Sunday, May 24, 2015

Phisix 7,800: Bearish Signals Converge; Yield Curve Inversions Incite Interventions!

When we lose our individual independence in the corporateness of a mass movement, we find a new freedom—freedom to hate, bully, lie, torture, murder and betray without shame and remorse. Herein undoubtedly lies part of the attractiveness of mass movement. We find there the “right to dishonour” which according to Dostoyevsky has an irresistible fascination. –Eric Hoffer in the True Believer

In this issue:

Phisix 7,800: Bearish Signals Converge; Yield Curve Inversions Incite Interventions!
-Surging 1 Month Treasury Yield Foments Yield Curve Inversions!
-Flattening Yield Curve: The Widespread Downside Price Pressures in the Philippine Economy!
-Massive Friday Interventions To Steepen the Yield Curve!
-Market Manipulations: Lessons from International Events
-Deepening Bearish Convergence: Fast Eroding Market Internals
-Deepening Bearish Convergence: Shrinking Volume, Skewed Distribution of Trading Activities and Chart Formation
-Financial Market Alerts: IMF on Shrinking Liquidity, IIF on Emerging Market Outflows and Financial Group Calls for Bubble Curbs

Phisix 7,800: Bearish Signals Converge; Yield Curve Inversions Incite Interventions!

Treasury markets exhibit the health of a given system’s credit and economic conditions, as well as, play a lead role in determining the interest rates of the banking system. This is even more critical if monetary policies have become key drivers of economic activities.

Therefore, any signs of strains related to credit conditions will be manifested or vented through the treasury markets first.

Last week, I noted that Philippine treasuries experienced outsized volatility in that the yields of one month bills spiked to a 2012 high.

And it’s not just for the 1 month bill, but the yields of intermediate papers with maturities of 1, 2 and 3 years has likewise soared. The result of which has been to flatten the yield curve. The flattening of the yield curve has intensifying since December 2013 despite increasing incidences of interventions.

Also last week, the Philippine central bank, the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, floated the idea or hinted of the assimilation the US Federal Reserve’s bailout tool called TAF as part of liquidity management tool.

I asked[1]
Yet hasn’t it been contradictory if not satirical to hear of discussions of the use of bailout tools (rationalized as macroprudential tools) in the midst of what has been popularly perceived an endless boom?

Will the TAF be followed by other Lending of Last Resort (LOLR) bailout tools that eventually end up with deposit haircuts?

Yes I do expect some heavy interventions in the coming the week.

But if the current volatility has manifested an outlet valve from balance sheet impairments, then the impact from day on day market interventions will be short-lived.

The next measures will be the cutting of rates and more macroprudential (bailout) instruments.
Surging 1 Month Treasury Yield Foments Yield Curve Inversions!

Two very important events this week that has hardly been seen by the public.

First, the yield of 1 month bills continued to climb through Thursday (based on investing.com data). However, Friday’s interventions managed to marginally clip or shave 10 basis points from last week’s high.

Importantly, the surge in 1 month yield caused collapsing spreads and yield curve inversions!



For two days last week, the yield of the 1 month bill slightly surpassed the yield of the 7 year bonds—a yield curve inversion (left)!

And in two weeks, the yield spread between 1 month and 7 year essentially collapsed!

And it’s not just the spread between 1 month and 7 years, but an inversion occurred last week with 5 year treasuries last week (right)!

Even more, over the week the yield spread between 1 month relative to of 5, 7, and 10 year maturities have collapsed (right)! Aside from the sporadic inversions with the 5 and 7 year, 1 month yields has inverted with yields of 1 to 4 year maturities!

Simply awesome! Everything A-OK eh?

Here is the Federal Reserve Bank of New York on the flattening and inversion of the yield curve[2] (bold mine)
Monetary policy can influence the slope of the yield curve. A tightening of monetary policy usually means a rise in short-term interest rates, typically intended to lead to a reduction in inflationary pressures. When those pressures subside, it is expected that a policy easing—lower rates—will follow. Whereas short-term interest rates are relatively high as a result of the tightening, longterm rates tend to reflect longer term expectations and rise by less than short-term rates. The monetary tightening both slows down the economy and flattens (or even inverts) the yield curve.

