Tuesday, January 20, 2015

Germany’s Bundesbank Repatriates 120 Tons of Gold

Apparently pressured by the public Germany’s central bank the Bundesbank announced the transfer of gold held overseas (Paris and New York) to Frankfurt

From Yahoo news:
The German central bank or Bundesbank said Monday that it stepped up the repatriation of its gold reserves from overseas storage last year.

"The Bundesbank successfully continued and further stepped up its transfers of gold," the central bank said in a statement.

"In 2014, 120 tonnes of gold were transferred to Frankfurt from storage locations abroad: 35 tonnes from Paris and 85 tonnes from New York."

Germany's gold reserves are the second-biggest in the world after those of the United States and totalled 3,384.2 tonnes this month, according to the latest data compiled by the World Gold Council.
Stated reasons:
But surging mistrust of the euro during Europe's debt crisis fed a campaign to bring home Germany's gold reserve from New York and London, with some political parties fuelling fears the gold might have been tampered with.

Under the Bundesbank's new gold storage plan in 2013, it decided to bring back 674 tonnes from abroad by 2020 and store half of its gold in its own vaults.
Ironically in today’s world of modern technology as seen through the coming of driverless cars and hypersonic planes, the Bundesbank’s plan to bring back 674 tonnes from abroad by 2020 has been a sign of how wishy washy German’s central bank has been. Or has been that German's Bundesbank knows something about real inventories of gold stored at the US Federal Reserve which they have failed to disclose?

Perhaps as I blogged last January 2013 they would ship gold via ancient triremes.

And 674 tons represents just 19% of German’s declared gold holdings of 3,384 tons. How long to ship the entire bulk?

More questions

Why does it take such lengthy period of time to ship gold to Bundesbank?

Has there really been physical gold stored at the New York Fed? Or will it take several market operations to bring back into physical form gold that may have possibly been leased out into the markets?

If the reason for the repatriation has been “surging mistrust of the euro”, what happens if the Draghi’s QE fail and or if the fallout from the SNB’s termination of  the franc-euro cap spreads to deepen the mistrust? Will the public’s demand surge enough to pressure the Bundesbank to accelerate repatriation? How will the central banks like the NY Fed respond?

In 2014, the government of Netherlands stealthily brought back 122 tons of gold reserves from New York as part of the overall plans to ship 612 tons intended to spread its gold stocks in a “more balanced way” (WSJ).  Will there be more demand from various central banks to bring back gold held mostly by the US Federal Reserve? On the other hand, will there be enough stocks to fulfill such demand?

What the German –Netherland gold repatriation events has been indicative of has been that demand for gold seem as getting to be more about physical, rather than just paper speculative gold.

Will Shadow Banks Offset the Chinese Stock Market Margin Debt Crackdown?; China's GDP for 2014: 7.4%

During yesterday’s stock market meltdown, I pointed to the seeming clash of government policies between the central bank, the PBoC and the Regulatory Commission.
The Chinese central bank, the PBoC wants more credit into the system--yet  part of these funds finds its way to the stock markets--while the Regulatory Commission desires to curtail speculative credit flows into the stock markets.

So which agency will prevail, the PBoC or the Regulatory Commission?
Today’s Bloomberg report provides a clue to the possible resolution of this conundrum: Shadow banks will most likely step in or fill in the void from the formal banking. (bold mine)
China’s clampdown on margin lending by brokerages risks fueling an upswing in shadow banking as investors look for new ways to leverage their stock bets.

Wealth-management products, known as WMPs, have been used to channel 300 billion yuan ($48 billion) to 500 billion yuan into shares, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. estimated in a Jan. 19 note. Sinolink Securities Co. put the figure at 1.5 trillion yuan, up from 800 billion yuan at the end of June. Outstanding margin loans totaled a record 1.1 trillion yuan at the end of last week, China Securities Finance Corp. data show.

Chinese equities plunged the most in six years yesterday, derailing a world-beating rally, after three of the nation’s biggest brokerages were suspended from loaning money to new equity-trading clients. The amount invested in WMPs surged 24 percent in the first half of 2014 to 12.7 trillion yuan and Bank of Communications Co. said last week that the total may climb through 20 trillion yuan this year.

“The tightening of margin finance by brokerages will cause more funds to flow into stocks through banks’ WMPs,” Ma Kunpeng, a Shanghai-based analyst at Sinolink Securities, said yesterday by phone. “Money can always find its way into stocks one way or another.”
For as long as the PBoC promotes financial repression (zero bound) policies via expansionary credit into the system, yield chasing via asset speculation will be funded via different channels whether it is the formal or the informal system. There will always be novel ways to go around the curbs.

Yet here is another Bloomberg report validating my thesis that stocks and speculative assets are driven by credit and liquidity from which confidence functions as an offspring--applied to the Chinese financial markets. (bold mine)
For China’s central bank, the 36 percent stock market rally through Jan. 16 spurred in part by a surprise November interest-rate cut is the latest reminder that it’s easier to unleash money than to guide it to the right places.

Since Zhou Xiaochuan became People’s Bank of China governor in late 2002, the broad money supply base has expanded almost seven times to 122.8 trillion yuan ($20 trillion) while the economy has grown about five times. That translates to a M2/GDP ratio of about 200 percent versus about 70 percent in the U.S., according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

That liquidity springs up like a jack-in-the-box, driving property prices, then shifting to stocks, before moving on to whatever may be next. Such sprees help explain the PBOC’s reluctance to cut banks’ required reserve ratios even as the economy slows. Instead, it’s trying targeted tools to guide money to preferred areas such as farming and small business.
Nice line… “That liquidity springs up like a jack-in-the-box, driving property prices, then shifting to stocks, before moving on to whatever may be next.”

So the Chinese real economy has morphed into one gigantic speculative bubble whose economic activities have become too dependent on credit, liquidity and its offspring: confidence.

As of this writing, Chinese stocks have recovered about a quarter of yesterday’s losses.

The official figures of the Chinese economy had been released: in 2014 China’s statistical economy grew by 7.4%.

