzied malicious Chinese sellers just wanting out of the ponzi.

    The talk is not working as Chinese stocks are weak in the pre-open…

    • *FTSE CHINA A50 SEPT. FUTURES DROP 3.4% IN SINGAPORE
    • *CHINA CSI 300 STOCK-INDEX FUTURES FALL 4.3%

    Some good news… China is deleveraging…

    • *SHANGHAI MARGIN DEBT DECLINES TO LOWEST IN FIVE MONTHS

    As China devalues Yuan by most in 11 days..

    • *PBOC WEAKENS YUAN FIXING BY 0.2%, MOST SINCE AUG. 13
    • *CHINA SETS YUAN REFERENCE RATE AT 6.3987 AGAINST U.S. DOLLAR

    And China adds yet more liquidity…

    • *PBOC TO INJECT 150B YUAN WITH 7-DAY REVERSE REPOS: TRADER

    The desperation to keep liquidity from flooding out is very evident:

    • *ONE-WEEK OFFSHORE YUAN DEPOSIT RATE JUMPS 840 BPS TO 22.9%
    • *YUAN DEPOSIT RATE HEADED FOR RECORD CLOSE IN HONG KONG

     

    "Some are converting yuan back into USD or HKD amid the devaluation,’’ says Lawrence Kung, head of deposits department at Wing Lung Bank in Hong Kong

    *  *  *

    Hope continues for a huge broad-based RRR cut but The PBOC – just as it said – remains fixed on small targeted liquidity injections. This will not please the 'people' or Jim Cramer… "they know nothing."

    *  *  *

    And finally, we could not have put it better than The Onion as they explain how the "Shoddy Chinese-Made Stock Market Collapses"…

    Proving to be just as flimsy and precarious as many observers had previously warned, the Chinese-made Shanghai Composite index completely collapsed Monday, sources confirmed.

     

    “Sure, it looked fine from the outside, but anybody who saw it up close knew that it was of such poor quality that it wasn’t built to last,” said Allen Sigman of the London School of Economics, adding that the stock market, which he described as a crude knockoff of Western versions, was practically slapped together overnight and featured countless obvious structural weak points.

     

    “They pretty much ignored regulations, and inspections were a joke. The only surprise is that it didn’t fall apart sooner.” Sigman added that he just hopes there weren’t too many people who were hurt in the disaster.

    *  *  *

    We assume that is satire… though it does seem a little too real.

  • Paul Craig Roberts: Central Banks Have Become A Corrupting Force

    Authored by Paul Craig Roberts and Dave Kranzler via PaulCraigRoberts.org,

    Are we witnessing the corruption of central banks? Are we observing the money-creating powers of central banks being used to drive up prices in the stock market for the benefit of the mega-rich?

    These questions came to mind when we learned that the central bank of Switzerland, the Swiss National Bank, purchased 3,300,000 shares of Apple stock in the first quarter of this year, adding 500,000 shares in the second quarter. Smart money would have been selling, not buying.

    It turns out that the Swiss central bank, in addition to its Apple stock, holds very large equity positions, ranging from $250,000,000 to $637,000,000, in numerous US corporations — Exxon Mobil, Microsoft, Google, Johnson & Johnson, General Electric, Procter & Gamble, Verizon, AT&T, Pfizer, Chevron, Merck, Facebook, Pepsico, Coca Cola, Disney, Valeant, IBM, Gilead, Amazon.

    Among this list of the Swiss central bank’s holdings are stocks which are responsible for more than 100% of the year-to-date rise in the S&P 500 prior to the latest sell-off.

    What is going on here?

    The purpose of central banks was to serve as a “lender of last resort” to commercial banks faced with a run on the bank by depositors demanding cash withdrawals of their deposits.

    Banks would call in loans in an effort to raise cash to pay off depositors. Businesses would fail, and the banks would fail from their inability to pay depositors their money on demand.

    As time passed, this rationale for a central bank was made redundant by government deposit insurance for bank depositors, and central banks found additional functions for their existence. The Federal Reserve, for example, under the Humphrey-Hawkins Act, is responsible for maintaining full employment and low inflation. By the time this legislation was passed, the worsening “Phillips Curve tradeoffs” between inflation and employment had made the goals inconsistent. The result was the introduction by the Reagan administration of the supply-side economic policy that cured the simultaneously rising inflation and unemployment.

    Neither the Federal Reserve’s charter nor the Humphrey-Hawkins Act says that the Federal Reserve is supposed to stabilize the stock market by purchasing stocks. The Federal Reserve is supposed to buy and sell bonds in open market operations in order to encourage employment with lower interest rates or to restrict inflation with higher interest rates.

    If central banks purchase stocks in order to support equity prices, what is the point of having a stock market? The central bank’s ability to create money to support stock prices negates the price discovery function of the stock market.

    The problem with central banks is that humans are fallible, including the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board and all the board members and staff. Nobel prize-winner Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz established that the Great Depression was the consequence of the failure of the Federal Reserve to expand monetary policy sufficiently to offset the restriction of the money supply due to bank failure. When a bank failed in the pre-deposit insurance era, the money supply would shrink by the amount of the bank’s deposits. During the Great Depression, thousands of banks failed, wiping out the purchasing power of millions of Americans and the credit creating power of thousands of banks.

    The Fed is prohibited from buying equities by the Federal Reserve Act. But an amendment in 2010 – Section 13(3) – was enacted to permit the Fed to buy AIG’s insolvent Maiden Lane assets. This amendment also created a loophole which enables the Fed to lend money to entities that can use the funds to buy stocks. Thus, the Swiss central bank could be operating as an agent of the Federal Reserve.

    If central banks cannot properly conduct monetary policy, how can they conduct an equity policy? Some astute observers believe that the Swiss National Bank is acting as an agent for the Federal Reserve and purchases large blocs of US equities at critical times to arrest stock market declines that would puncture the propagandized belief that all is fine here in the US economy.

    We know that the US government has a “plunge protection team” consisting of the US Treasury and Federal Reserve. The purpose of this team is to prevent unwanted stock market crashes.

    Is the current stock market decline welcome or unwelcome?

    At this point we do not know. In order to keep the dollar up, the basis of US power, the Federal Reserve has promised to raise interest rates, but always in the future. The latest future is next month. The belief that a hike in interest rates is in the cards keeps the US dollar from losing exchange value in relation to other currencies, thus preventing a flight from the dollar that would reduce the Uni-power to Third World status.

    The Federal Reserve can say that the stock market decline indicates that the recovery is in doubt and requires more stimulus. The prospect of more liquidity could drive the stock market back up. As asset bubbles are in the way of the Fed’s policy, a decline in stock prices removes the equity market bubble and enables the Fed to print more money and start the process up again.

    On the other hand, the stock market decline last Thursday and Friday could indicate that the players in the market have comprehended that the stock market is an artificially inflated bubble that has no real basis. Once the psychology is destroyed, flight sets in.

    If flight turns out to be the case, it will be interesting to see if central bank liquidity and purchases of stocks can stop the rout.

  • Is This The Next Dollar Peg To Fall?

    On Monday, we showed you the dramatic visual evidence in support of Kazakh PM Karim Massimov’s contention that “at the end of the day, most of the oil-producing countries will go into the free floating regime [including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates because] for the next three to five, maybe seven years, the price for commodities will [not] come back to the level that it used to be at in 2014.” 

    Expectations for an FX regime change in Saudi Arabia in the face of a ballooning budget gap and the first current account deficit in a decade are readily apparent in riyal 12-month forwards and just to drive the point home, have a look at the following, which shows that anticipation for a dirham deval is running at a veritable fever pitch: 

    For more on the genesis of the “new era”, see “Why It Really All Comes Down To The Death Of The Petrodollar.”

  • Aug 25 – China Bloodbath Rattles Global Markets

    EMOTION MOVING MARKETS NOW: 3/100 EXTREME FEAR

    PREVIOUS CLOSE: 5/100 EXTREME FEAR

    ONE WEEK AGO: 12/100 EXTREME FEAR

    ONE MONTH AGO: 10/100 EXTREME FEAR

    ONE YEAR AGO: 34/100 FEAR

    Put and Call Options: EXTREME FEAR During the last five trading days, volume in put options has lagged volume in call options by 10.07% as investors make bullish bets in their portfolios. However, this is still among the highest levels of put buying seen during the last two years, indicating extreme fear on the part of investors.

    Market Volatility: EXTREME FEAR The CBOE Volatility Index (VIX) is at 40.74 and indicates that investors remain concerned about declines in the stock market.

    Stock Price Strength: EXTREME FEAR The number of stocks hitting 52-week lows is slightly greater than the number hitting highs and is at the lower end of its range, indicating extreme fear.

    PIVOT POINTS

    EURUSD | GBPUSD | USDJPY | USDCAD | AUDUSD | EURJPY | EURCHF | EURGBPGBPJPY | NZDUSD | USDCHF | EURAUD | AUDJPY 

    S&P 500 (ES) | NASDAQ 100 (NQ) | DOW 30 (YM) | RUSSELL 2000 (TF) Euro (6E) |Pound (6B)

    EUROSTOXX 50 (FESX) | DAX 30 (FDAX) | BOBL (FGBM) | SCHATZ (FGBS) | BUND (FGBL)

    CRUDE OIL (CL) | GOLD (GC)

     

    MEME OF THE DAY – IT’S THE JERKS

     

    UNUSUAL ACTIVITY

    IDTI Vol weakness SEP 19 PUT ACTIVITY @$1.25 on offer 4500+ Contracts

    SLB SEP 80 PUT ACTIVITY @$1.31 on offer 4000+ Contracts

    PYPL SEP WEEKLY4 PUTS on the BID @$1.35 3700 Contracts

    SPLS DEC 15 CALLS on the OFFER @$.90-.95 6000 Contracts

    SEMI – CEO Purchased $300k+ total

    AVHI Director Purchase 1,920 @$ 13.9989 Purchase 1,280 @$13.99

    More Unusual Activity…

     

    HEADLINES

     

    China bloodbath rattles global markets

    Stocks, dollar softer as commodities hammered

    WTI settles at 6.5yr lows at $38.24/bbl

    US 10y yield briefly dips below 2% on flight to safety

    VIX spikes to highest in three years

    WH: US Treasury closely monitoring financial markets

    Ex US Tsy Sec Summers: ‘Far from clear’ next Fed move a hike

    SF Fed: Fed not likely to be misled by noise in GDP and PCE data

    NABE Policy Survey: 77% See Liftoff in 2015; 37% Expect Sept

    DoubleLine’s Gundlach sees another ‘major leg down’ in US stocks

    German Dax equity index technically enters bear market

    BoE asked to review code of conduct for rate-setters

    ECB PSPP: EUR279.761B (Prev EUR269.875B)

    ECB CBPP3: EUR1090.179B (Prev EUR108.059B)

    ECB ABSPP: EUR11.218B (Prev EUR10.961B)

     

    GOVERNMENTS/CENTRAL BANKS

    SF Fed: Fed not likely to be misled by noise in GDP and PCE data

    White House: US Treasury Department is closely monitoring financial markets –Livesquawk

    Fed RRP (24 Aug): $73.8bn and 32 bidders (prev 35 bidders, $92.4bn) –Livesquawk

    Ex US Tsy Sec Summers: ‘Far from clear’ next Fed move a hike –Twitter

    NABE Policy Survey: 77% See Liftoff in 2015; 37% Expect Sept –MNI

    FORECASTS: Barclays pushes call for Fed hike from Sept to March -FT

    BlackRock’s Rieder: ‘Window is closing’ on Fed to move in September –Rtrs

    LOOK AHEAD: What to expect from the Fed’s Jackson Hole meeting –BBG

    UK FinMin Osborne: China not a specific G20 item –ForexLive

    BoE asked to review code of conduct for rate-setters –CityAM

    OVERNIGHT: Japan Abe: Sympathises with BoJ difficulty in hitting infl tgt amid oil drop –MNI

    GREECE: Popular Unity party will get the baton to try and form a government –Koutsomitis

    GREECE: Moody’s: Tsipras resignation a credit positive for Greece

    GEOPOLITICS

    North, South Korea reach deal to ease tensions –Yonhap

    FIXED INCOME

    US 10y yield briefly dips below 2%, first time since April –WSJ

    US 10y B/E rate below 1.5%, first time since May 2009 –FT

    US HY squeezed by rush to exit –FT

    ECB PSPP (21 Aug): EUR279.761B (Prev EUR269.875B)

    ECB CBPP3: EUR1090.179B (Prev EUR108.059B)

    ECB ABSPP: EUR11.218B (Prev EUR10.961B)

    Eonia closes -0.126% (prev -0.119) –Livesquawk

    UK DMO planning 2 short, 2 medium, 3 long, 3 linker issues next Qtr –MNI

    FX

    USD: Dollar under pressure after China rout –Rtrs

    USD COMMENT: The Fed is looking at a very different dollar than Wall St –BBG

    EUR: Euro climbs to new 8-month high vs USD –FT

    EUR COMMENT: Euro shorts still have a big buffer to play with –ForexLive

    CAD: Canadian Dollar Hits 11-Year-Low Against US Dollar –WSJ

    ILS: Shekel on the up after rate decision –FT

    ZAR: South Africa rand hits all-time low against the dollar –BBC

    ZAR: SARB Says Could Consider FX Intervention If Fin. Stability Is Risked

    HKD: Bears look to HK dollar risks –FT

    ENERGY/COMMODITIES

    CRUDE: WTI futures settle 5.5% lower at $38.24 per barrel –Livesquawk

    CRUDE: Brent futures settle 6.1% lower at $42.69 per barrel –Livesquawk

    CRUDE: Oil slides to 6-year low as commodities tumble –FT

    CRUDE: East Libyan state oil firm wants to discuss contracts –Malta Times

    COMMODS: Broad commodities selloff after China Black Monday — WSJ

    METALS: Gold climbs to fresh 7-week high as global equities, U.S. dollar tumble –Investing

    EQUITIES

    COMMENT: DoubleLine’s Gundlach sees another ‘major leg down’ in US equities –Rtrs

    VOLS: VIX rises to highest level in over 3 years –MW

    BIOTECH: US biotech index enters bear market –FT

    M&A: Southern Co becomes No.2 U.S. utility with $8 bln AGL deal –Rtrs

    M&A: FTC clears Pfizer acquisition of Hospira –StreetInsider

    M&A: Monsanto sweetens offer for Syngenta to CHF470 a share –Rtrs

    M&A: Markit to Buy Foreign Exchange Trading Company DealHub –WSJ

    TECH: Apple’s Cook: Still seeing strong growth in China –CNBC

    TECH: Apple CEO Tim Cook may have violated SEC rules with Jim Cramer email –MW

    O&G: Shell eyes Iran, to pay debt when sanctions end –Rtrs

    SUPERMARKETS: Carrefour Announces Planned Acquisition of Rue du Commerce –BW

    EXCHANGES: Nasdaq poised to launch FX trading platform-top executive –StreetInsider

    AUTOS: GM China joint venture building $470 mln green car plant –Rtrs

    EMERGING MARKETS

    CHINA: China stocks drop 8.5% –Guardian

    CHINA PRIMER: China’s latest stock market crash: the basics

    China NDRC: China expects economic growth to be stable in H2 2015 –ForexLive

     

    China pension fund to invest in stock market –BBC

     

  • The Stunning Comparisons Between The "Flash Crash" Of August 24, 2015 And May 6, 2010

    Following today’s stunning not one but countless flash crashes, many have asked: just how was the flash crash of August 24, 2015 different from that of May 6, 2010. The answer is shown in the Nanex chart below, and the simple summary is that 2015’s was orders of magnitude worse than 2010’s as a result of E-Mini liquidity that was orders of magnitude worse throughout the entire day.

