Our Mises Moment Answers Mainstream’s Conundrum of Market-Fundamental Disconnect

``But on the other hand inflation cannot continue indefinitely. As soon as the public realizes that the government does not intend to stop inflation, that the quantity of money will continue to increase with no end in sight, and that consequently the money prices of all goods and services will continue to soar with no possibility of stopping them, everybody will tend to buy as much as possible and to keep his ready cash at a minimum. The keeping of cash under such conditions involves not only the costs usually called interest, but also considerable losses due to the decrease in the money’s purchasing power. The advantages of holding cash must be bought at sacrifices which appear so high that everybody restricts more and more his ready cash. During the great inflations of World War I, this development was termed “a flight to commodities” and the “crack-up boom.” The monetary system is then bound to collapse; a panic ensues; it ends in a complete devaluation of money Barter is substituted or a new kind of money is resorted to. Examples are the Continental Currency in 1781, the French Assignats in 1796, and the German Mark in 1923.”-Ludwig von Mises, Interventionism: An Economic Analysis, Inflation and Credit Expansion

The mainstream is obviously very perplexed.

They can’t seem to figure what’s going on with market prices that can’t seem to match “fundamentals”.

Take this as an example. ``With oil inventories high and demand down year on year, yet prices surging, "fundamentalists" are puzzled” observes Liam Denning of the Wall street Journal.

Skeptical of the fundamental –market disconnect, the unconvinced Mr. Denning concludes his article with, `` Ultimately, however, the danger for China, and commodities bulls, is that Beijing's efforts fail to fully offset the harsh realities afflicting the world economy as a whole.” (bold highlight mine)

Figure 6: Wall Street Journal: China Watch The Body Language

Many have attributed the rise in oil or iron ore prices primarily to China see figure 6. But the unpleasant fact is that this isn’t just about oil or iron ore or China.

It’s about policy induced inflation whose growing influences are being ventilated on markets and which has been percolating and distorting the real economy.

And the primary mechanism for such release valve has been the US dollar.

As we wrote in last week’s Mainstream Denials And The Greenshoots of Inflation, a broadening category of the commodities have been experiencing price gains. So it’s not only oil or iron ore or gold but a whole range of commodities which includes food prices.

In addition, it isn’t just China or Sovereign Wealth Funds, but a broader spectrum of participants have joined the bandwagon as buyers of commodities. As we noted in Hedge Funds Pile Into Commodities, hedge funds have been growing exposure to commodities.

Even life insurance outfit as Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co. ``has bought gold for the first time the company’s 152-year history to hedge against further asset declines” (Bloomberg) could be signs of possible major reconfigurations of investments flows towards commodities.

My recent post which surprisingly turned out with a high number of hits, deals with Hedge Fund Ace John Paulson who made an amazing allotment of 46% of his portfolio into gold and gold related investments [see Hedge Fund Wizard John Paulson Loads Up On Gold]! He didn’t say why, but the message was loud and clear! What a statement.

Aside, Bond King and regulatory arbitrageur Bill Gross recently wrote to warn the public to diversify away from US dollar before ``central banks and sovereign wealth funds ultimately do the same amid concern about surging deficits” (Bloomberg)

He thinks that the US has reached a “point of no return”, again from the same Bloomberg article, ``“I think he’ll fail at pulling a balanced rabbit out of a hat,” Gross said from Pimco’s headquarters in Newport Beach, California. “They are talking about -- once the economy in the U.S. renormalizes -- the move back toward balance or much less of a deficit. I suspect that will be hard to do.”

Moreover, a public gold fever (not swine flu) appears to have infected ordinary Chinese sparked by the revelation of massive gold accumulations by the China’s government. According to the China Daily, ``Inspired by the increase in the government gold reserves, the more savvy investors are also buying shares of Chinese gold producers on the Shanghai Stock Exchange and the smaller Shenzhen Stock Exchange.”

Furthermore, drug trades have reportedly been reducing transactions based in the US dollar and could have possibly been replaced by trades in gold bullion (telegraph).

This Dollar based concerns won’t be complete without Russia’s continued outspoken campaign to replace the US dollar as the world’s international reserve currency, which apparently not only got support from major Emerging Markets as China and Brazil, but even the IMF has reportedly jumped on the bandwagon saying that replacing the US dollar is possible.

This from Bloomberg, ``The IMF’s so-called special drawing rights could be used as the basis for a new currency, First Deputy Managing Director John Lipsky told a panel discussing reserve currencies at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum today.

``“There are many, many attractions in the long run to such an outcome,” Lipsky told a panel discussing reserve currencies at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum today. “But this is not a quick, short or easy decision,” he said, adding that it would be “quite revolutionary.” (bold highlight mine)

And worst of all, US dollar as a safehaven status has been scoffed at by Chinese students! Incredible.

This from Reuters, ``"Chinese assets are very safe," Geithner said in response to a question after a speech at Peking University, where he studied Chinese as a student in the 1980s.

``His answer drew loud laughter from his student audience, reflecting skepticism in China about the wisdom of a developing country accumulating a vast stockpile of foreign reserves instead of spending the money to raise living standards at home.” (bold highlight mine)

It’s obviously a question of what degree of the Chinese population has been represented by the adverse reactions of Chinese students on Mr. Geithner’s statement. If these students account for a majority of China’s sentiment, then it is quite obvious that the public will likely be shunning the US dollar as mode of payment or as transactional currency or as medium of exchange (sooner than later) despite the Chinese policymakers’ avowed insistence to buy US dollar assets (but on a short term basis) which is no less than politically premised, as previously discussed here and here.