Changes in investor expectations can also change the slope of the yield curve. Consider that expectations of future shortterm interest rates are related to future real demand for credit and to future inflation. A rise in short-term interest rates induced by monetary policy could be expected to lead to a future slowdown in real economic activity and demand for credit, putting downward pressure on future real interest rates. At the same time, slowing activity may result in lower expected inflation, increasing the likelihood of a future easing in monetary policy. The expected declines in short-term rates would tend to reduce current long-term rates and flatten the yield curve. Clearly, this scenario is consistent with the observed correlation between the yield curve and recessions.
In the perspective of the business cycle, balance sheet imbalances brought about by funding maturity mismatches likewise contributes to changes in the yield curve as previously shown here[3].

So these factors may interweave to forge yield curve cycles.


So the flattening of the yield curve comes with the “reduction in inflationary pressures”, and “future slowdown in demand for credit and real economic activity”. Except for statistical growth, have we not been seeing this today? 

Flattening Yield Curve: The Widespread Downside Price Pressures in the Philippine Economy!

A flattening (and the inversion) of the yield curve has indeed reduced price pressures in the Philippine statistical economy.


It’s really not just on the government’s consumer price inflation (CPI) data which continues to tumble. Government CPI fell by 2.2% this April. 

There has been a broad based decline in prices at the supply side too.

This month, the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) reported of the downtrend in the growth rate of general retail prices[4] which has been in place since from August 2014 (left window). Month on month March data even CONTRACTED by .1%! And most of the gains have largely been from food! This data is supposed to reflect on the supply side aspect of consumer activities!

Also the broad based decline of manufacturing input prices have led to SIX consecutive months where the growth rates of the PSA’s producer’s prices survey as of March 2015[5] have been CONTRACTING! (see right)


Last week I showed PSA’s growth rate of wholesale price index for select construction materials at the National Capital Region has been DOWN for FIVE consecutive months.

This week, the PSA’s retail prices for selected construction materials[6] for the National Capital Region for the month of April crashed to NEGATIVE (left window)! Year on Year, as well as, month on month retail construction prices fell by .1% apiece! Since January 2015, construction prices have been falling.

So in the construction sector, wholesale activities have now matched with retail activities!

And yet the popular wisdom has been that the Philippines have been enjoying a construction boom! Ironically, price deflation in both wholesale and retail sectors in the face of a credit financed construction boom???!!! How consistent has that logic been?

Yet whatever happened to prices? Have market prices outlived their primary function to coordinate the balance of demand and supply? Or has economics been driven to obsolescence from the establishment’s impetuous devotion to headline numbers?

Remember, the reported 4Q GDP 2014 has been skewed towards government construction activities, which based on their statistics offset weaknesses in many parts of the market economy. Now based on prices, activities in the construction sector seem to have waned, so where will G-R-O-W-T-H come from? 

Well, here is a guess: they will just pop out of statistics!

And how about the current conditions of general wholesale prices? Wholesale activities function as intermediaries for retail activities. These enterprises are likely to be traders for local manufacturers or for importers, or they may be importers themselves. Since wholesalers generally depend on retailers (with the exception of supply shocks), the health of the retail activities should resonate generally with wholesale activities.

So what do we get?

Here is the Philippine Statistical Authority on March 2015 general wholesale prices on a national scale[7]: An annual decrease was still posted in the country’s General Wholesale Price Index (GWPI) at 4.9 percent in March. In February, it was recorded at -5.1 percent and in March 2014, 4.6 percent. This was effected by the annual declines still observed in the indices of crude materials, inedible except fuels at -8.1 percent and mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials, -33.0 percent. In addition, slower annual growths were seen in the heavily-weighted food index at 7.4 percent; chemicals including animal and vegetable oils and fats index, 1.9 percent; machinery and transport equipment index, 2.4 percent; and miscellaneous manufactured articles index, 1.8 percent. However, higher annual rates were noted in the indices of beverages and tobacco and manufactured goods classified chiefly by materials at 8.0 percent and 2.2 percent, respectively

National wholesale prices have been contracting for 5 consecutive months (right) with NCR leading the region!

Curiously, have prices of global oil (WTIC and Brent) and petroleum products not been rebounding from the troughs of January? So why the continued plunge in the prices in fuel and fuel related industries, if these has been mostly about external linkages? And aside from oil and petroleum products, why has price growth rates been slowing for machinery and transport equipment and miscellaneous manufactured articles?


