Showing posts with label Bond vigilantes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bond vigilantes. Show all posts

Thursday, June 04, 2015

Bond Vigilantes Return with Vengeance: Global Bonds Crash!

I previously posted what seemed as a seminal appearance by the bond vigilantes early May 2015. This was led by a massive selloff in German bunds

The global bond market rout was placed on the freezer when ECB's Benoit Coeure indicated that the European central bank will frontload the QE program. 

The initial bond market seizure reportedly signified some $456.4 billion of losses according to Bloomberg.

After a lull, last night at a news conference following the ECB's policy meeting, ECB President Mario Draghi promised more stimulus stating that "We’ve still got a long way to go". 

Apparently this had led to a seeming dissatisfaction in the marketplace enough to fire up a bond selling frenzy which ushers in the return of the bond vigilantes.



This is the 10 year US Notes which responded to events in Europe.


The German and French equivalent just crashed! Crashing bonds remain an ongoing dynamic as of this writing.


Europe's crisis plagued economies (Portugal, Spain and Italy) were not spared.


The yield of 10 year JGB equivalent has likewise spiked! Rising yields will tighten the screw on Abenomics.


The bond vigilantes landed on Asia...

Singapore and Hong Kong's 10 year bonds have tumbled.


The Australian and Taiwan contemporary also got smoked


Bonds of the ASEAN majors has also been bludgeoned. (all charts above are from investing.com)


Interestingly, ASEAN currencies (see above from Bloomberg) seem to be taking a significant beating today.  

Indonesia's rupiah via, as of this writing, appears to have crashed to a NEW all time LOW! In the context of USD-IDR, this makes a new all time high!

Philippine bonds have yet to reflect on the current phenomenon.

If soaring yields translate into significantly higher lending costs, then how will these affect asset markets of the world and or global economies heavily dependent on debt?

Yet how will sustained weakening of ASEAN currencies affect her overseas debt exposure, as well as, internal prices (influenced by imports) that will likely spillover to the assets and the economy?

Record stocks in the face of the record imbalances at the precipice.


Thursday, May 07, 2015

Fed Chair Janet Yellen Warns Again on Richly Valued Stocks and Bonds; Warnings to Exonerate the Fed?

Bubbles have become so obvious for political authorities to just ignore them.

In the past, where the 2008 crisis have caught them blind, today many political agencies or institutions seemed to have learned from their mistakes: They wouldn’t want to take the blame for any untoward unintended consequences. So many of them have been constantly issuing warnings after warnings on financial asset risks…but in different formats. 

Some authorities still deny the existence of bubbles but instead have focused on ‘symptoms’ such as high valuations which they attribute to ‘yield chasing’ and selective leverage. They hardly seem to comprehend how high valuations have emerged from yield chasing as seen via the source of financing--credit, as well as, its simultaneous effects to the financial and production structure of the economy. 

This is unlike the Bank for International Settlements whom has a relatively firm grasp of the ongoing brazen misallocation of resources. The BIS had been followed by the IMF and the OECD and somewhat by ADB and the IIF

National central banks as Singapore’s MAS, Australia’s RBA India’s RBI and others, have in their own ways, admonished on brewing domestic imbalances. The Philippine BSP governor even joined this bandwagon last August and October but appears to have backtracked via a deafening sound of silence.

As I have been saying, most of such warnings possibly represent escape clauses, valves or hatchets aimed at exonerating them rather than to justify changes in policies. The other possible unstated objective could be to shift the burden of bubbles to the markets, rather than from their policies.

A splendid example would be US Federal Chairwoman Janet Yellen. Last night, Ms Yellen raised (again) the overvaluations hounding US stocks and bonds. Ms Yellen, ironically, hardly connects these to financial stability issues. 

Yet this marks her third irrational exuberance warnings (the first on July 2014 and in February 2015).

From Bloomberg: (bold mine)
Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen, surveying the financial landscape for signs of bubbles after more than six years of near-zero rates, warned that both stocks and bonds are richly valued.