Yet here is a caustic take by the Wall Street Journal Real Times Economic Blog on the official figures: (bold mine)
Economists say it is daft to get hung up on changes of a few tenths of a percentage point in the official growth rate. The statistics bureau’s methodology is “not so scientific,” as Harry Wu, a skeptic at Hitotsubashi University in Japan, puts it. And even if statisticians at the central government level are immune to political pressure, few doubt that the local bureaus underneath them are capable of fudging the numbers to produce a more flattering picture.

Still, the general trend seems to be clear. If the government says the economy is slowing down, you can bet the slowdown is real.
Yeah, believe those government massaged statistics.

Monday, January 19, 2015

Ron Paul: If the Fed Has Nothing to Hide, It Has Nothing to Fear

The great Ron Paul on Audit the Fed

Since the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913, the dollar has lost over 97 percent of its purchasing power, the US economy has been subjected to a series of painful Federal Reserve-created recessions and depressions, and government has grown to dangerous levels thanks to the Fed’s policy of monetizing the debt. Yet the Federal Reserve still operates under a congressionally-created shroud of secrecy.

No wonder almost 75 percent of the American public supports legislation to audit the Federal Reserve.

The new Senate leadership has pledged to finally hold a vote on the audit bill this year, but, despite overwhelming public support, passage of this legislation is by no means assured.

The reason it may be difficult to pass this bill is that the 25 percent of Americans who oppose it represent some of the most powerful interests in American politics. These interests are working behind the scenes to kill the bill or replace it with a meaningless “compromise.” This “compromise” may provide limited transparency, but it would still keep the American people from learning the full truth about the Fed’s conduct of monetary policy.

Some opponents of the bill say an audit would somehow compromise the Fed’s independence. Those who make this claim cannot point to anything in the text of the bill giving Congress any new authority over the Fed’s conduct of monetary policy. More importantly, the idea that the Federal Reserve is somehow independent of political considerations is laughable. Economists often refer to the political business cycle, where the Fed adjusts its policies to help or hurt incumbent politicians. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Arthur Burns exposed the truth behind the propaganda regarding Federal Reserve independence when he said, if the chairman didn’t do what the president wanted, the Federal Reserve “would lose its independence.”

Perhaps the real reason the Fed opposes an audit can be found by looking at what has been revealed about the Fed’s operations in recent years. In 2010, as part of the Dodd-Frank bill, Congress authorized a one-time audit of the Federal Reserve’s activities during the financial crisis of 2008. The audit revealed that between 2007 and 2008 the Federal Reserve loaned over $16 trillion — more than four times the annual budget of the United States — to foreign central banks and politically-influential private companies.

In 2013 former Federal Reserve official Andrew Huszar publicly apologized to the American people for his role in “the greatest backdoor Wall Street bailout of all time” — the Federal Reserve’s quantitative easing program. Can anyone doubt an audit would further confirm how the Fed acts to benefit economic elites?

Despite the improvements shown in the (government-manipulated) economic statistics, the average American has not benefited from the Fed’s quantitative easing program. The abysmal failure of quantitative easing in the US may be one reason Switzerland stopped pegging the value of the Swiss Franc to the Euro following reports that the European Central Bank is about to launch its own quantitative easing program.

Quantitative easing is just the latest chapter in the Federal Reserve’s hundred-year history of failure. Despite this poor track record, Fed apologists still claim the American people benefit from the Federal Reserve System. But, if that were the case, why wouldn’t they welcome the opportunity to let the American people know more about monetary policy? Why is the Fed acting like it has something to hide if it has nothing to fear from an audit?

The American people have suffered long enough under a monetary policy controlled by an unaccountable, secretive central bank. It is time to finally audit — and then end — the Fed.

Chinese Stocks Crash 7.7% on Margin Trades Crackdown by Authorities

As I have repeatedly been saying here, stock markets have been about credit and liquidity from which confidence is an offspring.

Take away credit and liquidity and the whole illusion of confidence built on them collapses.

Today, events in China has validated my thesis. A rigid crack down by the Chinese regulators on margin trades or credit extended by brokerage firms to clients has resulted to a harrowing one day stock market crash!

From the Bloomberg: (bold added)
Chinese equities plunged the most in six years, led by brokerages, after regulatory efforts to rein in record margin lending sparked concern that speculative traders will pull back from the world’s best-performing stock market.

The Shanghai Composite Index (SHCOMP) sank 7.1 percent to 3,138.59 at 1:59 p.m. local time, poised for the steepest drop since June 2008. Citic Securities Co. (600030) and Haitong Securities Co., the nation’s two biggest listed securities firms, fell by the 10 percent daily limit after they were suspended from lending money to new equity-trading clients. Industrial & Commercial Bank of China Ltd. tumbled 9.7 percent. The stock gauge’s 30-day volatility rose to a five-year high.

The penalties have raised concern that policy makers are trying to curb a surge in stock purchases using borrowed money, after outstanding margin loans surged to 1.08 trillion yuan ($174 billion) as of Jan. 13 from about 400 billion yuan at the end of June. The Shanghai Composite index has jumped 61 percent during the past 12 months on record volumes as individual investors piled into the market…

Citic Securities, Haitong Securities and Guotai Junan Securities Co. (1788) were suspended from lending money and stocks to new clients for three months, the China Securities Regulatory Commission said on its microblog on Jan. 16 after the market closed.

The regulator punished nine other brokerages for offenses including allowing unqualified investors to open margin finance and securities lending accounts, it said.
Last December I asked if the PBOC has been funneling banking loans indirectly to the stock market.

The same news report provides an affirmation of my suspicions:
On the same day, the China Banking Regulatory Commission banned banks from lending to companies that borrow to invest in equities, bonds, futures and derivatives. So-called entrusted loans extended by banks increased to about 458 billion yuan in December, the most since data became available in 2012.
So we seem to be witnessing a clash in policies.  The Chinese central bank, the PBoC wants to more credit into the system--yet  part of these funds finds its way to the stock markets--while the Regulatory Commission desires to curtail speculative credit flows into the stock markets.