Have crashing wholesale prices been signs of a credit funded aggregate demand based boom? Or instead, has these been signs of a growing slack in demand in the statistical economy? Or could these have been signs of inventory overhang? Or perhaps could it be both? 

The NSCB’s 4Q GDP shows of a divergence between retail and wholesale trading activities (left) with wholesale activities sharply rising as retail activities slump!

Absent a material recovery from consumers, if the NSCB’s data has been anywhere accurate, then the inventory overhang could have most likely been a significant factor in driving price pressures to the downside!

And if it is true that that there has been an excessive buildup of inventories, then this should translate to negative impact on manufacturing and imports today. However, while manufacturing and import data previously affirmed signs of weakness, current numbers have suddenly recovered! Where government data defies economic logic, then this represents either a statistical quirk (anomaly) or another instance of statistical pump.

And even more, inventory buildup means higher financing costs for those enterprises that funded these with credit. This should mean lesser profits or even financial losses. So it is of no doubt to me that increased demand for immediate funding has likely pressured short term rates higher. Of course, funding pressures can originate from many other bubble sectors as property, financial intermediaries and hotel.

And as I have previously shown, the growth rate of banking loans by the trading sector, which constitutes wholesale and retail activities, have been in a seven month downtrend as of March (right window). The 7 month decline has reached November 2013 levels. Although credit growth to the sector have still been growing by over 10%, considering the downside pressures in both retail and wholesale prices, the critical question is—where has the money been flowing to?

If one notices, current price conditions for consumers, construction, retail, manufacturing, hardly reveals of a boom, but rather of a growing slack in the economy. Yet for the establishment it will remain a boom. That’s because for them, G-R-O-W-T-H comes from pulling rabbits out of the statistical hat.

A few examples.

Citing statistics, we have been told by the government that there has been profuse liquidity in the system. On the contrary, some markets and other related statistics point to the opposite direction. Philippine treasuries have been exhibiting a flattening of the yield curve with recent events underscoring an acceleration of this trend. Bank credit growth has been falling, money supply growth collapsing, falling prices have not been limited to consumer prices but to the overall supply side sector. Importantly, pressures on short term yields have become apparent…too apparent perhaps for the BSP to hint of adapting the US Federal Reserve’s Term Auction Facility (TAF)!

Citing statistics, we have been told that consumers have led the boom. Yet based on NSCB data Household Final Consumption Expenditures and retail activities have been plummeting. OFW remittances stagnated from November 2014 to February 2015 with a sudden sharp rebound only last March 2015. Retail and wholesale prices have been on a downtrend, if not in a deflation, for at least 5 months. Retail and wholesale credit growth has been falling since September 2014. Consumer prices have been falling. Consumer credit appears to have peaked (which only a few have access). Jobs grew by a measly 2.5% in 2014 with real wages suffering a loss particularly for NCR jobs which accounts for two fifths of the labor force! And those losses, to my estimates, have been severely understated!

How about Philippine stocks? Same story: booming headline (index) as consequence of market manipulation, but generally about half of the listed firms have been on bear markets!

It’s all showbiz.

Based on the NY Fed’s assessment of the yield curve’s influence, real economic growth for the Philippines, while still positive, must be dramatically distant from consensus expectations of 6-7%.

Expect another statistical government pump next week, Thursday where 1Q 2015 GDP will be announced.

Of course, as pointed above mainstream opinion have manifested signs of either logical fallacies—survivorship bias, recency bias and fallacy of composition, and or, just outright disinformation.

Massive Friday Interventions To Steepen the Yield Curve!

This brings me back to the yield curve inversion.

It may be true that one or two weeks may not a trend make. But the current flattening yield curve has been a long progression, with recent events only amplifying the process.

I have also written last week that interventions have only produced a whack-a-mole effect with interventions in one maturity have led to yield surges in other maturities. And because of the huge move by the 1 month treasuries I expected a massive intervention.

Well, my expectations just came true.

This Friday, interventionists mounted a comprehensive coordinated strike at the Philippine treasury market which has been tightly held by the government and banks.


They intensely pumped 1-4 year treasuries that collapsed yields. Forcefully sold down or increased yields of the 5 year maturity to undo its inversion with 1-4 year treasuries. Partly sold 7 year (which erased the inversion with 1 month bill) and marginally pumped up all the rest (1,3 and 6 months and 10,15, and 25 years). [see left] The result has been to sharply widen the spread (see left)

These interventions have palpably been conducted to reverse the flattening yield spread and douse suspicions of an emerging liquidity crunch. 