    In fact, the trough liquidity on May 6 is where ES liquidity was throughout the entire day on August 24, 2015.

     

    The outcome of this total liquidity devastation was what we summarized just after the open:

    Curious why few if any traders can actually execute any trades, whether buys or sells? The reason is that despite the relative calmness of the index prints, what is going on beneath the surface is an unprecedented wave of constant halt and unhalts as all stop levels were taken out, many in circuit breaker territory, making it virtually impossible for any matching enginge to, well, match buyers and sellers. The resulting halts made it impossible for regular traders to step in, requiring central banks to buy via the CME’s Central Bank Incentive Program, to restore some market stability.

     

    So to be technically accurate, what happened in May 2010 was one marketwide flash crash, while today we had a market paralysis which was the direct result of countless distributed, isolated mini flash events, all of which precipitated the market’s failure for the first 30 minutes of trading.

    Nanex provides some other truly amazing charts showing the first minutes of trading and how there was practically no market for a period of about 30 minutes due to every single HFT algo going haywire almost as the same time…

    … in the process leading to what may have been the most dramatic collapse in ETF logic to date.

    The market farce was so profound, and the outcry from the handful of people who still care about “markets” large enough that even CNN had no choice but to opine:

    Normally there are a few dozen trading halts a day. But Monday wasn’t a normal day with 1,200 halts. “That’s huge. I’ve never seen that many halts,” said Dennis Dick, a market structure consultant at Bright Trading. Dick said he believes the stock market may have suffered even worse losses if it weren’t for the trading pauses. “The circuit breakers are designed to prevent a full-on flash crash. Those circuit breakers kind of saved the day,” he said.

    Maybe, then again, the circuit breakers gave us a glimpse into the ETF endgame:

    The circuit breakers were implemented more than 600 times on ETFs, the increasingly-popular securities that trade like stocks. ETFs hold a basket of stocks, removing the risk of betting on a single company. ETF.com examined the pricing action and discovered at least eight ETFs that showed “flash-crash” style drops at the opening of trading.

     

    * * *

    ETFs that experienced panic selling are far larger and wouldn’t be expected to have that kind of turbulence. For example, the iShares Select Dividend ETF (DVY) plummeted as much as 35% at its lows.

     

    That’s a stunning move considering this BlackRock (BLK)-backed ETF is worth over $13 billion and is focused on stable American stocks that have a long history of paying dividends.

     

    None of this ETF’s top holdings — like Lockheed Martin (LMT), Philip Morris Internationa (PM)l and McDonald’s (MCD) — suffered losses north of 11%.  It was even worse for the Guggenheim S&P 500 equal weight ETF (RSP). The $10 billion fund, which holds some well-known stocks like Chipotle (CMG) and ConAgra (CAG), plummeted nearly 43% at one point on Monday.

     

    Another popular ETF that seeks to capitalize on the booming cybersecurity business plummeted as much as 32%. The ETF, PureFunds ISE Cyber Security ETF (HACK), has a market value of more than $1.2 billion.

    Said otherwise, for minutes at a time, there was an unprecedented disconnect in ETF fair value as hedge funds sold off ETFs however correlation arbitrageurs were unable to capitalize on the discrepancy with the underlying leading to historic, and extremely lucrative divergences.

    At this point, experts are still scratching their heads over what may have caused these ETFs to nosedive. One possible explanation is that liquidity providers — think high-speed traders and other Wall Street firms — charged with stabilizing the market weren’t there when needed. That’s what happened during the flash crash of 2010.

     

    “When markets get hairy, sometimes those liquidity providers step out of the way to avoid getting run over,” said Matt Hougan, CEO of ETF.com. Despite the steep selloffs, Hougan said ETFs generally “functioned well” during the market difficulty.

    The bottom line, as Themis Trading’s Joe Saluzzi summarized, “Something went wrong here. Somewhere along the way, the ETF pricing model was broken today.” Noting that there are more than $3 trillion in ETF assets, Saluzzi said: “They better hope they don’t have a confidence problem there.”

    The good news is that with liquidity inevitably collapsing ever further to a state of near singularity with ongoing central bank interventions, and with markets broken beyond repaid, we will very soon have a repeat flash crash like today, one which will provide enough satisfactory answers to the question of just happened that lead to a market that was completely broken for nearly an hour, and where the VIX was so very off the charts, the CBOE was afraid to show it for at least thirty minutes.

    One thing is certain though: while the market dies a slow, painful, miserable death, the biggest HFTs will continue pocketing millions. Such as Virtu: “Virtu Financial Inc., one of the world’s largest high-frequency trading firms, was on track to have one of its biggest and most profitable days in history Monday amid a tumultuous 24 hours for world markets, according to its chief executive.”

    “Our firm is made for this kind of market,” said the CEO, Douglas Cifu.

    Correction: your firm made this kind of market.

  • Behold: Insanity

    This is not normal… Dow futures moved over 4,500 points intraday today!!!

     

  • Why Government Hates Cash

    Submitted by Joseph Salerno via The Mises Institute,

    In April it was announced that Greece was imposing a surcharge for all cash withdrawals from bank accounts to deter citizens from clearing out their accounts. So now the Greeks will have to pay one euro per 1,000 euros that they withdraw, which is one-tenth of a percent. It doesn’t seem very big, but the principle at work is extremely big because what they’re in effect doing is breaking the exchange rate between a unit of bank deposits and a unit of currency.

    Why would they do this? Why would they want to do this? Well, it’s one of the anti-cash policies that mainstream economists have vigorously been promoting.

    PAVING THE WAY FOR NEGATIVE INTEREST

    To make the calculations easier, and to illustrate the effect, let’s say that the Greek “surcharge” is ten dollars for every 100 dollars withdrawn. Now, instead of being able to convert one euro in your checking account into one euro in cash, on demand, you will only be able to buy one euro in cash by spending 1.10 euros in your bank accounts. That’s a negative 10-percent rate in some sense. That is to say that you can only take out one euro from the bank if you’re willing to pay 1.10 euros. So, you would only really get ninety cents for every dollar that you wanted to withdraw and that’s very significant because this means it will be more expensive to buy an item with cash than with bank deposits.

    At the same time, the Greek government made it very clear that if you deposit the cash in the banks, you don’t get 1.10 euros of bank money for every euro you deposit.

    So the system is now structured to lock the money in the banks. Now, what does that allow them to do? If you lose 10 percent every time you withdraw one euro in cash, they can lower the interest rate that you get on bank deposits to negative 5 percent, or negative 6 percent. You still wouldn’t withdraw your cash from the banks even if the interest rate went negative.

    What we are witnessing is a war on cash in which governments make it either illegal or inconvenient to use cash. This, in turn, allows governments the ability to spy on and regulate financial transactions more completely, while also allowing governments more leeway in manipulating the money supply.

    THE ORIGINS OF THE WAR ON CASH

    It all started really with the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970, passed in the US, which requires financial institutions in the United States to assist US government agencies in detecting and preventing money laundering. That was the rationale. Specifically, the act requires financial institutions to keep records of cash payments and file reports of cash purchases or negotiable instruments of more than $10,000 as a daily aggregate amount. Of course, this is all sold as a way of tracking criminals.

    The US government employs other means of making war on cash also. Up until 1945, there were 500 dollar bills, 1,000 dollar bills, and 10,000 dollar bills in circulation. There was even a 100,000 dollar bill in the 1930s with which banks made clearings between one another. The US government stopped issuing these bills in 1945 and by 1969 had withdrawn all from circulation. So, in the guise of fighting organized crime and money laundering, what’s actually occurred is that they made it very inconvenient to use cash. A one hundred dollar bill today has $15.50 worth of purchasing power in 1969 dollars, when they removed the last big bills.

    THE PROBLEM IS INTERNATIONAL

    The war on cash in Sweden has gone probably the furthest and Scandinavian governments in general are notable for their opposition to cash. In Swedish cities, tickets for public buses no longer can be purchased for cash; they must be purchased in advance by a cell phone or text message — in other words, via bank accounts.

    The deputy governor of the Swedish Central Bank gloated, before his retirement a few years back, that cash will survive “like the crocodile,” even though it may be forced to see its habitat gradually cut back.

    The analogy is apt since three of the four major Swedish banks combined have more than two-thirds of their offices no longer accepting or paying out cash. These three banks want to phase out the manual handling of cash at their offices at a very rapid pace and have been doing that since 2012.

    In France, opponents of cash tried to pass a law in 2012 which would restrict the use of cash from a maximum of 3,000 euros per exchange to 1,000. The law failed, but then there was the attack on Charlie Hebdo and on a Jewish supermarket, so immediately the state used this as a reason for getting the 1,000 maximum limit. They got their maximum limit. Why? Well, proponents claim that these attacks were partially financed by cash.

    The terrorists used cash to purchase some of the stuff they needed. No doubt, these murderers also wore shoes and clothing and used cell phones and cars during the planning and execution of their mayhem. Why not ban these things? A naked barefoot terrorist without communications is surely less effective than the fully clothed and equipped one.

    Finally, Switzerland, formerly a great bastion of economic liberty and financial privacy, has succumbed under the bare-knuckle tactics of the US government. The Swiss government has banned all cash payments of more than 100,000 francs (about $106,000), including transactions involving watches, real estate, precious metals, and cars. This was done under the threat of blacklisting by the Organization of Economic Development, with the US no doubt pushing behind the scenes. Transactions above 100,000 francs will now have to be processed through the banking system. The reason is to prevent the catch-all crime, of course, of money laundering.

    Chase Bank has also recently joined the war on cash. It’s the largest bank in the US, a subsidiary of JP Morgan Chase and Co., and according to Forbes, the world’s third largest public company. It also received $25 billion in bailout loans from the US Treasury. As of March, Chase began restricting the use of cash in selected markets. The new policy restricts borrowers from using cash to make payments on credit cards, mortgages, equity lines, and auto loans.

    Chase even goes as far as to prohibit the storage of cash in its safe deposit boxes. In a letter to its customers, dated April 1, 2015, pertaining to its “updated safe deposit box lease agreement,” one of the high-lighted items reads, “You agree not to store any cash or coins other than those found to have a collectible value.” Whether or not this pertains to gold and silver coins with no collectible value is not explained, but of course it does. As one observer warned, “This policy is unusual, but since Chase is the nation’s largest bank, I wouldn’t be surprised if we start seeing more of this in this era of sensitivity about funding terrorists and other illegal causes.” So, get your money out of those safe deposit boxes, your currency and probably your gold and silver.

    ONLY (SUPERVISED) SPENDING IS ALLOWED

    Gregory Mankiw, a prominent macroeconomist, came up with a scheme in 2009: the Fed would announce that a year from the date of the announcement, it intended to pick a numeral from 0 to 9 out of a hat. All currency with a serial number ending in that numeral, would instantly lose status as legal tender, causing the expected return on holding currency to plummet to -10 percent. This would allow the Fed to reduce interest rates below zero for a year or even more because people would happily loan money for say, -2 percent or -4 percent because that would stop them from losing 10 percent.

    Now the reason given by our rulers for suppressing cash is to keep society safe from terrorists, tax evaders, money launderers, drug cartels, and other villains real or imagined. The actual aim of the ?ood of laws restricting or even prohibiting the use of cash is to force the public to make payments through the financial system. This enables governments to expand their ability to spy on and keep track of their citizens’ most private financial dealings, in order to milk their citizens of every last dollar of tax payments that they claim are due.

    Other reasons for suppressing cash are (1) to prop up the unstable fractional reserve banking system, which is in a state of collapse all over the world, and (2) to give central banks the power to impose negative nominal interest rates. That is, to make you spend money by subtracting money from your bank account for every day you leave it in the bank account and don’t spend it.

  • Did Tim Cook Violate Regulation "Fair Disclosure" By Emailing Jim Cramer To Save AAPL Stock This Morning

    Earlier today, as AAPL stock was plummeting and had lost a whopping $75 billion in market cap, dropping as low as $92/share, CNBC’s Jim Cramer pulled a rabit out of a hat, or in this case a previously undisclosed email out of his inbox. An email from AAPL CEO Tim Cook which said the following (as subsequently conveyed by Cramer to CNBC viewers):

    Jim,

     

    As you know, we don’t give mid-quarter updates and we rarely comment on moves in Apple stock. But I know your question is on the minds of many investors.

     

    I get updates on our performance in China every day, including this morning, and I can tell you that we have continued to experience strong growth for our business in China through July and August. Growth in iPhone activations has actually accelerated over the past few weeks, and we have had the best performance of the year for the App Store in China during the last 2 weeks.

     

    Obviously I can’t predict the future, but our performance so far this quarter is reassuring. Additionally, I continue to believe that China represents an unprecedented opportunity over the long term as LTE penetration is very low and most importantly the growth of the middle class over the next several years will be huge.

     

    Tim

    While we are delighted by Tim Cook’s subjective take of AAPL’s Chinese prospects, we have a different question: where is the public filing that accompanies this letter which constitutes nothing short of a private business update with an outside, and unregulated by Apple, market cheerleader?

    Because as the AAPL reaction to Tim’s letter, which was clearly in Cramer’s private possession for at least 1 millisecond before it was made public (and thus we don’t know who else may have had access to it before its public dissemination), just how is this not a Regulation Fair Disclosure violation?

    Needless to say, the fate of AAPL, which is the most important stock in the world, held by a record 181 hedge funds, determines the intraday (and not only) fate of the entire market.

    And for those who may have missed it, this is what AAPL’s stock has done today, ever since this clearly market moving letter, helped AAPL regain an unprecedented $80 billion in market cap since the lows.

     

    We are eagerly looking to find an 8K public filing of Tim Cook’s letter among AAPL’s EDGAR filings, even if it will have taken place hours after the market moving event, or alternatively, perhaps the SEC or any other authorities who were not too stunned to react today, can explain just why this is not a Reg FD violation?

    Then again, with AAPL leading the S&P rapidly into the green, we are confident this, too, will be promptly forgotten and swept under the carpet of “whatever it takes to keep the market green.”

  • Coming To America? China Censors Bad Market Talk Amid Meltdown

    Back in July, after a dramatic unwind in the half dozen or so backdoor margin lending channels that had helped drive Chinese stocks to nosebleed levels triggered a terrifying 30% decline (vaporizing billions in paper profits in the process), the Politburo predictably stepped in to rescue the market. 

    However, when it started to become clear that a succession of declarations, directives, policy rate cuts, and even threats weren’t going to be enough to alleviate the pressure on equities, Beijing looked to take back the narrative by banning the use of certain undesirable phrases.


    Here’s what happened (as detailed in “China Bans Use Of Terms ‘Equity Disaster’ And ‘Rescue The Market’“):

    Although it’s not possible to know exactly what the mood is among Party officials in China regarding the inexorable slide in stock prices that’s unfolded over the course of the last three weeks, it’s reasonable to assume that at least some officials in Beijing are in the throes of Politburo panic after watching some $3 trillion in market value disappear into thin (and probably polluted) air. 

     

    Amid the turmoil, China has resorted to an eye-watering array of policy maneuvers, pronouncements, and plunge protection schemes aimed at arresting the slide.

     

    Nothing has worked.

     

    Not suspending compulsory liquidation for unmet margin calls, not billions in committed market support from brokerages, not a PBoC backstop for the CFSC, and not even a ban on selling by the Social Security Council. 

