The Four Horsemen of the Financial Apocalypse

In the Book of Revelation in the Christian Bible, the end of the world or the ‘Last Judgment’ will be presided by the four horseman of the apocalypse. These figurative horsemen embodies conquest, war, famine and death.

While not exactly according to biblical prophesy, such allegorical omen may be seen as applicable to today’s modern day financial and monetary central bank based fractional reserve money system.

From the Sovereign Man’s prolific Simon Black (bold mine)

Today’s financial system is dominated by central bankers who have been awarded nearly dictatorial control of global money supply.

In allowing them to set interest rates, they are able to control the ‘price’ of money, thus controlling the price of… everything.

This power rests primarily in the hands of four men who control roughly 75% of the entire world money supply:

-Zhou Xiaochuan, People’s Bank of China

-Mario Draghi, European Central Bank

-Haruhiko Kuroda, Bank of Japan

-Ben Bernanke, US Federal Reserve

Four guys. And they control the livelihoods of billions of people around the world.

So, how are they doing?

We could wax philosophically about the dangers of fiat currency. Or the dangers of the rapid expansion of their balance sheets. Or the profligacy of wanton debasement through quantitative easing.

But let’s just look at the numbers.

In theory, a central bank is like any other bank. It has income and expenses, assets and liabilities.

For a central bank, assets are typically securities or commodities which have value in the international marketplace, such as gold or US Treasuries.

Central bank liabilities are all the trillions of currency units floating around… dollars, euros, yen, etc.

The difference between assets and liabilities is the bank’s equity (or capital). And this is an important figure, because the higher the capital, the healthier the bank.

Lehman Brothers famously went under in 2008 because they had insufficient capital. They had assets of $691 billion, and equity of just $22 billion… about 3%.

This meant that if Lehman’s assets lost more than 3% of their value, the company wouldn’t have sufficient cushion, and they would go under.

This is exactly what happened. Their assets tanked and the company failed.

So let’s apply the same yardstick to central banks and see how ‘safe’ they really are:

US Federal Reserve: $54 billion in capital on $3.57 trillion in assets, roughly 1.53%. This is actually less than the 1.875% capital they had in December. So the trend is getting worse.

European Central Bank: 3.69%

Bank of Japan: 1.92%

Bank of England: 0.843%

Bank of Canada: 0.532%

Each of these major central banks in ‘rich’ Western countries is essentially at, or below, the level of capital that Lehman Brothers had when they went under.

What does this mean?

Think about Lehman again. When Lehman’s equity was wiped out, it caused a huge crisis. The company’s liabilities instantly lost value, and almost everyone who was a counterparty to Lehman Brothers lost a lot of money because the company could no longer pay its debts.

Accordingly, if the US Federal Reserve’s assets unexpectedly lose more than 1.5% of their value, the Fed’s equity would be wiped out. This means that any counterparty holding the Fed’s liabilities (i.e. Federal reserve notes) would lose.

More specifically, that means everyone holding dollars.

Theoretically if a central bank becomes insolvent, it can be bailed out. It happened in Iceland a few years ago.

There’s just one problem with that thinking.

Iceland’s government wasn’t in debt at the time. So they were able to borrow money in order to bail out their central bank. Today the government is in debt over 100% of GDP, but the central bank is solvent.

But governments in the US, Europe, Japan, England, etc. are all too broke to bail out their central banks. These governments are already insolvent. So if the central bank becomes insolvent, there won’t be anyone to bail them out.

This is one of the strongest indicators of all that the financial system as we know it is finished. When central banks can no longer credibly issue liabilities, and their home government are too broke to bail them out, this paper currency standard can no longer function.

Such data really underscores the importance of owning real assets such as productive land and precious metals.

Given its nominal roller coaster ride lately, there has certainly been a lot of scrutiny and skepticism about gold.

But to paraphrase Tony Deden of Edelweiss Holdings, if you dispute the validity of gold as a hedge against declining fiat currency, that makes you, by default, a paper bug. Can you really afford to be confident in this system?

As been repeatedly noted here, QEs by major central banks have been meant to shore up asset markets which underpins the assets on the balance sheets of crony banks, and their guardians, the central banks. 

Of course QEs has fostered a low interest rate environment, which in effect, subsidizes debt financed government spending and the welfare warfare bureaucracy that the banking system, by virtue of Basel regulations, holds mainly as 'risk free' collateral.

And the same set of collateral have been used by crony banks to get loans from discount windows of central banks, and likewise, these collateral constitutes one of the major instruments used by central banks to conduct QE.

So all these ‘merry-go-around” or 'cul-de-sac' or 'loop-a-loop' arrangement has been designed to eliminate the threat of insolvencies of the cartelized unsustainable centralized debt-based political economic system

But there’s more. For the major economies, central banks can use changes in accounting methodologies to elude insolvencies, similar to the US Federal Reserve in January 2011.

As Austrian economist Robert Murphy noted, “It is now mathematically impossible for the Fed to become insolvent, through the magic of "negative liabilities."”