Well perhaps these faceless interventionists have been reading me (which flatters me). Perhaps too this may just be a coincidence.

Anyway, such yield spread manipulation aimed at superficially steepening the yield curve will do little if the real causes of the short maturity yield spikes have been from balance sheet problems.

If my suspicions are accurate then this only encourages rollerovers of unserviceable or unviable liabilities that magnify the problem, thus the temporary widening of the yield curve will just buy time and will worsen the credit conditions.

Yet let us see for how long the effects to forcefully steepen the yield curve lasts?

Market Manipulations: Lessons from International Events

Here is a Bloomberg report where US regulators unearthed emails that allegedly proved that British multinational banking, Barclays PLC, had been guilty of the rigging of the interest rate swap market in 2008[8].
It was a simple process, according to the CFTC: Barclays traders told their brokers to buy or sell as many interest-rate swaps as needed just before 11 a.m. New York time to push the benchmark in the desired direction…

“You did well at the 11 o’clock fix, man,” he said to a broker, according to the CFTC complaint. “Sounded like you were actually holding the spreads up with your hands; like, it felt like you were bench pressing them over your head.”

Here’s how a broker described the process to a trader in 2007, according to the CFTC: “If you want to affect it at 11, you tell me which way you want to affect it we’ll, we’ll attempt to affect it that way.”

Another time that year, a Barclays trader told his broker to buy as much as $400 million worth of swaps to move the benchmark, according to the complaint
The manipulation scheme involves a time schedule where market participants conspire to set or fix prices. Rings a bell?

The above interest rate fixing manipulation happened at the humongous derivatives market which comprises about $381 trillion market for interest-rate swaps and the $44 trillion market for options on swaps. The benchmark involved has been the ISDAfix, an interest rate swap benchmark, that helps “pension funds determine their future obligations and lenders decide how much to charge borrowers”.

Last week, six big banks Citicorp, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Barclays Plc and Royal Bank of Scotland Plc pleaded guilty of conspiring to manipulate the price of U.S. dollars and euros from which the said banks have been ordered to pay $5.8 billion in damages. Although the amount looks big via headlines, in reality, the fine represented a slap on the wrist. These banks have basically been beneficiaries of Financial Repression, a hidden subsidy which transfers the public’s resources to the government that are channeled through them. Additionally, these banks have either been bailed out or have accessed bailout money during the last crisis. They are likely to be bailed out again once crisis re-emerge.

It’s not this essay’s intention to talk about their predicament. However, what I wanted to demonstrate are lessons from the above:

One, market manipulation has been happening to almost every financial market.

Two, market size and incumbent regulatory regimes have not served as deterrent.

Three, the above manipulators, whom have been tagged as “the Cartel”, have frequently represented a collusion of the biggest financial firms

Four, market manipulation will continue to exist because of the moral hazard, and perhaps also due to regulatory capture. For instance, cosmetic penalties will hardly change the incentives of manipulators. And perhaps the reason for this is that all the fessing up has been all for show.


Yet how do the above international events apply to the local setting—where end of the day price fixing, which according to a domestic statute are illegitimate, has represented the norm? (wonderful charts courtesy of colfinancials)

This reminds me of why swindles and frauds occur during manias, panics and crashes.

According to historian Charles Kindleberger and Robert Z. Aliber[9] (bold mine)
Some entrepreneurs and managers may skate close to the edge of fraudulent behavior because of an apparent increase in the reward–risk ratio; the potential increase in their wealth from cutting the corners and bending the rules and deceiving the public may seem extremely large relative to the risk of being caught and fined or exposed to public embarrassment. Some may have calculated that they can make a big fortune and keep it if the rule-breaking is undetected; they may still get to keep half of it if they’re caught. The odds on going to jail are low, and the prisons for white-collar crime are like modest country clubs with drab clothing

Crash and panic, with their motto of sauve qui peut, induce many to cheat in the effort to forestall bankruptcy or some other financial disaster. A little cheating today may avert catastrophe tomorrow. When the boom ends and the losses become apparent, there is a tendency to make a big bet in the hope that a successful outcome will enable escape from what otherwise would be a disaster
How relevant they seem today.

