Gavekal: Clear and Present Danger in US and EM Stock Markets

I have earlier pointed out that there has been increasing signs of deterioration in the market internals of global stock markets.

It's not just in market internals but potential headwinds against global stocks can be seen in bond markets, US dollar and commodity markets.

As for US stocks, the Gavekal Team writes (bold mine)

There are four developments in the fixed income markets that represent a clear and present danger for stocks. 

First,  high yield spreads continue to widen, diverging from the upward movement in stocks prices.  In the chart below we plot high yield spreads against the S&P 500 over the last ten years. Until today the equity market seemed unfazed by the widening in spreads.

My comment: if the ascent of stocks has been driven by debt, then widening the spreads means lesser debt fuel to sustain prospective advances.

Second, inflation expectations derived by comparing 10-tear nominal US Treasuries against the 10-year TIPS show a recent big drop.  This is likely due to the recent strength in the USD, but regardless of the reason, the drop in inflation expectations is undoing much of the reflationary work the Fed has tried to achieve.  Should inflation expectations fall below 2%, the danger signal would intensify.

My comment: falling inflation expectations could be seen in the lens of a weakening economy and a hissing bubble.

Third, 10-year bonds around the global are taking another leg down.

My comment: During Risk OFF (asset deflation), government debt which have been perceived as "risk free" appeals as a safehaven bet.

Fourth, the spread between 30-year and 10-year US Treausry bonds is narrowing to new five year lows.  The last time the long end of the yield curve was this flat was in the first few months of 2009.

My comment: a flattening of the yield curve means bond investors are lesser concerned with inflation, this also implies (again) increased perception of weakening growth. So this is consistent with falling inflation expectations and a potential downdraft in high yield credit markets. At the end of the day, market breadth, commodity and bond market actions have been indicating a prospective Risk OFF. 

When the US sneezes, the world catches cold. So if US stocks will be pressured global stocks will most likely follow.

The Gavekal team also adds that plummeting copper prices are portentous for Emerging Market Stocks. (bold mine)

it appears copper prices are about to take another significant leg down. The price of copper has now decisively broken through the rising support line in what appears to be a continuation of the longer-term downtrend that started back in 2011. The metal price has yet to take out the low of 2.95 achieved in March, but based on recent history that day is not far off.

Assuming copper prices do make a new low then, what would that mean for EM stocks? Based on the last two charts below depicting copper prices on the left axis and the MSCI EM price index on the right axis, we should expect another leg down in copper to coincide with more weakness in EM stocks. The third chart offers a shorter-term view of the relationship and from this perspective it appears that EM stocks have gotten ahead of themselves.

It's not just copper, diminishing global oil demand seems to fit into the picture…(from Yardeni.com)

This is the periphery to the core dynamics in motion. The periphery to core simply implies marginal changes at the fringe working its way to the center. Applied to bubbles, which is a market process induced by social policies, this means deflating bubbles will commence at the margins (here Emerging economies) and work their way or spread to the core (advanced economies or developed markets or DM). 

The IMF recently delved with and warned of the risks of deepening Emerging Market slowdown. And EM, which has been expected to affect DM, will have a feedback loop to aggravate real economic conditions in the EM sphere. That’s unless internal growth in DM offsets the loss from the EM transmission.

June 2013’s Taper Tantrum which brought about sharp market volatilities exposed on Emerging Market fragilities. This is because EM markets have been supported by ample liquidity (carry trades) from the Fed’s easing programs. Since the EM bubbles seem to have been pricked last June, the slomo decay in the real economy has been taking place despite surging stocks.

Now with the Fed impliedly tightening via the closure of QE 3.0, the window for carry trades have been diminishing, and this has been what the BIS, IMF, and the OECD as well as the BSP has been warning about; the potentials for capital flight. 

The Fed’s tightening combined with signs of weakening of real economic fundamentals have been converging to reflect on risk conditions.

So such EM to DM contagion process have now become evident in commodity prices, the US dollar and in the bond markets. But not with stocks yet.

 

With the EM-DM transition progressing and apparently escalating, a drastic change in risk conditions will eventually reflect on the global stock markets and the global economy.

2015 will be very interesting.