All these account for votes of displeasure over policies governing the US as reflected on its currency the US dollar, which mainstream can’t seem to comprehend.

As I wrote in my March outlook Expect A Different Inflationary Environment (emphasis added), ``This leads us to surmise that most of global stock markets (especially EM economies which we expect to rise faster in relative terms) could rise to absorb the collective inflationary actions led by the US Federal Reserve but on a much divergent scale. Currency destruction measures will also possibly support OECD prices but could underperform, as the onus from the tug-of-war will probably remain as a hefty drag in their financial markets.

``And this also suggests that commodity prices will also likely rise faster (although not equally in relative terms) than the previous experience which would eventually filter into consumer prices.

``In other words, the evolution of the opening up of about 3 billion people into the global markets, a more integrated global economy and the increased sophistication of the financial markets have successfully imbued the inflationary actions by central banks over the past few years. But this isn’t going to be the case this time around-unless economies which have low leverage level (mostly in the EM economies) will manage to sop up much of the slack.”

So far everything that we have said has turned out to be quite accurate.

But we seem to be transitioning to the next level.

This brings us to the question why the public seems to be gravitating towards commodities?

Ludwig von Mises has an explicit answer which I unearthed in Stabilization of the Monetary Unit? From the Viewpoint of Theory,

``If people are buying unnecessary commodities, or at least commodities not needed at the moment, because they do not want to hold on to their paper notes, then the process which forces the notes out of use as a generally acceptable medium of exchange has already begun. This is the beginning of the “demonetization” of the notes. The panicky quality inherent in the operation must speed up the process. It may be possible to calm the excited masses once, twice, perhaps even three or four times. However, matters must finally come to an end. Then there is no going back. Once the depreciation makes such rapid strides that sellers are fearful of suffering heavy losses, even if they buy again with the greatest possible speed, there is no longer any chance of rescuing the currency. In every country in which inflation has proceeded at a rapid pace, it has been discovered that the depreciation of the money has eventually proceeded faster than the increase in its quantity.”

So let us break these down into stages:

First, the loss of the currency’s purchasing power.

Second, is the loss of a currency’s function as medium of exchange or the “demonetization process”.

Third, is the accelerating feedback loop between the first two stages which brings upon the irreversibility of the process and

Finally, the total collapse of the currency.

So there you have it. The public’s increasing exposure to commodities is fundamentally a question of the viability of the present monetary standards.

So far the political path and market responses have been behaving exactly as described by Prof. von Mises.

Hence, I call this the Mises Moment.

$200 Per Barrel Oil, Here We Come!

``This gets back to the disagreement I’ve had with the “inflationists” for years now: In the name of Keynesian economics, inflation proponents have repeatedly called for massive stimulus in response to the bursting of THE Bubble, while in reality this activist policymaking was instrumental in only extending and worsening a systemic Credit Bubble. This was especially the case after the bursting of the technology Bubble and is again true today following the bursting of the Wall Street finance/mortgage finance Bubble. Now, more than ever before, “Keynesian” inflationism is THE Bubble. When it eventually bursts Washington policymakers will have little left to offer.” Doug Noland Inflationism’s Seductive Battle Cry

For us, $200 oil is not an issue of IF, but rather an issue of WHEN. This will be highly dependent on the course of actions undertaken by global policymakers.

Here, we won’t deal with demand and supply imbalances of oil, as we had made our case late last year in Reflexivity Theory And $60 Oil: Fairy Tales or Great Depression?, instead we will deal with the rapidly evolving market signals and prospective political actions by policymakers

Growing Disconnect Between Markets And Real Economy

“World oil demand to hit 28-year low” screams the headline from the National.

So one must be wondering: Why has oil impetuously shot beyond $60? Has the oil market been pricing an abrupt global recovery?

The Economist instead finds justification on widening supply constraints, ``The explanation is simple. Oilmen are worried because they believe that many of the factors behind the record-breaking ascent last year remain in place. Much of the world’s “easy” oil has already been extracted, or is in the hands of nationalist governments that will not allow foreigners to exploit it…So when demand begins to revive, a sharp rise in prices is inevitable. That does not mean that a price spike is just around the corner, however. The speed with which it arrives will depend on the strength of the global recovery.”

While the article mainly underscores the geographical access limitations posed by governmental restrictions, falling demand and high inventories, as discussed in Seeds of Hyperinflation Have Been Sown have reflected on an egregious disconnect between fundamentals and the marketplace. The Economist article appears more like an attempt to explain away or to rationalize on the market activity than vet from the causality angle.

The highly reputed independent research outfit the BCA Research has a fabulous chart manifesting this phenomenon, see figure 1.

Figure 1: BCA Research: Oil Breaks Out: Is It Sustainable?

According to the BCA, ``The higher price of oil reflects in part the upturn in Chinese oil imports and car sales at a time when oil production is lagging. Russia continues to have difficulty boosting output and oil production has been flat for most OPEC countries. Saudi Arabia has cut production sharply. As with other commodities, oil should benefit from both a weaker U.S. dollar and a shift in investor portfolio preference toward real assets as a hedge against inflation. The upturn in our global leading economic indicators is another positive sign for the commodity complex.” (bold highlight mine)

True, China has been massively acquiring oil and other commodities.

And we won’t dismiss some veritable evidences of economic and financial “recovery” following the “banking meltdown” late last year, of which has functioned as a psychological “shock” (Posttraumatic Stress Disorder-PTSD) that has buffeted world financial markets and global economy.