Deepening Bearish Convergence: Fast Eroding Market Internals

Here is a follow-up and an update of last week’s essay where I pointed out of the difference between what the index say and what the general market has been saying.

If the current stock market benchmarks were to be reformulated as being an equal weighted index, rather than today’s market cap orientation then the performances of the various indices will vastly be different in the sense that ALL sectoral indices will likely be in bear markets while the Phisix will likely be range bound rather than record highs based on market cap.

Yet current market performances only entrenches the glaring divergences between headlines and market internals. However market  internals have indicated signs of deterioration.

Let us examine market internals.

Market internals are important because they reveal of the general conditions of the stock market. It is a measure of the general sentiment relative to key benchmarks. In other words, market internals may affirm or may diverge from headline developments. Affirmation highlights sustainability of a trend while divergence signals internal conflict.

For instance, when the Phisix hit the record high on April 10, the advance decline spread hardly participated in the landmark ramp. On a weekly basis, advancers led decliners by only 2 issues! 


Essentially, the week that the Phisix hit a historic high, the general market manifested only a neutral balance between the bulls and the bears. Said differently, the broader market hardly participated in the shaping of the monumental event. 

It’s not exactly what bullmarkets are made of.

Recent events reinforce the bearish internal dynamics.

The other week (week ending May 15) the Phisix jumped by a significant 1.53%, however advancers led decliners by a scanty 7 issues only! 

On the other hand, this week (May 22) when the Phisix skidded by .91% (net of marking the close pumps), decliners trumped advancers by a whopping 169 issues!

Over the past two weeks, the prevailing bias has been heavily tilted towards sellers!

Yet actions of the last two weeks have signified a legacy or a carryover from the start of the year!

From the inception of the year 2015 through this trading week, advancers led decliners only in 6 weeks of 20 weeks or just 30%! This is against the 16 of 20 weeks or 70% where declining issues led advancing issues! This means that in terms of sentiment, sellers ruled the broader market (70% to 30%) in 2015 despite the historical April highs!

That’s a sign of divergence—the paucity of participation by general markets.

And notice too that in the context of the 30% or positive market breadth for 2015, only ONCE did advancers lead by more than 100!

This is against 3 weeks where negative market breadth posted 150+ margin in favor of decliners and 1 week where margin for negative breadth was 100+ also in favor of decliners.

So in terms of sentiment depth, negative breadth outpaced positive breadth by a stunning chasm of 4 to 1!

So we have a bull market seen via the index or the headline, but evidently the bull market hasn’t been shared by the overall performance of the entire population of listed issues.

And to understand why bear markets have dominated the general markets it is best to recall of the past—or current actions have signified a legacy or a carryover from the original record of May 2013!

In 106 weeks through last week (May 15) 66 weeks or 62.3% have been ruled by the bears (decliners) as against 39 by the bulls (advancers) or 36.8%. There was a week (July 4, 2014) where bulls and bears where at a balance or zero.

The total number of bears (decliners) during weeks where they dominated totaled 6,804 as against the aggregate number of bulls’ (advancers) at 2,430. In ratio, this makes decliners thump advancers by 2.83 to 1!

Also over the past 106 weeks, bulls managed to generate a positive breadth of 100+, only 9 times! In contrast, the negative breadth by the grizzlies had been broad. For margins of 100s—24 weeks! For margins of 200s—6 weeks! For margin of 300—1 week (November 22, 2013)! In ratio, 3.44 bears for every 1 bull!

So despite all the headline worship of the bullmarket, the bears had been gnawing at the decaying core!

Is it any wonder why the desperate index pumps?

The above is a fantastic demonstration of how the establishment has pulled the proverbial wool over the public’s eyes.

As a side note, this week should be very interesting. 

The Philippine government’s NSCB will release the 1Q 2015 GDP data on Thursday.

Whatever the numbers that will appear, this will likely serve as fodder for actions at the Phisix.

When the 4Q 2014 GDP was announced in January 29th, the Phisix ended the week higher by .77%. However while the headlines index partied on the data, market breadth posted a fantastic deviation. Over that week, decliners led advancers by a material 52. Again headline benchmarks went up as broader markets sold off!