“I would highlight that equity-market valuations at this point generally are quite high,” Yellen said in Washington on Wednesday in response to a question at a forum on finance. “Now, they’re not so high when you compare the returns on equities to the returns on safe assets like bonds, which are also very low, but there are potential dangers there.”

Yellen said bond yields “could see a sharp jump” when the Fed raises its benchmark interest rate. Most Fed officials predict that will happen this year for the first time since 2006…

Yellen said that after holding rates near zero since December 2008, the Fed must be on the lookout for threats to financial stability. She spoke in response to questions from International Monetary Fund Managing Director Christine Lagarde during a panel discussion at the “Finance & Society” conference sponsored by the Institute for New Economic Thinking.

She said she sees signs of “reach for yield” in the market for leveraged loans, and that bond yields could jump when the central bank raises its benchmark rate.

“Long-term interest rates are at very low levels,” Yellen said. “We could see a sharp jump in long-term rates” after liftoff.

“We saw this in the case of the taper tantrum in 2013, where there was a very sharp upward movement in rates,” she said in reference to the episode in the middle of that year, when then-Chairman Ben S. Bernanke suggested that the Fed could start tapering its bond purchases in the next few meetings.
Ms Yellen seems caught in a bind of logical contradictions. First, she ‘warned that both stocks and bonds are richly valued’. Next she says that the FED should respond by looking out for threats to financial stability. Then she says that a jump in bond yields could pose as potential dangers. She doesn’t see that both stocks and bonds, which are richly valued, are in reality threats to financial stability and potential dangers already staring at her and the FED's faces.

And her concerns over a liftoff means that richly valued stocks and bonds could unravel once the leverage that has pillared such imbalances reverse.

Why should an interest rate ‘liftoff’ pose as a potential problem to richly valued stocks and bonds if these have NOT been founded on the massive accrued leverage from low levels of interest rates? 

Besides, if financial markets have truly been sound then why the worry over a liftoff—which should really be very minimal 25 bps perhaps—at all?

Ms Yellen tries deliberately to blur the cause and effects, or have been oblivious to the process of how low interest rates drives debt financed yield chasing frenzy to engender rich valuations and severe market dislocations, or has been looking for an excuse or justification (by shifting the onus on the marketplace) NOT to have a ‘liftoff’.

But even with a dawdling fickle minded FED, the US Treasury markets seem to have already made up their minds: The 'liftoff' process seems to have already begun!

image
image


Ms. Yellen and her team at the FED appears trapped and so these warnings?


Not to worry. This time is different: stocks can only rise forever!

Wednesday, May 06, 2015

Return of the Bond Vigilantes? Yields of Major Global 10 Year Bonds Spike!

Global central banks have been in a massively easing path. These has been conducted through various measures as QEs, (ZIRP- Negative Lower Bound) interest rates or currency (as Singapore) channels. 

CBRates.com has tallied 34 rates in different countries from January to May 5. This doesn’t include central bank actions by frontier economies like Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Sierra Leone and others which recently also cut rates.

This also implies that the seeming coordinate actions of global central banks of implementing crisis resolution measures have been indicative of the health or the real conditions of the global economy.

Credit easing has been mostly touted as a tool to stimulate growth and ‘fight deflation’. However the real intent has been to push the cost of debt servicing down.

In short, global central banks continue to subsidize governments and politically favored enterprises through invisible redistribution from financial repression policies. Most of which has been coursed through interest rates

Despite all such actions, curiously though, global bond markets seem to have been pushing back! They appear to be revolting against central banks.

image
Yields of 10 year US bonds have recently soared.

image

So as with UK and German equivalent
image

French and JGBs as well
image

Major commodity exporters Canada and Australia
image

Singapore and Hong Kong
image

Taiwan and South Korea
image

…even the Philippines and Indonesia!

(all charts from investing.com)

Rising yields means that these bond markets have been sold off! And the selling comes in the face of sustained easing environment!

And selling pressures in the global bond markets will eventually be transmitted to bank interest rates that will increase pressures on the world’s enormous debt levels

Has the bond vigilantes returned?  And if so, will the bond vigilantes prick the global asset bubbles? 