So which agency will prevail, the PBoC or the Regulatory Commission?

clip_image001

The Shanghai Composite closed the day with a 7.7% crash! This again as reported, represents the steepest one day drop since 2008.

Also today’s episode highlights the reality that market crashes have become real time events.

clip_image003

And today’s 7.7% SSEC crash have virtually erased the year’s early sharp gains. The blue horizontal line above shows the level of today’s close.

Now of course, the Shanghai index had a 5.43% crash last December which it swiftly recovered.

The question now is how consistent will Chinese regulators implement the margin debt curbs? Margin trade controls essentially implies tightening of credit on stock market speculations.

So if regulators will continue to tighten then today’s crash could mark an inflection point for Chinese stock markets.

Given the huge growth of stock market credit or the record levels of margin debt, losses from today’s crash will likely lead to margin calls which may prompt for even more selling. And absent access to new credit many heavily levered firms will see their balance sheets impaired from sustained stock market losses.

But if regulators are here just to put a brake, or in effect, a façade at it, then today crash could just be part of the script to a manipulated boom.

At the end of the day, any credit inspired stock market ramp, is by its very nature, unsustainable. Chinese regulators seem to have become cognizant of its perils for them to implement today's crackdown.

As I always say here, the obverse side of every mania is a crash.

Charts of the Day: Why a Pope from a ‘Poor’ Country

Domestic media inquires: Why has the incumbent Pope been chosen from a ‘poor’ country (emerging markets)?  Pope Francis hails from Argentina. Previously Popes were elected from mainstream Europe

The following charts from Pew Research via washingtonpost.com may explain why:
image
image

Bluntly put, to revive Catholicism in Latin America, a Pope must represent the region.

However so far this doesn't seem to be working. Again the Washington Post (November 2014):
Pew notes that its own data may not show the "Francis Effect," as he only took the papal position in March 2013. However, the report then adds: 
[Former] Catholics are more skeptical about Pope Francis. Only in Argentina and Uruguay do majorities of ex-Catholics express a favorable view of the pope. In every other country in the survey, no more than roughly half of ex-Catholics view Francis favorably, and relatively few see his papacy as a major change for the Catholic Church. Many say it is too soon to have an opinion about the pope.

Sunday, January 18, 2015

Jim Rogers and James Grant Accurately Predicted the end of the SNB’s Disastrous Policy

What has Jim Rogers and James Grant have in common?

Well, not only have they predicted the outcome of the SNB’s policies, both lean on or use Austrian economics for their analysis.

The legendary investor Jim Rogers’ warned of the unsustainable policies embraced by the SNB in his book 2013 book Street Smart.

Here’s an excerpt (sourced from Business Insider Australia) [bold mine]
I had opened my first Swiss bank account in 1970 in the face of coming turmoil in the currency markets. By the end of the decade, as the markets grew more volatile, people all over the world were trying to open Swiss accounts. And the same thing is happening today. The dollar is suspect, the euro is suspect, and again people are rushing to the franc. In 2011, the CHF (the Swiss franc) escalated to record highs against both the euro and the dollar, rising 43 per cent against the euro in a year and a half as of August 2011.

It was a “massive overvaluation,” according to the country’s central bank, the Swiss National Bank (SNB). Under pressure from the country’s exporters, the SNB announced that “the value of the franc is a threat to the economy” and said it was “prepared to purchase foreign exchange in unlimited quantities” in order to drive the price down.

A threat to the economy? It was the exporters who were doing the screaming, but everybody else in Switzerland was better-off. When the franc rises, everything the Swiss import goes down in price, whether it is cotton shirts, TVs, or cars. The standard of living for everybody goes up. Every citizen of Switzerland benefits from a stronger currency. Our dental technician down in Geneva is not calling up and moaning. She is happy. Everything she buys is cheaper. But the big exporters get on the phone and the government takes their call.

The franc went down 7 or 8 per cent the day of the SNB announcement. Nobody, at least in the beginning, wanted to take on the central bank. But the bank’s currency manipulation will turn out to be disastrous. One of two things is going to happen.

In the first scenario, the market will continue to buy Swiss francs, which means that the Swiss National Bank will just have to keep printing and printing and printing, and that will of course debase the currency. Now, there are major exporters in Switzerland who might benefit, but the largest industry in Switzerland, the single largest business, is finance. The economy rises or falls on the nation’s ability to attract capital. And the reason people put their money there is their trust in the soundness of the currency- they not that their money will be there when they want it, and that it will not be worth significantly less than when they put it there in the first place.

But people will stop rushing to put their money into a country where the value of the currency is deliberately being driven down. After the Second World War and for the next thirty years, people took their money out of the United Kingdom because the currency plummeted. (Politicians blamed it on the gnomes of Zurich.) London ceased to be the world’s reserve financial center because Britain’s money was no good. Similarly, if you debase the franc, eventually nobody will want it. You will have eroded its value, not simply as a medium of exchange, but also a monetary refuge. The money will move to Singapore or Hong Kong, and the Swiss finance industry will wither up and disappear.

The alternative scenario is what happened in July 2010, the last time the Swiss tried to weaken their currency. They did so by buying up foreign currencies to hold against the franc-selling the franc to keep the price down. But the market just kept buying the francs, and the Swiss central bank, after quadrupling its foreign currency holdings, abandoned the effort. At that point, when the bank stopped selling it, the Swiss franc rose in value, all the currencies the Swiss had bought (and were now holding) declined in value, and the country lost $US21 billion. In the end, the market had more money than the bank, and market forces inevitably prevailed.

In the late 1970s when everyone was rushing to the franc, the Swiss National Bank, to stem the tide, imposed negative interest rates on foreign depositors. The government levied a tax on anybody who bought the currency. It was their form of exchange controls back then. If you bought 100 Swiss francs, you wound up with 70 in your pocket. Today, with the rush on again, The Economist has described the Swiss currency as “an innocent bystander in a world where the eurozone’s politicians have failed to sort out their sovereign-debt crisis, America’s economic policy seems intent on spooking investors and the Japanese have intervened to hold down the value of the yen.”