Ultimately central banks will tap the printing press should "bank runs” occur. 

Again Professor Murphy: 

But for the case of the Federal Reserve — with dollar-denominated liabilities — it is hard to see what actual constraints it would face, should its accountants suddenly announce its insolvency. Even if there is a "run on the Fed," where all of the commercial banks want to withdraw their electronic reserves on the same day, the central bankers need not panic: they can order the Treasury to run the printing press in order to swap paper currency for electronic checkbook entries. (This is a neat trick unavailable to the mere commercial bankers.)

The smaller central banks will not have the same privileges. Nonetheless, their assets are also anchored on assets of their major contemporaries.

I would like to further point out that aside from Iceland, another example of a bailed out insolvent central bank has been the defunct Central Bank of the Philippines (CBP)

As I wrote in June 2012

Central Bank of the Philippines, the predecessor of the BSP, suffered massive losses to the tune of an estimated Php 300 billion as consequence of the series of bailouts provided by then President Cory Aquino to her favorites.

The losses were eventually transferred to the central bank board of liquidators.

Don’t take just take it from me. Canadian monetary analyst JP Koning recently noted (bold mine) 

Consider the case of the Central Bank of Philippines (CBP), for instance. According to Lamberte (2002), the CBP was harnessed by the government in the 1980s to engage in off-balance sheet lending and to assume the liabilities of various government-controlled and private companies. All of this was to the benefit of the government as it lowered the deficit and kept spending off-budget. Later on these loans proved to be worthless, leaving the central bank holding the refuse. This has shades of Enron, which used various conduits and SPVs to hide its mounting losses.

The CBP was replaced in 1993 by the newly chartered Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP). The BSP took over the CPB's note and deposit liabilities, as well as its foreign reserves and other valuable assets (the bad assets were allocated elsewhere).

A non-partisan observation on the populist perception which sees political leadership then as a 'virtuous' regime.

Bottom line: Small central banks will be bailed out. But if troubles of the four biggest and the most important central banks aggravates, then as Mr. Black notes “the financial system as we know it is finished” or financial apocalypse from the biblical equivalent of the four horsemen.

Ex-World Bank Insider: Corruption in the Global financial system Centered on the US Federal Reserve

One doesn’t need to be a conspiracy theorist or an insider to know this

From theNewAmerican.com

A former insider at the World Bank, ex-Senior Counsel Karen Hudes, says the global financial system is dominated by a small group of corrupt, power-hungry figures centered around the privately owned U.S. Federal Reserve. The network has seized control of the media to cover up its crimes, too, she explained. In an interview with The New American, Hudes said that when she tried to blow the whistle on multiple problems at the World Bank, she was fired for her efforts. Now, along with a network of fellow whistleblowers, Hudes is determined to expose and end the corruption. And she is confident of success.

Citing an explosive 2011 Swiss study published in the PLOS ONE journal on the “network of global corporate control,” Hudes pointed out that a small group of entities — mostly financial institutions and especially central banks — exert a massive amount of influence over the international economy from behind the scenes. “What is really going on is that the world’s resources are being dominated by this group,” she explained, adding that the “corrupt power grabbers” have managed to dominate the media as well. “They’re being allowed to do it.”

According to the peer-reviewed paper, which presented the first global investigation of ownership architecture in the international economy, transnational corporations form a “giant bow-tie structure.” A large portion of control, meanwhile, “flows to a small tightly-knit core of financial institutions.” The researchers described the core as an “economic ‘super-entity’” that raises important issues for policymakers and researchers. Of course, the implications are enormous for citizens as well.

Hudes, an attorney who spent some two decades working in the World Bank’s legal department, has observed the machinations of the network up close. “I realized we were now dealing with something known as state capture, which is where the institutions of government are co-opted by the group that’s corrupt,” she told The New American in a phone interview. “The pillars of the U.S. government — some of them — are dysfunctional because of state capture; this is a big story, this is a big cover up.”

At the heart of the network, Hudes said, are 147 financial institutions and central banks — especially the Federal Reserve, which was created by Congress but is owned by essentially a cartel of private banks. “This is a story about how the international financial system was secretly gamed, mostly by central banks — they’re the ones we are talking about,” she explained. “The central bankers have been gaming the system. I would say that this is a power grab.”

The Fed in particular is at the very center of the network and the coverup, Hudes continued, citing a policy and oversight body that includes top government and Fed officials. Central bankers have also been manipulating gold prices, she added, echoing widespread concerns that The New American has documented extensively. Indeed, even the inaccurate World Bank financial statements that Hudes has been trying to expose are linked to the U.S. central bank, she said.

Read the rest here.

All we need is to see the direction of policies, specifically from bail-outs, bail-ins, inflationism and other various forms of financial repression as well as anti-competitive measures to recognize the presence of such dynamic. In short, just follow the money trail.