Quote of the Day: ROIC and the growth rate of corporate profits

The extraordinary thing is that Piketty’s analysis is based on a massive logical error. His thesis runs as follows: if R is the rate of return on invested capital and if G is the growth rate of the economy, since R>G, profits will grow faster than GDP, and the rich will get richer and the poor poorer. This is GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) at its most egregious. Piketty confuses the return on invested capital, or ROIC, with the growth rate of corporate profits, a mistake so basic it is scarcely believable.

Let me explain with an example. I happen to be a shareholder in an industrial bakery in the south west of France. It has a return on invested capital of 20%, but we cannot reinvest the profits in the company at 20%. If we were to reinvest the profits by putting more capital to work, the profits would not change at all, because nobody in the region is going to buy more bread and productivity gains there are non-existent. In other words, the marginal return of one more unit of capital put to work is zero. So instead of reinvesting in the bakery, we distribute the profits among the shareholders and they invest them elsewhere as they see fit. In short, our bakery has a high ROIC but no profit growth.

At the other extreme, a company expanding rapidly according to a “stack ’em high, sell ’em cheap” model might well show a low ROIC but very fast profit growth. Every company in the world can be “mapped” according to these two criteria: ROIC, and the growth rate of corporate profits.

Over the long term, the growth rate of corporate profits cannot be higher than the growth rate of GDP. That’s simply because if it was, after a while corporate profits would rise to reach 100% of GDP, which we all know is silly. Historically, the ratio of domestic profit to GDP has been a mean-reverting variable.

(bold original, italics mine)

This is from fund manager Charles Gave of the Hong Kong based Gavekal Research via Mauldin Outside the Box as published at the Valuewalk.com

Aside from addressing Picketty’s silly “inequality” issues, the above quote represents another demonstration of the natural limits of profit growth as I previously discussed. So be leery of people who peddle the supposed constancy of profit growth.

This also shows the dangers of "blackboard economics" in the context of policymaking and in investing.

Russia’s Interventions in Crimea: The Geopolitics of Oil Prices

Global politics are a complex dynamic.

I previously noted that Russia’s response to the Ukraine’s political crisis may have been a pushback on what the former’s political leaders see as “encirclement strategy” (Russia’s government doesn’t want to see US-NATO troops on her door steps). This via indirect interventions by the US on the latter’s affair.

But there seems to be another angle: the actions of the Russian government could have been meant to keep oil prices up. As the prolific fund manager Louis-Vincent Gave of Gavekal.com sums up “when the oil price is high, Russia is strong; when the oil price is weak, Russia is weak”

Mr. Gave writes [www.gavekal.com, hat tip John Mauldin, with Mr. Gave’s permission, Thanks Louis] (bold mine, italics original):

Nineteenth century statesman Lord Palmerston famously said that “nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.” As anyone who has ever opened a history book knows, Russia’s permanent interest has always been access to warm-water seaports. So perhaps we can just reduce the current showdown over Crimea to this very simple truth: there is no way Russia will ever let go of Sevastopol again. And aside from the historical importance of Crimea (Russia did fight France, England and Turkey 160 years ago to claim its stake on the Crimean peninsula), there are two potential reasons for Russia to risk everything in order to hold on to a warm seaport. Let us call the first explanation “reasoned paranoia,” the other “devilish Machiavellianism.”

Reasoned paranoia

Put yourself in Russian shoes for a brief instant: over the past two centuries, Russia has had to fight back invasions from France (led by Napoleon in 1812), an alliance including France, England and Turkey (Crimean War in the 1850s), and Germany in both world wars. Why does this matter? Because when one looks at a map of the world today, there really is only one empire that continues to gobble up territory all along its borders, insists on a common set of values with little discussion (removal of death penalty, acceptance of alternative lifestyles and multi- culturalism...), centralizes economic and political decisions away from local populations, etc. And that empire may be based in Brussels, but it is fundamentally run by Germans and Frenchmen (Belgians have a hard enough time running their own country). More importantly, that empire is coming ever closer to Russia’s borders.

Of course, the European Union’s enlargement on its own could be presented as primarily an economic enterprise, designed mainly to raise living standards in central and eastern Europe, and even to increase the potential of Russia’s neighbors as trading partners. However, this is not how most of the EU leaders themselves view the exercise; instead the EU project is defined as being first political, then economic. Worse yet in Russian eyes, the combination of the EU and NATO expansion, which is what we have broadly seen (with US recently sending fighter jets to Poland and a Baltic state) is a very different proposition, for there is nothing economic about NATO enlargement!