     

    And so, with every attempt to manipulate the market higher falling flat in the face of selling pressure from the hairdresser/ farmer/ banana vendor day trading crowd (which has now thrown in the towel on the whole “it’s easier than farm work” theory and now just wants to break even and head for the hills) the only thing left for China to do is “fix” the narrative.

     

    In other words, when banning selling doesn’t work, the logical next step is to ban talking about selling. As FT reports, one domestic journalist, who did not want to be named, said the government had banned local media from using the terms ‘equity disaster’ and ‘rescue the market’ in their reports on the stock market.”

    Given the above it shouldn’t come as a surprise that after Chinese stocks collapsed overnight, Beijing has reportedly banned discussion and forbade “negative market reports.”

    So with the censorship machine in high gear, Xi Jinping had better hope that Beijing can at least still exert some control over the narrative because as we saw over the weekend when angry investors captured the head of Fanya Metals Exchange, and as is clear from the outcry surrounding the chemical blast in Tianjin, the public is restless, and the collapse of the stock market might just be the catalyst for social upheaval.

  • Return To Junk Status "Only A Matter Of Time" For Latin America's Most Important Economy: Barclays

    Brazil’s embattled President Dilma Rousseff suffered another setback on Monday when Vice President Michel Temer elected to drop his role as Rousseff’s day-to-day liaison in Congress.

    As Reuters reports, “Temer is an important ally of Rousseff and his decision will further hamstring the unpopular president, who is facing calls for her resignation or impeachment as the economy flounders.” Here’s more: 

    Temer’s decision is seen as a prelude to the departure of his Brazilian Democratic Movement Party (PMDB), the nation’s largest, from the governing coalition of the Workers’ Party to field its own candidate in 2018.

     

    Valor Economico newspaper reported on Friday that the PMDB would formally announce its decision to break with the Rousseff government at a party congress on Nov. 15.

     

    PMDB officials told Reuters the party would break with Rousseff’s coalition at some point because it plans to field its own presidential candidate in 2018, but it was not considering leaving this year. The PMDB controls both houses of Congress and its break with the government would seriously weaken Rousseff.

    The move comes as the government elected to drop one in four ministries in an effort to rein in spending although, as one Sao Paulo political analyst told Reuters, “[Temer’s decision] will reinforce market worries about the government’s ability to execute economic policies.”

    Those worries come as the country struggles to cope with both fiscal and current account deficits and a nasty bout of stagflation, all of which we’ve discussed at length. Visually, the problem looks like this:

    The political and economic turmoil (with the latter punctuated by a horrendous unemployment print for July) couldn’t come at a worse time.

    The country sits at the center of the global EM unwind and between the uncertainties surrounding the government’s ability to implement austerity combined with the pain from falling commodity prices and sluggish demand from China, there are now very real questions about how long the country can maintain its investment grade rating.

    Here’s Barclays with more:

    The global and domestic environments have soured, and the clock is ticking for Brazil to prove its creditors that it still belongs to the investment grade club. The Fed is about to embark on policy normalization that should, albeit gradually, put the period of easy dollar funding behind us. China seems to be accepting the inevitable fact that its large economy is structurally slowing and has so far resisted fighting the slowdown with fiscal stimulus as it did in the past. Commodity prices have been responding to this new outlook for some time, and they now look particularly vulnerable following China’s recent steps. 

     

    For Brazil, the global backdrop, while still better than during most of its history, feels hostile relative to the one it faced in its recent past.

     

    As they should, excesses have been exposed by tough times; however, this time, policy mismanagement likely carries more blame than complacency to the now gone good times. Brazil’s fiscal slippage accelerated ahead of the elections (Figure 1), in line with most of LatAm’s well-documented historical pattern. To varying degrees, most observers were not surprised by the Rousseff administration’s decision to boost spending before the polls. The surprise, instead, was how it handled it after winning the election.

     

    The Petrobras corruption scandal eroded what was left of President Rousseff’s already damaged political goodwill.

     

    This backdrop has left the country in a recession, its fiscal accounts shaky and consumer sentiment depressed. Latent social unrest may deprive the already weakened administration of the vigor needed to keep the country from losing its hard-earned investment grade rating.

     

    The country is at a crossroads and markets are taking note. With the economy contracting and the central bank raising rates, 2y inflation breakevens are receding from recent highs. At the same time, however, long-dated breakevens are creeping up, likely a sign of rising fiscal concerns. Markets may be pricing risks that Brazil’s challenging fiscal dynamics could end up being monetized (Figure 2).

     

    Doubts about the fiscal plan are thus raising questions of whether the central bank will remain committed to honor its inflation target at all times. The central bank, which is not independent, will be left between a rock and a hard place. On one hand it will be tempted to ease rates to support its battled economy as soon as near-term inflation and expectations stabilize. On the other, it will have to keep a hawkish eye on long-dated breakevens to avoid worsening credibility concerns.

     

    *  *  *

    The takeaway: “We conclude that, under current circumstances, it is only a matter of time until Brazil loses its investment grade status.”

    Or, summed up in a picture:


  • In Less Than 10 Years, The Federal Reserve Has Driven Millions Of American Women Into Prostitution

    Submitted by SouthBay Research

    Hookernomices: In less than 10 years, the Federal Reserve Has Driven Millions of American Women into Prostitution

    Mainstreaming Prostitution: Beginning last year, the Bank of England included prostitution in GDP measurements.  According to the Office of National Statistics, prostitution generated $9B a year, adding 0.7% to the UK GDP.  They aren’t alone: Sweden, Norway and a few other European countries already include it.  And if you can measure it, you can tax it.  And legalization is necessary for measurement.

    Prostitution is legal in most of the developed world.  In fact, of the G20 countries, prostitution is illegal in just 5: China, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, and, of course, the United States.

    Mainstreaming Prostitution US-Style: Seeking Arrangement

    Leave it to the 1% to find a way around the law.

    SeekingArrangement.com (SA) is a website catering to men and women who exchange sex for compensation, like an allowance or paying bills like student loans and rent.  It has 4.5M registered users

    • 3.3M Sugar Babies
    • 1.2M Sponsors (aka Sugar Daddies & Mommies)
    • Average age of Sugar Baby: 21
    • Average age of Sugar Daddy/Mommy: 45
    • Average Income of Sugar Daddy/Mommy: $500K
    • Average compensation: $5K per month

    The Economic Relevance of SA It’s where the 1% converges with the 99%.

    Earning $500K or more and spending $60K per year on a mistress: this is the 1%.  Needing help with college loans and rent: this is the other 99%.

    It’s not an online dating website.  If someone wants a relationship or a liaison, there are plenty of other sites like Craigslist and Ashley Madison.

    Is it a prostitution website?  According to SA they are not, repeat not, engaged in prostitution.  Their disclaimer: “An arrangement is not an escort service.  SeekingArrangement in no way, shape or form supports escorts or prostitutes using our website for personal gain.” 

    Seeking Arrangement: A Form of Prostitution, for the 1%.  As a prostitution website, it may not be as explicit as WhatsYourPrice or Backpage, but SA has at its core a business transaction: companionship with extras in return for cash and/or the equivalent.  Or, as they call it themselves, a dating site with “mutually beneficial relationships.”  And the Sugar Babies aren’t paid, they are given an allowance.  A financial arrangement for sex is prostitution, and when it involves millions of participants, it’s worth measuring.

    Why Can’t Millions of Young Women Afford Rent

    SeekingArrangement: A Sign of Today’s Financial Stress 

    Millions of college students and recent grads are struggling to make ends meet.  Talk about excess supply: there is a 3:1 ratio of Babies to Daddies/Mommies.  Sugar Babies need help with their basics: college loans, rent, & car payments.  (Which works well for Daddies/Mommies because these can be hidden as business expenses, which is helpful when dealing with the IRS and/or the spouse.)

    The Unbearable Weight of Rent  Rent is now 40% of income in most major metro cities.  It’s 50% in New York. 

    Following the recent Recession, home ownership began to plunge while rental vacancies dropped.  Clearly people were being squeezed out of home ownership and forced into renting.  Home ownership has collapsed to 40 year lows, rental vacancies has dropped to 30 year lows.  The connection is simple: housing is unaffordable and more people have to rent.

    But how can this be?  The National Realtor Association’s Housing Affordability Index assures us that housing affordability has never been better.  Young people should be snatching up homes and leaving apartments.

    The Reality: Housing is Incredibly Unaffordable

    The difference between buying a house today and buying a house in the last cycle is that yesterday’s buyers didn’t need a down payment.  Today they need 20%.

    San Francisco’s median home price just hit $1M.  What recent college graduate has $200K cash for the down payment?  It’s like saying Disneyland rides are free, why aren’t more families going – and conveniently forgetting about the $100 per person entry fee, super high airfares, and hotel costs

    For young people, renting is the only option.  And that presents another problem.

    Out of Control Rent

    From 2000-2014, incomes have grown 25% while rents have grown 53%. 
    Housing used to require 25% of incomes.  Today it is bumping 40% in all major metro areas.  50% in New York.

    The result: today’s young people can’t buy homes.  And neither can they afford rents. 
    That’s why millions have turned to the newly legalized form of prostitution: Seeking Arrangement.

    How The Fed Created the Jump in Prostitution 

    Real estate inflation is outpacing incomes by such a wide margin thanks to loose monetary policy under Greenspan and then Bernanke.  It has led to real estate being bid up, making both homes and rental properties more expensive.  Landlords in turn pass along the higher prices.

    It’s a case of economic policy run amuck.  Real estate development can boost the economy, under the right conditions: lots of jobs and economic activity get generated when homes are built or refurbished.  And there is the wealth effect when home prices rise.  But when taken to extremes – as it is today and was in the previous economic cycle consumer spending gets squeezed out in order to pay mortgages and rent.  It becomes an incredibly unproductive use of capital.

    (Almost as unfortunate, having created the problem of runaway housing inflation, the government has decided that the best solution is to address it via wage inflation by dictating higher minimum wages.)  

    Simply put, we have a surge in college-age prostitution and it’s the Fed’s fault. It gives new meaning to the term “perverse monetary policies”

  • Marc Faber: The Global Economy Is Entering An Epic Slump

    Submitted by Adam Taggart via PeakProsperity.com,

    Famed investor and author of the Gloom, Doom, Boom Report, Marc Faber, returns to the podcast this week to discuss the slowdown in the global economy, signs of which he claims are multiplying fast all around the world.

    He predicts the next year is going to be an especially bruising one for investors, and recommends a combination of diversification and defense for those with financial capital to protect:

    I do not believe that the global economy is healing. I believe that the global economy is heading into a slump once again.

     

    We have a slowdown practically everywhere and if you take out the fudging of statistics, the economy for the median household everywhere in the world is not doing particularly well. If the global economy were doing so fantastically well, how would it be that commodities collapsed to the extent that they have declined? Or how would it be that the currencies of American markets and some of them have actually declined by more than 50 percent against the U.S. dollar in the last three years. How would this happen? So I do not believe that we have a healing of the global economy. On the contrary, I believe that the global economy is slowing down and that essentially equity markets are not particularly attractive.

     

    Preceding every bubble, you have a huge expansion of credit. That was the case in the period ’97 to 2000, and in the period 2003 to 2007, and on previous occasions in economic history. In the case of China, credit as a percent of the economy has grown by more than 50% over the last five years, which is essentially a world record. And in my view, its economy is slowing down rapidly. I had a drink with a friend of mine the other day who has car dealerships, luxury car dealerships, in China. He said sales have hit a brick wall. Not 'slowed down'; a brick wall. And indeed, exports were down and car sales were down in July. I think that this will then spill over again into other emerging economies because China is a large buyer of commodities and a large trading partner to other countries.

     
    I travel extensively. I can see roughly what is going on. So I really believe that the American market complex is not doing well at the present time. And everywhere, people basically are faced with rising costs of living and essentially declining currencies so that the persons in power goes down. So it's not a pretty picture. 

    Click the play button below to listen to Chris' interview with Marc Faber (37m:21s)

     

  • Guest Post: Is Trump Worse Than Hitler?

    Submitted by James H. Kunstler via Kunstler.com,

    Even the formerly august New York Times grants that Donald J. Trump has ignited a voter firestorm of grievance against a dumb show election process that rewards a craven avoidance of real issues. Immigration is actually a stand-in for the paralysis, incompetence, overreach, and bloatedness of government generally in our time — but it is a good doorway into the larger problem.

    Immigration is a practical problem, with visible effects on-the-ground, easy to understand. I’m enjoying the Trump-provoked debate mostly because it is a pushback against the disgusting dishonesty of political correctness that has bogged down the educated classes in a swamp of sentimentality. For instance, Times Sunday Magazine staffer Emily Bazelon wrote a polemic last week inveighing against the use of the word “illegal” applied to people who cross the border without permission on the grounds that it “justifies their mistreatment.” One infers she means that sending them back where they came from equals mistreatment.

    It’s refreshing that Trump is able to cut through this kind of tendentious crap. If that were his only role, it would be a good one, because political correctness is an intellectual disease that is making it impossible for even educated people to think — especially people who affect to be political leaders. Trump’s fellow Republicans are entertainingly trapped in their own cowardliness and it’s fun to watch them squirm.

    But for me, everything else about Trump is frankly sickening, from his sneering manner of speech, to the worldview he reveals day by day, to the incoherence of his rhetoric, to the wolverine that lives on top of his head. The thought of Trump actually getting elected makes me wonder where Arthur Bremer is when we really need him.

    Did any of you actually catch Trump’s performance last week at the so-called “town meeting” event in New Hampshire (really just a trumped-up pep rally)? I don’t think I miscounted that Trump told the audience he was “very smart” 23 times in the course of his remarks. If he really was smart, he would know that such tedious assertions only suggest he is deeply insecure about his own intelligence. After all, this is a man whose lifework has been putting up giant buildings that resemble bowling trophies, some of them in the service of one of the worst activities of our time, legalized gambling, which is based on the socially pernicious idea that it’s possible to get something for nothing.

    I daresay that legalized gambling has had a possibly worse effect on American life the past three decades than illegal immigration. Gambling is a marginal activity for marginal people that belongs on the margins — the back rooms and back alleys. It was consigned there for decades because it was understood that it’s not healthy for the public to believe that it’s possible to get something for nothing, that it undermines perhaps the most fundamental principle of human life.

    Trump’s verbal incoherence is really something to behold. He’s incapable of expressing a complete thought without venturing down a dendritic maze of digressions, often leading to an assertion of how much he is loved (another sign of insecurity). For example, when he attacked Jeb’s (no last name necessary) statement that we have to show Iraqi leaders that “we have skin in the game,” Trump invoked the “wounded warriors,” saying “I love them. They’re everywhere. They love me.” In the immortal words of Tina Turner, “what’s love got to do with it?”

    Trump’s notion that he can push around world leaders such as Vladimir Putin by treating them as though they were president of the Cement Workers’ Union ought to give thoughtful people the vapors. It doesn’t seem to occur to Trump that other countries could easily get pugnacious towards us. He would have us in a world war before the inaugural parade was over.

    The trouble is that it’s not inconceivable Trump could get elected. Farfetched, perhaps, but not out of the question. The USA is heading for a very rough patch of history — as those of you with your eyes on the stock indexes lately may suspect. The country stands an excellent chance of waking up some morning soon to discover it is broke and broken. When that happens, all the anxiety and animus will be focused on looking for scapegoats, and they are likely to be the wrong ones. World leaders considered Hitler a clown in the early going, too, you know. But the Germans were wild about him. He pushed a lot of the right buttons under the circumstances. Trump is worse than Hitler. And the American people, alas, are now surely a worse lot of ignorant, raging, tattooed slobs than the German people were in 1933. Be very afraid.