Very interesting developments.

Monday, February 17, 2014

Emerging Markets: Why Adjustments For Relative Yield Spreads has been Disorderly

Rising yields of USTs will have an impact on the policies of central banks whom has dovetailed their policies with that of the US Federal Reserve configured on zero bound rates

At the basic level, rising yields of USTs will compel for an adjustment in the respective contemporaneous ‘yield spread’ of domestic bond markets relative to the USTs that will get reflected on monetary policies.

What has made the adjustment disorderly, particularly for Emerging Markets has been the overdependence of specific economies on the zero bound regime, principally due to economic growth structured on credit expansion rather than economic reforms.

The relative yield spread adjustments has only exposed on the distinct vulnerabilities of these economies thereby leading to massive outflows.

The idea that the emerging market selloffs has passed days of turbulence neglects the importance of the fundamental relationship between respective pre-Taper/Abenomics ‘yield spreads’ of distinct EM nations with that of the USTs.

I pointed out last week how the direction of the Phisix seems to have found an anchor on the actions of USTs, where each time yields of 10 year USTs close in at 3% this seem to have spurred weakness or a spontaneous selloff in Philippine stocks.

clip_image001

It would seem that the same relationship holds true for ASEAN currencies. Since September 2013, where the yields of 10 year USTs (TNX, below chart) approached 3%, ASEAN currencies TWICE—particularly the USD-Philippine peso (red orange), US-Indonesian rupiah (orange), USD-Thai baht (green) and the USD-ringgit (red)—suffered convulsions from what should be normal yield spread adjustments.

Moreover, the second episode has led to greater (and not lesser) volatility where all four currencies broke beyond the September 2013 highs. So it would seem misguided to impulsively conclude that the emerging Asia’s woes have been short lived or has passed. Such assumption will have to be premised on a sustained decline of the TNX. However as pointed above, declining TNX has, of late, been accompanied by falling US stocks. And a steep drop in US stocks has likewise had a negative impact on local and regional stock market performance.

It is true that all of the region’s currencies have been rallying during the past two weeks. This has also been accompanied by buoyancy in the region’s equity markets. And again that has been largely because the TNX has dropped steeply. Nonetheless, the lull in ASEAN’s markets may be temporary as TNX has been climbing again (red ellipse). 

Notice that when the TNX peaked in September, the two month of tranquil space permitted the region’s financial markets to somewhat recover. However it is a question if the TNX has found a bottom. If it has, then it means a narrowing of the time span covering the previous peaks of September and December. This may imply that the ascent of the TNX may be accelerate or intensify. A fresh record breakout by US stocks can easily power the TNX to new highs.

Yet the current rally of domestic bonds of emerging Asia has hardly been impressive. Additionally, while regional currencies have bounced back, they are far from the lows of the post September levels. ASEAN currencies are rallying in lesser degree than during the post September lows.

The question now is if the TNX should continue to climb or spike, will the impact be devastatingly larger this time?

Presently even the mainstream has come to notice the recent bout of volatilities has exposed on the price inflation predicament of ASEAN[1]. But the emerging stagflation ogre has been seen as a supply side driven predicament rather than a credit inspired demand side imbalance. Debt exists nowhere in mainstream analysis.

Yet debt has been the anchor of any potential transmission mechanisms for a contagion

For instance, US and European banks have been found to have chased yield by having bigger exposure on EM’s the Fragile Five.

Philip Coggan of the Buttonwood Blog fame at the Economist quotes Erik Nielsen[2]
According to the BIS, US banks’ exposure to the “Fragile Five” increased by 37% to $212bn, while their exposure to the Eurozone periphery declined by 17% to $164bn. UK banks’ exposure to the Fragile Five increased by 29% to $291bn – while their exposure to the periphery declined by 30% to $277bn. German banks expanded their exposure to the Fragile Five by 34% to a relatively modest $69bn – while shrinking their exposure to the periphery by an eye-watering 50% to $354bn. French banks increased their Fragile Five exposure by a modest 15% (to $69bn) – while chopping their Eurozone peripheral exposure by 43% to $514bn. Italian banks doubled their exposure to the Fragile Five – but to a total of just $11bn, while cutting their exposure to the periphery (excluding Italy itself) by 46% to $33bn.  And Spanish banks increased their exposure to the Fragile Five by 26% to $185bn, while chopping their peripheral exposure (ex Spain) by 29% to $105bn.
So mainstream western banks flocked into the Fragile Five when the PIGS crisis surfaced.