Cognitive Dissonance and the US Stock Markets

Media, politicians and the US stock market operates in a cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is the confusion arising from the state of holding (Wikipedia.org) “two or more conflicting cognitions: ideas, beliefs, values or emotional reactions”

First the record run in US stocks has been been attributed to “growing confidence in the U.S. recovery” Good news is read as good for stocks, that's as of the other day.

Then today, falling stocks have been imputed to concerns over a pushback on stimulus; “will scale back its stimulus efforts if the labor market continues to improve”. 

Here good news is seen as bad news.

From the above account, one wonders whether the “growing” economy is really good or bad for stocks? Or whether “growth” has merely served as a cosmetic for the deepening addictions by the markets on the FED's steroids?

More rhetorical conflict of rhetoric from Media, Wall Street, and the US government;

On the one hand, the economy has been exhibiting strength for some of the FED officials to propose tapering of stimulus 

A number said they were willing to taper bond buying as early as the next meeting on June 18-19 if economic reports show “evidence of sufficiently strong and sustained growth,” according to the record of the April 30-May 1 gathering released today in Washington.

“Most observed that the outlook for the labor market had shown progress” since the-bond buying program began in September, according to the minutes. “But many of these participants indicated that continued progress, more confidence in the outlook, or diminished downside risks would be required before slowing the pace of purchases would become appropriate.”

On the other hand, Ben Bernanke contradicts the above by stating that the economy doesn’t seem to be strong enough for premature withdrawal of stimulus

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke defended the central bank’s record stimulus program under questioning from lawmakers, telling them that ending it prematurely would endanger a recovery hampered by high unemployment and government spending cuts.

“A premature tightening of monetary policy could lead interest rates to rise temporarily but would also carry a substantial risk of slowing or ending the economic recovery and causing inflation to fall further,” Bernanke said today in testimony to the Joint Economic Committee of Congress in Washington.

From Mr. Bernanke’s point of view, “premature tightening of monetary policy could lead interest rates to rise” implies the exposing of the risks of the highly leverage markets and economy. And that such tightening would extrapolate to a bubble bust or in economic gobbledygook “the risk of slowing or ending the economic recovery and causing inflation to fall further”

So essentially, people at the Fed have been talking at different wavelengths. Bernanke's discourse has been premised on the entrenched bubble conditions, whereas other Fed officials have used statistics to generate economic forecasts (or reading history as the future).

Thus Fed officials seem as clueless as to the real direction of the economy or of the markets. Or are they?

And a bollixed FED has been used by the stock markets as a reason to retrace. From intraday gains, US stocks went from green into the red yesterday (stockcharts.com)

Record setting US stocks has been on fire rising for 19 straight sessions before today’s correction and whose winning streak was cut short by cognitive dissonance.

Why is this important? Because, aside from direct and indirect interventions, the state of bewilderment of the causal process of the current environment by the media and political agents has contributed immensely to the skewing of price signals and to the accumulation of imbalances in the system. This has also been used to sabotage gold prices.

Well, Philip Coggan of the Economist Buttonwood fame points to studies reinforcing the “parallel universe” or the growing disconnect between stocks and the real economy. (bold mine)

The annualised growth rate of the US economy in the first quarter was 2.5 per cent; the annual gain in earnings per share was 5.2%; the annualised gain in the market was 46%. Of course, as has been pointed out by the assiduous Marsh, Dimson and Staunton, or by Jay Ritter, there is no clear statistical link between GDP growth and equity returns at all.

The mainstream has now been recognizing this.

And as I have been pointing out this is not your daddy or your granddaddy's stock markets.

And more on why the current environment or the parallel universe is unsustainable, again from the Buttonwood… (bold mine)

The hope is that higher share prices can eventually produce a self-fulfilling cycle via a wealth effect (and on this note, the University of Michigan survey last week showed consumer confidence at a six-year high) or indeed on business investment. Mr Makin notes that real household net worth is up by about $4 trillion over the last year, helped by houses as well as stocks. He estimates the wealth effect at about 4% over a year; thus the boost to consumer spending was $160 billion, or 1% of GDP. This may indeed explain why US consumer have shaken off the effect of the rise in payroll taxes this year.

But the offset of this wealth effect is that the household savings rate fell to 2.6% in the first quarter, down from 5.1% in 2010. As Mr Makin points out, this is ominously similar to the pre-2007 pattern of high consumption based on the hope that asset prices would stay high. The potential long-term problem here is that asset prices tend to revert to the mean; people may be saving too little for their retirement on the view that markets will do all the work. As in 2007 and 2008, they may get a nasty shock later on. One could make quite a bearish case for US equities in the long run, on the grounds that share price valuations (as measured by the Shiller p/e) are higher than average and profits are at a post-1947 high as a proportion of GDP.

The lesson is whatever statistical growth seen from today is mostly a reflection of credit driven elevated prices of financial assets rather from real economic growth. The same holds true for the Philippines. 

The mirage of statistical growth. 