  • The Ghost Of 1997 Beckons, Can Asia Escape? Morgan Stanley, BofA Weigh In

    Needless to say, the past 24 hours have done nothing to dispel worries that we’re spiraling towards a repeat of the Asian Financial Crisis. 

    Asia ex-Japan currencies have been battered along with their EM counterparts worldwide on the back of China’s move to devalue the yuan which seemed to telegraph Beijing’s concern about the true state of the country’s flagging economy.

    This has driven commodities to their lowest levels of the 21st century (yes, you read that correctly), pressuring EM FX from LatAm to Asia-Pac and sparking worries that emerging economies – even those armed with far higher FX reserves than they held two decades ago – may be ill-equipped to cope with accelerating outflows.

    Indeed the similarities between the current crisis and that which unfolded in 1997/98 were so readily apparent that many analysts began to draw comparisons and that may have added fuel to fire over the past week.

    Now, there seems to be a concerted effort to calm the market by explaining that while there are similarities, there are also differences. Of course this goes without saying. No two crises are identical and as the old saying goes, “history doesn’t repeat, but it does rhyme,” and to the extent some of the imperiled economies are in better shape to defend themselves this time around (e.g. because they are in a better position from an FX reserve and capital account perspective) that’s a positive, but when attempting to cope with a meltdown, it may be more important to look at where things are similar and on that note, here’s some color from Morgan Stanley and BofAML.

    *  *  *

    From Morgan

    As highlighted in our answer to the question on “What is wrong with Asia’s macro story”, the region today has a number of similarities with the 1990s cycle in terms of a misallocation led by a low real rate environment led and then an adjustment cycle triggered by reversal in US Fed monetary policy.

    Specifically: 

    • A low real rates environment – aided by starting point of high excess saving and easy monetary policy in the US. 
    • Domestic misallocation – in both cycles, there has been trailing misallocation of resources into unproductive areas. This is best seen in the rise in the region’s ICOR in both cycles. 
    • Debt build-up – Since 2008, the region’s debt to GDP has risen by 52ppt, to 206% in 2014. Similarly in the 1990s, there had been a buildup of debt in the run-up to the Asian Financial Crisis. 
    • External trigger – the adjustment phase in both cycles had been triggered by the rise in US real rates and appreciation of the US dollar (though in this cycle, the slowdown in China has been an additional factor in driving the adjustment). 

     

    *  *  *

    From BofAML:

    Can Asia escape the ghost of 1997?

    The aftermath of CNY devaluation

    Asian financial markets are seeing an intensification of selling pressure in the aftermath of the recent CNY devaluation. Investors are now asking if this is a repeat of the 1997 Asian financial crisis that was preceded by China’s 1994 devaluation. Our Asia Chief Economist, Hak Bin Chua, touched upon the similarities last week (see Tremors from China’s devaluation), but in light of the impending sense of crisis it is worthwhile exploring the issue further and asking whether Asia can escape history repeating itself. 

    Revisionist history and the blame game

    The CNY’s recent depreciation and subsequent sell-off in global markets naturally prompts investors to put the blame on China’s doorstep and revisit its 1994 depreciation as the cause of the 1997 Asia financial crisis. The difficulty in blaming China for the 1997 crisis is that its economy was much smaller at the time, and not integrated into the WTO trade system. Its “devaluation” resulted from a merging of two exchange rates (one for trade and another for investments) producing a net devaluation of 7-8% (according to World Bank estimates) as the bulk of Chinese exports were already sold at the swap market exchange rate. This measure is much lower compared to the nominal 33% devaluation.

    However, there are two alternative explanations for Asia’s 1997 crisis. The first is the “crony capitalism” narrative, in which Asia undertook unsustainable short-term FX borrowing to finance unsustainable current account deficits. This FX borrowing was guaranteed against implicit FX pegs that funded questionable investments. These investments were premised on the thesis of an Asian Miracle that proved unfounded and resulted in capital outflows and a collapse of Asian currency pegs.

    The second explanation is that the seeds of the Asian financial crisis were sown by the 1985 Plaza Accord, which was aimed at halting USD strength and reversing JPY weakness. Ultimately, the subsequent JPY appreciation deflated Japan’s economic bubble in the early 1990s. Asia then faced a triple whammy of slower Japanese growth, ensuing JPY depreciation and a Fed tightening cycle initiated in 1994.

    Japan vs China this time

    No doubt the truth lies somewhere in between these three narratives. But it is worth exploring the similarity between China and Japan. Indeed, the CNY has embarked on a sustained appreciation since its managed float in July 2005 under pressure from G7 countries to “rebalance” its economy.

    Chart 1 shows the similarity of the JPY REER appreciation since the Plaza Accord with the CNY appreciation since 2005 and the call from congressmen Graham and Schumer for a 30% appreciation. Another stylized feature of both economies was their sustained property market appreciation and asset bubble risk – this is illustrated in Chart 2. In nominal terms, the JPY appreciated 65% versus the USD in the decade following the Plaza Accord. Meanwhile, the CNY appreciated 22% since the 2005 de-peg from the USD.

    The final key commonality between the Asia crisis and now is the transmission through falling commodity prices and its aftershocks for EM commodity producers, especially those with pegged exchange rates and a negative terms of trade shock. Kazakhstan’s FX shift from peg to float and risk premium being built into GCC FX forwards for the Saudi rial and Omani rial illustrate this fragility now.

  • "They're Getting Away With Murder": Trump Blasts "Paper-Pushing Hedge Fund Guys" On Taxes

    A couple of weeks ago, Carl Icahn took to Twitter to “accept” Donald Trump’s offer to become Secretary of Treasury should America, in a fit of extreme frustration with business as usual inside the Beltway, do the previously unthinkable and put Trump in The White House. 

    According to a series of statements Trump made on Friday at a “pep rally” held at an Alabama football stadium, Icahn would also be in charge of negotiating trade deals with Japan and China in a Trump administration.

    “Everyone is killing us” Trump told a crowd estimated at about 20,000, adding that when he was told of China’s move to devalue the yuan he heard a “sucking action.”

    But lest anyone should think that Trump’s cozy relationship with Uncle Carl means the Teflon Don would go easy on billionaire hedge fund managers, the GOP frontrunner told CBS’ Face The Nation on Sunday that the hedgies are just a bunch of “paper pushers [that] get away with murder” from a tax perspective. Here’s Reuters:

    “The hedge fund guys didn’t build this country. These are guys that shift paper around and they get lucky,” Trump said.

     

    “They are energetic. They are very smart. But a lot of them – they are paper-pushers. They make a fortune. They pay no tax. It’s ridiculous, ok?”

     

    Trump’s comments were referring to the so-called “carried interest loophole” – a provision in the tax code which allows private equity and hedge fund managers pay taxes at the capital gains rate instead of the ordinary income rate.

     

    Many fund managers are in the top income bracket, but the capital gains tax bracket is only 20 percent.

     

    While these individuals are also required to pay an additional 3.8 percent surtax on their net investment income, this total rate is still far lower than the 39.6 percent rate that top wage earners must pay on their ordinary income.

     

    “Some of them are friends of mine. Some of them, I couldn’t care less about,” Trump said.

    Trump went on to suggest that he would move to restore America’s Middle Class which, as regular readers are no doubt aware, is being eroded by a monetary policy regime bent on inflating the value of the assets most likely to be concentrated in the hands of the wealthy.

    “I want to lower the rates for the middle class. The middle class is the one, they’re getting absolutely destroyed. This country doesn’t have—won’t have a middle class very soon,” he said. 

    But he wasn’t done.

    Trump then took to Fox & Friends on Monday morning to explain why he doesn’t support anything that even looks like a flat tax before suggesting that no matter what she says on the campaign trail, Hillary Clinton can’t be trusted to eliminate the carried-interest loophole because when she hangs out in the Hamptons, it’s “with the hedge fund guys.” Here’s WaPo:

    “The one problem I have with a flat tax is that rich people are paying the same as people that are making very little money,” Trump, who is worth an estimated $2.9 billion, said Monday morning on “Fox & Friends.” “I think there should be a graduation of some kind.”

     

    Clinton said she’d close the loophole, and while Trump didn’t mention carried interest specifically, he did say that hedge-fund managers should pay more in taxes.

     

    “They should be taxed a fair amount of money,” he said, without offering details. “They’re not paying enough tax.”

     

    He later criticized Clinton as being too close to Wall Street.

     

    “The hedge-fund guys are the ones that are giving her the money,” he said. “When she was in the Hamptons, she was with the hedge-fund guys.”

    Reading the above, one is left to wonder if Trump is leaving himself open to criticism regarding the consistency of his message. That is, when one is a billionaire and has just endorsed another billionaire (who is perhaps the most recognizable hedge fund manager in the history of capital markets) to be Treasury Secretary, to then turn around and call billionaire hedge fund managers “paper pushers” who “didn’t build this country” and consistently “get away with murder” at tax time, might well strike some voters as contradictory or even hypocritical, even if the idea that an unfair tax system is contributing to the demise of the Middle Class turns out to be a message that resonates with large blocks of voters.

    If building a platform on an ad hoc basis ultimately proves to be sustainable, then all the better for Trump’s chances, but even if he were to run as an independent, it’s critical that voters be able to figure out how the pieces fit together. That is, it’s not enough to be consistent and emphatic on individual issues (e.g. “I’m tough on immigation” and “I think billionaires should pay more taxes“), Trump will eventually need to figure out how to take his positions on the issues and turn them into a cohesive platform that voters can understand and, perhaps more importantly, that doesn’t end up tripping over itself when the debates start getting serious.

    If he can do that successfully, then the rest of the field – both Republicans and Democrats alike – may face an uphill battle when it comes to slowing Trump’s momentum. 

    In the meantime, things seem to still be going well:

    *  *  *

    Bonus: Trump’s new campaign message for Jeb Bush

    Even Barbara Bush agrees with me.

    A video posted by Donald J. Trump (@realdonaldtrump) on Aug 24, 2015 at 10:15am PDT

  • Peter Schiff Warns "The Fed Is Spooking The Markets, Not China"

    Submitted by Peter Schiff via Euro Pacific Capital,

    Fasten your seat belts, this ride is getting interesting. Last week the Dow Jones Industrial Average was down more than 1,000 points, notching its worst weekly performance in four years. The sell-off took the Dow Jones down more than 10% from its peak valuations, thereby constituting the first official correction in four years. One third of all S&P 500 companies are already in bear market territory, having declined more than 20% from their peaks. Scarier still, the selling intensified as the week drew to a close, with the Dow losing 530 points on Friday, after falling 350 points on Thursday. The new week is even worse, with the Dow dropping almost 1,100 points near the open today before cutting its losses significantly. However, no one should expect that this selling is over. The correction may soon morph into a full-fledged bear market if the Fed makes good on its supposed intentions to raise interest rates this year. Have no illusions, while most market observers are quick to blame the sell-off on China, this market was given life by the Fed, and the Fed is the only force that will keep it alive.

     
    The Dow has now blown through the lows from October 2014, when fears over life without quantitative easing and zero percent interest rates had caused the markets to pull back about 5%. Back then when market fear began spreading, St. Louis Fed President James Bullard publically issued a few choice words which reassured the markets that the Fed stood ready to reignite the QE engines if the economy really needed a fresh dose of stimulus. By the end of the year the Dow had rallied 10%.
     
    Amid last week's carnage, Mr. Bullard was at it once again. But instead of throwing the market a much needed life preserver, he threw it an unwanted anchor. He offered that the economy was still strong enough to warrant a rate increase in September. He was careful to say, however, that the Fed is still "data dependent" and will therefore base its decision on information that will come out over the next three weeks. So after nearly seven years of zero percent interest rates, the most momentous decision the Fed has made since the Great Recession will be dictated by a few weekly data points that have yet to emerge. Haven't seven years of data provided them enough information already? What's next? Will they have to check the five-day forecast to insure that there will be no rain before they pull the trigger?
     
    As I have been saying for years, the Fed has always known that the fragile economy created through stimulus might prove unable to survive even the most marginal of rate increases. But in order to instill confidence in the markets, it has pretended that it could. Wall Street has largely played along in the charade, insisting that rate increases were justified by an apparently strengthening economy and needed to restore normalcy to the financial markets.
     
    But the recovery Wall Street had anticipated never arrived, and traders who had earlier demanded that the Fed get on with the show, have now panicked that the rate hikes are about to occur in the face of a weakening economy. As a result, we are seeing a redux of the 2013 "taper tantrum" when stocks sold off when the Fed announced that it would be winding down its QE purchases of bonds.
     
    The question now is how much further the markets will have to fall before the Fed comes to the rescue by calling off any threatened rate increase? What else could pull the markets out of the current nose dive?
     
    Think about where we are. Stock valuations are extremely high and earnings are falling and the economy is clearly decelerating. The steady march upward in stock prices has been enabled by a wave of cheap financing and share buybacks. There are very few reasons to currently suspect that earnings, profits, and share prices will suddenly improve organically. This market is just about the Fed. After one of the longest uninterrupted bull runs in history, bearish investors have learned the hard way that they can't fight the Fed. So why should they now expect to win when the Fed is posturing that its about to embark on a tightening cycle? 
     
    If the Fed were to do what it pretends it wants to do (embark on a tightening campaign that brings rates to about 2.0% in 18 months), and in the process ignore the carnage on Wall Street, I believe we would see a consistent sell off in which most of the gains made since 2009 would be surrendered. After all, how much of those gains came from bona fide improvements in the economy? It was all about the twin props of Quantitative Easing and zero percent interest rates. The Fed has already removed one of the props, and it's no accident that the markets have gained no ground whatsoever in the eight months since the QE program was officially wound down.
     
    As the market considers a world without the second prop, a free fall could ensue. Now that we have broken through the October 2014 lows, there is very little technical support that should come in to play. A free fall in stocks could be an existential threat to an already weak economy.  It should be clear the Janet Yellen-controlled Fed would not want to risk such a scenario. This is why I believe that if the sharp sell off in stocks continues, we will get a clear signal that rate hikes are off the table.
     
    Of course, even if it does throw us that bone, the Fed will pretend that the weakness was unexpected and that it does not come from within (but is caused by external forces coming from China and Europe). Using that excuse, it will attempt to prolong the bluff that its delay is just temporary. For now at least Wall Street is happy to play along with the blame China game. This ignores the fact that China has had much bigger sell offs in recent weeks that did not lead to follow-on losses on Wall Street. I think the problems in China are the same problems confronting other emerging economies, namely the fear of a Fed tightening cycle that would weaken U.S. demand, depress commodity prices while simultaneously sucking investment capital into the United States, and away from the emerging markets, as a result of higher domestic interest rates and the strengthening dollar. 
     
    But if a temporary halt in rate hike rhetoric is not enough to stem the tide, a more definitive repudiation may be needed. Such an admission should finally open some eyes on Wall Street about the true nature of the economy and the unjustified strength of the U.S. dollar. That already may be happening. The dollar index closed at 95 on Friday…down from a high of 98 two weeks prior. On Monday, the index blew through the 93.50 support level and dropped more than 3% in just one day, down to intraday low of 92.6. Who knows where it stops now?
     
    Gold is rallying in the face of the crisis and has moved quickly back to $1,160, up around $80 in just two weeks. The bounce in gold must be causing extreme angst on Wall Street. Just two weeks ago, amid widening conviction that gold would fall below $1,000, it was revealed that hedge funds, for the first time, held net short positions on gold. Those trades are not working out. With the major currencies and gold now strengthening against the dollar, the greenback has had some success against far lesser rivals like the Thai baht and the Kazakhstan tenge. But these victories against currencies largely tied to commodities may be the last fights the dollar wins for a while, especially if Janet Yellen finally comes clean about the Fed's inherent dovishness. Those currencies now falling the farthest may be the biggest gainers if the Fed shelves rate increases.
     