And the powerful argument presented by Mr. Coggan has been to debunk the use of accounting identities in denying the above risk. Mr. Coggan writes, “the fragile five got that tag because they have current account deficits, but such deficits require, as an accounting identity, capital inflows. Someone had to lend these countries money so they could buy imports.”

In short behind all the smoke screens thrown by the consensus to defend the status quo via statistical figures and accounting identities, everything else will all boil down to sustainability or unsustainability of DEBT operating under the presence of the bond vigilantes.



[1] Wall Street Journal Real Time Economics Blog, In Asia, Concerns About Inflation Re-Emerge, February 11, 2014

[2] Buttonwood, The money has to go somewhere February 10, 2014

Monday, January 13, 2014

Phisix: Will a Black Swan Event Occur in 2014?

2013 turned out to be a very interestingly volatile and surprising year. It was a year of marked by illusions and false hope.

Mainstream’s Aldous Huxley Syndrome

The Philippine Phisix appears to be playing out what I had expected: the business cycle, or the boom-bust cycle. Business cycles are highly sensitive to interest rate movements.

At the start of 2013 I wrote[1],
the direction of the Phisix and the Peso will ultimately be determined by the direction of domestic interest rates which will likewise reflect on global trends.

Global central banks have been tweaking the interest rate channel in order to subsidize the unsustainable record levels of government debts, recapitalize and bridge-finance the embattled and highly fragile banking industry, and subordinately, to rekindle a credit fueled boom.

Yet interest rates will ultimately be determined by market forces influenced from one or a combination of the following factors as I wrote one year back: the balance of demand and supply of credit, inflation expectations, perceptions of credit quality and of the scarcity or availability of capital.
The Philippine Phisix skyrocketed to new record highs during the first semester of the year only to see those gains vaporized by the year end.


clip_image001

During the first half of the year, I documented on how Philippine stocks has segued into the mania phase of the bubble cycle backed by parabolic rise by the Phisix index (for the first four months the local benchmark rose by over 5% each month!) and the feting or glorification of the inflationary boom via soaring prices of stocks and properties by the mainstream on a supposed miraculous “transformation[2]” of the Philippine economy backed by new paradigm hallelujahs such as the “Rising Star of Asia”[3], “We have the kind of economy that every country dreams of”[4], underpinned by credit rating upgrades, which behind the scenes were being inflated by a credit boom. This romanticization of inflationary boom is what George Soros calls in his ‘reflexivity theory’ as the stage of the flaw in perceptions and the climax[5].

While I discussed the possibility of a Phisix 10,000 as part of the inflationary boom process, all this depended on low interest rates.

But when US Federal Reserve chairman suddenly floated the idea of the ‘tapering’ or reduction of Large Scale Asset Purchases (LSAP) global equity markets shuddered as yields of US treasuries soared. Yields of US treasuries have already been creeping higher since July 2012 although the ‘taper talk’ accelerated such trend.

Since June 2013, ASEAN equity markets have struggled and diverged from developing markets as the latter went into a melt-up mode.

Just a week before the June meltdown I warned of the escalating risk environment due to the rising yields of Japanese Government Bonds (JGB) and US treasuries[6].
However, if the bond vigilantes continue to reassert their presence and spread, then this should put increasing pressure on risk assets around the world.

Essentially, the risk environment looks to be worsening. If interest rates continue with their uptrend then global bubbles may soon reach their maximum point of elasticity.

We are navigating in treacherous waters.

In early April precious metals and commodities felt the heat. Last week that role has been assumed by Japan’s financial markets. Which asset class or whose markets will be next?
Anyone from the mainstream has seen this?