But China has been buying way beyond its needs. It has been buying to shore up its strategic reserves.

Analysts at Sanford Bernstein reported that Google Images reveal on how China has been intensively constructing depots to hold oil. ``Bernstein says satellite images show a marked increase in oil-storage construction over the past few years and estimates that China’s number of days of forward demand–a gauge of oil storage–amount to just 28 days of imports and 14 days of total demand. China is targeting storage capacity that will hold demand cover of around 90 days,” wrote the Wall Street Journal,

Yet according to another researcher as excerpted by the Guardian, China plans to amass 3 million tonnes (about 22.5 million barrels) of oil, ``China wants to set up a 3 million tonne reserve of oil products this year, which is practically impossible, a researcher at a think-tank run by the country's top oil refiner, Sinopec Group, was quoted as saying on Saturday.”

Moreover, China’s huge appetite for commodities registered record imports for Copper and Aluminum this April. However many experts say that China’s buying activities for these commodities may have probably peaked since targets may have been met. According to Bloomberg, ``Refined copper imports by China will slow over the rest of this year as scrap supplies improve, said Ma Xiaoqin, deputy- general manager of the copper department at Minmetals Nonferrous Metals Co., the country’s largest trader, on May 8. The State Reserve Bureau has mostly completed its buying and stockpiling by manufacturers has ended, said Edward Fang, an analyst at China International Futures (Shanghai) Co.”

If such buying activities have indeed culminated then copper and aluminum prices should be expected to meaningfully correct, see figure 2. But we have our doubts.

Figure 2: stockcharts.com: Copper and Aluminum

So far only Aluminum has been showing signs of relative weakness. Although copper seems to be in a consolidation phase where a “pennant” pattern (blue converging lines) may suggest a continuation of the present uptrend.

China Attempts To Balance Political Rhetoric With Market Actions And Political Goals

This isn’t about China believing its own “bullish” tale of vigorous economic recovery, where the supposed “conventional” view equates China’s economic growth to commodity bullishness. Instead the above dynamics reflects the ongoing inflation phenomenon.

The fact that China’s officials have raised the furor over possible losses of its US asset portfolio holdings from the current US policies appears to dovetail with the activities in the commodities market.

China’s Premier Wen Jiabao, as quoted by the Financial Times recently said, ``We have lent a huge amount of money to the United States,” Mr Wen said. “Of course we are concerned about the safety of our assets. To be honest, I am a little bit worried. I request the US to maintain its good credit, to honour its promises and to guarantee the safety of China’s assets.” (bold emphasis mine)

Of course one may argue that China’s acquisition of US assets hasn’t slowed.

In contrast to Premier Wen’s statement, China has even increased its acquisition of US treasuries see Figure 3. And this would seem like a conflict between China’s intentions and actions. But this view myopically glosses over the geopolitical implication. There’s more than meets the eye.

Figure 3: New York Times: China’s Changing Role

It would be tantamount to political suicide if China decides to naively “sell” US treasuries to support its concerns, especially under the present environment which has been a fertile ground for engendering protectionist policies. For instance, recently some US lawmakers have revived efforts to brand China as a currency manipulator. Hence mass liquidations of treasuries would only fuel bilateral antagonism. And a trade war isn’t in the interest of China.

Another, it isn’t also a certainty that the underlying motivation behind China’s purchases of US assets reflects on the same paradigm of “promoting exports” as it had been in the past. Past performance doesn’t guarantee future results-that’s because the incentives behind today’s conditions have radically changed. The US consumer model as the world’s growth engine has apparently been broken. And China appears to be well cognizant of this.

Moreover, since China holds massive amount of US dollar assets- estimated at an astounding 82% of foreign currency reserves (Standard Chartered/New York Times)-any mass liquidation will most likely impact the markets extensively and stoke disorder. Where such actions will likely be mutually destructive, such policy directions will likely be avoided.

Hence, China’s political actions should also be seen from a different prism- China may want to be seen in good light with the US, where she would continually support the US even at the risks of incurring substantial losses in its portfolio of US dollar assets.

As Luo Ping, a director-general at the China Banking Regulatory Commission recently justified, ``Except for U.S. Treasuries, what can you hold?”

Moreover, China may want to project that in case a possible mayhem emerges in the financial markets this isn’t going be due to her doing. In other words, China seems to be placing the onus of the consequences from policy choices squarely on US shoulders.

Nevertheless, actions demonstrate preferences. While China remains supportive of the US in terms of buying assets, the composition of its acquisitions has materially changed.

According to the Keith Bradsher of the New York Times, ``China has also changed which Treasuries it buys. It has done so in ways calculated to reduce its exposure to inflation or other problems in the United States. As recently as a year ago, China actively bought long-dated bonds, seeking the extra yield they could bring compared to Treasury securities with short maturities, of which China bought virtually none.

``But in each month since November, China has been buying more Treasury bills, with a maturity of a year or less, than Treasuries with longer maturities. This gives China the option of cashing out its positions in a hurry, by not rolling over its investments into new Treasury bills as they come due should inflation in the United States start rising and make Treasury securities less attractive.” (bold emphasis mine)

So yes, China has been increasing its purchases of US treasuries to appease the US government, but has been concentrating these activities towards short term maturities. And by doing so she has been acting to reduce her risk exposure as well as balancing political rhetoric (bleating about US policies, announcement of past ‘covert’ gold purchases) with market actions (diversifying portfolio holdings into commodities) and political goals.

