Why The US SEC-Goldman Sachs Hoopla Is Likely A Charade

``In discussing the situation as it developed under the expansionist pressure on trade created by years of cheap interest rates policy, one must be fully aware of the fact that the termination of this policy will make visible the havoc it has spread. The incorrigible inflationists will cry out against alleged deflation and will advertise again their patent medicine, inflation, rebaptising it re-deflation. What generates the evils is the expansionist policy. Its termination only makes the evils visible. This termination must at any rate come sooner or later, and the later it comes, the more severe are the damages which the artificial boom has caused. As things are now, after a long period of artificially low interest rates, the question is not how to avoid the hardships of the process of recovery altogether, but how to reduce them to a minimum. If one does not terminate the expansionist policy in time by a return to balanced budgets, by abstaining from government borrowing from the commercial banks and by letting the market determine the height of interest rates, one chooses the German way of 1923.-Ludwig von Mises, The Trade Cycle and Credit Expansion: The Economic Consequences of Cheap Money

Goldman Sachs, one of the top ‘too big to fail’ pillars of Wall Street have recently been sued by the US Security and Exchange Commission for allegedly intermediating mortgage securities that allowed several investors to ‘short-sale’ the housing market and for the buyers of the said securities a market that supposedly ``was secretly intended to fail”[1].

In my view, this is a bizarre case from a fait accompli standpoint.

From the news reports, unless there are signs of blatant manipulation or misrepresentations or procedural deviations or deliberate indiscretions, Goldman Sachs only acted as “market maker” or a bridge for parties that intended to bet on the opposite fence of the housing industry. This means that if there was a willing buyer and a willing seller, then obviously one of the two parties was bound to be wrong. Ergo, if the property boom had continued until the present and where the buyers benefited, would the SEC have sued the Goldman Sachs for the same reasons with respect to the losses incurred by the seller, particularly led by the popular hedge fund manager John Paulson, who allegedly orchestrated the creation of the controversial instruments?

Outside the technicalities of the suit, we can only sense political maneuvering out of the SEC-Goldman Sachs row.

Unless one thinks that regulators are divine interpreters and hallowed dispensers of the law, laws can be (or are many times) used as instruments to extract political goals, for the benefit of the regulator/s and or the political leadership and or some vested interests group in cahoots with the regulator/s.

Or unless President Obama is recast into a Thomas Jefferson, which means the next strike will be against the US Federal Reserve, only then, upon this new setting should we rethink of a vital shakeup in how things will be done. But this would seem hardly the case.

This brings us to the possible reasons why the Obama administration has resorted to such actions and if the attack on Wall Street will take the sails away from today’s inflation based markets.

It’s All About Politics

It’s public knowledge that following the forced passage of the highly unpopular Obamacare or President Obama’s signature health reform program, Obama’s job approval popularity rating has plunged to its lowest level[2], where the odds for his reelection is now in jeopardy[3], and worst, in a hypothetical match-up between libertarian champion Texas Congressman Ron Paul and President Obama, the odds appear to be dead-even[4]!

And if we are to interpret actions of politicians as a transfer of the “rational actor model of economic theory to the realm of politics”[5], then this only implies that as human being with a career to contemplate on, President Obama’s actions as seen through the SEC are merely designed as means to extend his tenure as well as expand the scope of his power.

As this LA Times article rightly argues, ``White House officials can't bank on a sudden surge in the economy coming to their rescue for the midterm elections. So they are hoping they can redirect voter anger by accusing the GOP of coddling large banks.[6]”

In short, it’s all about politics.

Moreover, it also seems ridiculous to perceive of a sustained path of attack, considering that Goldman Sachs has been more than a political ally to the Democratic Party. In fact the company has constantly played the role of key financier of the Democratic Party (Figure 4)

Figure 4: Opensecrets.org: Goldman Sach’s As Key Political Financier Of America’s Ruling Class

Goldman Sachs had even been the second largest contributor to Obama’s 2008 Presidential campaign[7]!

In addition, where action speaks louder than words, Goldman Sachs has been a key beneficiary from the US government’s bailout to the tune of $10 billion from the US Treasury’s Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)[8] which the company had fully redeemed in mid 2009[9].