    Some still cling to the belief that the Fed will deliver one or two token 25 basis point rate increase before year end. But this could expose the Fed to a bigger catastrophe than doing nothing at all. If it actually raises rates, and the crisis on Wall Street intensifies, further weakening an already slowing economy, the Fed would have to quickly reverse course and cut back to zero. This would put the Fed's cluelessness and impotency into very sharp focus. From its perspective anything is better than that. If it does nothing, and the economy continues to slow, ultimately "requiring" additional stimulus, it will at least appear that its caution was justified.
     
    Unfortunately for the Fed, it won't be able to get away with doing nothing for too much longer. Events may soon force it to show its hand. Then perhaps some may notice that the Fed is holding absolutely nothing and has been bluffing the entire time.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News August 24, 2015

  • The Exquisite Market Setup, 23 Aug

    There is an exquisite setup building once again. Tight fundamentals in the gold market apply upwards pressure on the price. For quite a while, we have been saying gold’s fundamental price was around a hundred bucks above the market price. Well, the market price moved up $46 this week. What happened to the fundamental price? You’ll have to read on to see (no cheating and reading ahead!) but suffice to say it’s quite a bit higher than the market.

    At the same time, the fundamental price of silver is below the market price. We included a graph last week, showing that gold is being sold at a discount and silver at a premium to their fundamental prices. The price of silver moved up this week, though it didn’t move like gold. It was up, then down, then up, then back down, ending a mere nine cents higher than last week. In fact, on Friday, the price of gold went up about 0.8% but the price of silver dropped 1.7%.

    And this is the crux. According to popular belief, the prices of the metals are supposed to move together. Silver is supposed to go up when gold goes up, only more. This is due to money printing, inflation, economic fear, anticipation of further policy madness from the Fed, or whatever. It’s much clearer when you price everything in gold.

    The fundamentals for silver just aren’t there right now. What happens when a trading thesis is believed by just about everyone?

    These are the market upsets about which stories are told years later.

    Could we see gold with a 13 handle and silver with a 14 handle?  Read on…

    First, here is the graph of the metals’ prices.

           The Prices of Gold and Silver
    Prices

    We are interested in the changing equilibrium created when some market participants are accumulating hoards and others are dishoarding. Of course, what makes it exciting is that speculators can (temporarily) exaggerate or fight against the trend. The speculators are often acting on rumors, technical analysis, or partial data about flows into or out of one corner of the market. That kind of information can’t tell them whether the globe, on net, is hoarding or dishoarding.

    One could point out that gold does not, on net, go into or out of anything. Yes, that is true. But it can come out of hoards and into carry trades. That is what we study. The gold basis tells us about this dynamic.

    Conventional techniques for analyzing supply and demand are inapplicable to gold and silver, because the monetary metals have such high inventories. In normal commodities, inventories divided by annual production (stocks to flows) can be measured in months. The world just does not keep much inventory in wheat or oil.

    With gold and silver, stocks to flows is measured in decades. Every ounce of those massive stockpiles is potential supply. Everyone on the planet is potential demand. At the right price, and under the right conditions. Looking at incremental changes in mine output or electronic manufacturing is not helpful to predict the future prices of the metals. For an introduction and guide to our concepts and theory, click here.

    Next, this is a graph of the gold price measured in silver, otherwise known as the gold to silver ratio. The ratio moved up sharply this week. 

    The Ratio of the Gold Price to the Silver Price
    Ratio

    For each metal, we will look at a graph of the basis and cobasis overlaid with the price of the dollar in terms of the respective metal. It will make it easier to provide brief commentary. The dollar will be represented in green, the basis in blue and cobasis in red.

    Here is the gold graph.

           The Gold Basis and Cobasis and the Dollar Price
    Gold

    The price of the dollar dropped considerably, from 27.9mg to 26.8mg gold (i.e. the price of gold rose). However, the cobasis didn’t drop much and the basis (i.e. abundance) actually fell a bit.

    The fundamental price moved up almost as much as the market price, and it’s still about a hundred bucks above the market.

    There are two interesting points worth noting here. One, if this rising price of gold gets traders excited, there’s no reason why the market price couldn’t overshoot. Second, the rising price could motivate stackers to go out and buy before the price goes even higher. In other words, the fundamental could rise as well, in a positive feedback loops.

    We make no prediction of $1,300+ gold. We are interested in valuing the metal, not timing the market. However, as market observers we see $1,300 as quite possible without much of a stretch.

    Now let’s look at silver.

    The Silver Basis and Cobasis and the Dollar Price
    Silver

    The price of silver went up. However, the cobasis (i.e. scarcity) is much lower than in gold—negative—and it fell.

    We calculate a fundamental price of silver more than 50 cents below the market price.

    Next week, we will talk about how we calculate fundamental prices and how they differ from the market price.


    Monetary Metals will be in New York City on Friday afternoon, September 11. You are cordially invited to join us for a discussion of economics and markets, with a focus on how to approach saving, investing, and speculating. Midtown. RSVP here.

     

    © 2015 Monetary Metals

  • "Black Monday" – Shanghai Composite Goes Red For The Year, Wiping Out 60% In Gains, 2000 Stocks Limit Down

     

    But… but… pension funds are “allowed” to buy stocks.

    Judging by the first few minutes of trading in the first thing to open this evening on the mainland, the CSI 300 Index Futures which immediately tumbled by 4% to 3340, China’s attempt to deflect attention from the fact that it did not do a 50-100 bps RRR cut is not doing too well.

    Some other indicative levels which are in line with the CSI:

    • Shanghai Composite to open -3.8%, some 130 points below the 3,500 “hard line” support level below which it is a nothing but air back to 2000
    • Shenzhen down 4.3%
    • ChiNext down 5.1%

    That said, we expect the National Team to not give up without a big fight, and forcefully step in any minute and do everything in its power to prevent the resultant plunge in the Shanghai Composite which is set to open shortly, or else SHCOMP 2000 beckons, and with it lots and lots of social unrest.

    * * *

    Update: Shanghai Composite now down -5.7%

     

    And the 3,500 support is now gone.

     

    Update 2: Shanghai Composite crashing, now down 7%

     

    Update 3 and final: SHANGHAI COMPOSITE INDEX ERASES YEAR’S GAINS

  • US Equity Futures Are Crashing

    Moments ago, without any specific catalyst, US equity futures just plunged when in thin, illiquid tape, a seller took out about 30 consecutive bid levels and as of last check, the ES was down as much as -48 to just 1923, or 2.5%, after being down a modest -13 minutes ago.

    It is unclear just what is going on, or whether some prop desk or hedge fund just got tapped out, and/or how the Fed will react but the last time we had action like this, the Fed confused a liquidating SocGen trader for an economic collapse, and cut rates by 75 bps in January of 2008. This time it does not have that luxury.

    So while we await the Fed’s response we watch in stunned amazement at a meltdown the likes of which we have not seen in years. Alternatively, if the Fed has nothing up its sleeve, the good news is that limit down for ES is just about 1870, so only 60 points more.

    * * *

    Update: just when it seemed that a BTFDer had emerged, even more focused selling took ES to new lows, and as of moments ago ES was down as low as 1913, down a whopping 58 points, and officially in 10% correction territory. Also, we are now down to about 50 points from limit down.

  • 10Y Slides Back Under 2%, Precisely What Goldman Said Could Not Happen

    Remember trade #2 from Goldman’s list of top trade recommendations for 2015?

     

    Um, yeah…. well, moments ago the 10Y just dropped below 2% for the first time since April.

    End result: tomorrow, Goldman’s cafeteria will once again be proudly serving Kermit flambe.

  • SocGen: "Markets Have Lost Faith In Monetary Policies"

    Aside from a few skeptical strategists, SocGen’s economists such as Michala Marcussen, have been ever so happy to drink the Kool-Aid of a US, and global, recovery that never comes and of a rate hike which until a few weeks ago was “imminent”… and suddenly isn’t even though nothing in the US economy has supposedly deteriorated. Which is why we were very surprised to read a note from none other than Marcussen, in which the formerly hopiumy economist , confirms what we have always known: that sooner or later, everyone will admit the truth.

    From SocGen

    Less confidence in central bank puts

     

    As noted above, the most notable feature of recent market price action is that there has been no visible comfort taken on risky assets from the idea that central banks may step in with further liquidity injections to alleviate the situation. To our minds, this reflects two main points. First, the fact that the tremendous amounts of liquidity injected to date have produced less than spectacular economic results. Clearly, markets have lost faith in the ability of unorthodox monetary policies to kick start the economy over time. This also fits the findings of academic literature suggestion diminishing returns from subsequent rounds of QE. Second, central banks have clearly become more concerned about the potential risks to financial stability from indefinitely inflating asset prices, suggesting that they may be slower to step in.

     

    Should the current situation – contrary to our expectations – spill over to a full blown crisis, we have little doubt that central banks would act. The lesson from the last crisis was that as the crisis deepened, central banks became more unorthodox in their approach. While part of the debt service costs of the public sector have been monetised (as central banks hand back profits from the carry of government bonds to the government coffers), actual debt has not been monetised. Moreover, political constraints have kept fiscal policy considerations in check in the bulk of the major economies. This raises an interesting question on whether fiscal policy expansion, backed by central banks, becomes the tool to fight the next crisis.

    * * *

    So… central bank intervention does little (or nothing, as the St. Louis Fed admitted as well), and yet SocGen has “little doubt that central banks would act.”

    Come to think of it, so do we, because while the world knows Einstein’s definition of insanity, here is what his definition of idiot would be: a central banker.

    As such, perhaps it is worth reminding readers that from the very beginning of this website, we predicted that the unleashing of QE, first in the US, and then everywhere else – the biggest policy mistake ever conducted by central bankers everywhere – has just one very logical ending: helicopter paradrops.

  • Angry Chinese Investors Capture Head Of Metals Exchange In Predawn Hotel Raid

    Meet Shan Jiuliang. 

    He’s the head of Fanya Metals Exchange and he was captured in a daring predawn raid in Shanghai on Saturday. 

    As FT notes, “Fanya is a forum for trading minor metals like indium and bismuth that has also functioned as a shadow banking conduit — not only leveraging metal deposited with the exchange as collateral for loans, but offering high interest investment products to retail investors.”

    If that sounds familiar to you, it should. Just last week in “The 8 Trillion Black Swan: Is China’s Shadow Banking System About To Collapse?,” we took a fresh look at the dizzying array of wealth management products and collective trust products that are, together, a CNY17.2 trillion industry in China. Summarizing a (very) long and convoluted story, WMPs are marketed to investors through banks as a high yielding alternative to savings deposits. Investors aren’t often aware of exactly what they’re investing in or how risky it might be or that in many cases, issuers borrow short to lend long resulting in a perpetual case of maturity mismatch. 

    “A key issue is whether the presumption of implicit guarantees is upheld or the authorities allow failing WMPs to default and investors to experience losses arising from these products,” the RBA said in a report, to which we responded that in the event investors are forced to take losses, “the key issue is what those investors will do next.”

    Well, now we know.

    First they will stage angry protests and then, if their money is not returned to them in about a month, they will travel from all corners of the country, stake out a hotel, kidnap the issuer of the WMP and haul him away to jail. Here’s FT with the story:

    The head of a Chinese exchange that trades minor metals was captured by angry investors in a dawn raid and turned over to Shanghai police, as the investors attempted to force the authorities to investigate why their funds have been frozen.

     

    Investors have been protesting for weeks after the Fanya Metals Exchange in July ceased making payments on financial investment products. The exchange, based in the southwestern city of Kunming, bought and stockpiled minor metals such as indium and bismuth, while also offering high interest, highly-liquid investment products from its offices in Shanghai and its financing branch in Kunming.

     

    Some investors flew in from faraway cities to join hundreds more surrounding a luxury hotel in Shanghai before dawn on Saturday. When Fanya founder Shan Jiuliang attempted to check out, they manhandled him into a car before delivering him to the nearest police station. Shanghai police took Mr Shan into custody and promised to work with local authorities in Yunnan province to investigate what has happened to investors’ money. They later released him without charge.

     

    The demonstrations in Shanghai and Kunming and the exchange’s unusual accumulation of several years’ supply of some metals have so far failed to attract much public attention from regulators. A report by the local regulator identifying the exchange as one of the bigger investment risks in Yunnan was redacted to remove reference to Fanya late last year.

     

    The exchange began to experience liquidity problems this spring. Fanya is estimated to hold several years’ supply of minor metals used in some high-tech and military applications, which it purchased at above-market prices. The exchange’s travails are pressuring prices for some of these metals, as traders anticipate it will have to sell its stockpile.

     

    The exchange, which has acknowledged it has problems, is backed by several of China’s minor metals miners. It has said it has found a buyer but won’t identify the company. Mr Shan “was deceiving us. He admitted to us that there is no buyout group,” said one disgruntled investor surnamed Gu, who participated in the rainy early morning raid.

     

    Mr Shan has been holding regular meetings with exchange backers since problems first surfaced this spring and was on the way to Guangzhou for a business trip when captured.

    As you can see, we are not at all joking when we contend that any move by China to allow for defaults and permit market forces to play a larger role in determining which investments eventually sour is likely to be met with a severe public backlash, especially for something like WMPs where investors believe they may have been deceived. 

    If Shan Jiuliang’s bad weekend is any indication of what’s in store for the Politburo once the PBoC loses complete control of the stock market, managing the yuan and restoring economic growth may be the least of Xi Jinping’s worries. 


  • Bloomberg's Commodity Index Just Hit A 21st Century Low

    After the Bloomberg commodity index crashed overnight, having tumbled for each of the past 4 years, this happened:

    • BLOOMBERG COMMODITY INDEX SLIDES TO LOWEST LEVEL SINCE 1999

    Said otherwise, the lowest level in the 21s centiry. 

    Yup, rate hike any minute now.

  • They're Gonna Need A Bigger Balance Sheet

    Submitted by Jim Quinn via The Burning Platform blog,

    Driving home from work on Friday night I found it terribly amusing listening to the “business journalists” on the local news station trying to explain the 531 point plunge in the Dow and the 1,105 point plummet from the Tuesday high. The job of these faux journalist mouthpieces for the status quo is not to report the facts, analyze the true factors underlying the market, or seek the truth. Their job is to calm the masses, keep them sedated, and paint the rosiest picture possible.

    The brainless twit who reported the stock market bloodbath immediately went into the mode of counteracting the impact of what was happening. She said the market is overreacting, as the country has strong job growth, low inflation, a strongly recovering housing market, and an improving economy. The fact that everything she said was a complete and utter falsehood was exacerbated by her willful ignorance of the Fed created bubble leading to the most overvalued stock market in history. How can these people pretend to be business journalists when they haven’t got a clue about stock market valuations and just say what they are told to say?

    Anyone who listens to a mainstream media pundit, talking head, or spokes bimbo deserves the reaming they are going to receive. They are paid to lie, obfuscate, spin, and propagandize on behalf of their corporate media executives, who are beholden to Wall Street bankers, mega-corporations, and the government for their advertising dollars. The mainstream media is nothing but entertainment for the masses, part of the bread and circuses designed to distract the dumbed down, iGadget addicted, ignorant masses.