All of which is true, but I think the problem runs deeper than that. The Swiss for decades had a semi monopoly on finance. And as a result they have become less and less competent. The entire economy has been overprotected. The reason Swiss Air went bankrupt is because it never really had to compete. Any monopoly eventually destroys itself, and Switzerland, in predictable fashion, is corroding from within. As a result, other financial centres have been rising: London, Lichtenstein, Vienna, Singapore, Dubai, Hong Kong.
Well again, James Grant of Grant’s Interest Rate Observer shares the limelight for having foreseen the unraveling of the ill fated franc-euro cap. 

From Grant’s Interest Rate Observer: “The Balance Sheet that Ate the World September 19, 2014 (source LinkedIn; hat tip zero hedge) [bold mine]
Like a celebrity in flight from the paparazzi, the Swiss Confederation demands protection from its pesky admirers. To beat back the unwanted appreciation of the Swissie, the Swiss National Bank is--once again--vowing to move heaven and earth. Now under way is a speculation. Prompted by a friend (that's you, Harlan Batrus),we venture that the SNB will sooner or later be forced to permit the franc to appreciate and thus to enrich the holders of low-priced, three-year call options on the Swiss/euro exchange rate. It's a long shot, to be sure--the options are cheap for a reason--but we judge that the prospective reward is worth the obvious risk.

Curiously, for all the damage that Swiss private banks have suffered at the hands of American regulators, and for all the Federal Reserve's throat clearing about the supposed imminent rise in dollar interest rates, the franc is still, for many, the monetary bolt-hole of choice. To the Swiss, whose exports generate 54% of Switzerland's GDP, it's a kind of popularity they can live without--indeed, they insist, must live without.
So the SNB prints francs. It drew a monetary line in the sand three years ago: The franc shall not rally through the 1.20-to-the-euro mark, the authorities commanded in September 2011. To enforce this dictum, they bought euros with newly created francs (the cost of production of the home currency being essentially zero). What to do with the rising euro mountain? Invest it, of course.

CFA fashion, the central bankers are diversifying across asset classes and currencies. Among these asset classes are equities, and among these currencies is the dollar. As of June 30, the Swiss managers held $27 billion in 2,533 different U.S. stocks, according to the bank's latest 13-F report (the gnomes file with the SEC just like ordinary big hitters, say George Soros or Goldman Sachs Asset Management).

Here's a metaphysical head scratcher. The Europeans conjure euros, which the Swiss buy with their newly materialized francs. The managers exchange the euros for dollars (also produced by taps on a keyboard) and with that scrip buy ownership interests in real businesses. The equities are genuine. The money, legally and practically speaking, is itself real--you never mind having a little more of it. But what is its substance? We mean, how is it different from air?

In any case, observes colleague Evan Lorenz, the scale of the Swiss operations is titanic. He reports that, from December 2007 to July 2014, the SNB's balance sheet expanded to the equivalent of 83% of Swiss GDP from 23% of Swiss GDP. For perspective, over approximately the same span of years--and after three successive QE programs that boosted the Federal Reserve's assets by $3.5 trillion--the Fed's balance sheet as a percent of U.S. output expanded to 25% from 6%.

Swiss interest rates have shriveled as the SNB's balance sheet has grown. Thus, in January 2008, the average rate on 10-year, fixed-rate mortgages was an already low 4.17%; as of June 2014, 10-year loans were offered at an average of 2.25%. "In other words," Lorenz points out, "Swiss homeowners can borrow more cheaply than Uncle Sam." They can and they do. From December 2007 to June of this year, Swiss mortgage debt as a share of GDP surged to 146% from 127%. (Between the first quarter of 2009 and the first quarter of 2014, chastened Americans reduced America's mortgage debt as a share of American GDP to 55% from 74%.)

In these stupendous interventions, the SNB is hardly unique. Nor is it alone as it attempts to undo, through administrative means, the distortions it creates through monetary policy. New "macro-prudential" directives have tightened standards for home-loan amortization schedules, minimum down payments, affordability, bank capital ratios, etc.

Though the UBS Swiss Real Estate Bubble Index continues to flash "risk," the mortgage market cooled a bit in the first half of the year, Philippe Béguelin, an editor at Finanz und Wirtschaft in Zurisch, advises Lorenz. Then, too, the foreign exchange market cooled late in 2013, which allowed the SNB to cease and desist from franc printing. Thus, the central bank's assets declined to CHF 492.6 billion in February from a peak of CHF 511.7 billion in March 2013.

Russia's accession of Crimea at the end of February reheated the forex market. ISIS and the Scottish referendum have continued to turn up the temperature. Business activity in China continues to dwindle (electricity production fell 2.2%, measured year-over-year, in August), and European growth registers barely above the zero line. On Sept. 4, Mario Draghi unveiled a plan for a kind of euro-zone QE. So growth in the SNB's balance sheet has resumed. In July, the latest month for which figures are available, footings reached CHF 517.3 billion in July, a new high.

"If the drumbeat of bad news continues, why wouldn't investors move more cash into Switzerland?" Lorenz inquires. "Successive rounds of easy money have made the opportunity cost of parking assets in Switzerland much lower today than at the outset of the SNB's currency ceiling. True, the Swiss 10-year yield has declined to 0.49% from 0.93% since Nov. 1, 2011. But yields on the Irish, Spanish and Greek 10 years have also plummeted--to 1.88%, 2.33% and 5.69%, respectively, from 14.08%, 7.62% and 37.1%, respectively, at their euro-panic peaks. It no longer avails the income seeker much to gamble on second- and third-tier sovereign credits. Swiss yields are at rock bottom, but so are the rest of them. On the combined, undoubted authority of Deutsche Bank, Business Insider and Bloomberg, Dutch yields stand at a 500-year low."