For Russia, how can the EU-NATO continuous eastward expansion not be seen as an unstoppable politico-military juggernaut, advancing relentlessly towards Russia’s borders and swallowing up all intervening countries, with the unique and critical exception of Russia itself? From Moscow, this eastward expansion can become hard to distinguish from previous encroachments by French and German leaders whose intentions may have been less benign than those of the present Western leaders, but whose supposedly “civilizing” missions were just as strong. Throw on top of that the debate/bashing of Russia over gay rights, the less than favorable coverage of its very expensive Olympic party, the glorification in the Western media of Pussy Riot, the confiscation of Russian assets in Cyprus ... and one can see why Russia may feel a little paranoid today when it comes to the EU. The Russians can probably relate to Joseph Heller’s line from Catch-22:“Ju st because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you.” 

Devilish Machiavellianism

Moving away from Russia’s paranoia and returning to Russia’s permanent interests, we should probably remind ourselves of the following when looking at recent developments: 1) Vladimir Putin is an ex-KGB officer and deeply nationalistic, 2) Putin is very aware of Russia’s long-term interests, 3) when the oil price is high, Russia is strong; when the oil price is weak, Russia is weak. 

It is perhaps this latter point that matters the most for, away from newspapers headlines and the daily grind of most of our readers, World War IV has already started in earnest (if we assume that the Cold War was World War III). And the reason few of us have noticed that World War IV has started is that this war pits the Sunnis against the Shias, and most of our readers are neither. Of course, the reason we should care (beyond the harrowing tales of human suffering coming in the conflicted areas), and the reason that Russia has a particular bone in this fight, is obvious enough: oil. 

Indeed, in the Sunni-Shia fight that we see today in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and elsewhere, the Sunnis control the purse strings (thanks mostly to the Saudi and Kuwaiti oil fields) while the Shias control the population. And this is where things get potentially interesting for Russia. Indeed, a quick look at a map of the Middle East shows that a) the Saudi oil fields are sitting primarily in areas populated by the minority Shias, who have seen very little, if any, of the benefits of the exploitation of oil and b) the same can be said of Bahrain, where the population is majority Shia.

Now of course, Iran has for decades tried to infiltrate/destabilize Shia Bahrain and the Shia parts of Saudi Arabia, though so far, the Saudis (thanks in part to US military technology) have done a very decent job of holding their own backyard. But could this change over the coming years? Could the civil war currently tearing apart large sections of the Middle East get worse?

At the very least, Putin has to plan for such a possibility which, let’s face it, would very much play to Russia’s long-term interests. Indeed, a greater clash between Iran and Saudi Arabia would probably see oil rise to US$200/barrel. Europe, as well as China and Japan, would become even more dependent on Russian energy exports. In both financial terms and geo-political terms, this would be a terrific outcome for Russia.

It would be such a good outcome that the temptation to keep things going (through weapon sales) would be overwhelming. This is all the more so since the Sunnis in the Middle East have really been no friends to the Russians, financing the rebellions in Chechnya, Dagestan, etc. So having the opportunity to say “payback’s a bitch” must be tempting for Putin who, from Assad to the Iranians, is clearly throwing Russia’s lot in with the Shias. Of course, for Russia to be relevant, and hope to influence the Sunni-Shia conflict, Russia needs to have the ability to sell, and deliver weapons. And for that, one needs ships and a port. Ergo, the importance of Sevastopol, and the importance of Russia’s Syrian port (Tartus, sitting pretty much across from Cyprus).

The questions raised

The above brings us to the current Western perception of the Ukrainian crisis. Most of the people we speak to see the crisis as troublesome because it may lead to restlessness amongst the Russian minorities scattered across Eastern Europe and Central Asia, and tempt further border encroachments across a region that remains highly unstable. This is of course a perfectly valid fear, though it must be noted that, throughout history, there have been few constants to the inhabitants of the Kremlin (or of the Winter Palace before then). But nonetheless, one could count on Russia’s elite to:

a) Care deeply about maintaining access to warm-water seaports and

b) Care little for the welfare of the average Russian

So, it therefore seems likely that the fact that Russia is eager to redraw the borders around Crimea has more to do with the former than the latter. And that the Crimean incident does not mean that Putin will try and absorb Russian minorities into a “Greater Russia” wherever those minorities may be. The bigger question is that having secured Russia’s access to Sevastopol, and Tartus, will Russia use these ports to influence the Shia-Sunni conflict directly, and the oil price indirectly?