And aside from heavily buying into commodities, as previously discussed in The Nonsense About Current Account Imbalances And Super-Sovereign Reserve Currency, China has been utilizing its currency as an instrument to expand its political and economic influence across the globe by increasing swap agreements, by providing project financing and conducting trade in the remimbi or ex-US dollar currencies. Recently Brazil and China concluded an accord to conduct transactions using their national currencies instead of the US dollar.

In all, China could be working to insure herself from the risks of substantial US inflation, to expand its influence globally with its currency and possibly to challenge the US hegemony in terms of having the remimbi as a global currency reserve sometime in the future.

The Global Inflation Train Speeds Faster

And as we keep repeating, in the world of unprecedented scale of government intervention in the marketplace combined with unparalleled degree of applied inflationary measures, the repercussions intended or unintended will be vented on the currency markets.

And we agree with Professor Steve Hanke where he wrote in a Forbes article ``There are tectonic moves afoot in the currency markets these days.”

Tectonic moves afoot in the currency markets will also be parlayed in the Oil Market see Figure 4.

Figure 4: stockcharts.com: Inverse Correlation of Oil and the US Dollar

Visibly, oil in the past has moved in consonance with the US dollar, albeit in an inverse scale (see blue trend lines).

This dynamic seems to be a classic rerun as the recent weakness of the US dollar index (USD) has equally coincided with rising oil prices (WTIC-main window).

Alongside this development has been the rise of 10-year US Treasury yields (TNX) in spite of the recent activities from the US Federal Reserve where the ``Fed bought $18.277 billion of U.S. debt in three purchase operations this week and minutes of the central bank’s April 28-29.” (Bloomberg).

The US Federal Reserve in its March 18^th press release has earmarked $300 billion to purchase long term Treasury securities.

But there seems to be one missing ingredient. In the past, the falling US dollar had been accompanied by falling treasury yields-perhaps reflecting what Former Fed Chair Alan Greenspan’s calls as a conundrum of low bond yields. And this phenomenon was suspected to have been influenced by foreign purchases of US treasuries that have kept yields low.

But since recent treasury issuance to fund US government deficits has surged far more than what foreigners or China has recently bought as shown in the chart earlier, where according to the same Bloomberg report, ``President Barack Obama has pushed the nation’s marketable debt to an unprecedented $6.36 trillion. [bold highlight--mine] His administration raised on May 11 its estimate for the deficit this year to a record $1.84 trillion, up 5 percent from the February estimate, and equal to about 13 percent of the nation’s GDP”, yields have materially risen!

And as we have previously discussed in Ignoble Deficits And The $33 Trillion Global Government Debt Bubble?, the colossal government spending by the US and elsewhere and the prospective surges of government treasury issuance are posing as risks towards hefty inflation or national bankruptcies.

Hence, today’s rapidly deteriorating US Dollar, rising treasury yields and rising oil prices seem to be solidifying the manifestations of inflation gaining traction globally.

Credit Rating Downgrades Amidst Exploding Deficits

Figure 5: Washington Post: Projected Deficits

The recent spate of massive waves of deficit spending in many crisis havocked economies has put pressure on their respective credit rating standings.

The S&P recently issued a downgrade from “stable” to “negative” on UK’s outlook which means the country is at risk of losing its coveted AAA status.

Concerns over the same predicament has apparently spilled over to the US considering the huge planned dosages of government spending aimed at jumpstarting the economy as shown in Figure 5.

Well the impact of concerns over these deficits, aside from rising treasury yields, has been deterioration in credit default swaps, which function as insurance against the risks of credit default.

According to Bloomberg, ``The cost to hedge against losses on U.S. government bonds for five years climbed to a three-week high, indicating perceptions the nation’s credit quality is deteriorating. Credit-default swaps on U.S. debt rose 3.5 basis points to 41, the highest since April 29, according to prices from CMA Datavision in New York. An investor would have to pay $41,000 a year to protect $10 million of debt from default.” (bold highlight mine)

Mainstream Calls For More Inflation Ensures Oil at $200!

These credit rating warnings should serve as call to action on governments to limit overspending. Remember there is no free lunch. Ultimately taxpayers will pay for government profligacy.

But will these warnings be heeded? Apparently not.

On the contrary the mainstream has vociferously been desiring for more inflation.

The Bond King, PIMCO’s William Gross, recently predicted that the US will eventually lose its AAA rating according to Bloomberg.

Yet his prescriptions to support the economy account for the same factors that would ensure the US will likely lose its prime credit rating.

It’s because Mr. Gross subscribes to the Keynesian methodology of printing money as a cure, where the same report quotes Mr. Gross, ``We need more than that,” Gross said at the time. The Fed’s balance sheet “will probably have to grow to about $5 trillion or $6 trillion,” he said.”

And the policy prescriptions of Mr. Gross have been joined by the similar calls from well known Harvard experts-Kenneth Rogoff and Greg Mankiw.

``I’m advocating 6 percent inflation for at least a couple of years,” says Rogoff, 56, who’s now a professor at Harvard University. “It would ameliorate the debt bomb and help us work through the deleveraging process.” (Bloomberg)

Meanwhile, Mr. Mankiw former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors under President George W. Bush said ``Faster inflation might be preferable to increased unemployment, or to further budget stimulus packages that push up the national debt” (Bloomberg)

So in the face of rising risks of default, these mainstream experts sporting a good clout over at the officialdom may be reflective of the policy directions of the present administration.

Of course inflation can be achieved through massive credit expansion (through public or private channels) or via the government spending route or both.