It's a funny old world when frightened people turn to the Swissie, which the SNB is again mass-producing, rather than to gold, which nobody can mass produce. While the franc yields something to gold's nothing, the spread is narrowing. And if as Thomas Moser, an alternate member of the SNB's policy-setting Governing Board, suggested in a Sept. 10 interview with The Wall Street Journal, the SNB finally has recourse to negative rates, the barbarous relic will outyield the franc. Way back in the 1970s, relates Christopher Fildes, a delegation of foreign newspapermen were visiting the old Union Bank of Switzerland in Zurich. In response to a casual remark about the proverbial strength of the franc, a Swiss banker scoffed. "We do not say 'as good as gold,'" declared this eminence. "Gold is not as good as the Swiss franc." And now?

A bet on a higher Swiss/euro exchange rate implies that the SNB will stop intervening. What monetary or political forces might converge to persuade the bank that a strong franc is the lesser of two or more evils? "John Bull can stand anything but he can't stand 2%," the saying goes. It's clear to listen to their anguished cries that broad segments of the life insurance industry can't stand one-half of 1%. The Tokyo Stock Exchange TOPIX Insurance Index is essentially unchanged since 1994, the year that Japan government bond yields began their inexorable slide. "We are the collateral victims of the monetary policy which has been designed to help governments and banks after the financial crisis," Denis Kessler, the CEO of Scor SE, the world's fifth-largest reinsurer, complained at a London conference on June 24. "We were not at the heart of the crisis nor did we create the crisis."

More money printing or sub-zero rates may once again set a fire under Swiss house prices, macro-prudential policies notwithstanding. It may ruin the life insurers. At some point, the Swiss National Bank would have to decide whether propping up the export sector is worth the cost. If these circumstances, a bet (and, to be clear, it is very much a bet) on the franc appreciating against the euro might pay. A three-year, at-the-money option on the franc appreciating against the euro is priced at 3.7% of notional today according to Bloomberg. To return to its high of 1.03 francs per euro on Aug. 10, 2011, the franc would appreciate by 17%.

While there is nothing especially exotic about this option, it is available only to institutional investors with an International Swaps and Derivatives Association agreement in place with a too-big-to-fail bank. For readers not so situated, there is always gold, which--in our opinion--the franc is no longer as good as.
Bottom line: as the fateful SNB episode demonstrates—there are natural limits to the policies of inflationism.

Quote of the Day: The Hemingway Law of Motion: Gradually, then Suddenly

Ernest Hemingway's 1926 novel The Sun Also Rises, which is available various places around the web like here, includes the following snippet of dialogue:
"How did you go bankrupt?" Bill asked.
"Two ways," Mike said. "Gradually and then suddenly."
Many economists will recognize this as a version of an apercu offered a number of times over the years by the prominent macroeconomist Rudiger Dornbusch, who liked to say (for example, in this interview about Mexico's economic crisis in the 1990s):
"The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought."
What I am dubbing the Hemingway Law of Motion clearly has wide applicability. It's when the creaking of your back porch doesn't matter much, until the day you put a foot through the floor. It's when the cracks and rust on the bridge don't seem to matter, until the day the bridge goes down. It's the concern that you can see signs that the risk of a financial crisis or a stock market run, but little action is taken until the crisis is upon us. It's the concern that the costs and risks of climate change may look quite reasonable, until something large and perhaps irreversible happens all at once. 

The Hemingway Law of Motion is simultaneously a useful reminder in some cases and a rhetorical trick in other cases. It's a useful reminder that the world often isn't smooth and linear. Instead, the world full of tipping points and thresholds. When warning signs exist, they may not steadily rise to a predictably timed crescendo. Instead, those who interpret the warning signs correctly and take action will often look like alarmists, because if they act in time, the negative event never actually materializes--and so was it really necessary for them to make such a fuss in the first place?
The excerpt above including a quote from Mr. Rudiger Dornbusch is from the Conversable Economist blogger, editor, author and lecturer Timothy Taylor.

My version of this: drip, drip, drip then a flood or a slomo downhill before a collapse.

Saturday, January 17, 2015

Has SNB’s actions functioned as the Causa Proxima for the Return of Global Financial Volatility?

More on Swiss National Bank’s pulling the plug on the franc-euro cap which I posted Thursday.

SNB’s governor Thomas Jordan on the discontinuation of the franc euro policy:
Recently, divergences between the monetary policies of the major currency areas have increased significantly – a trend that is likely to become even more pronounced. The euro has depreciated substantially against the US dollar and this, in turn, has caused the Swiss franc to weaken against the US dollar. In these circumstances, the SNB has concluded that enforcing and maintaining the minimum exchange rate for the Swiss franc against the euro is no longer justified.
The Wall Street Journal Real Times Economic Blog provides a list of foreign exchange brokers which suffered heavy losses from the SNB’s actions.
-FXCM Inc., the biggest retail foreign-exchange broker in the U.S. and Asia, said in a statement that because of unprecedented volatility in the euro against the Swiss franc, clients’ losses left them owing it about $225 million and that it was trying to shore up its capital. 

-In the U.K., retail broker Alpari Ltd. entered insolvency after racking up losses amid the currency turmoil following the SNB’s decision. 

-Global Brokers NZ Ltd., which is registered in New Zealand, said it would close its doors as it could no longer meet regulatory minimum-capitalization requirements of 1 million New Zealand dollars ($782,500). The firm is connected to online currency trading websites Cashback Forex, Forex Razor and Excel Markets and appears to be owned by entities in the British Virgin Islands. 

-Japan’s Finance Ministry was checking on trading firms Friday after industry sources said the country’s army of mom-and-pop foreign exchange traders suffered big losses.
image
Oh by the way, Swiss stocks which collapsed 8.97% on Thursday, had a follow on 5.96% meltdown on Friday. For two days the SMI has lost 14.93%! 

Stock market crashes and sharp financial volatility have become real time events!

The Swiss equity bellwether has apparently diverged from many other European stocks where the latter has rallied strongly. Last week’s stock market bids have largely been anchored on next week’s highly anticipated full scale QE from the ECB.

Nonetheless here are some interesting commentaries from various experts.