After all, with oil production in the US re-accelerating, with Iran potentially foregoing its membership in the “Axis of Evil,” with GDP growth slowing dramatically in emerging markets, with either Libya or Iraq potentially coming back on stream at some point in the future, with Japan set to restart its nukes ... the logical destination for oil prices would be to follow most other commodities and head lower. But that would not be in the Russian interest for the one lesson Putin most certainly drew from the late 1990s was that a high oil price equates to a strong Russia, and vice-versa.

And so, with President Obama attempting to redefine the US role in the region away from being the Sunnis’ protector, and mend fences with Shias, Russia may be seeing an opportunity to influence events in the Middle East more than she has done in the past. In that regard, the Crimean annexation may announce the next wave of Sunni-Shia conflict in the Middle East, and the next wave of orders for French-manufactured weapons (as the US has broadly started to disengage itself, France has been the only G8 country basically stepping up to fight in the Saudi corner ... a stance that should soon be rewarded with a €2.7bn contract for Crotale missiles produced by Thales and a €2.4bn contract for Airbus to undertake Saudi’s border surveillance). And, finally, the Crimean annexation may announce the next gap higher in oil prices.

In short, buying a straddle option position on oil makes a lot of sense. On the one hand, if the Saudis and the US want to punish Russia for its destabilizing actions, then the way to do it will be to join forces (even if Saudi-US relations are at a nadir right now) and crush the oil price. Alternatively, if the US leadership remains haphazard and continues to broadly disengage from the greater Middle East, then Russia will advance, provide weapons and intelligence to the Shias, and the unfolding Sunni- Shia war will accelerate, potentially leading to a gap higher in oil prices. One scenario is very bullish for risk assets, the other is very bearish! Investors who believe that the US State Department has the situation under control should plan for the former. Investors who fear that Putin’s Machiavellianism will carry the day should plan for the latter (e.g., buy out-of-the-money calls on oil, French defense stocks, Russian oil stocks).

My thoughts 

The above chart from Daily Reckoning which I earlier pointed out represents oil prices required to maintain welfare states of many top oil producing countries (based on 2012). This should much higher today. So if the US-Saudi consortium will punish Russia by way of forcing down oil prices then many of these oil welfare states will incur financing problems that may lead not only to bigger fiscal issues but also to another wave of internal political upheavals or “Arab Spring” 2.0. This may lead to oil supply disruptions and higher prices.

And since Saudi Arabia’s breakeven may be at $80 per bbl, then a dramatic drop in oil prices seem not to be in the interest of Saudi.

On the other hand, Mid-East wars and the risks of its escalation that will cause a spike in oil prices or an “oil shock” will likely spur more economic and political uncertainties. This should also bring forth stagflation which means soaring interest rates that may prick global debt bubbles.

And as previously noted “oil shocks” have been linked with recessions.

University of California economic professor James Hamilton argues that an “oil shock” played a substantial role in the recession of 2008. Mr. Hamilton further noted that high oil prices had been linked with 11 of the 12 post World War II recessions.

So current developments in Crimea may extrapolate to a deeper conundrum for global financial markets and world economies.

How Political Tea Leaves Will Shape The Investment Landscape

``One key attribute that gives money value is scarcity. If something that is used as money becomes too plentiful, it loses value. That is how inflation and hyperinflation happens. Giving a central bank the power to create fiat money out of thin air creates the tremendous risk of eventual hyperinflation. Most of the founding fathers did not want a central bank. Having just experienced the hyperinflation of the Continental dollar, they understood the power and the temptations inherent in that type of system. It gives one entity far too much power to control and destabilize the economy.” Dr. Ron Paul, The Neo-Alchemy of the Federal Reserve

Never has ascertaining the probabilities of the rapidly evolving highly fluid macro environment been as critical today in shaping one’s portfolio or even in anticipation of the how to allocate resources in the coming business environment.

Why? Because future revenue streams, productivity levels, earnings and all other micro metrics, aside from market or business cycles, will all depend on the outcome from the present set of policy choices.

While the investment field shudders at the thought mentioning such ominous phrase; ``it’s different this time”, well, it hard to say it but it does seem different this time.