Deepening Bearish Convergence: Shrinking Volume, Skewed Distribution of Trading Activities and Chart Formation


Interestingly too, record Phisix for 2015 has hardly been accompanied by peso volume. 

When the first record 7,400 was carved in May 15th 2013, the average daily peso volume for that week was then at a considerable Php 14 billion.

Yet peso volumes accompanying succeeding attempts to break the 2013 record of 7,400, and the successful breach this year until April’s 8,127 record, represents a far cry from the original highs established in May 2013

There had been two attempts to traverse past 7,400 in the 2H of 2014, the first and second botched attempts were in September 24th and December 3rd. The average daily peso volume for weeks of these events registered Php 9.6 billion and Php 9.3 billion respectively.

The successful breach of 7,400 in January 9th posted an average daily volume for that week at Php 10.3 billion or only 73.6% of May 2013’s equivalent record high volume. (Then advancers led decliners by a paltry 53)

When PSEi 8,127 had been etched on April 10, the average daily peso volume for that week was only Php 9.036 billion! This represents only 64.54% of May 2013 and 87.8% of January 2015’s breakout volume!

Additionally, peso volume for the week ending May 22, and last week’s May 15, represents the SECOND and THIRD lowest volume for the year at Php 7.6 and Php 8.4 billion correspondingly!

The dearth of volume simply exhibits the lack of participation in the general market which has been highlighted by the dominance of sellers than buyers as revealed in the market breadth.

How can there be volume when a lot of people (mostly retailers) have likely been caught by the bears? Most of them had been mesmerized by media and the industry that the boom has been a one way street. So they bought into the fantasy and got stuck holding losses which continues to bleed them. Now many of them have been reluctant to add more position.

So the present bull market in the stock market index has become dependent on new deposits coming mostly from advertisements, media hypes and or from office promotions.

This brings us to the deeply skewed distribution of activities and valuations of the Phisix basket.


The above represents the Price Earnings Ratio (PER) in blue and Year to date gains in red by each issue comprising the Phisix basket divided into the top 15 (left) and the next 15 (right)

It is quite obvious that both the high bars representing valuations (blue) and returns (red) have been HEAVILY tilted or CONCENTRATED towards the top 15 issues (left).

In perspective, the cumulative market weightings of the top 15 issues as of Friday’s close constitute a staggering 79.67% of the Phisix!

Considering that the Phisix closed this week with a year to date returns of 8.02%, only NINE issues of the 15 or 60% delivered above Phisix gains.

In the context of market weighting, these issues constituted 48% of the basket! And the same issues has an average PER of 29.76 and an average year to date returns of 15.56%!

This tells us that the foundations of Phisix 7,800 has been pillared from ONLY TEN issues wherein NINE issues emanate from the top 15 and only 1 issue (Globe) from the next 15.

Or said differently, record Phisix has signified a product of a rather select number of issues which has delivered outsized returns that has buoyed the index which everyone else glorifies.

Alternatively, the latter half has also evidently played little role in setting of the record headline numbers.

The above goes to show where index pumping operations have been directed to and how the headline numbers have been ‘shaped’ by index managers.

Yet not all has been well for even some of the top 15. There are now three issues in the red for the year. And if to include all negative ytd performances for all Phisix basket; 9 issues or 30% of the index have posted losses. 

This is almost equal to the number of outperformers.

In short, Phisix 7,800 depends on a narrowing number of issues to maintain current levels which looks unsustainable.

It would take a broader scope of participation from Phisix issues for the April highs to be reached again.

But on the other hand, if the baggage from the losers increases or continues to be a drag on the gainers then the correction phase should be expected to deepen.

Finally, the Phisix chart appears to chime and converge with all of the signals above.


The PSEi chart appears to be indicative of a head and shoulder reversal formation with a neckline at around 7,750. 

Should the pattern materialize where the neckline breaks down, then the Phisix will likely fall back below 7,400 and likely test the former resistance of 7,350 which should now become the support level.

But don't worry because index managers will attempt to reshape the chart!

Nonetheless for 2015, sellers have dominated the broader market, this comes in the face of a headline record highs that has comprised by only about TEN issues. 

The divergent forces reveals of a stark conflict between the headline and the general sentiment that will have to be resolved. A healthy trend (on either direction) will depend on its resolution. 