Austrian economist Patrick Barron at the Mises Canada Blog says that Switzerland has implicitly abandoned the European Monetary Union (bold mine)
Oh. You didn’t know that Switzerland was part of the European Monetary Union? You thought that the Swiss used their own currency, the Swiss franc? In a definitional sense only, you are correct. Within its monopolized currency area, the political boundaries of Switzerland, the Swiss franc is legal tender. But for approximately three years the Swiss National Bank has maintained a Swiss franc to euro ratio of 1.2 francs per euro. The usual suspects, exporters, were the driving political force behind the SNB’s policy. They feared fewer sales to eurozone countries should the franc cost more in euro terms. This policy made the European Central Bank (ECB) the determinant of monetary policy in Switzerland and relegated the Swiss National Bank to the mechanical role of currency board. When the Swiss franc started to appreciate against the euro, meaning that buyers were willing to accept fewer than 1.2 francs per euro, the Swiss National Bank printed francs and bought euros. Over the last three years as demand for Swiss francs from euro holders increased, the SNB’s balance sheet exploded with new euro reserves. However, as the world now knows, in a surprise move the SNB abandoned its currency peg policy. Today the franc exchanges approximately one for one with the euro, meaning that the franc has appreciated by approximately twenty percent against the euro.

As far as I know the SNB has made no official announcement of the reason for its surprise move. I suspect that the Swiss people had made themselves heard that they feared inflation from the ECB’s imminent quantitative easing policy.  The Swiss gold referendum on November 30 would have required their central bank to hold a fixed percent of reserves in the form of gold. It was defeated only after the major political parties and the SNB amounted a concerted anti-referendum blitz. Still in control of their own currency, it was a relatively simple matter for Switzerland, in effect,  to veto the ECB’s proposed policy by abandoning the currency peg. This shows the rest of Europe that at least one nation does not fear returning to full control of its currency nor does it fear the consequences of a temporary drop in exports. (The drop will be temporary, because Swiss import prices will fall and eurozone users will be awash with depreciated euros and willing to pay more for the Swiss franc.)

The lesson is clear. If Switzerland can retake control of its money, so can any eurozone nation. The process may take longer, as the country reissues is own currency and re-denominates its bank accounts in local currency terms, but it can be done. Already there are reports that the Danish central bank is contemplating abandoning its currency peg of approximately 7.5 krone per euro.  If the sky does not fall on Switzerland and Denmark, other nations may follow. Does anyone know how to say deutsche mark?

image

To visualize on the explosion of euro reserves on the SNB’s balance sheets, as of November 2014, the SNB's balance sheet has swelled to 540 billion CHF and now accounts for 80% of GDP (chart from Danske).  

Austrian economist Frank Hollenbeck at the Mises Institute notes that the surprise SNB action has been intended to shield Swiss political economy from ECB’s forthcoming irresponsible actions (emphasis added)
In theory, the Swiss could have held the floor. To keep your currency from appreciating, all you need to do is print, print print. Of course, this printing is not without consequences. With this bold move, the Swiss have crossed the Rubicon. They cannot go back. They have in dicated to speculators there is a pain threshold, or monetary expansion, that the Swiss are not willing to bear. Any attempt to set a new floor would set up a one way bet for speculators.

By pegging your currency to that of a bigger neighbor, you are essentially letting your neighbor determine your monetary policy. Dubai fixed its currency, the dirham, to the dollar and imported the US’s excessive monetary policy which led to the same real estate bubble in Dubai as the bubble in the US. In other words, by fixing your currency, you have to follow your bigger neighbor’s irresponsible monetary policy.

With the increasing likelihood that the European Central Bank would violate the Maastricht treaty and purchase sovereign debt, the Swiss finally decided they had had enough. The talk now is that the ECB will purchase over a trillion euros worth of bonds. To keep the peg, the Swiss would have had to increase the money supply by the same percentage, which would have been irresponsible monetary policy for such a small country.

By letting the peg go, Switzerland did the right thing. It should now concentrate on eliminating most EU debt from its balance sheet. There is an EU storm brewing, and Switzerland will no longer be one of the innocent bystanders.
In an interview, American entrepreneur and financial commentator Peter Schiff said that the SNB has been the first central bank to "surrender" or to back away from them global ‘currency war’. 

The transcript of the interview from LewRockwell.com (bold mine)
“First of all, it’s not just the euro that collapsed. The US dollar collapsed almost as much. I think it was the right thing to do. I think it was a mistake for the Swiss to have adopted that peg in the first place. In fact, by abandoning the peg, they’re admitting it was a mistake, because now the Swiss franc has appreciated anyway, which was something the peg was designed to prevent. Now the Swiss National Bank has tens of billions of francs worth of losses on a 500 billion plus cash of euros and dollars that they’ve accumulated to defend that ridiculous peg. Of course, had they not ended it, the losses would have mounted. If Europe launches QE, they could have lost hundreds of billions of francs

Central bankers rarely admit their mistakes. What’s changed? It’s not necessary because it didn’t work. It was never necessary. They probably have a much greater supply now of euros and dollars on their balance sheet than they bargained for. The prospect of having to back up the toboggans and fill them full of euros was very daunting. So they abandoned this peg, thankfully for the Swiss… Swiss people are going to benefit. Look at the drop of oil prices in terms of Swiss francs. Prices are going to come down and the Swiss are going to be that much more prosperous because of a stronger franc…

“I think that is a mistake. I don’t think they need negative interest rates. I think that is taking some of the luster off of the franc. It would be even stronger had they not done that. But a strong currency is not a bad thing. A weak currency is a bad thing. Switzerland should take pride in the strength of its currency. Now they have to deal with the losses by trying to prevent it from rising. Of course, there have been some economic mistakes made in Switzerland and elsewhere, because of this monetary policy, that now have to be corrected. Unfortunately, these were needless mistakes that didn’t have to be made. I think a lot of people are now jumping to the conclusion that Europe is going to do a big QE program, and that’s why the Swiss are backing away. Without the Swiss, I think it makes it that much more difficult for Europe to do QE. So maybe they’re not going to be able to do it, because they no longer have the Swiss to support their currency. Maybe they’ll do some more substantive economic reforms instead. That would be a positive for Europe. I think that it could mean the US is the last central bank standing with QE, because I think we’re going to be doing QE4…