And if Mr. Bond King’s suggestion will be adhered to and if it’ll likewise be copied elsewhere the risk of a runaway inflation will be tremendous.Figure 6: BIS: Balance Sheets of the Central Banks of the US, UK and ECB

Since the advent of the crisis the balance sheets of the US Federal Reserve, the ECB and the Bank of England have surged see figure 6.

So policymakers have made sure that inflation will likely take hold; inflation is what they ask for hence inflation is what we will get.

As Dr. John Hussman admonished in his latest weekly outlook (bold highlight mine),

``The bottom line is that the attempt to save bank bondholders from losses – to provide monetary compensation without economic production – is not sound economic policy but is instead a grand monetary experiment that has never been tried in the developed world except in Germany circa 1921. This policy can only have one of two effects: either it will crowd out over $1 trillion of gross domestic investment that would otherwise have occurred if the appropriate losses had been wiped off the ledger (instead of making bank bondholders whole), or it will result in a stunning and durable increase in the quantity of base money, which will ultimately be accompanied not by a year or two of 5-6% inflation, but most probably by a near-doubling of the U.S. price level over the next decade. As I've noted previously, the growth rate of government spending is better correlated with subsequent inflation than even growth in money supply itself, particularly at 4-year intervals. Regardless of near-term deflation pressures from a continued mortgage crisis, our present course is consistent with double digit inflation once any incipient recovery emerges.”

Even Yale’s David Swenson told Bloomberg that everyone must own inflation protected securities in the face of substantial inflation, ``We’ve had this massive fiscal stimulus, massive monetary stimulus, and it’s hard to see how that doesn’t translate into pretty substantial inflation, or at least pretty substantial risk of inflation,” Swensen, Yale University’s investment chief, said in an interview on the “Consuelo Mack WealthTrack” television show that aired yesterday. Treasury Inflation- Protected Securities “should be in every investor’s portfolio," he said.”

Finally fund manager David Dreman has another unorthodox suggestion for the US government.

He posits that the US stimulus package be directed at the commodity markets.

According to Mr. Dreman, ``My idea is that we accumulate useful resources, such as crude for our strategic oil reserve. This would create new jobs, halt a deflationary spiral and give us some protection against the next international oil crisis. If the government allocated $500 billion at current prices, it would add 10 billion barrels of oil, which amounts to 17 months' consumption. The government could undertake similar purchase programs for copper, aluminum, lead and other essential industrial commodities now trading at very depressed prices.

``An oil-buying binge would be a win for taxpayers as well. Oil bought today below $60 a barrel can be released back into the market at $120 after economic activity has picked up and inflation has resumed.”

Mr. Dreman’s suggestion implies that the US government should engage with China and the rest of the world in a bidding war over oil and other commodities. The idea is to directly stoke inflation by means of direct intervention in the commodity markets.

However, high commodity prices reduce the purchasing power of consumers or the taxpayers, so it is a contradiction how taxpayers/consumers would benefit from high commodity prices. Put differently, the US government may earn from a spread alright, but the world in general will be poorer because of the lesser amount of goods the Americans and people around the world can acquire.

Moreover he seems to suggest that the US government should be transformed into a proprietary trading desk. Governments don’t work for profit but for social concerns.

Besides a policy directed at a race to own commodities could serve as a casus belli for a world war at war or a world resource war.

What have these “inflationists” have been smoking, anyway?

Overall, the inflationary policies of global governments are key drivers to oil prices at over $200 per barrel!

Tomorrow’s Investing World According To The Bond King

``Get your facts straight, apply them to the current valuation of the market, take decisive action, and then hold on for dear life as the mob hopefully comes to the same conclusion a little way down the road.”-William Gross, 2+2=4

The highly reputed Bond King PIMCO’s William Gross suggests that the global investment climate have radically been transforming where ``future of the global economy will likely be dominated by delevering, deglobalization, and reregulating”, from which the investment sphere would lead ``to slow global growth, a heightened risk aversion, a distrust of conventional investment model portfolios, and a greater emphasis on surviving as opposed to thriving.” (bold highlights mine)

Protectionism From Reregulation

Seen from a general sense, the idea seems true. For instance, aside from a sharp drop in global trade and investment flows as a consequence to the near US banking collapse last year, recent signs of deglobalization include the steep decline in migration trends especially from the corridor of Mexico to the US (New York Times) or the emergence of protectionism from policies aimed at “protecting ” locals-interest groups and not the local population-and the subsequent trade frictions in reaction to these policies such as the recent escalating row between the US and Canada over pipe fittings (Washington Post).

However, the chaotic reregulation in the misguided and the convoluted premise of the market’s inability to self-regulate is likely to spawn an even deadlier backlash.

Policy measures, which piggybacks on noble sounding myopic populism, have immediate beneficial solitary effects but at the expense of long term and far larger and wider damage to the system. And in the case of the pipe fittings, the political boomerang appears to have generated a greater impact than from the immediate intended benefits for the privileged groups.

And as the Washington post aptly reports, ``With countries worldwide desperately trying to keep and create jobs in the midst of a global recession, the spat between the United States and its normally friendly northern neighbor underscores what is emerging as the biggest threat to open commerce during the economic crisis.”

``Rather than merely raising taxes on imported goods -- acts that are subject to international treaties -- nations including the United States are finding creative ways to engage in protectionism through domestic policy decisions that are largely not governed by international law. Unlike a classic trade war, there is little chance of containment through, for example, arbitration at the World Trade Organization in Geneva. Additionally, such moves are more likely to have unintended consequences or even backfire on the stated desire to create domestic jobs.” (emphasis added mine)

Yet, this may serve as a casus belli for a global trade war which requires our vigilance. So reregulation seems to be inspiring more of “risk aversion” than containing it-again another unintended consequence.