    The entire stock market bubble has been created and sustained by the Federal Reserve and their QE and ZIRP schemes to prop up insolvent Wall Street banks, enrich corporate executives, and produce the appearance of a recovering economy. The wealth was supposed to trickle down to the masses, but the trickle has been yellow in appearance and substance. The average American is far worse off today than they were in 2007, with the Greater Depression Part 2 underway.

    The Fed balance sheet currently stands at $4.5 trillion. Seven years ago this week it stood at $931 billion. Seven years before that it stood at $641 billion. From August 2001 through August 2008 the Fed grew their balance sheet by 45%. This period encompassed a recession, dot.com implosion, and a housing crash. Since 2008 the Fed felt it necessary to increase their balance sheet by 383% even though we have supposedly been in an economic recovery for over six years, with unemployment back to 2007 levels, corporate profits at record highs, and everything back to normal if you listen to the mainstream media.

    Someone needs to explain the correlation between the Fed balance sheet and the S&P 500 to the bubble headed spokes models  on CNBC, Fox, CNN, and MSNBC. The economic recovery is nothing but a debt saturated fraud, propped up by subprime auto loans, 7 year 0% auto financing schemes, enslaving young people in student loan debt that will never be repaid, pretending unemployed people aren’t unemployed, under-reporting inflation to suppress wages and inflate GDP, and artificially inflating stock, real estate, and bond markets with negative real interest rates.

    Anyone who doubts the sole purpose of QE1, QE2, and QE3 was to boost the stock market and create the glorious “wealth affect”, is either blind, dumb or a direct beneficiary of the scheme. When the S&P 500 bottomed at 666 in March 2009, the Fed balance sheet stood at $1.9 trillion. In June of that year, the official end of the recession, the Fed balance sheet stood at $2.1 trillion. If the recession was over in June 2009, why would the Fed possibly need to more than double their balance sheet over the next five years? If the crisis had passed, as we’ve been told by the mainstream media, politicians, and central bank academics, what possible reason would the Fed have for pumping heroine into the veins of the criminal Wall Street cabal?

    The reason is quite simple. The Fed is owned and controlled by Wall Street. Do you need any more proof than knowing Helicopter Ben makes more ($300,000) from a sixty minute lunchtime speech at a Bank of America banker bacchanal than he made per year as Federal Reserve Chairman. The chart below provides the remaining proof. From the March low of 666, the S&P 500 went up by 200%, to over 2,000 when the Fed reluctantly ended QE3 on October 29, 2014. Do you think it was just a coincidence the Fed balance sheet also expanded by 200% since QE started in late 2008?

    http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2015/08/20150822_FedBS.jpg

    The mouthpieces for the oligarchy have contended this was all just a coincidence. They have been told to spread propaganda about fundamentals, economic recovery, job growth, and rising earnings per share. Is it also a coincidence the S&P 500 is exactly where it was on September 30, 2014 as the Fed stopped pumping heroine into the arms of Wall Street traders? The market went up 200% in five years, in virtual lockstep with the Fed balance sheet. The Fed balance sheet has been virtually flat for the last year and the S&P 500 is virtually flat in the last year. No correlation there. The mainstream media needs to distract you from seeing the truth. Look over there at Caitlyn Jenner. How about that Trump. Black Lives Matter. Time for fantasy football. Whatever you do, don’t look behind the curtain and realize the people running the Federal Reserve are corrupt, captured, and clueless on what to do next.

    The Great and Powerful Fed has had the curtain pulled back to reveal a doddering old lady and a gaggle of flying monkey academics attempting to bluster their way out of the box they have created for themselves at the behest of their Wall Street owners. The global economy is in free fall and the Fed talking heads are still speechifying about a lousy .25% increase in the Fed Funds rate, as if it means anything to anyone in the real world of paying bills, going to work, buying groceries, and living life. Do these pompous pricks actually think a minuscule increase in an obscure interest rate will impact the average household whose real income is lower than it was in 1989? The gall of these academic pinheads is breathtaking to behold.

    The only thing propping up our stock market over the last year has been the insane lemming like behavior of corporate CEOs across the land, borrowing at record low rates thanks to the Fed, and using the proceeds to buy back $2.3 billion of their own stock in order to “enhance shareholder value” and of course enrich themselves through their stock incentive compensation plans. Our market had also been seen as a safe haven by Chinese billionaires and rich Europeans seeking shelter from the storms sweeping across their continents. Last week’s stock market implosion will scare the CEO lemmings into halting their buybacks as they calculate the amount of value destruction they inflicted on shareholders, while the interest on the debt keeps rising.

    You can be sure the discussions among the elite members of the Deep State – Fed central bankers, foreign central bankers, the heads of the biggest Wall Street banks, Treasury Department apparatchiks, Washington politicians, heads of the corporate media outlets, influential corporate CEOs, and powerful billionaires – are happening this weekend in an effort to keep their debt based ponzi scheme going. They know only one solution – print more money (QE4), increase government debt levels, fake the economic data, and utilize their propaganda outlets to calm the masses with more lies.

    Can these desperate measures work again? Maybe temporarily, but their impact lessens each time they roll them out. They will never voluntarily abandon the addiction to credit expansion because it is the only thing sustaining the wealth of the Deep State. These sociopath arrogant egotists would rather destroy the world financial system than admit they were wrong. Ludwig von Mises explained what will happen many decades ago.

    “There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved.” Ludwig von Mises

  • This Advice Has Cost Investors a Sh*tload of Money

    Perhaps, like me, you’ve been hearing “the dollar is going to die” rhetoric nonstop for the last few years.

    Our stance, well documented in these pages here, here, here and here, amongst many, many other posts, has been that for the last 12 months we’ve been long, and remain long – very, very long!

    Last week I woke to 3 articles forwarded to me by some friends. I don’t typically pay any attention to these particular investment writers, as I categorize them in the “marketers,” not “professionals” basket.

    The reason they were forwarded to me was to point out the duplicity. All three have been in the “dollar’s going to Hell” basket, and equally interesting, literally overnight all three have begun the spin process of changing their tune! The “unexpected” PBOC devaluation of the renminbi has been the catalyst.

    Politicians could actually learn a few tricks from these guys! Here are a couple of the rules of their playbook:

    Rule number 1: Never admit to being 100% wrong, and;

    Rule number 2: Ensure you spin any market event to appear as if, “Why yes, of course we knew all along that the RMB was going to devalue.”

    Quite frankly, the articles my friends forwarded me are a pig to read. They are filled with emotionally laden sound bytes, arrogance, inaccuracies, and logic which, like a cardboard cutout, simply goes soggy in the rain. It gives me a headache, and as I read through them, I found myself yelling obscenities at my computer.

    It’s commendable in a morbid, psychologically imbalanced sort of way. A few simple Google searches reveal the deception, but no matter, press on we must, and revel in the fact that the vast majority of sheep will never do any meaningful due diligence.

    When I see that sort of duplicity, then all credibility disappears for me. We have to be able to acknowledge our mistakes otherwise we’re bound to repeat them.

    We’ve gotten things wrong before and we’ll certainly get them wrong again, but I always encourage a debate on the topics. Nothing can be more valuable than a rigorous debate in order to flesh out and better understand. After all, what if I’m wrong?

    I have no particular ilk with any of these “investment experts,” aka “newsletter writers.” As a keen observer of market psychology and history I view them simply as another cog in the zeitgeist wheel which I find fascinating. Wolves will be wolves and sheep will be sheep.

    Along the same lines, another tale that’s been as popular as a Kim Kardashian nipple slip video, has been this idea that investors should be long the RMB because really, no really, it’s going to replace the dollar soon, and possibly even while you sleep this evening. Yep, it’s gonna happen that fast. Never mind it’d be the first reserve currency in the history of the world to disappear overnight (and there are sound reasons why this is the case), but let’s not let rigorous analysis get in the way of sensationalism.

    Before you send me any emails about the insolvency of the US government let me stop you right there. Yes, the US government is bankrupt (I know that “technically” that isn’t possible, but you get my drift). Yes, they have a pension nightmare and yes, the country is a police state. But, looking at the world in isolation, together with an oft agenda-driven myopic view, needs to be seen for what it is – marketing – nothing more and nothing less. No different to that “must have” shampoo that miraculously gets you a gorgeous, loving, nymphomaniac girlfriend.

    Why?

    I never fully understood why people would write such rubbish, and how they get away with it. It wasn’t until just the other day, during a conversation with a friend, that it all made perfect sense to me.

    My friend, who I’ll leave anonymous so as to not get him into any trouble, is a true “professional investor” who authors an investment newsletter (or two). His niche is value investing, and year after year he’s soundly beaten the market. All he focuses on is finding great companies that have a high probability of success and capital appreciation. Novel idea.

    Our discussion ran to the publishing business, and this is when it all made sense to me. Publishing houses test “copy,” and when they find “copy” that works well, they devise a product around it and sell it. Boom!

    I remarked how bass-ackward this really is. Marketing hype sans rigorous intellectual and analytical thought. No matter… if the narrative works marketers push it and push it big.

    My friend’s particular newsletter is less financially successful than many of its competitors, even though, like clockwork, it beats them all hands down on a pure return basis.

    Shortly after this conversation I spoke with a long time reader who has become a friend. We discussed a purchase of land in Chile which he made some time ago. I pointed out that he’s lost over 50% on his investment in dollar terms since 2011, and over 40% since 2013. It wasn’t something he’d thought about, and thankfully he is un-leveraged.

    To break even on this investment he now needs 100% appreciation. Think about that for a moment. What’s more is I think the Chilean peso goes even lower. In fact, it’s just broken a long-term trend line (as have some other LatAm currencies, including the Colombian Peso), and this is where we get big acceleration phases. We think you have to be short. We may be wrong, and of course we have been in the past. Our thinking, if interested, is laid out in our report entitled: USD Bull Report.

    CLPChilean peso

    My friend (now a bit more depressed than he was before our call) and I discussed what likely lies in store. He was (falsely?) comforted by the idea that this is temporary, a short-term setback for the Chilean economy and currency. I think this is a huge risk. Failing to understand why the USD is rallying in the first place means that the odds of understanding why and when it will end are vanishingly thin.

    Part of the disconnect lies in failing to understand global capital flows, why the USD is rallying, and why on the balance of probability we’re still at the beginning of this run, not near the end.

    Back to China and the RMB

    I’ve heard the argument that China can sell their USD holdings to defend the RMB. Even if that were the case this fails to take into account the entire picture. There are many reasons for China to devalue, not the least of which is that it’s politically palatable. They are still an export driven economy who have seen their currency rise substantially against their competitors such as Japan.

    Trying to quantify their FX reserves as a % of GDP is nuts. Their numbers are bollocks and can’t be trusted. Mark Hart has a more meaningful measure of reserve adequacy. This is FX reserves divided my M2.

    This means that with a meaningful capital flight China will NOT have sufficient reserves to defend its currency.

    The USD will be strong NOT because it’s the reserve currency, that has always been the case, but it’s NOT the answer now. The USD will be strong principally due to an unwinding of the carry trade. If you don’t understand this you’ll be lost.

    If you have to pay back a loan to an individual who is insolvent it doesn’t matter a damn. You still have to pay that money back. That the US Government is insolvent is IRRELEVANT right now.

    The low hanging fruit then?

    TRLTurkish lira

    Poster child of external debt.

    CLP

    South African rand

    Both of these two currencies are at major long term resistance levels. If they break from here it’s waterfall time. 

    COP

    Colombian peso

    KRW

    Korean won

    Bottom line? Don’t go walking into an investment without understanding its context.

    When someone (newsletter writer or other “professional”) has a vested interest in telling you something, make sure you understand their bias and their agenda. One day, when I’m involved in a fund or funds (soon), please be sure to question me on my bias and my agenda. You’ll get the truth.

    Until then (soon) I have no stake in the fight, other than to make money by being positioned correctly.

    – Chris

     

    “Fortunately for serious minds, a bias recognized is a bias sterilized.” – Benjamin Haydon

  • Crude Snaps Below $40 : Gartman Stopped Out Of Oil Long

    It was inevitable.

    As we reported first on Friday, the best contrarian indicator the market has ever known, perhaps even better than the legendary FX titan, Tom Stolper, Dennis Gartman recommended clients invest their monopoly money alongside his, in a short gold, long crude trade: one which has lost about 5%on both legs in 24 hours. To wit:

    CRUDE OIL PRICES ARE LOWER BUT WE ARE CHANGING OUR VIEW ON PRICES for having been overtly and rather relentlessly… and very publically… bearish, we are this morning turning bullish of crude oil and we are turning so because the term structure shifts mandate that we do so…. We do not make this statement lightly for this is a material shift in our view of the energy market… a very material shift.

     

    * * *

     

    Amidst the carnage of the global stock markets this morning and even in light of the sustained bear market in crude oil, the narrowing of the contangos in Brent and WTI brings us to become a buyer of crude as noted at length above. We’ll buy a unit of crude oil, split between Brent and WTI, upon receipt of this commentary. We shall, for the moment, give these prices the latitude to move 3% against us, hoping that we can tighten that up when we  return Monday.

    Moments ago, the $40 support level for oil finally snapped… 

    … and with its so did Gartman’s oil stop loss level, which means Gartman is now stopped out.

    Normally this would mean going long, however in this case China has yet to open and following the disappointment of no RRR-cut, tonight’s commodity carnage may just be beginning.

  • "Long, Slow, And Painful": Barclays Documents The End Of The Commodities Supercycle

    Emerging markets will remain in focus this week as the world watches anxiously to see if China’s move to devalue the yuan will ultimately transform an already precarious situation into an outright crisis.

    Slowing demand from China has been the major concern for commodity exporters and indeed, wide open capital markets (thanks to ultra accommodative monetary policies across the globe) have served to keep struggling producers afloat, perpetuating a global deflationary supply glut.

    Saudi Arabia’s attempt to squeeze the US shale complex has only exacerbated the problem, as persistently low crude prices put further pressure on the commodities space as well as on the FX reserves of oil producing countries. When China devalued the yuan, it validated the suspicions of those who had assumed that the country’s economy was in far worse shape than anyone at the NBS was willing to admit. Additionally, it marked a new escalation in the global currency wars and threatens to undermine the export competitiveness of many an emerging economy.

    Now, markets are in turmoil and the dramatic plunge in EM currencies threatens to upend markets the world over on the way to ushering in a new financial crisis.

    If we have indeed entered a “new era”  – to quote Kazakh Prime Minister Karim Massimov – for crude and for commodity prices more generally, it could have widespread implications for everything from oil producers’ FX regimes to demand for USD assets. As Goldman noted earlier this year, “the new (lower) oil price equilibrium will reduce the supply of petrodollars by up to US$24 bn per month in the coming years, corresponding to around US$860 bn over the next three years.” That could portend a meaningful loss of liquidity across some asset classes.

    It’s against this backdrop that we bring you the following commentary from Barclays on the outlook for commodities in the new era.

    *  *  *

    From Barclays

    “Long, slow, and painful (probably with more to come..)”

    It is an old saying in commodities that the best cure for low prices is low prices. Market participants are now asking how much further prices need to fall and how long they need to stay there to bring supply and demand back in to balance and halt the price declines across a broad swathe of different raw materials markets. The fear is that just as the upside of the supercycle brought an unprecedented and long period of historical price highs, the plunge to the downside is shaping up to be equally dramatic and may yet have a way to run. In terms of depth, length and breadth, this is already a much more severe commodity price downturn than any the market has experienced in recent history. The 15% decline in the broad-based Bloomberg Commodity Index since May means prices are on average about a third lower than they were a year ago, only half what they were when the initial recovery from the financial crisis peaked in March 2011 and only a third of the all-time highs for the index hit in 2008. Almost all the gains associated with the so-called “commodity supercycle” have been eroded, and the index is back at levels not seen since 2002.