Since the June meltdown, instead of examining their premises, the consensus has spent literally all their efforts relentlessly denying in media the existence of bear market which they see as an “anomaly” and from “irrational behavior”. 

They continue to ‘shout’ statistics, as if activities of the past signify a guaranteed outcome of the future, and as if the statistical data they use are incontrovertible. They ignore what prices have been signaling.

My favorite iconoclast and polemicist Nassim Nicolas Taleb calls this mainstream devotion on statistical numbers as the ‘Soviet-Harvard delusion’ or the unscientific overestimation of the reach scientific knowledge.

He writes[7], (bold mine)
Our idea is to avoid interference with things we don’t understand. Well, some people are prone to the opposite. The fragilista belongs to that category of persons who are usually in suit and tie, often on Fridays; he faces your jokes with icy solemnity, and tends to develop back problems early in life from sitting at a desk, riding airplanes, and studying newspapers. He is often involved in a strange ritual, something commonly called “a meeting.” Now, in addition to these traits, he defaults to thinking that what he doesn’t see is not there, or what he does not understand does not exist. At the core, he tends to mistake the unknown for the nonexistent.
English writer Aldous Huxley once admonished “Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.” Thus I would call mainstream’s rabid denial of reality the Aldous Huxley syndrome

Mainstream pundits like to dismiss the massive increase in debt which had supported the current boom. They use superficial comparisons (as debt to GDP) to justify current debt levels. They don’t seem to understand that debt tolerance function like individual thumbprints and thus are unique. They treat statistical data with unquestioning reverence.

I’ll point out one government statistical data which I recently discovered as fundamentally impaired. What I question here is not the premise, but the representativeness of the data.

The Philippine Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) recently came out with 2012 Flow of Funds report noting that the households had been key provider of savings for the fifth year[8].

Going through the BSP’s “technical notes”[9] or the methodology for construction of the flow of funds for the households, the BSP uses deposits based on the banking sector, loans provided by life insurances, GSIS, SSS, Philippine Crop Insurance and Home Development Mutual Fund, Small Business Guarantee and Finance Corporation and National Home Mortgage and Finance Corporation. They also include “Net equity of households in life insurances reserves and in pension funds”, “Currency holdings of the household” and estimated accounts payable by households, as well as “entrepreneurial activities of households” and “other unaccounted transactions in the domestic economy”[10]

But the BSP in her annual report covering the same year says that only 21.5 households are ‘banked’[11]. Penetration level of life insurance, according to the Philam Life, accounts for only 1.1% of the population[12]. SSS membership is about 30 million[13] or only about a third of the population. GSIS has only 1.1 million members[14]. These select institutions comprise the meat of formal system’s savings institutions from which most of the BSP’s data have been based.

Yet even if we look at the capital markets, the numbers resonate on the small inclusion of participants—the Phisix has 525,085 accounts as of 2012[15] or less than 1% of the population even if we include bank based UITFs or mutual funds and a very minute bond markets composed mainly of publicly listed entities.

So no matter how you dissect these figures, the reality is that much of the savings by local households have been kept in jars, cans or bottles or the proverbial “stashed under one's mattress”.

In the same way, credit has mostly been provided via the shadow banking sector particularly through “loan sharks”, “paluwagan” or pooled money, “hulugan” instalment credit or personal credit[16].

In short, the BSP cherry picks on their data to support a tenuous claim.

In fairness, the BSP has been candid enough to say, at their footnotes, that the database for the non-financial private sector covers only “the Top 8000 corporations” and that for the “lack of necessary details” their “framework may have resulted to misclassification of some transactions”.

But who reads footnotes or even technical notes?

The Secret of the Philippine Credit Bubble

This selective data mining has very significant implications on economic interpretation and analysis.

This only means that many parts of the informal economy (labor, banking and financial system, remittances[17]) has been almost as large as or are even bigger than their formal counterparts.

We can therefore extrapolate that the statistical economy has not been accurately representative of the real economy.

Yet the mainstream has been obsessed with statistical data which covers only the formal economy.