Hence Ben Bernanke realizes that any pullback of steroids would expose on this sham that would undermine the banking sector’s balance sheets.

Also an ‘exit’ would also mean the pulling of the proverbial rag underneath the FED’s monetization of US debts which hardly anyone talks about.

Bottom line: The protection of the banking sector and the Fed’s financing of US government debt have been the main pillars that undergirds the FED’s credit easing policies. That’s why such “exit” or “withdrawal” blarney are what I call as poker bluff. The Fed cannot afford it.

IN withholding the truth, the Fed’s communication’s strategy seems as the guileful employment of cognitive dissonance in order to confuse the public.

As English novelist Eric Arthur Blair popularly known for his pen name George Orwell wrote in Politics and the English Language (italics original)

Political language…is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. One cannot change this all in a moment, but one can at least change one's own habits, and from time to time one can even, if one jeers loudly enough, send some worn-out and useless phrase — some jackboot, Achilles’ heel, hotbed, melting pot, acid test, veritable inferno, or other lump of verbal refuse — into the dustbin where it belongs.

Doing the Same Thing and Expecting Different Results: 511 Interest Cuts and Sluggish Economic Growth

I pointed out that global policy rates are at the lowest level ever. This was even added with yesterday’s  surprise cuts from 6 nations conducted over 24 hours.

The following Bloomberg article says that even after South Korea’s actions yesterday, which marked the 511th rate cut since 2007, the global economy continues to struggle:

Global central bankers are poised to ease monetary policy even further after a wave of interest-rate cuts from India to Poland.

As Group of Seven finance chiefs gather in the U.K. today with monetary policy on their agenda, economists at Morgan Stanley and Credit Suisse Group AG are among those predicting policy makers will keep deploying stimulus amid weak global growth, slowing inflation and the need to thwart currency gains…

South Korea’s rate cut yesterday was the 511th reduction worldwide since June 2007, according to Bank of America Corp.’s tally, done before Vietnam and Sri Lanka today said they’re lowering their policy rates. While the liquidity has sent stock markets surging, it has yet to prove as effective in generating economic growth.

So far the main effects of all these cuts has been to boost asset prices. From the same article:

Equities are rallying amid the easy monetary policy. The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index (SPX) set a record level this week and the Dow Jones Industrial Average last week climbed to 15,000 for the first time. In Europe, stocks have also risen and even the yields on the 10-year notes of crisis-torn Greece have slipped below 10 percent.

511th cut has done little to the global economy:

Behind the stepped-up stimulus: Another swoon in the global economy barely five years after it fell into its deepest recession since World War II. A Citigroup Inc. gauge shows economic data in major economies began coming in below forecasts in the middle of March and the index is now near its weakest since last August.

Central bank actions have been filling in, in lieu of the government

Maxed-out budgets mean governments are also struggling to aid their economies, with those in Europe having to ease their austerity drive. U.S. Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew will tell the G-7 that nations should focus on spurring domestic demand, according to a Treasury official.

Some observations:

Central bankers don’t seem to understand that in economics there is such a thing called the law of diminishing returns.

Central bankers have been pushing for the same debt based consumption growth model even when most of the world has now been satiated with debt.

Central bankers from most countries appear to have synchronized their actions. In short everyone seems as doing the same thing or singing the same tune.

Central bank policies serially blow asset bubbles. 

Price distortions in the real economy from central bank policies and from other financial repression measures as well as other interventions reduce incentives for productive activities. 

On the other hand, central bank’s cheap money AND guarantees (explicit and implicit) on the financial markets encourage rampant speculations, thus driving up unsustainable bubbles.

So money shifts to speculation on financial markets rather than on investments. Thus the parallel universe: booming financial markets amidst near stagnant economies.

Yet bubbles from zero bound rates will reduce savings and capital accumulation. Such diminishing growth will impel for more easing.

This means that central banks will keep pushing zero bound rates and asset buying programs to the limits.

Central bankers have come to believe that a new order exists. The new paradigm: Sustained credit and money expansion under today’s modern central banking will have little effects on price inflation. So there are no limits for inflationism. Because of this policymaking nirvana, they have even hailed as Superheroes and demigods by media.

Central banks don’t realize of the micro effects of their policies, particularly that each bursting of the bubble shrinks the real economy and makes them vulnerable to price inflation. The coming crisis will likely reveal more signs of this.

So central bank policies will keep inflating on more asset bubbles that will become systemically bigger until the system cracks.

Central banking bureaucracy have assumed political supremacy over the elected governments through the intensification of monetization of government debts.

As Chicago University John Cochrane aptly notes: (italics original)

Modern financial systems are fine. Modern political systems have abandoned rule of law in favor of a monarchic rule by discretion of appointed bureaucrats. That is incompatible with any financial system.

Since actions of governments of crisis stricken nations have partly been shackled from too much debt, the next phase will not only be central bank easing but will soon include direct confiscation of savings (pensions and depositors).