More to this is that Goldman Sachs had also been a key beneficiary of the AIG bailout from which the company also recovered $12.9 billion out of the $90 billion of taxpayer funds earmarked for payment to AIG counterparties[10].

And these rescues merely demonstrate that as part of the “Too Big Too Fail” cabal, Goldman Sachs evidently has been operating under the protective umbrella of the US Federal Reserve.

As Murray N. Rothbard defines the principal roles of the Central Bank[11],

``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.

So would President Obama afford a “possible loss of confidence leading to bank runs; and the loss of reserves should any one bank expand its own credit” from one of its major cartel member banks? The most likely answer is a BIG NO!

My guess is that the assault on Goldman Sachs seems likely a sign or an act of desperation, hence possibly miscalculated on the unintended impact on the markets via Friday’s selloff. Nevertheless, as noted above the markets appear to be extremely overbought and had been readily looking for an excuse or a trigger to retrench.

Yet even if under the scenario where President Obama may be politically desperate to shore up his image, a continued legal barrage on Wall Street that would send markets cascading lower betrays the populist ideals of a rising markets=rising confidence=economic growth, which is unlikely to achieve the intended goals.

It’s a silly thing for the perma bears to naively believe and argue that President Obama is on a warpath against the forces which brought him to power and against the oligarchy that has a strategic stranglehold on key US institutions and the US political economy.

Fighting Wall Street is essentially waging a proxy battle against the US Federal Reserve! And fighting the Fed is a proxy battle for Congressman Ron Paul, who not only wants an audit[12] of the Federal Reserve but also has been asking for its abolishment[13] (Yes, I am in Ron Paul’s camp!).

And this is why President Obama is shown to be quite in a tight fix where his actions could be read as publicity stunt or political vaudeville or an outright charade that is meant to be eventually unmasked.

The worst part is for the dispute to set a precedent and generate incentives from the losers of 2008 to lodge similar legal claims not only against Goldman Sachs but on different institutions. This will be tort on a massive scale, the unintended consequence.

Legal Actions As Counterbalance To Commodity Market Whistleblowers?

Yet there might be another angle to consider. It’s a conspiracy theory though.

Over the past weeks, there had been two accounts of whisteblowing[14] on the silver markets, where the precious metals have allegedly been under a price suppression scheme or have long been manipulated so as not to reflect on its market value, by a cabal of major institutions such as JP Morgan.

Since the exposé at the end of March, gold and silver has been on the upside (see figure 5)

Figure 5: Stockcharts.com/reformedbroker.com[15]: Counterattack on Whistle Blowers?

Could it be that the surge in gold and silver prices has put tremendous pressure on the precious metal naked shorts of major financial institutions that they have asked the US government to intervene by declaring an indirect war against the whistle blowers via the SEC-Goldman Sachs tiff as a subterfuge?

Remember the key personality involved in the political squabble is John Paulson, who currently owns more gold in tonnes compared to Romania, Poland, Thailand, Australia and other nations (based on Oct 2009).

Although Mr. Paulson isn’t part of the lawsuit, his involvement could be designed to put pressure on his investors so as to force him to liquidate on his gold holdings, and thereby ease the pressure on the colossal exposure of the clique of financial institutions on their “short” positions.

Unless the government can pin Mr. Paulson down to be part of the wrongdoers in the proceedings, this precious market “Pearl Harbor” isn’t likely to be sustained.

At the end of the day, whether it is an attempt to spruce up Mr. Obama’s image or an attempt to contain the sharp upside movements of the precious metal market, all these, nevertheless, reeks of dastardly politics in play.

The worst part would be to see the unintended consequences from such political nonsense morph into full scale disaster.

Revaluation of Asian Currencies and Market Outlook

So while we see financial markets, perhaps, may be looking for an excuse for a recess (anywhere 5-20% on the downside or a consolidation instead of a decline), it is not likely a crash in the making.

Politicians and bureaucrats, who watch after their career and status, more than we acknowledge, aren’t likely to roil the markets that would only defeat their goals.

Figure 6: IMF Global Financial Stability Report: Global Liquidity and Interest Rates

Under such conditions, we see global markets as likely to continually respond to the massive inflationism deployed by global authorities. And there could be rotational activities in the global asset markets instead of a general market decline.