And in theory, the still largely untapped domestic banking system and capital markets by most of the citizenry hardly represents a sign of real economic growth for one principal reason: The major role of banks and capital markets is to intermediate savings and channel them into investments. With lack of savings, there will be a paucity of investments and subsequently real economic growth.

In short, the dearth of participation by a large segment of the Philippine society on formal financial institutions represents a structural deficiency for the domestic political economy.

clip_image002

Any wonder why the mainstream pundits with their abstruse econometric models can’t capture or can’t explain why Philippine investments[18] have remained sluggish despite a supposed ‘transformational’ boom today?

This also puts to the limelight questionable efforts or policies by the government to generate growth via “domestic demand”.

Yet the mainstream hardly explains where “demand” emanates from? Demand may come from the following factors: productivity growth, foreign money, savings, borrowing and the BSP’s printing money.

With hardly significant savings to tap, and with foreign flows hobbled by rigid capital controls, the corollary—shortage of investments can hardly extrapolate to a meaningful productivity growth or real economic growth.

So in recognition of such shortcoming, the BSP has piggybacked on the global central bank trend in using low interest rates (then the Greenspan Put) to generate ‘aggregate demand’.

As a side note; to my experience, a foreign individual bank account holder can barely make a direct transfer from his/her peso savings account to a US dollar account and vice versa without manually converting peso to foreign exchange and vice versa due to BSP regulations.

The BSP anticipated this credit boom and consequently concocted a policy called the Special Deposit Accounts (SDA) in 2006, which has been aimed at siphoning liquidity[19]. Eventually the SDA backfired via financial losses on the BSP books even as the credit boom intensified.

The BSP imposed a partial unwinding of the SDA which today has only exacerbated the credit boom.

Given the insufficient level of participation by residents in the banking sector and the capital markets, thus the major beneficiaries and risks from the zero bound rate impelled domestic credit boom meant to generate statistical growth have been concentrated to a few bank account owners, whom has accessed the credit markets. This in particular is weighted on the supply side, e.g. San Miguel

The credit boom thus spurred a domestic stock market and property bubble.

This has been the secret recipe of the so –called transformational booming economy.

Yet, the large unbanked sector now suffers from the consequences of a credit boom—rising price inflation.

Well didn’t I predict in 2010 for this property bubble to occur?

Here is what wrote in September 2010[20]
The current “boom” phase will not be limited to the stock market but will likely spread across domestic assets.

This means that over the coming years, the domestic property sector will likewise experience euphoria.

For all of the reasons mentioned above, external and internal liquidity, policy divergences between domestic and global economies, policy traction amplified by savings, suppressed real interest rate, the dearth of systemic leverage, the unimpaired banking system and underdeveloped markets—could underpin such dynamics.
My point is that these bubbles have been a product of the policy induced business cycle.

Also these can hardly represent real economic growth without structural improvements in the financial system via a financial deepening or increased participation by the population in the banking sector and in the capital markets. 

clip_image003

The chart from a recent World Bank report[21] represents a wonderful depiction of the distinctiveness of the distribution credit risks of ASEAN and China.

From the Philippine perspective, households indeed have very small debt exposure basically because of low penetration levels in the Philippine financial system. Whereas most of the insidious and covert debt build up has been in the financial, nonfinancial corporations and the government.

Ironically, Indonesia whom has very low debt levels has been one of the focal point of today’s financial market stresses which I discuss in details below.

This only shows that there are many complex variables that can serve as trigger/s to a potential credit event. Debt level is just one of them.

Why a Possible Black Swan Event in 2014?

I say that I expect a black swan event to occur that will affect the Phisix-ASEAN and perhaps or most likely the world markets and economies.

The black swan theory as conceived by Mr. Taleb has been founded on the idea that a low probability or an ‘outlier’ event largely unexpected by the public which ‘carries an extreme impact’ from which people “concoct explanations for its occurrence after the fact”[22]

The Turkey Problem signifies the simplified narrative of the black swan theory[23]

clip_image004
A Turkey is bought by the butcher who is fed and pampered from day 1 to day 1000. The Turkey gains weight through the feeding and nurturing process as time goes by.