Media doesn’t seem to recognize that all these signify as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

The lesson from the above: People believe in insanity and in lies.

Cyprus Model of Deposit Haircuts Spread to Brazil

Bank depositors beware. 

Deposit haircuts or “bail-ins” are becoming a global standard. Recently political authorities of New Zealand, Canada and European countries as Spain, Italy and others have announced their openness to embrace the Cyprus bail-in model of confiscating bank deposits when a crisis emerges.

Now this seems to have spread to Brazil. 

Brazil's authorities has essentially acknowledged of the existence and of the risks of bubbles.

From Reuters:

The Brazilian government, concerned about systemic risk in the rapid growth of banking assets, will propose legislation to make shareholders, bondholders and depositors pay for rescuing troubled banks and shield taxpayers from the cost of bailouts.

Central Bank President Alexandre Tombini told a banking seminar on Monday that the legislation aims to mitigate "moral hazard" by forcing banks to assume full responsibility for their losses in what is known as a "bail-in." It was applied in Cyprus to stop a run on the banks and Canada is also considering rules to deal with potential bank failures.

In the case of Brazil, the proposed bill underscores mounting unease among regulators with the rapid pace of growth of banking assets in Latin America's largest economy in recent years. Some banks might be "too big too fail" in Brazil, and the need to discourage irresponsible behavior could be higher now than before as state-run lenders expand their balance sheets three times the pace of their private-sector peers.

First, governments inflate bubbles via a cauldron of policies, such as zero bound rates, QEs,  subsidized loans to privileged sectors, tax credits on debts, and etc.. Yet all these incentivize or promote “irresponsible behavior” or yield chasing through credit expansion.

Then, they use such bubbles to justify the confiscation of depositors, bondholders and shareholders assets as punishment in order to rescue banksters.

Politicians use the smoke and mirrors rhetoric of supposedly preventing taxpayer exposure as camouflage for such actions.

 

A Tagalog idiom for this is “Na-prito sa sariling mantika” or translated in English “fried in one’s own fats”. 

Depositors are now being framed up as fall guys for government predation. 

Yet as bubble busting episodes transitions into a domino effect worldwide, more nations will likely resort to “bail-ins” or deposit haircuts. 

Alternatively, this will also induce a growing distrust on the banking system which should add on more uncertainties and volatility into the marketplace.

Which of East Asia-ASEAN corridor will be next?

 

Nonetheless, desperate governments are increasingly applying desperate measures.

ECB Cuts Rates, Mulls Negative Deposit Rates

Central banks are reinforcing their assumed roles as superheroes for the global political economy.

Justifying a weak regional economy, the ECB has once again pared down interest rates…

From Bloomberg:

The European Central Bank cut its key interest rate to a record low as the 17-nation euro region struggles to emerge from recession.

Policy makers meeting in Bratislava today lowered the main refinancing rate to 0.5 percent from 0.75 percent, a move predicted by 45 of 70 economists in a Bloomberg News survey. The ECB kept the deposit rate at zero and reduced the marginal lending rate to 1 percent from 1.5 percent to preserve a symmetrical rate corridor. President Mario Draghi holds a press conference in the Slovakian capital at 2:30 p.m.

Since Draghi said last month that he stood ready to act if Europe’s economic outlook worsened, inflation plunged, economic confidence slumped and unemployment rose. Today’s cut, the first since July last year, takes the ECB closer to exhausting its conventional policy tools, raising the prospect of a negative deposit rate or new non-standard measures.

I have been expecting bolder and more aggressive experiments or tinkering with the financial system from central bankers. Central bankers will push using central banking (inflationism) tools to the limits.

The ECB has mulled on negative deposit rates since 2012, then I wrote:

Central banks have only one thing in mind: That is to expand to credit (inflationism) to supposedly boost aggregate demand which is reality serves as an academic cover for the true purpose—finance extravagant governments.

Unfortunately the world isn’t that simple. People refuse to take on more credit for several reasons: They have been drowning in debt, they have been tarnished by bad or blemished credit scores, they could be suffering from lower income or unemployment is high due to the recession, business environment has been hampered by politics banking institutions have been clogged and for many other reasons which reduces their incentives to do so.

What negative deposit rates will likely do is to destabilize allocation of resources and spawn more malinvestments and fuel frenetic speculation that leads to boom-bust cycles and worsen the situation

At the press conference following the announcement of the cutting of rates, the Financial Times’ Person of the year ECB’s Chief Mario Draghi has remarkable comments on the negative deposit rate and on the direction of ECB policies which deserves some comments. (bold mine)

On negative deposit rates:

We said in the past we are technically ready. There are several unintended consequences that may stem from this measure. We will address and cope with these consequences if we decide to act. And we will again look at this with an open mind and stand ready to act if needed.

Unintended consequences, which are likely to be systemic, will be suffered, not only by the taxpayers, but by the regional economy that may affect the world. This is because centralization of risk taking, which assumes simplicity and homogeneity, goes against the reality of a complex world.