As we noted in last week’s Stock Market Investing: Will Reading Political Tea Leaves Be A Better Gauge?,

``Even as global governments have been rapidly anteing up on claims to taxpayers’ future income stream by a concoction of “inflationary” actions such as lender of last resort, market maker of last resort, guarantor of last resort, investor of last resort, spender of last resort and ultimately buyer of last resort, a credit driven US economic recovery isn’t likely to happen; not when governments are tightening supervision or regulatory framework, not when banks are hoarding money to recapitalize, not when borrowers are tightening belts and suffering from capital losses on declining assets and certainly not when income is shrinking as unemployment and business bankruptcies rise on falling profits, and most importantly not when the collective psychology has been transitioning from one of overconfidence to one of morbid risk aversion.

``Thus the best case scenario for the credit driven “economic growth” will be a back to basics template-the traditional mechanisms of collateralized backed lending based on borrower’s capacity to pay. But these won’t be enough to reignite the Moneyness of credit. Not even under the US government’s directive.”

We found our assertions pleasantly echoed by the world’s Bond King in his latest outlook; from PIMCO’s Mr. William Gross (who confirms our cognitive biases-emphasis ours)

``My transgenerational stock market outlook is this: stocks are cheap when valued within the context of a financed-based economy once dominated by leverage, cheap financing, and even lower corporate tax rates. That world, however, is in our past not our future. More regulation, lower leverage, higher taxes, and a lack of entrepreneurial testosterone are what we must get used to – that and a government checkbook that allows for healing, but crowds the private sector into an awkward and less productive corner.”

So as global governments take up the shoes from the private sector, the outcomes as reflected by market conditions and on the economic landscape will obviously be different, see Figure 1.

Figure 1 Gavekal: Portfolio Distribution In Different Environments

From Gavekal’s Brave New World is a simplified template where we see basically four economic environments; from which a long term theme, at the moment, has been struggling to emerge, albeit under a current, possibly temporary, dominant theme which are being battled out by government forces.

But nonetheless, we can identify whence our recent past, posit on the present environment and identify possible outcomes.

From the privilege of hindsight the most obvious is the inflationary boom, which was characterized by a credit inspired boom in almost every asset classes across the world, but in contrast to the template, this includes a boom in government bonds!

Today we are seeing the opposite- a market driven deflationary bust, where the unwinding debt burden has prompted for a reversal of the former order or an across the board selling except for US treasuries and the US dollar. Thus the characteristics as described in the template are presently still being perfected.

Yet, given the observable actions of governments, one may infer that the current deflationary bust phase is being engaged in with a tremendous surge of inflationary forces (bailouts, guarantees, lending, capital provision, etc.) in the hope to restore the former order.

And this has been the source of the fierce debates encapsulating the investment industry; will today’s deflationary bust outrun inflationary forces and transit into a modern day global depression? Will the unintended consequences of the concerted inflationary injections by global central banks result to a US dollar crisis or inflationary bust or hyperinflationary depression? Or will Goldilocks be resurrected with government stilts?

Deflation and Endowment Effects

The basic problem is the house of cards built upon by an unsustainable credit structure from which the world’s economy has been anchored upon, see figure 2.

Figure 2: courtesy of contraryinvestor.com: Unsustainable Credit Market

As we previously noted there are basically two ways to preside over such predicament. One is to allow market forces to reduce debt to levels where the afflicted economy could pay these off. Two, is to reduce the real value of debt via inflation. Of course, there is always the third way: the default option.

But since we believe that the US government and the other debt laden economies are likely to avoid the third option, as their taxpayers have been aggressively absorbing the losses, these relegate us to the first two options.

Deflation proponents (mostly Keynesians) argue that the central bank measures are proving to be impotent when dealing with the tsunami of debt because losses have simply been staggering to drain “capital” than can be replaced and which has similarly devastated the credit system beyond immediate repair. Hence, the global central bank actions are unlikely to rekindle a credit driven (inflationary boom) economic recovery.

In addition, they argue that because of the credit prompted seizure in the banking system its spillover effects to the real economy will lead to a much further decline in aggregate demand which accentuates the overcapacity in the global trade network which will further transmit deflationary forces worldwide.

Moreover, they’ve boisterously indulged in a public blame game in the context of trade balances. They accuse the current account surplus economies, who still seem reluctant to abide by their behest of absorbing declining world aggregate demand via their prescribed policies of increasing domestic consumption, of being ‘beggar thy neighbor’. Some of them have even implied that the continued thrust towards mercantilism in today’s recessionary as “Protectionism In Disguise” (PID).