Delevering Isn’t Equal

However where we depart with Mr. Gross’ outlook is on the premise of delevering.

The notion of delevering implies of a world, including the Philippines, equally swamped by an ocean of debt.

In the Philippines, it is the public sector and NOT the private sector (household or corporate) that has significant debt exposure. But the public sector has been “delevering” since the Asian Crisis in 1997. So this observation, while true in many or most of the OECD economies, is far from being accurate yet from many of the Emerging Market’s standpoint. I say yet because present policies could drive the public to indulge in a debt spree.

Moreover, the notion of delevering puts into the prism that the world revolves around the US only. Similar to the defective idea that “decoupling is a myth”, recent events have disproved much of this misplaced conventional academic expectations as the world seems to be recovering earlier than the US, see charts in Investing "Ins" and "Outs": US led Global Economic Recovery and Decoupling a "Myth". Thereby, deglobalization and reregulation will likely accentuate the decoupling process as previously discussed in Will Deglobalization Lead To Decoupling?.

In the layman’s perspective, globalization can be interpreted as a process of world integration via the trade, investments, migration, and financial channels. A more globalized world should imply of more “recoupling”. On the other hand, deglobalization does the opposite.

Further, while many debt overstretched private sector in the OECD economies have indeed been “delevering”, governments have been substituting these losses with its own massive debt expansion binge see figure 1.

Figure 1: Economist: Pumping It Up

Savings rich and foreign currency surplus laden Asian nations have commodious room to undertake lavish fiscal stimulus.

If the policy options for Asian economies has been to choose between stashing US dollars at the cost of risking currency losses from a devaluing US dollar and spending these domestically then it would appear that Asia has opted for a “politically favorable” profligate public spending option-that’s because they can afford it!

US And China Pursues Diametric Policy Directions

Yet while many economists ascribed the recent the recent “outperformance” to these government activities, our take is much more of the “unseen”- aggregate colossal liquidity, the inherent low systemic leverage in the region, high savings, greater thrust towards regional integration in spite of the financial crisis, the aftershock of “Posttraumatic Shock Distress (PTSD)” effects and creative destruction have been the major driving force around Asia’s resurgence.

For instance, while the US seems to be antagonizing its closest and friendliest neighbor and ally Canada with “closed door” policies, China, on the other hand, has been aggressively adapting “open door” policies with erstwhile archrival, Taiwan.

Recently both key Asian countries announced more transportation linkages via new shipping routes, and the expansion of direct airway routes, aside from the easing of once prohibited investments where according to the Time magazine, ``For the first time, mainland investments would be allowed in a broad range of Taiwan manufacturing and services companies. China Mobile, the mainland's largest cellular-service provider, has already agreed to invest about $530 million in Taiwan's Far EasTone Telecommunications, although the landmark deal has not been approved by Taipei.”

Tax incentives have also been extended by China to the Taiwanese investors (Bloomberg).

Moreover, such collaboration hasn’t been confined to the economic plane but also extends to the world of politics, again from the Times Magazine, ``In perhaps the most hopeful sign of change, China recently relaxed its longstanding opposition to Taiwan's inclusion in international organizations. After being rejected since 1997, Taiwan was finally invited this year to be an observer at the World Health Assembly, the governing body of the World Health Organization — the first time it has participated in a U.N.-related forum since Taiwan lost its U.N. seat to China in 1971.”

In short, the underlying trend of policies undertaken by the US and China have been running on a diametric path. So if incentives drive human action, seen from the vastly divergent aggregate policies undertaken, then obviously the expected returns, considering the risks variables, should likewise be different. This view runs in contrast to mainstream ideology, who does not believe in incentives but on the inexplicable effervescent impulses of “animal spirits”.

So yes, the atmosphere where “heightened risk aversion”, a “distrust of conventional investment model portfolios” and “greater emphasis on surviving as opposed to thriving” most probably is applicable to the defunct US centric financial paradigm and the fast evolving politicization of the US economy which seemingly has become increasingly hostile to its business environment.

But we suspect that this path shouldn’t necessarily apply to Asia or to emerging markets unless a global trade war erupts.

Delevering In A World That Rewards Leveraging, Profiting Around Regulations

Yet delevering should be seen in the “right” context and not from a generalized point of view. We shouldn’t interpret some trees as representative of the forest. This is the Achilles’ heel of macroeconomists whose inclination is to oversimplify events.

Specifically, delevering is a market process being experienced by the private sector (mostly the housing and financial industry) in key OECD economies. This has not been valid relative to its counterparts for most of the Asian or Emerging Market economies-especially in the Philippines.

Aside from the thrust to replace private delevering with government leveraging, the collective policy thrusts by global governments has been to resurrect the status quo ante of systemic leveraging by imposing aggregate policies (Zero bound interest rates, Quantitative Easing, etc.) that encourage the “buy, speculate and spend” incentives, which effectively penalizes savers.

So systemic delevering isn’t likely to happen yet unless a global government bond bubble goes ka-boom which isn’t distant from our perspective.