I think that you’re going to see a complete breakdown in the confidence that people have for central banking over the next several years. The Swiss were saying, ‘Over my dead body. We will defend this peg to eternity.’ Then they went around and they didn’t do it. Of course, that’s generally what central banks do. They have to deny, deny, right up until the point where they do what they were denying they were going to do. I think you have a lot of confidence and trust and faith in central bankers. I think that bubble in central bank confidence is going to burst, is going to be shattered. Particularly when it comes to the confidence people have in the Federal Reserve and in Janet Yellen, because they’ve been talking about how great the US economy is. To anyone who has been payingattention to the statistics, this mirage of a recovery, this illusion is fading fast. I think instead of the promised recovery that Janet Yellen has been talking about, we’re going to have a relapse to recession. Instead of rate hikes, we’re going to have QE4. That’s going to be the end of their credibility…
We see the same concerns even in the mainstream. 

The stock market bullish fund manager David R. Kotok chairman of Cumberland Advisors Chairman suddenly seems skittish: (bold mine)
Markets can handle good news, and they can handle bad news. Markets have trouble, however, with uncertainty. The pressure on stock markets and the volatility that has spiked due to the SNB’s move are the results of rising uncertainty about the foreign-currency-denominated debt and abrupt changes in central bank policy.

The Swiss have punched new holes in their cheese. They have boiled their chocolate so that it smells bad. They committed to a course, reversed themselves, and have now lost their credibility. This is the second governor of the Swiss central bank who has suffered a loss of credibility. The first one had to resign because a member of his household was allegedly trading a foreign currency position against the euro peg. The second governor has derailed billions in loans and pressured his citizens through his unexpected policy change.

When one central bank loses its credibility, all central banks suffer. The burdens on the Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank, the Bank of Japan, the Bank of England, and others have now intensified.
Finally, chief advisor to Allianz and economic commentator and author Mohamed El Erian, writing at the Financial Times says that the SNB’s actions looks like signs of widening cracks on the central bank induced low volatility environment: (bold added)
The implications of this historic policy turnround extend well beyond a period of bumpy economic and financial adjustment for Switzerland itself. They risk destabilising some other countries and decision-making in the neighbouring eurozone will become even more complicated and contentious.

Confirming the historical lesson that large currency moves tend to break things, they also highlight the extent to which central banks, operating in a world of growing economic and policy divergence, are struggling to maintain the paradigm of low market volatility that is central to their efforts to generate higher economic growth…

Following the abrupt removal of the currency peg, Switzerland is now looking at a period of bumpy economic and financial adjustment. Being a relatively “open economy”, in which trade and tourism play an important role, Swiss companies face a considerable competitiveness challenge ahead. The country will also have to deal with issues of currency mismatches, as well as having to battle larger, externally-induced deflationary forces.

But the implications extend far beyond Switzerland. Countries with Swiss franc denominated liabilities, such as Hungary, now have to deal with a major adverse valuation shock.

More importantly in terms of global systemic effects, politicians in the core economies within the eurozone — including Germany, Austria, Finland and the Netherlands — will see the SNB’s move as a reaffirmation of the dangers of substituting financial engineering for real economic reform. As such, they will be less willing to accommodate the hyperactivism of the ECB. And while this is unlikely to stop the ECB from doing more, it may increase the legal, reputational and unity risks it takes in doing so. 

Then there are the consequences for a global economy which, in the absence of a comprehensive policy response in the advanced world, has ended up overly reliant on central bank interventions. Given that their tools cannot reach directly and sufficiently at what holds back growth and jobs, these central banks have been forced to use the partial channel of financial asset prices to influence real economic outcomes.

To this end, central banks have sought to repress market volatility as a means of encouraging risk taking that would then boost asset prices and thus encourage greater household consumption (via the wealth effect) and corporate investment (via animal spirits). 

The SNB’s decision is further evidence that central banks are finding it harder to implement a policy of volatility repression that already was being challenged by the growing divergence in policy prospects between the eurozone and the US.
The ECB better deliver the highly expected "bazooka" next week because if not market volatility may return with a vengeance.

Yet has last week’s action by the SNB functioned as the causa proxima* for the return of global financial market volatility as the Swiss franc carry trade unravels that may lead to the breakdown of the euro and of bursting of the central banking confidence bubble?

*Causa Promixa is what historian Charles Kindleberger calls as "some incident that saps the confidence of the system" in Manias, Panics and Crashes p 104

Thursday, January 15, 2015

SNB Abandons Swiss Franc Euro cap, Swiss Stock Market Crashes

In a world of central planning, all it takes to destabilize the markets is for authorities to succumb to their caprices.

The Swiss central bank, the Swiss National Bank, suddenly decides to end the 1.2 franc per euro cap.

From the Bloomberg:
The Swiss National Bank unexpectedly scrapped its three-year policy of capping the Swiss franc against the euro in a u-turn that may change the perception of a century-old institution known for reliability.

In a surprise statement that sent shockwaves through equities and currency markets, the central bank ended its cap of 1.20 franc per euro and reduced the interest rate on sight deposits, deepening a cut announced less than a month ago.

The shift marks an attempt by the SNB to reinforce its defenses of the economy before government bond purchases by the European Central Bank that could crumple the franc cap. The franc surged after the announcement, Swiss stocks including UBS AG tumbled and the chief executive of watchmaker Swatch Group AG said the policy shift would hurt exports. SNB President Thomas Jordan defended the move, saying surprise was necessary.

image

It’s pandemonium on Swiss financial markets as the EUR/CHF collapse.

image

Yields of 10 year Swiss bond collapses.

image

Just look at that bond yield collapse (bond rallies)! Yields of 7 year Swiss bonds turn negative! (all charts above from investing.com)

image
image

Swiss stocks, as of this writing, have crashed 10%!