This of course, according to our self-righteous omnipotent camp will lead to further deflation as excess capacity will forcibly be dumped into the markets and may result to countervailing protectionist actions.

Grim indeed.

The bizarre thing is that Keynesians have been fighting among themselves: the insiders or policymakers believe that eventually their actions will triumph, while the outsiders believe that their sanctimonious wisdoms represent as the much needed elixir to the present predicament.

Yet all of these exhibits nothing more than the cognitive bias of the “endowment effect” or placing a higher value on opinions they own than opinions that they do not.

The rest is speculation.

End Justifies The Means: The Gathering Inflation Storm?

There are two ways one can categorize all these competing analysis.

One, means to an end- (free dictionary) something that you are not interested in but that you do because it will help you to achieve something else; or applied to the recent events, the analysis that “my way has to be followed” regardless of the outcome.

Yes, the US and many European governments have practically followed nearly all Keynesian prescriptions short of outright nationalizations of the affected industries, yet NO definitive progress.

In short, we see many analysis based on the strict adherence to ideological methodologies than the actual pursuit of economic goals.

Of course, this will have to be wrapped with technical gobbledygook, such as liquidity trap, debt trap, and assorted claptraps (possibly even crab traps), to entertain and wow their audience, especially catered to those seeking easy answers or explanations to the performance of today’s market as the trajectory for the future.

Two, end justifies the means- (free dictionary) in order to achieve an important aim, it as acceptable to do something bad or the end result determines the course of action.

As we have earlier said the major alternative recourse to deal with an unsustainable debt structure is to ultimately inflate the real value of debt, which essentially shifts the burden from the debtor to the creditor.

And there have been rising incidences of voices expressing such direction:

This from Atlanta Federal Reserve President Dennis Lockhart (Wall Street Journal) ``A direct path to recovery is unlikely, as we have seen, events arise that knock us off the path to a stable credit environment…the Fed retains a number of options to help the economy.” (highlight ours)

This from former IMF Chief Economist Kenneth Rogoff whom we earlier quoted in Kenneth Rogoff: Inflate Our Debts Away!

``Modern finance has succeeded in creating a default dynamic of such stupefying complexity that it defies standard approaches to debt workouts. Securitisation, structured finance and other innovations have so interwoven the financial system's various players that it is essentially impossible to restructure one financial institution at a time. System-wide solutions are needed….

``Fortunately, creating inflation is not rocket science. All central banks need to do is to keep printing money to buy up government debt. The main risk is that inflation could overshoot, landing at 20% or 30% instead of 5-6%. Indeed, fear of overshooting paralysed the Bank of Japan for a decade. But this problem is easily negotiated. With good communication policy, inflation expectations can be contained, and inflation can be brought down as quickly as necessary.

This from a commentary entitled “Central banks need a helicopter” by Eric Lonergan a macro hedge fund manager at the Financial Times (highlight mine),

``What is lacking is a legal and institutional framework to do this. The helicopter model is right, but we don’t have any helicopters…Central banks, and not the fiscal authorities, are best placed to make these cash transfers. The government should determine a rule for the transfer. It is the government’s remit to decide if transfers should be equal, or skewed to lower income groups….The reasons for granting this authority to the central bank are clear: it requires use of the monetary base. Granting government such powers would be vulnerable to political manipulation and misuse. These are the same reasons for giving central banks independent authority over interest rates.”

Let’s go back to basics, the reason governments are inflating the system away (albeit in rapid phases) is because of the perceived risks of destabilizing debt deflation. Yet you can’t have market driven deflation process without preceding government stimulated inflation. Thereby deflation is a consequence of prior inflation. It is a function of action-reaction, cause and effect and a feedback loop- where government tries to manipulate the market and market eventually unwinds the unsustainable structure.

Our point is simple; if authorities today see the continuing defenselessness of the present economic and market conditions against deflationary forces, ultimately the only way to reduce the monstrous debt levels would be to activate the nuclear option or the Zimbabwe model.

And as repeatedly argued, the Zimbabwe model doesn’t need a functioning credit system because it can bypass the commercial system and print away its liabilities by expanding government bureaucracy explicitly designed to attain such political goal.