Incidentally, Mr. Gross has been staunchly supportive of the same unsustainable serial bubble blowing interventionist policies. Mr. Gross expects the US Federal Reserve to buy more long term treasuries in order to keep mortgage rates down. However, we can’t say as to how long artificial rates can be maintained by the US Federal Reserve’s manipulation and distortion of the marketplace, considering the huge amount needed to “fix” the price of the treasury markets. But we understand that interest rates in the US are ultimately headed higher, and Mr. Gross thinks so too as revealed by actions-PIMCO has reportedly been selling US Treasuries.

It would appear that world’s bond king’s alpha (extra or premium returns) has been to arbitrage from regulations and maybe that’s why his strong support for interventionist policies.

Demystifying the US Dollar’s Vitality

``The Achilles Heel of the United States is the dollar. The reserve status of the US dollar is absolutely critical to the health of the US. If the dollar begins to lose it's reserve status, the US economy will be in shambles.”-Richard Russell

Some have found the recent rise of the US dollar as mystifying while the others have found the surging US dollar as a reason to gloat.

While there are many ways to skin a cat, in the same way there are many ways to interpret the US dollar’s vigorous advance, see figure 3.

Figure 3: stockcharts.com: US Dollar’s Rise Coincided with Market Breakdowns

From our end, we read the action of the US dollar index (geometric weighted average of 6 foreign currencies of major trading partners of the US) by looking at its relationship across different asset markets.

And as we can see, the dramatic surge of the US dollar index coincides with an astounding symmetry-the collapse of the oil market (lowest pane) and the equivalent breakdown of critical support levels (vertical arrows) of stock markets of the US (signified by the S&P 500- pane below center) and Emerging Markets (pane below S&P).

And market actions have fantastically been too powerfully synchronized for us to ignore its interconnectedness or the apparent simultaneous cross market activities.

While we can discuss other possible influence factors such as the shrinking trade deficits which may have contributed to a narrowing current account deficit or an improvement in US terms of trade or the ratio of export prices over import prices, the fact that the US dollar behaved in a spectacular fashion can’t be interpreted as a sudden market epiphany over some unlikely radical improvement in trade fundamentals.

What we understand was that by mid July, cracks over the financial markets began to surface with the US Treasury publicly contemplating to inject funds to support both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. From then, the deterioration in the financial markets accelerated which inversely prompted the skyward ascent of the US dollar. Fannie and Freddie were ultimately taken over by the US government in September.

DEBT DEFLATION Dynamics In Progress

So what could be the forces behind such phenomenon?

``Assuming, accordingly, that, at some point of time, a state of over-indebtedness exists, this will tend to lead to liquidation, through the alarm either of debtors or creditors or both. Then we may deduce the following chain of consequences in nine links: (1) Debt liquidation leads to distress selling and to (2) Contraction of deposit currency, as bank loans are paid off, and to a slowing down of velocity of circulation. This contraction of deposits and of their velocity, precipitated by distress selling, causes (3) A fall in the level of prices, in other words, a swelling of the dollar. Assuming, as above stated, that this fall of prices is not interfered with by reflation or otherwise, there must be (4) A still greater fall in the net worths of business, precipitating bankruptcies and (5) A like fall in profits, which in a “capitalistic,” that is, a private-profit society, leads the concerns which are running at a loss to make (6) A reduction in output, in trade and in employment of labor. These losses, bankruptcies and unemployment, lead to (7) Hoarding and slowing down still more the velocity of circulation.

``The above eight changes cause (9) Complicated disturbances in the rates of interest, in particular, a fall in the nominal, or money, rates and a rise in the real, or commodity, rates of interest.”

This according to Irving Fisher is what is known as the DEBT DEFLATION theory dynamics. As you would notice the chain of events leading to the current market meltdown and the precipitate rise in the US dollar have closely shadowed Mr. Fisher’s definition.

How?

Figure 4: Bank of International Settlements: CDS and Foreign Exchange Derivatives Market

One, a significant market of the structured finance-shadow banking system (estimated at $10 trillion) and derivatives ($596 trillion, Credit Default Swap $33.6 trillion down from nearly $60 trillion-left pane- see figure 4) have mostly been denominated in US dollars (foreign currency derivatives also mostly US dollar denominated-right pane), thus deleveraging or debt deflation means the closing and settlement of positions and payment in US dollars.

This also implies whether the counterparty is from Europe or from Asians settlement of such contract means payment in US dollars. Thus, the sudden surge in demand for US dollars can be attributed to the ongoing debt deflation-deleveraging process.

Figure 5: Investment Company Institute: World Mutual Fund

Two, cross currency arbitrage or 'carry trades' have also significant US dollar denominated based exposures.

For instance US mutual funds in 2007 totaled US $12 trillion (see Figure 5 courtesy of ICI) with 14% of the total allocated to International Stock funds or $1.68 trillion.

We may not know exactly how much of these funds flows were borrowed in order to buy into international stock funds, but the idea is, once the margin call came, highly levered funds were compelled to liquidate their positions in order to repay back their loans in US dollars.

Isn't it ironic that the epicenter of the present crisis emanated from the US and yet the debt deflation dynamics prompted a gravitational pull to the US dollar? Had these been something resembling like an Asian crisis then such dynamics would have been understandable.

The US Dollar’s Hegemon and Threats To Its Dominion

Figure 6: Bill Gross: Going Nuclear

Lastly, we have always described the architectural platform of the US dollar standard as pillared upon the cartelized system of US banking network which extends to a syndicate of peripheral banks abroad or global central banks.

PIMCO’s chief Bill Gross in his latest outlook wrote a good analogy of this as a function of nuclear energy see figure 6.