With the recent revaluation of Singapore currency[16], we see this as a further positive force and a cushion on the markets as other Asian currencies will be under pressure to revalue and this applies to China too. Along with the Singapore Dollar, Philippine Peso surged 1.2% this week to 44.385 against the US dollar.

Though a global financial market may stem this dynamic out of the corrective pressures, any reversal would prove to be temporary.

So yes, we expect the markets to possibly look for opportunities to rest. But no, we don’t expect market to crash, not at this stage of the bubble cycle yet.

Finally, the Philippine Phisix nearly shares the same record with the US markets, of having gains in 6 out of 7 weeks, which only proves that the Philippines has not moved in an isolated manner, but rather in sync with region's markets, if not the worlds' markets. This also goes to show that Philippine elections have been eclipsed by global forces.

So like the rest of the markets, until we can establish self determinism, we see global dynamics to prevail due to the linkages of inflationism.

In my view any correction should pose as a buying opportunity as we are still in the sweetspot of inflationism.

---

[1] New York Times, S.E.C. Accuses Goldman of Fraud in Housing Deal

[2] Gallup.com; April 12,2010 Obama Weekly Approval at 47%, Lowest Yet by One Point

[3] Gallup.com April 16 Voters Currently Divided on Second Obama Term

[4] Rasmussen Reports: April 14, 2010; Election 2012: Barack Obama 42%, Ron Paul 41%

[5] Shughart, William F. II, Public Choice

[6] Nicolas, Peter; Goldman Sachs case could help Obama shift voter anger, Los Angeles Times

[7] Opensecrets.org; Top Contributors, Barack Obama

[8] Wikipedia.org, Goldman Sachs

[9] Reuters.com, Goldman Sachs redeems TARP warrants for $1.1 billion

[10] Reuters.com, Goldman's share of AIG bailout money draws fire

[11] Rothbard, Murray N. The Case Against The Fed p. 58

[12] RonPaul.com Audit the Federal Reserve: HR 1207 and S 604

[13] Paul, Ron; End The Fed

[14] Durden, Tyler; Exclusive: Second Whistleblower Emerges - A Deep Insider's Walkthru To Silver Market Manipulation, Zerohedge.com and

Durden, Tyler; Whistleblower Exposes JP Morgan's Silver Manipulation Scheme, Zerohedge.com

[15] See Chart of the Day: John Paulson's Gold Holdings Bigger Than Reserves Held By Many Central Banks

[16] Businessweek, Singapore’s Revaluation May Spur China, South Korea, Bloomberg

Fannie & Freddie’s Conservatorship’s Possible Implications To Asia

``The US doesn’t just need US government money to support the US housing market: It needs money from foreign governments as well. And no one more than China. China’s central bank borrows RMB from the state banks (whether by selling sterilization bills or by hiking the reserve requirement) and then uses those funds to buy large quantities of Agencies. The flow of Chinese savings into the US housing market is entirely a government flow.”-Brad Setser, Council of Foreign Relations. So true … 

It’s nothing new from what we have been saying all along or from what we have been saying earlier.

The problem of the US deleveraging isn’t likely the same problem of Asia. Although much of the world’s tightened financial and economic linkages has unduly put to a strain on Asia’s financial markets. Aside from the slowdown in most of the OECD economies, which has likewise added to some pressures on the economic front.

Asia’s exposure to toxic papers remains modest as shown in figure 5.

Figure 5: IMF: Asia’s Exposure To Toxic Papers and External Debt

Next to the low exposure of Asian banks (as measured in % of equity) to toxic papers, the structure of external debt has been mostly long term except for Hong Kong, Singapore and Taiwan, which means financing woes have not been much of a significant concern.

 

Although we recently featured Korea as one of the apparent victims of the Fannie and Freddie’s where a foreign broker claimed the return of a currency crisis and a potential meltdown of Asia in Sequel To Asian Financial Crisis?, Costly Bailouts and Bernanke Buys Time, Figure 6 seem to dispel such concern.