As Steve Hanke in the Forbes magazine wrote, ``The cause of the hyperinflation is a government that forces the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe to print money. The government finances its spending by issuing debt that the RBZ must purchase with new Zimbabwe dollars. The bank also produces jobs, at the expense of every Zimbabwean who uses money. Between 2001 and 2007 its staff grew by 120%, from 618 to 1,360 employees, the largest increase in any central bank in the world. Still, the bank doesn't produce accurate, timely data.”

In other words, the Rogoff solution simply qualifies the ‘end justifying the means’ approach, where the ultimate goal is political -to reduce debt in order for the economy to recover eventually or over the long term for political survival, than an outright economic end. Yet because of the vagueness of such measures, there will likely be huge risks of unintended painful consequences. But nonetheless, if present measures continue to be proven futile, then path of the policy directives could likely to lead to such endgame measures-our Mises moment.

Yet, the Rogoff solution simply cuts through the long chase of the farcical rigmarole advanced by deflation proponents who use their repertoire of technical vernaculars of assorted “traps” to convey a deflation scenario. When worst comes to worst all these technical gibberish will simply evaporate.

Moreover, deflation proponents seem to forget that the Japan’s lost decade or the Great Depression from which Keynesians have modeled their paradigms had one common denominator: “isolationism”.

Japan’s debacle looks significantly political and culturally (pathological savers) induced, while the Smoot Hawley Act in the 1930s erected a firewall among nations which essentially choked off trade and capital flows and deepened the crisis into a Depression.

This clearly hasn’t been the case today, YET, see Figure 3.

Figure 3: US global: Global Central Banks Concertedly Cutting Rates

There had been nearly coordinated massive interest rate cuts this week by several key central banks; the Swedish Riksbank slashed its rates by nearly half, cutting 175 bp to 2%, followed by the Bank of England, which slashed rates by 100bp (last month it cut by 150 bp), while the ECB was the most conservative and cut of 75bp. Indonesia followed with 25 bp while New Zealand cut a record 150bp to 5% (guardian.co.uk).

And as we quoted Arthur Middleton Hughes in our Global Market Crash: Accelerating The Mises Moment!, ``the market rate of interest means different things to different segments of the structure of production.”

If the all important tie that binds the world has been forcible selling out of the debt deflation process, then as these phenomenon subsides we can expect these interest rate policies to eventually gain traction.

And it is not merely interest rates, but a panoply of distinct national fiscal and monetary policies targeted at cushioning such transmission.

Remember, even in today’s globalization framework, the integration of economies hasn’t been perfect and that is why we can see select bourses as Tunisia, Ghana, Iraq or Ecuador defying global trends, perhaps due to such leakages.

The point is there is no 100% correlation among markets and economies. And when the forcible selling (capital flow) fades, the transmission linkages will focus on other aspects as trade or remittances which have varying degrees of external connections relative to their national GDP.

Thus, considering the compounded effects of individual economies and their respective national policy actions, market or economic performances should vary significantly.

The idea that global deflation will engulf every nation seems likely a fallacy of composition if not a chimera.

Reviving Smoot-Hawley Version 2008?

Next, there is this camp agitating for a revised form of protectionism.

They accuse nations with huge current account surplus, particularly China, for nurturing trade frictions amidst a recessionary environment-by obstinately opting to sustain the present trade configuration which is heavily modeled after an export led capital intensive investment growth.

The recent surge of the US dollar against the Chinese Yuan and China’s recent policies of providing for higher rebate and removal of bank credit caps have been interpreted to as being implicitly protectionist.

The alleged risks is that given the slackening of aggregate demand, China’s export oriented growth model could pose as furthering the deflationary environment by dumping excess capacity to the world.

Echoing former accusations of currency manipulation, but in a variant form, the adamant refusal by China to reduce its export subsidies (via Currency controls etc.) at the expense of domestic consumption, is seen by critics as tantamount to fostering protectionism and thus, should require equivalent punitive sanctions.

Recessions are, as seen from the mainstream, defined as a broad based decline in economic activity, which covers falling industrial production, payroll employment, real disposable income excluding transfer payments and real business sales.

But recessions or bubble bust cycles are mainly ``a process whereby business errors brought about by past easy monetary policies are revealed and liquidated once the central bank tightens its monetary stance,” as noted by Frank Shostak.

In other words, when China gets implicitly or explicitly blamed for “currency manipulation” or for failing to adopt policies that “OUGHT TO” balance the world trade, it assumes that the US, doesn’t carry the same burden.