Central bankers have been revealed as having no qualms using the economy as guinea pigs for their grand designs.

And for whose benefit?

Mr. Draghi on the direction of ECB policies:

I would use the word frustrated, yes. We view improvements in financial markets. We think financial markets are the only and the necessary channel for the transmission of monetary policy. You don’t go around with helicopter money, throwing money. In Europe, you go through banks. You don’t have capital markets as you have in the U.S. We have to go via the banking system. That is why in my press conference I try to give you a very detailed reading of different indicators because it shows how closely we are trying to examine and analyze reality to see whether these impulses that we’ve been transmitting to the economy get translated into better welfare, lower unemployment, better economic activity.

So there you have it folks, no helicopter money, ECB’s policies will mainly be directed at the rescues of the crony banking system.

Thus the consideration of negative deposit rates or of the charging financial institutions for the money they deposited with the central bank which once again will penalize savers.

Today’s derring-do rock star central bankers hardly understands why centralization will mostly fail to accomplish its goals.

As the great Nobel laureate Austrian economist Friedrich von Hayek warned of Fatal Conceit by political authorities 

The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design. To the naive mind that can conceive of order only as the product of deliberate arrangement, it may seem absurd that in complex conditions order, and adaptation to the unknown, can be achieved more effectively by decentralizing decisions and that a division of authority will actually extend the possibility of overall order. Yet that decentralization actually leads to more information being taken into account

Implied Government Guarantees on BRIC Banking system

Even in the BRICS, there has been an implied guarantee by their respective governments on their banking system, as indicated on their credit ratings.

From Reuters:

The ability of Brazil, Russia, India and China to support their leading banks is tightly correlated to the credit rating on the banks, according to ratings agency Moody’s. The agency compares the ratings of four of the biggest BRIC banks which it says are likely to enjoy sovereign support if they run into trouble…

In a self-perpetuating cycle, ratings will be higher because governments are prepared to provide high levels of support to the banks, reflecting the lenders’ systemic importance and in some cases government ownership.

Bailouts on the politically privileged banking system have become a global standard. And this encourages the moral hazard behavior where banks take unnecessary risks because they know they will be supported once "they run into trouble". This adds to the yield chasing phenomenon that increases systemic fragility.

Moreover this implies that the public's savings, even in emerging markets, will continue to be under duress from indirect and direct confiscations in favor of the banking system.

On the US Federal Reserve’s Information Leak

If the Fed had entirely been a private company, they will likely be charged with "insider trading", which based on Wikipedia’s definition, is "trading of a corporation's stock or other securities (such as bonds or stock options) by individuals with access to non-public information about the company."

From Bloomberg:

Citigroup Inc. (C), Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and JPMorgan Chase & Co. were among at least 15 financial companies that received potentially market-moving Federal Reserve information 19 hours before the public in a release the central bank called a mistake.

Brian Gross, a member of the Fed’s congressional liaison staff, distributed the March 19-20 minutes of the Federal Open Market Committee meeting at 2 p.m. Washington time on April 9, according to an e-mail obtained by Bloomberg News. The list also included congressional staff members and trade groups. Gross referred questions to Fed spokeswoman Michelle Smith.

FOMC minutes, which include comments on the committee’s discussions about the direction of monetary policy and its outlook for the economy, are among the most closely scrutinized Fed documents as the panel debates when to stop its third round of bond purchases. The inadvertent release raised questions about the central bank’s internal controls among attorneys and disclosure experts.

The US Federal Reserve has partly been owned by the private sector or by “US member banks”, although Fed isn’t a publicly listed central bank, unlike the Bank of Japan (Jasdaq 8301). 

Importantly unlike private companies, the Fed functioning as a central bank, operates as a mandated monopoly which “derives its authority from the Congress of the United States” In other words, Fed policies, which are politically determined, greatly influence the markets, the domestic economy, as well as international economies (given the US dollar standard). 

Such distinction magnifies the importance between privileged access to information via firms operating in a market environment and firms benefiting from political institutions such as the FED.

While I don’t believe in market based “insider trading”, privileged access on political institutions serves as “picking winners and losers”. In short, access to badges and guns serves as a moat against competition.

Thus, special insider access to the FED tilts the balance of market resource allocation (both in financial markets and the market economy) towards those whom the political gods favor, particularly in today’s highly volatile conditions caused by financial repression. This represents the ultimate insider trading.

This also demonstrates of the insider-outsider, cartelized and crony relationships operating within the corridors of the US Federal Reserves.

IMF to Central Bankers: Keep Blowing Bubbles

The IMF’s advice to central bankers is an example why we can expect central bankers to keep blowing asset bubbles. 

That’s of course until bubbles pop by their own weight, or until the stagflation menace emerges or a combo of both.

But stagflation has been absent based in the econometric papers of the IMF, that’s according to the Bloomberg:

Monetary stimulus deployed by advanced countries to spur growth is unlikely to stoke inflation as long as central banks remain free of outside influence to react to challenges, according to a study by the International Monetary Fund.