Figure 6 IMF: Credit and Money Growth in Indonesia (left) and South Korea (right)

 

In short, much of the credit crunch in the OECD economies could have translated to a meaningful slowdown of liquidity growth in Asia, but this isn’t happening yet.

 

Broad money growth remains robust in South Korea (red) as shown in the right pane amidst a negative real interest rate (blue). In fact, money supply gained 13.2% last July (eastday.com). Yes, following the F&F takeover, Korea’s Kospi recovered by 5.24% while the won bounced from the streak of losses up 1.6%.

 

Meanwhile despite the 10% plunge in Indonesia’s JKSE index last week which had been linked to a sharp downturn in commodity prices. Credit growth seems to remain robust (left pane) courtesy of the IMF.

 

Funny how many of experts dug deep into the investing public’s psyche peddling the myth of how high “inflation” have caused the recent market rout. In terms of Indonesia, now that falling oil and commodity prices should equate to lower “inflation”, the rally in its market which should have happened seemed to have vanished altogether opposite the justifications by mainstream analysts.

 

Considering the dearth or selectivity of global liquidity much of the risk dynamics becomes more of micro than macro.

 

In the same way, these experts created the impression that the cutting of interest rates by the Bernanke’s Federal Reserves would lead to a rally global markets late 2007. It never happened.

 

In the same plane, local experts bruited about how remittances drove the Peso stronger. Where remittances remain at record levels, yet Peso has gone bust.

 

True, we can’t be wildly bullish on Asia because of the prevailing climate of uncertainty across the pond, but we should view this slack as an opportunity to accumulate than as an opportunity to run!

 

We believe that most of the selling that had accrued in Asia had been due to the ongoing deleveraging process (which includes unwinding of pair trades of the US dollar-commodity, momentum driven, aside from covert government support on the US dollar) which has importantly been the key link to most of the infirmities in Asian markets as shown in Figure 7.

Figure 7: US Global Investors: Declining Trend of Foreign Outflows

 

It is funny too how analysts screaming for us to run for the hills would use different data time frame references to prove or support their views. This cognitive bias is called “framing”.

 

Last August, we pointed out in Phisix: Knocking At The Exit Gates of the Bear Market! that 80% of the money which came into Asia in 2007 had been redeemed. Last week’s panic stricken analyst alluded to the size of foreign inflows from 2001 as a measure to portray a potential stampede amidst the gloomy outlook.

 

Well good enough, a chart provided by US Global Investors gives us a balance perspective. It reveals of almost the same pattern as we had been seeing in the Phisix: declining trend of foreign outflows!

 

According to US Global Investors, ``Net foreign selling in the emerging Asian markets since mid-2007 has exceeded more than half of the investment inflows seen in the 2003-2007 bull market. Capitulation among investors in the region might signal a rebound in stocks ahead.” (highlight mine)

 

Moreover, the recent actuation from the US government appears to give some light to Asian equities. This from the New York Times,

 

``But the takeover of the companies also reinforced concerns about troubles of the American economy and highlighted its significant reliance on foreign investors, particularly in Asia.”

 

If US policy actions had indeed been directed at Asia as caviled by some, then it is a blatant admission of dependence on Asian capital for the survival of the US dollar standard system.

 

Moreover, it also shows how much political capital Asia has generated enough exert influence on US policymaking to favorably act on its interests as in the case of F&F.

 

With the writing on the wall, how could one be bearish on Asia unless for short sighted reasons?

 

Finally I’d like to share this quote from Director of Research Robert J. Horrocks, PhD of Matthews International Capital (emphasis mine),

 

``The recent moves by the Treasury may help the process by which Asia reflates relative to the U.S., and this environment may be helpful for Asian financial stocks. They have been seen for too long as carrying the same kinds of credit risks as the Western banks, and Asian financial stocks suffered as their counterparts in the U.S. fell. Moves to reduce risk in the U.S. and global financial systems seem likely to favor Asian banks, which have clean balance sheets and strong underlying economies. Reducing risk in the U.S. debt market may also take pressure off regional currencies as investors worried that much of the official foreign exchange reserves were held in Fannie and Freddie debt.”

 

Now with the “inflation” scare and the “Fannie and Freddie” woes off the hook, would Asia find its legs and commence on a gradual recovery?

 

We’ll soon find out.