But what seems thoroughly missed by such critics is that the extreme ends of the current account or trade imbalances reflect the ramifications of the Paper-US dollar standard system. You can’t have sustained and or even extreme junctures of imbalances under a pure gold standard!

Besides, since the supply or issuance of currencies is solely under the jurisdiction of the monopolistic central banks, which equally manages short term interest rate policies or the amount of bank reserves required, then the entire currency market operating under the Paper money platform accounts for as pseudo-market or a manipulated market.

To quote Mises.org’s Stefan Karlsson, ``Any currency created by a central bank is bound to be manipulated. In fact, manipulating the currency is the task for which central banks were created for. If they didn't manipulate the currency, there would be no reason to have a central bank.” (underscore mine)

In addition, the fact that the US functions as the world’s reserve currency makes it the premier manipulator- for having the unmatched privilege to extend paper IOUs as payment or settlement or in exchange for goods and services.

We don’t absolve the Chinese for their policies, but perhaps, by learning from the harsh experience of its neighbors during the Asian crisis, the Chinese have opted to adopt similar mercantilist nature to protect its interest but on a declining intensity as it globalizes.

The point that Chinese authorities are considering full convertibility of the yuan, as per Finance Asia (emphasis mine), ``The Chinese authorities should raise the profile of the renminbi during the global financial turmoil and get ready for the currency’s full convertibility, according to Wu Xiaoling, deputy director with the finance and economic committee of the National People’s Congress”, or this ``Wu, who was a deputy governor of the People’s Bank of China (PBOC) until earlier this year, told a seminar in Beijing in November that the renminbi should become an international reserve currency in tandem with its full convertibility, reflecting a renewed interest in loosening control of the currency as the country becomes more deeply integrated in the world financial system. She said it was difficult to find an alternative reserve currency but added that the renminbi was ready to become an international currency to replace the dollar,” equally demonstrates the political thrust to gain superiority by becoming more integrated with the world via reducing mercantilist policies and adopting international currency standards.

But, unlike the expectations of our magic wand wielding experts, you don’t expect them to do this overnight.

Figure 4 Gavekal: China Reserves Outgrow China’s Trade Surplus & FDI

Also during the past years, China’s currency reserves didn’t account for only trade surpluses or FDI flows, but as figure 4 courtesy of Gavekal Capital shows, a significant part of these reserves could have emanated from portfolio or speculative flows even in a heavily regulated environment.

Thus, the recent surge of US dollar relative to the Yuan may not entirely be a policy choice but also representative of these outflows given the current conditions. The fact that China’s real estate has been decelerating and may have absorbed most of these speculative flows could reflect such dynamics.

Nonetheless Keynesians always focus on the aggregate demand when recessions or a busting cycle also means a contraction of aggregate supply.

Malinvestments as seen in jobs, industries or companies or likewise seen in supply or demand created by the illusory capital or “money from thin air” which would need to be cleared. Or when the excesses in demand and in supply are sufficiently reduced or eliminated, and losses are taken over by new investors funded by fresh capital, then the economy will start to recover.

Again Frank Shostak (highlight mine), ``Contrary to the Keynesian framework, recessions are not about insufficient demand. In fact Austrians maintain that people's demand is unlimited. The key in Austrian thinking is how to fund the demand. We argue that every unit of money must be earned. This in turn means that before a demand could be exercised, something must be produced. Every increase in the demand must be preceded by an increase in the production of real wealth, i.e. goods and services that are on the highest priority list of consumers (we don't believe in indifference curves).”

The point is whatever decline in aggregate demand also translates to a decline in capacity as losses squeezes these excesses out. Today’s falling prices may already reflect such oversupply-declining demand adjustments.

Said differently the calls to maintain or support “demand” by means of more government intervention aimed at propping up of institutions, which are not viable and can’t survive the market process on its own, isn’t a convincing answer. The pain from the adjustments in debt laden Western economies is also felt but to a lesser degree in Asian economies.

Likewise, imposing undue protectionist sanctions to suit the whims of such pious and all knowing experts, will likely have more unintended consequences, foster even more imbalances and or risks further deterioration of the present conditions.

Forcing China to radically reform, without dealing with the structural asymmetries from today’s fractional reserve banking US dollar standard, won’t resolve the recurring boom-bust cycles. This simply deals with the symptoms and not the cause.