In a chapter of its World Economic Outlook released today, the Washington-based IMF said that inflation has become less responsive to swings in unemployment than in the past. Inflation expectations have also become less volatile, according to the report.

“As long as inflation expectations remain firmly anchored, fears about high inflation should not prevent monetary authorities from pursuing highly accommodative monetary policy,” IMF economists wrote in the chapter called “The dog that didn’t bark: Has inflation been muzzled or was it just sleeping?”

Considering the distinctive political-economic structure of each nations, such pursuit of bubble policies will translate to varying impacts on specific markets and economies. For instance, emerging markets are likely to be more vulnerable to price inflation.

And by simple redefinition and measurement of inflation as based on econometric models and statistics, the IMF has given the green light for central bankers do more.

This also means that the IMF has prescribed to central bankers to throw fuel on the inflation fire.

Based on mainstream’s twisted definition of inflation, such as being predicated on demand and supply “shocks”, hyperinflation ceases to exist. 

Interestingly too the IMF hardly see current policies as having “compromised” central bank independence.

Again from the same article:

The BOJ’s new policy “is something that we hope will lift inflation durably into positive territory, which would help the economy,” said Jorg Decressin, deputy director of the IMF’s research department. “We see in no way the operational independence of the BOJ compromised at all.”

This is a rather absurd claim. When central banks buy government debt, they effectively encroach into the realm of fiscal policies. 

Instead of voters determining the dimensions of fiscal policies via taxation, central bank financing of fiscal deficits motivates government profligacy that enhance systemic fragility through higher debts and the risks of price inflation (stagflation) or even hyperinflation.

As fund manager and professor John Hussman notes at HussmanFunds.com in 2010:

Historically, and across the world, the primary driver of inflation has always been expansion in unproductive government spending (think of Germany paying striking workers in the early 1920s, or the massive increase in Federal spending in the 1960s that resulted in large deficits and eventually inflation in the 1970s). But unproductive fiscal policies are long-run inflationary regardless of how they are financed, because they distort the tradeoff between growing government liabilities and scarce goods and services.

For instance, Japan’s government will increasingly become dependent on the Bank of Japan via Kuroda’s “shock and awe” Abenomics policies. This makes Japan vulnerable to a debt or a currency crisis.

And recent interventions on the fiscal space by central banks of developed economies essentially reveals of the closely intertwined relationship between governments and central banks. (charts above from Zero Hedge)

This only validates the hypothesis of the Austrian school of economics that the fundamental role played by the central banks has been to support the government (welfare-warfare state) and the cartelized crony banks, which essentially means that central bank independence is a myth.

As refresher let me quote anew the great dean of Austrian economics explained: (bold mine) [The Case against the Fed page 57]

The Central Bank has always had two major roles: (1) to help finance the government's deficit; and (2) to cartelize the private commercial banks in the country, so as to help remove the two great market limits on their expansion of credit, on their propensity to counterfeit: a possible loss of confidence leading to bank runs; and the loss of reserves should any one bank expand its own credit. For cartels on the market, even if they are to each firm's advantage, are very difficult to sustain unless government enforces the cartel. In the area of fractional-reserve banking, the Central Bank can assist cartelization by removing or alleviating these two basic free-market limits on banks' inflationary expansion credit

Yet here is the IMF’s prescription for more bubble blowing, from the same article:

“The dog did not bark because the combination of anchored expectations and credible central banks has made inflation move much more slowly than caricatures from the 1970s might suggest - - inflation has been muzzled,” the IMF staff wrote. “And, provided central banks remain free to respond appropriately, the dog is likely to remain so.”

As I explained before, inflationism represents a political process employed by governments to meet political goals. Inflationism, which is an integral part of financial repression, signify the means (monetary) to an end (usually fiscal objectives). And when governments become entirely dependent on money printing from central banks, hyperinflations occur.

Just because money printing today has not posed as substantial risks to price inflation, this doesn’t mean such risks won’t ever occur.

And that the current low inflation environment basically implies "free lunch" for central banks.

Price controls, market manipulations (via central bank), the Fed’s Interest rate on reserves (IOR) and even productivity issues have also contributed significantly to subdue price inflation over interim.

And again since monetary inflation represents a process, such take time to unfold via different stages, which is why price inflation tend to occur with suddenness to become a significant threat.

IMF’s reckless advocacy of bubble policies will have nasty consequences for the world.

The IMF experts or bureaucrats, who are paid tax free and are tax consumers, hardly realize such blight will affect them too. 

The existence of the IMF depends on quotas or contributions from members which come from taxes. Such applies to other multilateral agencies such as the UN, OECD ADB or etc, which is why these institutions almost always campaign for more state interventions.

Yet should a crisis of a global dimension emerge, and where a chain of defaults by governments on their liabilities (such may include developed economies, BRICs, Asia and elsewhere), their privileges, if not their existence, will likewise be jeopardized, as governments retrench or have their respective budgets severely slashed or faced with real "austerity". 