    There are three key structural factors that are reinforcing the long-term downtrend in commodity prices. The bad news for producers is that it is difficult to see any of them easing in the short term. 

    Broken China 

    First is the slowdown in China and a shift in its economic growth model leading to a big reduction in overall commodity demand growth rates. Over the past five years, Chinese demand for oil, copper and aluminium has risen on average by about 6%, 9% and 13%, respectively, each year. We forecast those growth rates will slow to 3%, 2.4% and 2.5%, respectively, for the next five years, and the transition to those much slower growth rates is under way (see Figure 3). 

    Last week’s China devaluation spooked commodities markets because it underlined just how difficult it is for China’s policymakers to manage such a large-scale transition. However, it will do little to improve the competitiveness of China’s manufacturing sector, and although there are hopes that infrastructure spending is about to pick up a little, the massive indebtedness of China’s local governments mean any improvement is likely to be quite modest compared with previous stimulus programs.

    Just too much 

    The second factor is the fact that many important commodity markets remain hugely oversupplied and the producer adjustment process still has a long way to run. In every commodity price downcycle, commodity producers tend to hang on for as long as they can even when margins are cash-negative, in the hope that others will close first. However, this time oversupply is being made a lot worse by fierce competition for market share. This is most evident in the oil market where OPEC countries have made market share gains a specific aim and the group has raised its production by more than 1m b/d so far this year. While its high level of output may be difficult to sustain due to threats in some OPEC countries such as Iraq, there is little sign yet of any marked OPEC declines.

    Our third and final structurally bearish factor for commodities is the long-term upward trend in the value of the dollar, which, in our view, still has some way to run. This is putting downward pressure on producer cost curves and ensuring even lower prices are required to bring about cuts to output, while at the same time raising prices in non-dollar currencies and, thus, reducing price-sensitive demand.

    Figure 4 shows how the decline in commodity prices has become intertwined with the falling currencies of major producers. These two trends are tending to reinforce each other. Commodity prices fall, leading to reduced growth prospects in commodity-producing countries such as Brazil, Australia or South Africa. That puts downward pressure on local currencies, which reduces producer operating costs in those countries and means that even lower prices are needed to force them to cut back. In this way the vicious circle continues.

    While it may come as welcome relief to some, the last thing the commodities markets need right now is a short-lived price recovery. There is little doubt that the Q2 rally in oil prices – by enabling producers to lock in decent margins by selling forward and encouraging some US tight oil producers to start drilling again – has lengthened the downside for oil prices by prolonging the supply-side adjustment process. A repeat of that process will just prolong the pain even more.

  • "Savage Speed" – A Look Inside Market Crash Statistics

    Submitted by Salil Mehta via Statistical Ideas blog,

    It was surely a frightening week in global financial markets.  The largest 500 American stocks (S&P) dropped 6%.  China's Shanghai Stock Exchange (SSE) doubled this risk, as it dropped 12%.  Now there is an overall fear in the markets that we have not seen in years.  While these perilous risk statistics should not be something new, the surprising jolt this week provides a renewed opportunity to review crash measures within a broader context, to boldly target your portfolio.

    Let's look at the worst weekly loss for the S&P, in each month from 2007 through August 14 (or right up until last week).  Geometrically approximated for symmetry.  We see in blue that the distribution of this monthly "worst weekly loss" has generally been similar to the same ranked values from the past couple of years (2103/2014).  Now towards the bottom of the chart we can better ascertain that the more severe "worst weekly losses", were even worse in the years earlier than this (so 2007 through 2012).  

    We'll prove out these numerical measurements here, but if you are dispassionate about the mathematics then don't fear.  Please just skim what is immediately below -and head straight to the first illustration afterwards- to continue reading.  In October 2008, the worst weekly risk was -20% (this makes October the 24th worst month for "worst weekly loss" of 24 months in 2007/2008).  Hence it is plotted in red ~98 percentile at the bottom of the vertical axis below.  Not perfectly the 100th percentile (0% rank) due to probability math.  Also in the same 2007/2008 series, the next worst month for the "worst weekly loss" statistic was the following month of November.  That month saw a -9% change and being 2nd worst out of 24 means being ranked about 4% higher on the vertical axis, from where the -20% data is shown:

    2/24 (for second worst of 24) – 1/24 (for worst of 24) 
    = 1/24 
    ~4% more favorable rank

    Similarly all of the axis tick marks, for all of the complete 2-year periods shown, are ~4% apart on this inverse distribution axis (i.e., 98%, 94%, 90%, etc.)  For 2015, up until this month of August there were 7 months, and the worst weekly loss of them was January's -3% change.  The lowest blue data shown represents that month (and 7th worst of 7 months is ~93 percentile at the bottom of the vertical axis).  To summarize, the worst ~6% of months (100%-94 percentile) in 2007/2008 was about -9% and much worse than for 20015 where it was about -3%.  

    Also for completeness, we see that the most favorable "worst weekly loss" among months in each of the time periods shown below (so towards the top of the chart) was essentially a non-event at ~0%.  We all know that we are no longer at that tail of the distribution!
     

    So next we identify with a black star how last week (5 days though August 21) compares with the 2015 series to date.  We see that last week's -6% change for the S&P is completely out of line with the rest of 2015, and it is beyond anything we've seen since before 2013!  Despite this multi-year record blasting across the news, one also can not fully state that 2015 though is a trend reversion to the risk we experienced during the global financial crisis, since the red 2007/2008 risk statistics are almost all higher than the entire blue statistics shown above.  

    We perform the same exercise again, but for the SSE.  We see in blue again the distribution of the "worst weekly losses", and it has generally not been similar to the distribution of the previous couple years (2103/2014).  But unlike with the S&P, 2015 risk statistics are instead closely aligned to the same risk measure from the global financial crisis era 2007/2008 (again, in red).  And this narration stays the same, across the complete collapse risk distribution (i.e., the vertical axis).
     

    We again show with a black star how last week compares with the prior 2015 series to date.  We see that last week's -12% change for the SSE is here completely inline with the rest of 2015 (and also within range of 2007/2008)!  Unlike for the U.S., last week's loss in China wasn't their 2015 worst nor 2nd worst (those even worse months were earlier this summer when the SSE begun to crash).  Also, here one can fully state that 2015 (regardless of how the rest of the year turns out) is a trend reversion to the risk we experienced during the global financial crisis, since the red 2007/2008 risk statistics nicely overlap the blue 2015 statistics.  Both colors are also mostly completely more severe than the entire 2009 through 2014 risk statistics shown above!  We might see these articles (here, here) for idea generation on future month's SSE risk and whether it might continue to be high.

     

    We will further accommodate those unwavering in their false position that there is a broad mathematical relationship between both of these countries' time series (and using China's proximate market burst as a pretext to interpolate back history).  See the raw monthly plot below, contrasting both indexes.  We see that last week's (still highlighted with a black star) joint losses for the U.S. and China are mostly a shock within the 2015 context (blue), for mostly the U.S. but not as much for China.
     

    We see that either the correlation of individual time periods, or of all of these time periods combined (so ignoring the time series colorings), does not exist as a routine matter.  With markets, there will always be one-off exceptions (see this Top Article in Pensions & Investments); our goal with this article is to simply present a framework for high-level risk analysis.  The overall correlation doesn't exist, even with the one mad, worst weekly joint-loss shown for October 2008 (-20% SSE and -14% S&P).  This data without context should have been considered an outlier.  And the 2015-only correlation between China and the U.S. also doesn't exist, even though this year has the most probabilistic potential for it, as the variance among the SSE is extraordinarily high (this is referred to as the sum of squares in probability language).  Lastly, we can collectively respect that the joint losses were more severe in 2007/2008 (red) then they are this year (blue + black star).

    We are not breaking new theoretical ground in this article since that's not required.  The mathematical rigor of these relationships have already been recorded in these articles, sorted by order of consequence: here, herehere, here.  It is worth noting that at some point one may want to reallocate to the risky market.  Clearly no one should have been 100% stocks a week ago (particularly high ? stocks).  Someone was buying stocks a week ago, and many were selling in fear through yesterday (August 21).  One might want to instead try that in reverse to make money (buy at a discount and sell at a premium).  We should also note that the developed markets was subjected to record-setting wealth annihilation at the end of last week.  It is wise to be carefully attentive now, with the given global market volatility.

    We can all call attention to nervous economic data, but there are also some core measures (GDP, employment, etc.) showing the U.S. economy is not in chaos.  While possible, it is not the expectation that we should expect risk statistics to be worse than the 2007/2008 measures from the global financial crisis.  What makes a market is having differing opinions at nearly all times.  It is therefore educational for people caught off guard last week to see –once more– that markets can drop at a savage speed (as opposed to the overall magnitude), regardless of whatever foggy economic situation we are in (or market participants believe them to be).

  • Risk Appears Seriously Wounded

    Submitted by Jeffrey Snider via Alhambra Investment Partners,

    Stocks aren’t quite as immune to financial disruption in the middle of 2015 as they had been previously. The last major, comprehensive selloff was also in tandem with “dollar” disorder back last October 15. This time, the motion was more erosion than “event”; at least until the past week. Just like crude oil, stocks lost their momentum back in early May (and broader index price indications dating back to last July and the first “dollar” rumble) and had more or less been stuck like the yuan doing nothing until the open break recently.

    ABOOK Aug 2015 Fundamentals Stocks SP500 NYSEABOOK Aug 2015 Fundamentals Stocks WTI

    What may, in the intermediate term, be much more significant is that the S&P Buyback Index has been sinking during the whole of that interim period. Whether or not that indicates less actual buyback activity is not clear, but the suggestion is more than reasonable given the buyback scheme as a separate equity liquidity junction. That it has continued since really March brings up more economic and corporate cash flow factors (another facet in the “dollar”, both as earnings and debt opportunity) in these companies than financial issues with the “markets” more broadly.

    ABOOK Aug 2015 Fundamentals Stocks

    Whatever the case, for the first time since 2012, after today’s robust selling, the S&P 500 is negative on a yearly basis. The Buyback Index is likely showing the same lack of momentum, though that is an assumption as the final index value for today’s trading hasn’t been posted.

    ABOOK Aug 2015 Fundamentals Stocks Buyback MomoABOOK Aug 2015 Fundamentals Stocks SP500 Momo

    The broader NYSE Composite is down 7.2% on a yearly basis and 8.2% since last July 3 at the “dollar’s” outset.

    ABOOK Aug 2015 Fundamentals Stocks NYSE Momo

    That brings stocks back into the same discussion as the corporate credit bubble. Junk prices continue to sell down, both retail and institutional. The HYG mutual fund broke to a new low again today, down over 10% since its high back on June 25, 2014. There are clear liquidity indications in that price as well as a fundamental shift in overall risk perceptions.

    ABOOK Aug 2015 Fundamentals HYGABOOK Aug 2015 Fundamentals REMHYG

    The Leveraged Loan Index, as HYG, continues to drop to new multi-year lows. The last time the market value component was at 953 was January 5, 2012!  As usual, since these are the most liquid 100 names in leveraged loans, it is almost certainly the best case for the class; with leveraged loan prices elsewhere likely much more dramatic.
    ABOOK Aug 2015 Fundamentals LSTA 100

    I think we are starting to see the legend of QE fade into nothing more than memory, exposing all these “markets” to the very real dangers of the fundamental economy, globally, that never joined the hype. As noted this morning, it was perhaps a bit “easier” to ignore the first “dollar” wave as it crashed into January as though it were just a bump on the road to sufficiency, but this second crash is both more severe and constraining; not the least of which because, as it takes on new and greater proportions than the first, it demonstrates pretty conclusively all that was wrong about the suppositions that supported rationalizations for so long.

    Does that mean QE5? It might, but at this point is there any illusion left? After all, this broad selloff comes just as this week market perceptions turned the FOMC supposedly “dovish” once more. In the past that would have been at least a more than one-day rally, and a sharp one, but again I think the entire focus has changed from “accommodation” even in potential to simple confirmation of the no longer abstract economic and financial danger. I have no idea if that means a top, but this market increasingly looks very, very tired if not seriously wounded.

    ABOOK June 2015 Bubble Risk Subprime to Junk Lev Loans CLOs

  • Futures Stumble Out Of The Gate, Slide 0.6% On Lack Of Chinese RRR Cut: What Happens Next?

    On Friday, ahead of the closing stock rout, we forecast that the biggest risk for anyone staying long over the weekend was a disappointment out of China, where the sellside had gotten so excited that a 50-100bps RRR cut was imminent, that the lack of one would surely send futures sliding.

    Sure enough, as we noted earlier today, much to everyone’s surprise and disappointment, the PBOC did nothing (for reasons we speculated upon earlier).

    Which bring us to this evening’s S&P futures, which opened for trading minutes ago, and as expected gapped by over 0.6% after the Chinese disappointment, down 19 points to 1952 and looking quite heavy as several key support level as in the crosshairs.

     

    The key carry driver for all US equity action, the USDJPY, is not looking too healthy either and just hit its lowest level since July 8 as the Yen is soaring on carry trade unwinds:

    To be sure, the real action in tonight’s illiquid market will not be in US futures, at least not until Europe opens, but in China, where it will be up to the “National Team” to prevent a massive rout now that the PBOC has told stocks they are on their own for the time being..

    Also keep an eye on crude: after an initial gap lower the black gold is trying to stabilize the drop. Perhaps it is waiting for Gartman to confirm he is still long before crashing below $40.

     

    So what happens next? It’s clearly anyone’s guess so here courtesy of Bloomberg is a selection of quite a few guesses including some pundits, most of whom predicted smooth sailing until year end, who suddenly and very dramatically changing their tune.

    • “It’s going to be pretty deep. … We’re in the camp that this is not yet a big move. It’s scary, and those last two day trends look ugly.” — Doug Ramsey, CIO at Leuthold Weeden Capital Management, who sees losses in S&P 500 reaching 20%
    • “When Europe and China eclipse the U.S. we chug along, but when they’re in a down market, that’s when the U.S. really dominates. … From a quality perspective, all the boxes are checked off in the U.S. and that becomes more important to investors again.” — Savita Subramanian, equity strategist at Bank of America, who cites optimism about the biggest U.S. cos.
    • “There is a relatively more ominous slowdown going on in emerging markets — and that’s what the trade is all about right now.” — Gina C. Martin Adams, equity strategist at Wells Fargo Securities, told New York Times
    • “These are names that people look at — if they can run their business well, then the economy is doing well. … So when Apple misses and sells off hard, it’s bolstering that fact that we don’t have an equity market to trust.” –Larry Weiss, head of U.S. trading at Instinet in New York, speaking about the most popular U.S shares
    • “People are saying, ’I want out.’ … It is difficult to see the bottom with all these depreciating currencies.” — Ricardo Adrogue, emerging-markets-debt investor at Babson Capital, told New York Times
    • “People are saying ‘I told you so,’ but that warning has been in place too long—you would have had to be a superhero to know what would happen.” — Katie Stockton, chief technical strategist at BTIG, commenting on narrow leadership in the bull market to WSJ
    • “Hopefully, Asian governments don’t panic from the current market turmoil and resort to knee-jerk decisions. … Competitive currency devaluations can become a zero-sum game if all countries resort to it.” — Sandy Mehta, CEO of Hong Kong-based Value Investment Principals
    • “There’s no way the U.S. is going to remain an island with so much turmoil going on around the rest of the world.” — Paul Zemsky, head of multi-asset strategies at Voya Investment Management
    • “If at the beginning of the year, you told anyone that theFed would be 50/50 about raising rates at their next meeting and the 10-year yield was approaching 2%, they would think you were nuts.” — Antonin Cronin, a Treasury bond trader at Société Générale, told WSJ
    • “You have to talk about the Fed and the absence of any trigger-style warnings. … That’s a critical reason why everything gets interpreted as supporting the Fed’s caution, and that’s in direct contrast to the thinking we had just last week.” — Jim Vogel, head of interest-rate strategy at FTN Financial in Memphis, Tennessee
    • “A nasty storm is probable, not just possible [in countries like Brazil and South Africa]. … But I do not anticipate a crisis or even very tense moments in Asia. The main reason is that the Asian Crisis of 1997 already cleansed Asia’s financial system and Asia’s resilience ought to be higher.” — Stephen Jen, co-founder of SLJ Macro Partners

    Bottom line: not looking good for the BTFDers but don’t count your chickens, or dead bulls, just yet – if Gartman suddenly turns bearish, or is stopped out of his crude long in 15 more cents, a mass bear slaughter is about to be unleashed…

  • The World Explained (In 2 Cartoons)

    But they said “it” didn’t matter?