From Mr. Bill Gross (all emphasis mine), ``Uranium-238 has something like 92 electrons circling its nucleus…And, importantly, uranium-238 is metaphorically quite similar to the global financial system of the past half century. At its nucleus was the overnight Fed Funds rate which, when priced low enough, led to an ever-increasing circle of productive financial electrons. The overnight policy rate led to cheap commercial paper borrowing and then leapfrogged outward and across the oceans to become LIBOR. In turn, government notes and bonds as well as markets for corporate obligations were created, leading to their use as collateral (repos), which fostered additional credit and additional growth. The electrons morphed into productive financial futures and derivatives of all kinds benefitting all of the asset classes at the outer edge of the #238 atom – stocks, high yield bonds, private equity, even homes and commodities despite their being tangible as opposed to financial assets.”

``This was how the scientists, the financial wizards with Mensa IQs, visualized the financial system a few years ago: leverageable assets held together by a central bank policy rate at its nucleus with institutional participants playing by the rules of conservative self interest and moderate government regulation. Out of it came exceptionally high returns on assets with minimal risk – the highest returns occurring with the most levered electrons farthest from the nucleus.”

Since financial flows appear to have revolved around the foundations of the US banking system with its core at the US Federal reserve, the recent logjam in US banking sector caused a ripple effect to the peripherals via shortages of the US dollar, a liquidity crunch and a subsequent scramble for US dollars which triggered several crisis among EM countries whose balance sheets have been vulnerable (excessive exposure to foreign denominated debt or currency risks, outsized current account deficits relative to GDP, excessive short term loans or highly levered domestic balance sheets).

Thus, the paucity of US dollars has compelled some nations to bypass the banking system and utilize barter (see Signs of Transitioning Financial Order? The Emergence of Barter and Bilateral Based Currency Based Trading?) such as Thailand and Iran over rice and oil. Whereas Russia and China have announced plans to use national currencies for trade similar to the recently established Brazil-Argentina (Local Currency System).

The recent crisis encountered by South Korea (heavily exposed to short term foreign denominated debt) and Russia (corporate sector heavily exposed to foreign debt) seem to be prominent examples of the US dollar squeeze.

Figure 7: finance.yahoo.com: South Korea Won-US dollar

Understanding the present predicament, the US Federal Reserve quickly extended its currency Swap lines to some emerging nations as South Korea, which has so far resulted to some easing of strains in the Korean Won, see figure 7. However, we are yet uncertain about its longer term effects although it is likely that access to the US dollar should demonstrably reduce the liquidity pressures.

The important point to recognize is that some nations have began to acknowledge the risks of total dependence on the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency and/or its banking system. A furtherance of the crisis with the US as epicenter can jeopardize global trading and finance. Hence, some countries have devised means of exchange around the present system or have been mulling over some alternative platform.

Such developments are hardly positive contributory factors that would buttress the value of the US dollar over the long term especially as the US government has been throwing much weight of its taxpayer capacity to resuscitate and bolster the present system.

Mr. Ronald Solberg, vice chairman and lead portfolio manager of Armored Wolf, in an article at Asia Times online articulates more on this (emphasis mine),

``According to Goldman Sachs estimates, the US Treasury faces an unprecedented financing need in fiscal year 2009.2 Excluding funding requirements under the Supplemental Financing Program (SFP), they estimate 2009 FY issuance at $2 trillion compared to last year’s $1.12 trillion, which itself was already outsized. This prospective amount is driven by an estimated budget deficit reaching $850 billion, funding TARP purchases of up to $500 billion and the rollover of maturing debt equal to $561 billion.

``On top of these needs, it would not be unreasonable to expect additional SFP funding requirements of $500 billion, the amount already issued to date in FY 2008 used to recapitalize the Fed’s balance sheet. The magnitude of such funding requirements will test the operational efficacy of the Treasury, requiring increased auction size, frequency and expanding maturity buckets on debt issuance, and will likely extend through FY 2009 and into FY 2010, prior to these pressures abating. Perhaps even more ominously, issue size will severely test market demand for such an avalanche of debt.”

Conclusion

All these demonstrate the two basic factors on why US dollar has recently surged.

One, this reflects the US dollar’s principal function as international currency reserve and importantly,

Second, most of the leveraged assets markets had been denominated in US dollars. And in the debt deflation dynamics as defined by Economist Irving Fisher, ``Debt liquidation leads to distress selling and to Contraction of deposit currency, as bank loans are paid off, and to a slowing down of velocity of circulation. This contraction of deposits and of their velocity, precipitated by distress selling, causes A fall in the level of prices, in other words, a swelling of the dollar.”

Finally, with US government printing up a colossal amount of money within its system (yes that includes all swap lines extended to other countries as de facto central bank of the world), financing issues will be tested based on the (supply) issuance of its debt instruments and the (demand) market’s willingness to fund the present slew of government programs from internal sources (US taxpayers and corresponding rise in savings) and or from external sources (global central banks amidst normalizing current account imbalances).

We don’t buy the idea that US debt deflation will spur hyperinflation abroad which could further bolster the US dollar. Monetary inflation doesn’t necessarily require a private banking system to extend credit and inflate, because the government in itself as a public institution can inflate the system through its web of bureaucracy.

Zimbabwe is an example. Its banking system seems dysfunctional: savers don’t trust banks, the government has been using such institutions to pay for government employee salaries yet have suffered from government takeovers, while some of the banks have engaged in forex accumulation than operate normally.

Basically, Zimbabwe’s inflationary mechanism is done via the expansion of its bureaucracy to a leviathan and the attendant acceleration of the printing press operations.