From the Turkey’s point of view, the good days will be an everlasting thing. From the mainstream’s point of view “Every day” writes Mr. Taleb “confirms to its staff of analysts that Butchers love turkeys “with increased statistical confidence.””[24]

However, to the surprise of the Turkey on the 1,001th day or during Thanksgiving Day, the days of glory end: the Turkey ends up on the dinner table.

For the Turkey and the clueless mainstream, this serves as a black swan event, but not for the Butcher.

clip_image005

For me, the role of the butcher will be played by rising interest rates amidst soaring record debt levels.

Global public and private sector debt from both advanced economies and emerging has reached $223 trillion or 313% of the world’s gdp as of the end of 2012[25]. This must be far bigger today given the string of record borrowings in the capital markets for 2013, especially in the US (see below).

Moreover, recent reports say that there will be about $7.43 trillion of sovereign debt from developed economies and from the BRICs that will need to be refinanced in 2014. Such ‘refinancing needs’ account for about 10% of the global economy which comes amidst rising bond yields or interest rates[26].

While I believe that the latest Fed tapering has most likely been symbolical as the outgoing Fed Chair’s Ben Bernanke may desire to leave a legacy of initiating ‘exit strategy’ by tapering[27], the substantially narrowing trade and budget deficits and the deepening exposure by the Fed on US treasuries (the FED now holds 33.18% of all Ten Year Equivalents according to the Zero Hedge[28]) may compel the FED to do even more ‘tapering’. 

Such in essence may drain more liquidity from global financial system thereby magnifying the current landscape’s sensitivity to the risks of a major credit event.

And unlike 2009-2011 where monetary easing spiked commodities, bonds, stocks of advanced and emerging markets, today we seem to be witnessing a narrowing breadth of advancing financial securities. Only stock markets of developed economies and of the Europe’s crisis afflicted PIGS and a few frontier economies appear to be rising in face of slumping commodities, sovereign debt, BRICs and many major emerging markets equities. This narrowing of breadth appears to be a periphery-to-core dynamic inherent in a bubble cycle thus could be seen as a topping process.

Meanwhile the Turkey’s role will be played by momentum or yield chasers, punters and speculators egged by the mainstream worshippers of bubbles and political propagandists who will continue to ignore and dismiss present risks and advocate for more catching of falling knives for emerging markets securities.

And the melt-up phase of developed economy stock markets will be interpreted by mainstream cheerleaders with “increased statistical confidence”.

The potential trigger for a black swan event for 2014 may come from various sources, in no pecking order; China, ASEAN, the US, EU (France and the PIGs), Japan and other emerging markets (India, Brazil, Turkey, South Africa). Possibly a trigger will enough to provoke a domino effect.

I will not be discussing all of them here due to time constraints

Bottom line: the sustained and or increasing presence of the bond vigilantes will serve as key to the appearance or non-appearance of a Black Swan event in 2014.

As a side note: the dramatic fall on yields of US Treasuries last Friday due to lower than expected jobs, may buy some time and space or give breathing space for embattled markets. But I am in doubt if this US bond market rally will last.

[update: I adjusted for the font size]




[1] See What to Expect in 2013 January 7, 2013




[5] George Soros The Alchemy of Finance John Wiley & Sons page 58, Google Books


[7] Nassim Nicolas Taleb Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder Random House New York, p.9 Google Books




[11] Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Annual Report 2012 p.50


[13] Domini M. Torrevillas Garbage collectors are now SSS members Philstar.com October 17, 2013

[14] Government Service Insurance System GSIS prepares for UMID-compliant eCard enrollment







[21] World Bank EAST ASIA AND PACIFIC ECONOMIC UPDATE Rebuilding Policy Buffers, Reinvigorating Growth October 2013 p.46



[24] Nassim Nicolas Taleb Op. cit p93

[25] Wall Street Real Time Economics Blog Number of the Week: Total World Debt Load at 313% of GDP May 11, 2013