Financial Market Alerts: IMF on Shrinking Liquidity, IIF on Emerging Market Outflows and Financial Group Calls for Bubble Curbs

It’s another week of where both international private and multilateral institutions issued notes of caution on the growing risks of instability in the global financial markets.


At the IMF’s Blog, Mr. José Viñals, Financial Counsellor and Director of the IMF’s Monetary and Capital Markets Department warns that given the sharp rise in the correlations across all major asset classes over the past 5 years (see left window), such has increased the risks of financial contagion from “episodes of decreased market volatility”. 

The IMF cites recent events as the US treasury bonds flash crash last October 15 2014 and the dislocation in the currency markets following the Swiss central bank’s pulling the plug on its euro cap. Although the recent “liquidity crunch episodes have so far not exerted long-lasting adverse impact”, the risk is that “the evaporation of market liquidity today could result in more market stress with potentially adverse knock-on impact on the global economy and financial stability”[10]. The IMF particularly mentions corporate bonds of advanced economies and emerging market bonds as especially vulnerable to the risks of illiquidity.

Meanwhile, the global association or trade group of financial institutions, the Institute of International Finance also issued an alert from their latest early warning system on emerging markets[11]. The IIF observed that the latest bond tantrums have instigated “a sharp decline in portfolio inflows” which “began on May 1”, that have been “broad-based across Ems” and has affected EM Asian countries most” (see right window). The IIF’s early warning system has been designed to detect “turning points in capital flows to emerging markets”

Also, concerned that ultra-low interest rates have increased the risks of financial instability, a group of financial executives representing various financial institutions including Douglas Flint, HSBC chairman, Anshu Jain, Deutsche Bank co-chief executive, Michel Liès, head of Swiss Re, and Larry Fink, chairman and chief executive of BlackRock will issue a joint statement next week, which will be coordinated by the World Economic Forum, to urge authorities to boost their crisis-busting arsenals via macroprudential tools

The Financial Times reported[12] that the group warned that should rules be narrowly applied, then “this could push risks into the more thinly regulated realm of shadow banks.” So instead of “reducing the need for authorities to raise interest rates to rein in investor exuberance”, the group has pushed for regulatory curbs on overvalued property assets that “need to be deployed across the financial system” and “not just on companies such as commercial banks that fall within the traditional regulatory perimeter”.

The high profile group has apparently been alarmed by the heightened financial instability risks from ultra-low interest rates for them to lobby authorities to increase regulations on the financial system. Yet instead of treating the disease (ultra-low interest rates), they call for therapies directed at the symptoms (overvalued assets). And just how will authorities establish objectively which assets are overvalued and which are not? The lobbying group will do advising on authorities? So they get to frontrun the marketplace?

And has ultra-low interest rates not been a part of authorities’ crisis-busting arsenal which has been abused and now transformed into the principal source of their concerns? Can’t get off the addiction?

Moreover, to what extent will regulations prevent the transferring of risks to shadow banks or for institutions to just game the system, capture regulators and keep the bubble inflating?

Or perhaps have such an appeal signified as tacit positioning for politically based access to credit when the calamity arrives?



[2] Arturo Estrella and Mary R. Trubin The Yield Curve as a Leading Indicator: Some Practical Issues Volume 12, Number 5 July/August 2006 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF NEW YORK www.newyorkfed.org/research/current_issues



[5] Philippine Statistics Authority Producer Price Survey: March 2015 May 4, 2015

[6] Philippine Statistics Authority Retail Price Index of Selected Construction Materials in the National Capital Region (2000=100) : April 2015 May 15, 2015

[7] Philippine Statistics Authority General Wholesale Price Index (1998=100) : March 2015 May 15, 2015


[9] Charles Kindleberger and Robert Z. Aliber, chapter 9 Frauds, Swindles, and the Credit Cycle, Manias, Panics, and Crashes A History of Financial Crises Fifth Edition p. 168 Nowandfutures.com

[10] José Viñals, Flash Crashes and Swiss Francs: Market Liquidity Takes a Holiday, iMF Direct Blog May 20, 2015

[11] Institute of International Finance, IIF Flows Alert: Bond Tantrum Takes Toll on EM Flows May 19, 2015 IIF.com; Institute of International Finance Weekly Insight: Disruption Watch May 21, 2015 IIF.com

[12] Financial Times Finance chiefs urge action on bubble fear FT.com May 18, 2015
Posted by at
Labels: , , , , ,

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)