As been repeatedly stated here, crashes have become real time events.

image

Speculations are rife that SNB actions have signified as hints to a massive ECB QE that may come next week. And has most likely been the reason for the massive swing from losses to substantial gains for other European Stocks.

(charts above from Bloomberg)

Gold has so far soared 2%. US stocks have been wildly fluctuating from losses to gains back to losses.

Curiously just last Monday the SNB said that they would maintain the franc-euro cap.

From Reuters (hat tip Zero Hedge)
The Swiss National Bank's cap on the franc at 1.20 per euro will remain its key monetary policy tool, the central bank's vice-chairman said in a television interview broadcast on Monday.

"We took stock of the situation less than a month ago, we looked again at all the parameters and we are convinced that the minimum exchange rate must remain the cornerstone of our monetary policy," Jean-Pierre Danthine told RTS.
The above is an exhibit of how financial markets have become almost entirely dependent on central bank policies.

And yet the outcome of centralization is a black swan event. So far this has been a Swiss financial markets affair. How this will affect trades and investments embedded on the franc-euro cap outside Switzerland remains to be seen.

We truly live in interesting times.

The French Government Uses Free Speech as Pretext to Suppress Free Speech

At the Ron Paul Institute, Daniel McAdams comments that the French government has used the Charlie Hebdo incident as a convenient excuse to crack down on Free speech (“After Free Speech Rally, France Cracks Down on Free Speech”)
Well that didn't take long. Just three days after the French government hosted dozens of foreign leaders in a "unity rally" to defend free speech in the wake of last week's shooting at the Charlie Hebdo magazine, France has begun arresting its citizens for actually exercising free speech.

According to news reports, more than 50 French citizens were arrested today and charged with offensive speech — the same kind of speech that was the trademark of of the Charlie Hebdo publication. 

None of those arrested were charged with links to terrorism or any real crime. Instead, they are facing up to seven years in prison for making statements the French authorities claim are supportive of the shootings or are anti-Semitic.

New directives from the French Justice Ministry provided the legal basis for arresting those deemed "supportive" of the attacks or who express anti-Semitic or racist sentiment. Anti-Muslim sentiment was not included in the government's new arrest orders, despite a dramatic spike in actual attacks on French Muslims since the shootings. The justice ministry claimed the new anti-speech measures were necessary to protect freedom of expression.

Among those arrested is controversial French comedian Dieudonné M’bala M’bala, charged with being "an apologist for terrorism" and facing jail time over a Facebook post making fun of Sunday's "unity rally." Exercising free speech by making fun of the French government as it celebrates free speech is apparently a crime.

The French government has long banned Dieudonné's comedy performances over his controversial jokes, even as French authorities celebrate Charlie Hebdo's controversial jokes.

Those arrested for exercising free speech in France will be charged under "special measures" put into place after the shooting, which provide for immediate sentencing of the accused. Some 130,000 military and security forces have been deployed on the streets of France and ordered to keep a particular eye on incidents that could bring violence against the police.

Unreported in the US, Charlie Hebdo has long ties with the French Communist Party and after the shooting has moved its headquarters to the offices of Libération, a French newspaper with roots in the Communist Party-inspired unrest of May, 1968. One of most famous Charlie Hebdo cartoonists,Stéphane Charbonnier ("Charb"), was a long-time member of the French Communist Party. Currently the newspaper is considered "left wing" and is controlled by Edouard de Rothschild of the international banking family, which should provide some additional fodder for the conspiracy-minded.

France and Europe chokes under the noxious cloud of hypocrisy.
Judge Andrew Napolitano at the LewRockwell.com sees the same (bold mine)
The French government has prohibited speech it considers to be hateful and even made it criminal. When the predecessor magazine to Charlie Hebdo once mocked the death of Charles de Gaulle, the French government shut it down — permanently.

The theory of anti-hate speech laws is that hate speech often leads to violence, and violence demands police and thus the expenditure of public resources, and so the government can make it illegal to spout hatred in order to conserve its resources. This attitude presumes, as Wilson did when he prosecuted folks for publicly singing German songs during World War I, that the government is the origin of free speech and can lawfully limit the speech it hates and fears. It also presumes that all ideas are equal, and none is worthy of hatred.

When the massacres occurred last week in Paris, all three of the murderers knew that the police would be unarmed and so would be their victims. It was as if they were shooting fish in a barrel. Why is that? The answer lies in the same mentality that believes it can eradicate hate by regulating speech. That mentality demands that government have a monopoly on violence, even violence against evil.

So, to those who embrace this dreadful theory, the great loss in Paris last week was not human life, which is a gift from God; it was free speech, which is a gift from the state. Hence the French government, which seems not to care about innocent life, instead of addressing these massacres as crimes against innocent people, proclaimed the massacres crimes against the freedom of speech. Would the French government have reacted similarly if the murderers had killed workers at an ammunition factory, instead of at a satirical magazine?

And how hypocritical was it of the French government to claim it defends free speech! In France, you can go to jail if you publicly express hatred for a group whose members may be defined generally by characteristics of birth, such as gender, age, race, place of origin or religion.

You can also go to jail for using speech to defy the government. This past weekend, millions of folks in France wore buttons and headbands that proclaimed in French: “I am Charlie Hebdo.” Those whose buttons proclaimed “I am not Charlie Hebdo” were asked by the police to remove them. Those who wore buttons that proclaimed, either satirically or hatefully, “I am Kouachi” were arrested. Arrested for speech at a march in support of free speech? Yes.

What’s going on here? What’s going on in France, and what might be the future in America, is the government defending the speech with which it agrees and punishing the speech with which it disagrees. What’s going on is the assault by some in radical Islam not on speech, but on vulnerable innocents in their everyday lives in order to intimidate their governments. What’s going on is the deployment of 90,000 French troops to catch and kill three murderers because the government does not trust the local police to use guns to keep the streets safe or private persons to use guns to defend their own lives.
Meanwhile former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal Paul Craig Roberts deems that the unfortunate Charlie Hebdo incident was instead a false flag