Let me venture a guess, such scenarios haven’t been captured by the IMF's econometric models. 

When the late Margaret Thatcher warned that "the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money [to spend]", this applies to multilateral institutions too.

Bank of England: Rising Equity Markets Don’t Reflect the Underlying Economic Situation

The Bank of England (BoE) says what I have been saying all along: markets have functioned in departure from reality or what I call as "parallel universe".

From the Bloomberg

The Bank of England said rising equity markets don’t reflect the underlying economic situation and warned that investors may be underestimating risks in the financial system.

Gains by equities since mid-2012 “in part reflected exceptionally accommodative monetary policies by many central banks,” the BOE’s Financial Policy Committee said today in London in the minutes of its March 19 meeting. “It was also consistent with a perception among some contacts that the most significant downside risks had attenuated. But market sentiment may be taking too rosy a view of the underlying stresses.”

UK’s highly fragile banking system has been amplified by current yield chasing parallel universe. More from the same article:

At the meeting, the FPC recommended that U.K. lenders raise 25 billion pounds ($38 billion) of additional capital to cover bigger potential losses, possible fines for mis-selling and stricter risk models. While banks have strengthened their resilience in recent years, the FPC said today that not all of them may be able to withstand unexpected shocks and maintain lending to companies and households.

The FPC discussed potential threats from the crisis in Cyprus, which agreed on an international bailout last month. While at the time of the March 19 meeting there were “minimal signs” of spillovers to other financial systems, there was “a risk that this situation could change,” the committee said….

In their discussion, the FPC members noted the potential threats to the financial system from increased risk appetite among investors.

“This was evident in the re-emergence of some elements of behavior in financial markets not seen since before the financial crisis, including a relaxation in some U.S. credit markets of non-price terms and increased issuance of synthetic products,” the committee said. “At this stage, they did not appear indicative of widespread exuberance in markets. But developments would need to be monitored closely.”

The FPC also said that banks’ leverage ratios, a measure of their debt to equity level, would remain “very high” even after the new recommendations were met. It said there would be “little margin for error against a backdrop of low growth in the advanced economies.”

As noted in the above, central bank authorities either fail to comprehend on the distortive consequences of their inflationist policies or that they are in deep denial.

Because money is never neutral, central bank’s monetary expansion means “money from thin air” flows into the financial and economic system asymmetrically.

Such polices trigger what is called as the “business cycle”.

As the great dean of Austrian economics explained

The fundamental insight of the "Austrian," or Misesian, theory of the business cycle is that monetary inflation via loans to business causes over-investment in capital goods, especially in such areas as construction, long-term investments, machine tools, and industrial commodities. On the other hand, there is a relative underinvestment in consumer goods industries. And since stock prices and real-estate prices are titles to capital goods, there tends as well to be an excessive boom in the stock and real-estate markets.

(bold mine) 

So England’s property bubble and elevated equity prices signify as a classic example of the business cycle in motion.

And given the increasingly hostile environment where productive (commercial) activities are being punished via higher taxes, financial repression and by increased regulations and mandates, such string of political actions compounds on the skewing of people’s incentives towards yield chasing activities.

Add to this the distorting effects of inflationism on economic calculation, again professor Rothbard: (bold mine)

By creating illusory profits and distorting economic calculation, inflation will suspend the free market's penalizing of inefficient, and rewarding of efficient, firms. Almost all firms will seemingly prosper. The general atmosphere of a "sellers' market" will lead to a decline in the quality of goods and of service to consumers, since consumers often resist price increases less when they occur in the form of downgrading of quality. The quality of work will decline in an inflation for a more subtle reason: people become enamored of "get-rich-quick" schemes, seemingly within their grasp in an era of ever-rising prices, and often scorn sober effort. Inflation also penalizes thrift and encourages debt, for any sum of money loaned will be repaid in dollars of lower purchasing power than when originally received. The incentive, then, is to borrow and repay later rather than save and lend. Inflation, therefore, lowers the general standard of living in the very course of creating a tinsel atmosphere of "prosperity."

Besides, like Spain, central banks have supported asset markets in order to finance unwieldy government spending or their highly tenuous welfare state via Ponzi financing.

In short, lofty equity prices are symptoms of monetary disorder. Another reality is that such policies have been designed to preserve on the unsustainable incumbent political economic cartel of the debt and inflation based crony banking-welfare/warfare state-central banking system through asset bubbles.

Yet if central banks desist from pursuing further monetary expansion that blows today's asset bubbles, the system falls asunder. 

Eventually when a critical state have been reached from these cumulative unsustainable political actions, markets will also unravel.

Central bankers, in essence, have been caught between the proverbial devil and the deep blue sea.

The above also shows why conventional treatment of financial markets will be highly sensitive to significant analytical errors and losses. As hedge fund manager Kyle Bass recently noted, today's markets are largely Potemkin Villages.