     

     

     

    Source: Sunday Funnies

  • Does Capitalism Cause Poverty?

    Authored by Ricardo Hausmann, originally posted at Project Syndicate,

    Capitalism gets blamed for many things nowadays: poverty, inequality, unemployment, even global warming. As Pope Francis said in a recent speech in Bolivia: “This system is by now intolerable: farm workers find it intolerable, laborers find it intolerable, communities find it intolerable, peoples find it intolerable. The earth itself – our sister, Mother Earth, as Saint Francis would say – also finds it intolerable.”

    But are the problems that upset Francis the consequence of what he called “unbridled capitalism”? Or are they instead caused by capitalism’s surprising failure to do what was expected of it? Should an agenda to advance social justice be based on bridling capitalism or on eliminating the barriers that thwart its expansion?

    The answer in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia is obviously the latter. To see this, it is useful to recall how Karl Marx imagined the future.

    For Marx, the historic role of capitalism was to reorganize production. Gone would be the family farms, artisan yards, and the “nation of shopkeepers,” as Napoleon is alleged to have scornfully referred to Britain. All these petty bourgeois activities would be plowed over by the equivalent of today’s Zara, Toyota, Airbus, or Walmart.

    As a result, the means of production would no longer be owned by those doing the work, as on the family farm or in the craftsman’s workshop, but by “capital.” Workers would possess only their own labor, which they would be forced to exchange for a miserable wage. Nonetheless, they would be more fortunate than the “reserve army of the unemployed” – a pool of idle labor large enough to make others fear losing their job, but small enough not to waste the surplus value that could be extracted by making them work.

    With all previous social classes transformed into the working class, and all means of production in the hands of an ever-dwindling group of owners of “capital,” a proletarian revolution would lead humanity to a world of perfect justice: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,” as Marx famously put it.

    Clearly, the poet and philosopher Paul Valéry was right: “The future, like everything else, is no longer what it used to be.” But we should not make fun of Marx’s well-known prediction error. After all, as the physicist Niels Bohr wryly noted, “Prediction is difficult, especially about the future.”

    We now know that as the ink was drying on the Communist Manifesto, wages in Europe and the United States were beginning a 160-year-long rise, making workers part of the middle class, with cars, mortgages, pensions, and petty bourgeois concerns. Politicians today promise to create jobs – or more opportunities to be exploited by capital – not to take over the means of production.

    Capitalism could achieve this transformation because the reorganization of production allowed for an unprecedented increase in productivity. The division of labor within and across firms, which Adam Smith had already envisioned in 1776 as the engine of growth, allowed for a division of knowhow among individuals that permitted the whole to know more than the parts and form ever-growing networks of exchange and collaboration.

    A modern corporation has experts in production, design, marketing, sales, finance, accounting, human resource management, logistics, taxes, contracts, and so on. Modern production is not just an accumulation of buildings and equipment owned by Das Kapital and operated mechanically by fungible workers. Instead, it is a coordinated network of people that possess different types of Das Human-Kapital. In the developed world, capitalism did transform almost everyone into a wage laborer, but it also lifted them out of poverty and made them more prosperous than Marx could have imagined.

    That was not the only thing Marx got wrong. More surprisingly, the capitalist reorganization of production petered out in the developing world, leaving the vast majority of the labor force outside its control. The numbers are astounding. While only one in nine people in the United States are self-employed, the proportion in India is 19 out of 20. Fewer than one-fifth of workers in Peru are employed by the kind of private businesses that Marx had in mind. In Mexico, about one in three are.

    Even within countries, measures of wellbeing are strongly related to the proportion of the labor force employed in capitalist production. In Mexico’s state of Nuevo León, two-thirds of workers are employed by private incorporated businesses, while in Chiapas only one in seven is. No wonder, then, that per capita income is more than nine times higher in Nuevo León than in Chiapas. In Colombia, per capita income in Bogota is four times higher than in Maicao. Unsurprisingly, the share of capitalist employment is six times higher in Bogota.

    In poverty-stricken Bolivia, Francis criticized “the mentality of profit at any price, with no concern for social exclusion or the destruction of nature,” along with “a crude and naive trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system.”

    But this explanation of capitalism’s failure is wide of the mark. The world’s most profitable companies are not exploiting Bolivia. They are simply not there, because they find the place unprofitable. The developing world’s fundamental problem is that capitalism has not reorganized production and employment in the poorest countries and regions, leaving the bulk of the labor force outside its scope of operation.

    As Rafael Di Tella and Robert MacCulloch have shown, the world’s poorest countries are not characterized by naive trust in capitalism, but by utter distrust, which leads to heavy government intervention and regulation of business. Under such conditions, capitalism does not thrive and economies remain poor.

    Francis is right to focus attention on the plight of the world’s poorest. Their misery, however, is not the consequence of unbridled capitalism, but of a capitalism that has been bridled in just the wrong way.

     

  • Government Gives Away Billions In Grants To Students Who Never Graduate

    In “Who Is Stoking The Trillion Dollar Student Debt Bubble?,” we highlighted the rather disconcerting fact that in 2014, the US government gave out some $16 billion in loans to students attending colleges that graduated fewer than a third of their students after six years. 

    As WSJ suggested, accrediting agencies are part of the problem. “One problem may be that the accreditation game suffers from similar conflicts of interest as those which caused ratings agencies like Moody’s and S&P to rate subprime-ridden MBS triple-A in the lead-up to the crisis,” we argued. 

    In the end, the disbursal of billions in federal aid to students attending schools where they’re unlikely to graduate is, like lending to students that attend for-profit colleges that the government is fully aware will likely one day be shut down, just another example of the misappropriation of taxpayer funds. 

    Well, if you needed further evidence of this, look no further than the Pell grant program.

    As NBC reminds us, “Pell grants are given to low-income families and, unlike student loans, do not need to be paid back – [they] are the costliest education initiative in the nation.”

    Well, the costliest until the across-the-board debt forgiveness, but in any event, it turns out that despite the fact that taxpayers have dumped $300 billion into the program since 2000, “the government keeps no official tally of what proportion of those who receive the grants end up getting degrees.”

    Now, a new report from The Hechinger Report shows that billions in taxpayer money is (literally) given away to students who never graduate. Here’s more:

    A Hechinger Report analysis of Pell grant graduation rate data from a cross section of colleges and universities — which is not otherwise publicly reported anywhere — suggests that billions of dollars in taxpayer-funded Pell grants nationwide go to students who never earn degrees.

     

    And while some schools with large numbers of Pell recipients have strong graduation rates for those students, the ones receiving the biggest share of the money often do not.

     

    In a quirk of federal policy, individual institutions do have to disclose the graduation rates of their students who receive Pell grants, when asked. And while some resisted doing so, or released them only in response to public-record requests, the Hechinger analysis of 32 of the largest private and 50 of the largest public universities — and tens of thousands of Pell grant students — shows that more than a third of Pell recipients at those schools hadn’t earned degrees even after six years.

     

    “We’re talking huge amounts of money and huge numbers of people,” said Richard Vedder, an economist and director of the Center for College Affordability and Productivity.

     

    Pell grants cost taxpayers $31.4 billion in fiscal year 2015, more than double what was spent on them in 2007. Since then, the maximum award has increased by more than $1,200 per student per year and the number of students applying for the grants is up by 7 million.

     

    The program has grown so fast that Republicans have proposed freezing the maximum annual Pell award at the current $5,775 for the next 10 years. The money given to the students first goes to the college to pay tuition and fees, and anything left over can be used for books and living expenses. Unlike loans, Pell grants do not have to be repaid, whether or not a student ever graduates.

     

    Most recipients of Pell grants come from families earning less than $40,000 a year.

     

    In January 2014, Congress gave the Department of Education 120 days to produce, for the first time, Pell grant graduation rates for every university and college in the country. The department finally released the months-overdue report in November, but did not break down the information by institution, citing problems with the data, and was only able to analyze 70 percent of Pell recipients. Only 39 percent of the 1.7 million students in its sample earned a bachelor’s degree in six years.

  • "The War On Drugs Is Over, And We Lost… We Can't Arrest Our Way Out Of This"

    Submitted by Claire Bernish via TheAntiMedia.org,

    Situated on the coast of Massachusetts, Gloucester’s claims to fame include its status as “America’s original seaport,” as well as being the real-life location on which events in the movie The Perfect Storm (2000) were based. Now, the small town has a new reason to be the center of attention: its police have been granting complete amnesty to drug users who come to the station seeking help, even if they come bearing the remainder of their stash.

    On March 6th of this year, Gloucester Chief of Police Leonard Campanello wrote a Facebook post much like he normally did. But this particular post bemoaned four deaths to heroin and opiates in just two months — for a city with less than 30,000 residents.

    Frustrated, and without any forethought, Campanello added what would turn out to be a propitious statement to that post:

    “If you are a user of opiates or heroin, let us help you. We know you do not want this addiction. We have resources here in the City that can and will make a difference in your life. Do not become a statistic.”

    The response was immediate and overwhelmingly positive. Where one of Campanello’s typical posts would collect, perhaps, a dozen ‘likes’ — this post garnered 1,234 likes and, according to the Washington Post, “more views than there were people in the city.”

    Obviously, he’d hit on the crux of a problem with the different approach that was sorely needed.

    The war on drugs is over,” Campanello said. And we lost. There is no way we can arrest our way out of this. We’ve been trying that for 50 years. We’ve been fighting it for 50 years, and the only thing that has happened is heroin has become cheaper and more people are dying [emphasis added].

    On May 4th, he posted a lengthy update after considering what he’d stumbled onto with that first extemporaneous post.

    “Any addict who walks into the police station with the remainder of their equipment (needles, etc.) or drugs and asks for help will NOT be charged. Instead we will walk them through the system toward detox and recovery. We will assign them an “angel” who will be their guide through the process. Not in hours or days, but on the spot. Addison Gilbert and Lahey Clinic have committed to helping fast track people that walk into the police department so that they can be assessed quickly and the proper care can be administered quickly [emphasis added].

    Though it was unclear what the repercussions of such a bold move would be, after over 33,000 likes and 30,000 shares for the updated post, there was no denying Campanello had found a better alternative to penalizing those struggling with addiction. Over 4,000 comments sang the praises of the program — a few even compared the approach to Portugal’s success decriminalizing all drugs. Most echoed sentiments like, Well done!andFinally someone gets it right! and even Bravo!! More compassion and humanity in our justice system. You are leading by example. And I think the results will validate your decision [emphasis added].

    And validate they have.

    Campanello said this week that over 100 addicts have already taken advantage of the opportunity — and one in six have come from out-of-state, including a person who traveled all the way from California to ask for help. It’s certainly a switch to see so many flock to the very police who, in the past, would have arrested and jailed every one of them.

    “It’s extremely important for a police department to treat all people with respect,” said Campanello. “Law enforcement doesn’t exist to judge people.”

    And as for cost? An update on the “Gloucester Initiative Angel Program” in an August 10th post stated: “$5000 for 100 lives.”

    Going even further, Campanello approached a local CVS pharmacy and explained the program and the need for Nasal Narcan, which can reverse an overdose. Without insurance, the drug cost $140, but after hearing about the revolutionary program, CVS made it available for $20 a pack — so Campanello started providing it to addicts free of charge.

    “The police department will pay the cost of the Nasal Narcan for those without insurance. We will pay for it with money seized from drug dealers during investigations. We will save lives with the money from the pockets of those who take them,” he said.

    With so many people taking advantage of the program, Chief Campanello and the Gloucester Police Department, as well as their various partners, have formed a non-profit organization called The Police Assisted Addiction and Recovery Initiative (P.A.A.R.I.) “to bridge the gap between the police department and opioid addicts seeking recovery.” Its website states, “Rather than arrest our way out of the problem of drug addiction, P.A.A.R.I. committed police departments:

    • “Encourage opioid drug users to seek recovery.”
    • “Help distribute life saving opioid blocking drugs to prevent and treat overdoses.”
    • “Connect addicts with treatment programs and facilities.”
    • “Provide resources to other police departments and communities that want to do more to fight the opioid addiction epidemic.”

    Though it is perhaps premature to estimate the program’s overall success, three Massachusetts cities will soon be implementing programs based on Campanello’s model.

    What started as frustration and anger about the nation’s growing problem with heroin and opiate addiction hastily posted to Facebook has become a possible future model for police departments around the country — and tangible hope for addicts and their loved ones.

    Four deaths in two months in the small coastal town appeared to indicate the continuance of a frightening trend — but in the over five and a half months since, there have been “Just two,” said Campanello.

    In mid-June, Gloucester Police wrote another post on the official Facebook page that speaks volumes of the program. It states:

    “A reporter asked one of my officers last night: ‘Do you see a common thread in all addicts?’ Without hesitation, the officer responded: ‘Absolutely. They’re all human beings.”

  • Why Has The Government Stopped Reporting Lake Mead Water Levels?

    For months we have been warning that "Vegas is screwed" as water levels continue to plunge in its most crucial reservoirs. Non-government experts are waving red flags that something must be done (and even NASA scientists fear the worst) while the government remains quiet. And then just 3 months ago, Lake Mead water levels mysteriously plunged to levels that were perilously close to emergency for Vegas water supply, then quickly reverted after the government confirmed that a malfunctioning indicator was at fault

    Now, we note, having given them time to 'fix' whatever problem there may be, Lake Mead water levels have not been reported since July 9th – six weeks??!!

     

    As Jim R notes rather eloquently,

    In the spirit of data obfuscation a la China and Obama, Lake Mead’s daily reporting has not been posted for six (6!) weeks.

     

    At last report (July 9) the lake was 0.6 inch above the critical 1075’ level that will initiate a new round of water wars in the Southwest, including a possible crimp in the IV drip that sustains Phoenix and Tucson. 

    As a reminder,

    If the water level is below 1,075 feet elevation – 4 feet below today’s level – by January 1, 2016, it will trigger a federal water emergency… and water rationing.

     

    Las Vegas Review Journal reported that forecasters expect the level to drop to 1073 feet by June, before Lake Powell would begin to release more water. Assuming “average or better snow accumulations in the mountains that feed the Colorado River – something that’s happened only three times in the past 15 years,” the water level on January 1 is expected to be barely above the federal shortage level.

    So, We have one simple question – why did the government stop reporting Lake Mead Water Levels six weeks ago?

Digest powered by RSS Digest